Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:58:47.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of growth performance and agonistic interaction in weaned piglets of different weight classes from farrowing systems with group or single housing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2012

A.-L. Bohnenkamp ,
I. Traulsen ,
C. Meyer ,
K. Müller  and
J. Krieter
A.-L. Bohnenkamp*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstraße 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
I. Traulsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstraße 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
C. Meyer
Affiliation:
Chamber of Agriculture Schleswig-Holstein, Gutshof 1, D-24327 Blekendorf, Germany
K. Müller
Affiliation:
Chamber of Agriculture Schleswig-Holstein, Gutshof 1, D-24327 Blekendorf, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstraße 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The present study was designed to analyze the growth performance, behavioral patterns and intensity of injuries of weaned pigs (26 days) during a rearing period of 6 weeks. The farrowing system (group housing (GH) v. single housing (SH)) and the post-weaning regrouping weight class (light, medium, heavy) were considered as the main factors. A number of 120 GH-pigs and 120 SH-pigs were kept in three batches (20 pens, 12 pigs each). The GH- and SH-pigs were divided by weight into three groups: light (5 to ⩽7 kg), medium (>7 to ⩽9 kg) and heavy (>9 to ⩽12 kg), with two pigs of six different litters in each pen. The pigs were weighed individually at weaning (week 1) and during rearing (weeks 2, 3 and 7). The feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated between weeks 1 and 7. The duration and number of fights (NF) per pen and hour were determined by continuous sampling (40 h after weaning). Lesions of the integument were scored into four classes (none, minor, medium, severe) and recorded at weaning and 48 h afterwards. The farrowing system had no effect on the weights in week 1 (GH: 7.8 kg v. SH: 7.7 kg; week as linear, quadratic regression nested within housing systems) or in week 7 (GH: 29.4 kg v. SH: 28.6 kg). The body weights were influenced significantly by the weaning weight class (light: 11.7 kg (s.e.m.: 0.30), medium: 14.8 kg (s.e.m.: 0.22), heavy: 17.3 kg (s.e.m.: 0.26)). The FCR of the GH-pigs was 1.64 (s.e.m.: 0.03) and 1.58 (s.e.m.: 0.03) for SH-pigs. A reduced agonistic behavior of the GH-pigs was observed with 2.1 fights per pen and hour (s.e.m.: 0.07) v. the SH-pigs with 4.6 fights per pen and hour (s.e.m.: 0.05). The fight duration of the GH-pigs with 10.3 s per pen and hour (s.e.m.: 1.07) was significantly lower in comparison to the SH-pigs with 18.8 s per pen and hour (s.e.m.: 1.06). The SH-pigs had more new skin lesions at the shoulders than the GH-pigs 48 h after weaning (P < 0.05). In conclusion, early mixing of unacquainted litters during lactation had no influence on their growth performance during rearing but reduced agonistic behavior and lesion score difference during the first 2 days after weaning. No significant interaction between the farrowing system and weaning weight class was detected with regard to growth performance and NF.

Keywords

agonistic behaviorgroup housinggrowth performancelesion scoreweaning weight class
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 309 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, IL, Nævdal, E, Bakken, M, Bøe K, E 2004. Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: ‘when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small’. Animal Behaviour 68, 965–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruininx, EM, van den Peet-Schwering, CM, Schrama, JW, Vereijken, PF, Vesseur, PC, Everts, H, den Hartog, A, Beynen, AC 2001. Individually measured feed intake characteristics and growth performance of group-housed weanling pigs: effects of sex, initial body weight and body weight distribution within groups. Journal of Animal Science 79, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bünger, B 2002. Einflüsse der Haltungsbedingungen von ferkelnden und ferkelführenden Sauen auf die Entwicklung der Ferkel: Eigene Studien und eine Bewertung der Literatur. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 109, 277–289.Google Scholar
Colson, V, Orgeur, P, Courboulay, V, Dantec, S, Foury, A, Mormede, P 2006. Grouping piglets by sex at weaning reduces aggressive behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 152–171.Google Scholar
Council Directive 91/630/EEC amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 806/2003 2003. Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down standards for the protection of pigs; Official Journal No. L 340, p. 33, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, Official Journal No. L 122, p. 1. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from http://www.ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/pigsen.htmGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Smith, JA 1992. Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Eath, RB 2005. Socialising piglets before weaning improves social hierarchy formation when pigs are mixed post-weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 199–211.Google Scholar
Friend, TH, Knabe, DA, Tanskley, TD Jr 1983. Behaviour and performance of pigs grouped by three different methods at weaning. Journal of Animal Science 57, 1406–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie 2006. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung von Schweinen 2006. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Hessel, EF, Reiners, K, Van den Weghe, HFA 2006. Socializing piglets before weaning: effects on behavior of lactating sows, pre- and postweaning behaviour, and performance of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2847–2855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillmann, E, von Hollen, F, Bünger, B, Todt, D, Schrader, L 2003. Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets toward novel environment and social confrontation at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 99–109.Google Scholar
Hurvich, CM, Tsai, CL 1989. Regression and time-series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P 1994. Fighting between unacquainted pigs – effects of age and of individual reaction pattern. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Redbo, I 1987. Behaviour during nest leaving in free-ranging domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 355–362.Google Scholar
Kutzer, T, Bünger, B, Kjaer, J, Schrader, L 2009. Effects of early contact between non-littermate piglets and of the complexity of farrowing conditions on social behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Wang, L 2011. Effects of previous housing system on agonistic behaviors of growing pigs at mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 20–26.Google Scholar
Li, ZY, Johnston, LJ 2009. Behaviour and performance of pigs previously housed in large groups. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1472–1478.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD, Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS® for mixed models, 2nd edition. SAS® Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
McConnell, JC, Eargle, JC, Waldorf, RC 1987. Effects of weaning weight, co-mingling, group size and room temperature on pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 65, 1201–1206.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ 1985. A quantitative ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviours in recently regrouped pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61, 559–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minkenberg, R 2009. Regressionsmodelle für Zähldaten in SAS®. In KSFE 2009. Proceedings der 13. Konferenz der SAS®-Anwender in Forschung und Entwicklung (ed. J Spilke, C Becker, J Haerting and E Schumacher), pp. 157–171. Shaker-Verlag, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar
Parratt, CA, Chapmann, KJ, Turner, C, Jones, PH, Mendl, MT, Miller, BG 2006. The fighting behaviour of piglets mixed before and after weaning in the presence or absence of a sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 54–67.Google Scholar
Pitts, AD, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D 2000. Mixing at young ages reduces fighting in unacquainted domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 191–197.Google Scholar
Pluske, J 2006. New approaches to weaner room management. In Proceedings of the 2006 London Swine Conference (ed. LM Murphy and TM Kane), pp. 113–123. London Swine Conference, London, Ontario. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2006/LSC2006_JPluske2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Puppe, B, Langbein, J, Bauer, J, Hoy, S 2007. A comparative view on social hierarchy formation at different stages of pig production using sociometric measure. Livestock Science 113, 155–162.Google Scholar
Puppe, B 1998. Effect of familiarity and relatedness on agonistic pair relationships in newly mixed domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 233–239.Google Scholar
Rantzer, D, Svendson, J, Westroem, B 1997. Weaning of pigs in group housing and in conventional housing systems for lactating sows. Swedish Journal of Agriculture Research 27, 23–31.Google Scholar
Reiners, K 2009. Evaluierung verschiedener haltungs-technischer und prozesstechnischer Einflussfaktoren auf das Futteraufnahmeverhalten und die Wachstumsleistung von abgesetzten Ferkeln. PhD Thesis, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Rushen, J 1987. A difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 951–960.Google Scholar
SAS® Institute Inc 2008. User's guide (release 9.2). SAS® Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G 1978. Estimating dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461–464.Google Scholar
Stukenborg, A, Traulsen, I, Puppe, B, Presuhn, U, Krieter, J 2011. Agonistic behaviour after mixing in pigs under commercial farm condition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129, 28–35.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P, Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Roehe, RB, D'Eath, SH, Ison, SH, Farish, M, Jack, MC, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Lawrence, AB 2009. Genetic validation of postmixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3076–3082.Google Scholar
Weary, D, Pajor, E, Bonenfant, M, Fraser, D, Kramer, D 2002. Alternative housing for sows and litters: Part 4. Effect of sow-controlled housing combined with a communal piglet area on pre- and post-weaning behaviour and performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 279–290.Google Scholar