Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:05:12.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the newly weaned piglet select a zinc oxide supplemented feed, when given the choice?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2010

F. H. Reynolds ,
J. M. Forbes  and
H. M. Miller
F. H. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
J. M. Forbes
Affiliation:
Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
H. M. Miller
Affiliation:
Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to examine whether weaned piglets would display preference for a food containing a pharmacological level of zinc oxide (ZnO). A total of 60 piglets were weaned at 7.8 kg ± 0.14 (s.e.m.) and 27.8 ± 0.11 days of age into eight mixed sex groups of seven or eight piglets per pen. Groups were balanced for litter origin, weaning weight and sex. Piglet feeding behaviour was constantly recorded by a multi-spaced feeding behaviour recording system (Leeds University Feeding Behaviour System) in each pen. Each pen of pigs was offered ad libitum access to two different foods (16.2 MJ digestible energy, 16 g lysine/kg), which differed only in the level of ZnO supplementation: unsupplemented (U) or supplemented (Z; ZnO 3100 mg/kg). Both foods contained a basal level of zinc (100 mg/kg). Feeding time was recorded for each individual at each trough. Piglets were weighed at weaning and at 7 and 13 days thereafter. The experiment ran for 13 days. Any piglet observed with post-weaning scour (Y) was recorded and treated appropriately whereas healthy piglets were categorised as N (no scour). Preference for a food was defined as being significantly different from 50% of total feed intake or time spent feeding. There was no difference between piglet numbers selecting each food as their first meal. However, within the first 24 h, piglets preferred (P < 0.001) food U, spending only 36.3% (32.2 to 40.5; 95% confidence interval) of feeding time at food Z. Throughout the experiment, piglets showed aversion (P < 0.001) to food Z, consumption being 8.9% (5.1 to 13.6) and 15.7% (8.9 to 23.9) of total intake in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Individual piglets showed their preference for food U with only 16.6% (14.6 to 18.5) and 21.8% (19.6 to 24.0) of feeding time spent on food Z in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Scouring piglets did not show any difference in feeding behaviour from healthy piglets in either week. Average piglet gain (of all piglets) was low, at 0.039 ± 0.03 and 0.272 ± 0.04 kg/day in weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Given a choice, weaned piglets showed a clear preference for the food U even when exhibiting post-weaning scour. It can be concluded that the newly weaned, naïve, piglet is not able to recognise a food with clear health and performance benefits but selected the food U due to the reduced palatability of the food Z.

Keywords

zinc oxideweaningpigfeeding behaviourchoice
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , August 2010 , pp. 1359 - 1367
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Appleby, MC, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D 1991. Effects of management options on creep feeding by piglets. Animal Production 53, 361–366.Google Scholar
Arsenos, G, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 2000. Variation between individuals and the consequences for diet selection by group of animals. Animal Behaviour 60, 811–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, BA 1976. Quantitative studies on taste preference in pigs. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berridge, K, Grill, HJ, Norgren, R 1981. Relation of consummatory responses and preabsorbative insulin release to palatability and learned taste aversions. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 95, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, R, Fitzsimons, J 1970. A note on the voluntary food intake and growth of pigs given diets containing an extremely bitter compound. Animal Production 12, 529–530.Google Scholar
Bradford, MMV, Gous, RM 1992. The response of weaner pigs to a choice of foods differing in protein content. Animal Production 55, 227–232.Google Scholar
Broom, LJ, Miller, HM, Kerr, KG, Knapp, JS 2006. Effect of zinc oxide and Enterococcus faecium SF68 dietary supplementation on the performance, intestinal microbiota and immune status of weaned piglets. Research in Veterinary Science 80, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, MS, Hill, GM, Link, JE 1999. Early and traditionally weaned nursery pigs benefit from phase feeding pharmacological concentrations of zinc oxide: effect of metallothionein and mineral concentration. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1199–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, CL, Carlson, MS 2002. Effect of feeding organic and inorganic sources of additional zinc on growth performance and zinc balance in nursery pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1917–1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalby, JA, Forbes, JM, Varley, MA, Jagger, S 1995. The requirements of weaned piglets for a training period prior to a choice feeding regime. Animal Science 61, 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybkjaer, L, Jacobsen, AP, Togersen, FA, Poulsen, HD 2006. Eating and drinking activity of newly weaned piglets: effects of individual characteristics, social mixing, and addition of extra zinc to the feed. Journal of Animal Science 84, 702–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettle, T, Roth, FX 2005. Dietary preferences for feeds varying in threonine concentration by the piglet. Physiology & Behaviour 85, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, NS, Nelson, L, Gous, RM 1999. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs when given foods differing in nutrient density. Animal Science 68, 691–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM 2007. Voluntary feed intake and diet selection in farm animals, 2nd edition. CAB International, Oxon, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM, Kyriazakis, I 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 52, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentle, MJ, Dewar, WA, Wight, PA, Dick, KM 1982. The effects of high dietary zinc on food intake in the domestic fowl. Appetite 3, 53–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Hahn, JD, Baker, DH 1993. Growth and plasma zinc responses of young pigs fed pharmacological levels of zinc. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3020–3024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, GM, Mahan, DC, Carter, SD, Cromwell, GL, Ewan, RC, Harrold, RL, Lewis, AJ, Miller, PS, Shurson, GC, Veum, TL 2001. Effect of pharmacological concentrations of zinc oxide with or without the inclusion of an antibacterial agent on nursery pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 79, 934–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosoi, E, Rittenhouse, LR, Swift, DM, Richards, RW 1995. Foraging strategies of cattle in a Y-maze: influence of food availability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houdijk, JGM, Kyriazakis, I, Jackson, J, Huntley, JF, Coop, RL 2000. Can an increased intake of metabolizable protein affect the periparturient relaxation in immunity against Teladorsagia circumcincta in sheep? Veterinary Parasitology 91, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jondreville, C, Revy, PS, Dourmad, JY 2003. Dietary means to better control the environmental impact of copper and zinc from weaning to slaughter. Livestock Production Science 84, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC 1992. Selection of a diet by growing pigs given choices between foods differing in contents of protein and rapeseed meal. Appetite 19, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC, Whittemore, CT 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51, 189–199.Google Scholar
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB, Caffrey, PJ, O’Doherty, JV 2003. The effect of choice feeding complete diets on the performance of weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P, Edwards, RA, Greenhalgh, JFD, Morgan, CA 1995. Animal Nutrition, 5th edition. Longman, UK.Google Scholar
Miller, HM, Slade, RD 2006. Organic acids, pig health and performance. The Pig Journal 57, 140–149.Google Scholar
Miller, HM, Toplis, P, Slade, RD 2009. Can outdoor rearing and increased weaning age compensate for the removal of in feed antibiotic growth promoters and zinc oxide? Livestock Science 125, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, CA, Lawrence, AB, Chirnside, J, Deans, LA 2001. Can information about solid food be transmitted from one piglet to another? Journal of Animal Science 73, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, CA, Kyriazakis, I, Lawrence, AB, Chirnside, J, Fullam, H 2003. Diet selection by groups of pigs: effect of a trained individual on the rate of learning about novel foods differing in protein content. Journal of Animal Science 76, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nofre, C, Glaser, D, Tinti, JM, Wanner, M 2002. Gustatory responses of pigs to sixty compounds tasting sweet to humans. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 86, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Owen, KQ, Knabe, DA, Burgoon, KG, Gregg, EJ 1994. Self-selection of diets and lysine requirements of growing-finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 72, 554–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluske, JR, Williams, IH 1996. Reducing stress in piglets as a means of increasing production after weaning: administration of amperozide or co-migling of piglets during lactation? Animal Science 62, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, HD 1995. Zinc oxide for weanling piglets. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 45, 159–167.Google Scholar
Ragland, D, Schneider, JR, Amas, JF, Hill, M 2006. Alternatives to the use of antimicrobial feed additives in nursery diets: A pilot study. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14, 82–88.Google Scholar
Roth, FX, Meindl, C, Ettle, T 2006. Evidence of a dietary selection for methionine by the piglet. Journal of Animal Science 84, 379–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinruck, U, Kirchgessner, M, Roth, FX 1990. Selective methionine intake of broilers by changing the position of the diets. Archiv für Geflügalkunde 54, 245–250.Google Scholar
Vente-Spreeuwenberg, MAM, Verdonk, JMAJ, Bakker, GCM, Baynen, AC, Verstegen, MWA 2004. Effect of dietary protein source on feed intake and small intestinal morphology in newly weaned piglets. Livestock Production Science 86, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Fortomaris, PD, Houdijk, JGM, Kyriazakis, I 2006. The effect of dietary protein supply on the performance and risk of post-weaning enteric disorders in newly weaned pigs. Animal Science 82, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, BF, Ellis, M, Curtis, SE, Parr, EN, Webel, DM 2000. Feeder location did not affect performance of weanling pigs in large groups. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2784–2789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar