Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:44:27.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2009

X. Averós ,
L. Brossard ,
J. Y. Dourmad ,
K. H. de Greef ,
H. L. Edge ,
S. A. Edwards  and
M. C. Meunier-Salaün
X. Averós
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
L. Brossard*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
J. Y. Dourmad
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
K. H. de Greef
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
H. L. Edge
Affiliation:
Food and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Food and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
M. C. Meunier-Salaün
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1079 Systèmes d’Elevage Nutrition Animale et Humaine, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

To obtain quantitative information that can be later used in animal welfare modelling, the relationship between the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs (initial body weight (BW) between 19 and 87 kg) and different factors related to the housing conditions, with a potential negative effect on their welfare, was studied by means of a meta-analytical approach. Data from 22 experiments reported in 21 scientific publications were collected. The space allowance, expressed on an allometric basis by means of a k-value (m2/BW0.667), the group size (n) and the floor characteristics (fully and partly slatted v. non-slatted floor), as well as their significant two-way interactions were used as fixed effects, and the experiment was used as a random factor to take into account the interexperiment effect. Further regression analyses were performed on the predicted values of observations in order to improve the adjustment of data. A significant quadratic relationship was established between space allowance (k-value, P < 0.05; squared k-value, P < 0.01) and the percentage of time spent lying. A significant interaction between the k-value and the floor type was also found (P < 0.05), showing that the relationship between space allowance and lying behaviour is affected by the presence or absence of slats. Threshold k-values were obtained using broken-line analyses, being about 0.039 for slatted floors and almost double for non-slatted floors. Compared to other studies, these values suggest that the ability to rest as space availability decreases may be compromised before a reduced performance becomes apparent. Group size did not show a significant effect. Additional information should be added to the model, as further data become available, to adjust the proposed parameters as well as to try to include the effect of other important aspects such as that of ambient temperature.

Keywords

growing-finishing pig, lying behaviour, meta-analysis, slatted floor, space requirement
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 777 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Aarnink, AJA, Schrama, JW, Heetkamp, MJW, Stefanowska, J, Huynh, TTT 2006. Temperature and body weight affect fouling of pig pens. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2224–2231.Google Scholar
Anil, L, Anil, SS, Deen, J 2007. Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, S 1984. Space and place. In Intensive pig production: environmental management and design, pp. 210–254. Granada Technical Books, London, UK.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, JK 1981. Environmental effects on lying behaviour and use of trough space in weaned pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 281–286.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Schouten, WGP, Schrama, JW, Wiegant, VM 2006. Effects of rearing and housing environment on behaviour and performance of pigs with different coping characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducreux, E, Aloui, B, Robin, P, Dourmad, JY, Courboulay, V, Meunier-Salaün, MC 2002. Les porcs affichent leurs préférences vis-à-vis du type de sol en fonction de la température ambiante. Journées de la Recherche Porcine 34, 211–216.Google Scholar
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I, Hopster, H 2003. Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 19–30.Google Scholar
Estevez, I, Andersen, IL, Nævdal, E 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Chapple, RP, Frank, GR 1992. Productivity, time budgets and social aspects of eating in pigs penned in groups of five or individually. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Brumm, MC, Bush, E, Deen, J, Edwards, SA, Fangman, T, McGlone, JJ, Meunier-Salaün, M, Morrison, RB, Spoolder, H, Sundberg, PL, Johnson, AK 2006. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. Journal of Animal Science 84, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitman, H Jr, LeRoy, H, Kelly, CF, Bond, TE 1961. Space allotment and performance of growing-finishing swine raised in confinement. Journal of Animal Science 20, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessel, EF, Wülbers-Mindermann, M, Berg, C, Van den Weghe, HFA, Algers, B 2006. Influence of increased feeding frequency on behavior and integument lesions in growing-finishing restricted-fed pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1526–1534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hötzel, MJ, Lopes, EJC, de Oliveira, PAV, Guidoni, AL 2009. Behaviour and performance of pigs finished on deep bedding with wood shavings or rice husks in summer. Animal Welfare 18, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huynh, TTT, Aarnink, AJA, Verstegen, MWA, Gerrits, WJJ, Heetkamp, MJW, Kemp, B, Cahn, TT 2005a. Effects of increasing temperatures on physiological changes in pigs at different relative humidities. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1385–1396.Google Scholar
Huynh, TTT, Aarnink, AJA, Gerrits, WJJ, Heetkamp, MJW, Cahn, TT, Spoolder, HAM, Kemp, B, Verstegen, MWA 2005b. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 1–16.Google Scholar
Huynh, TTT, Aarnink, AJA, Truong, CT, Kemp, B, Verstegen, MWA 2006. Effects of tropical climate and water cooling methods on growing pigs’ responses. Livestock Science 104, 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M 2001. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, 803–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyun, Y, Ellis, M 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 568–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krider, JL, Albright, JL, Plumlee, MP, Conrad, JH, Sinclair, CL, Underwood, L, Jones, RG, Harrington, RB 1975. Magnesium supplementation, space and docking effects on swine performance and behavior. Journal of Animal Science 40, 1027–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, YZ, Johnston, LJ 2009. Behavior and performance of pigs previously housed in large groups. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1472–1478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant-Forde, JN, Lay, DC Jr, Pajor, EA, Richert, BT, Schinkel, AP 2003. The effects of ractopamine on the behavior and physiology of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 416–422.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Vantrimponte, MN, Raab, A, Dantzer, R 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behavior and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1371–1377.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Bizeray, D, Colson, V, Courboulay, V, Lensink, J, Prunier, A, Remience, V, Vandenheede, M 2007. The welfare of farmed pigs. Productions Animales 20, 73–80.Google Scholar
Moberg, GP 2000. Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In The biology of animal stress: basic principles and implications for animal welfare (ed. GP Moberg and JA Mench), pp. 1–22. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, GP, Paterson, AM 1993. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36, 11–28.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. SH Baxter, MR Baxter and JAC MacCormack), pp. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC 2007. Spatial requirements of animals: allometry and beyond. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2, 197–204.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC, Phillips, CJC 2009. Space allowances for confined livestock and their determination from allometric principles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, JH, Cromwell, GL, Stahly, TS, Kratzer, DD 1981. Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behavior of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53, 922–927.Google Scholar
Robbins, KR 1986. A method, SAS program, and example for fitting the broken-line to growth data. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 86-09, 1–8.Google Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y 1972. The relevance of drowsiness in the circadian cycle of farm animals. Animal Behaviour 20, 637–643.Google Scholar
SAS 2000. SAS/STAT users guide, version 8.01. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ, St-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
Schmolke, SA, Li, YZ, Gonyou, HW 2004. Effects of group size on social behavior following regrouping of growing-finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 27–38.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP, Edwards, SA 2006. The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully-slatted versus straw-bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP, Edwards, SA 2007. The welfare of finishing pigs under different housing and feeding systems: liquid versus dry feeding in fully-slatted and straw-based housing. Animal Welfare 16, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.Google Scholar
Street, BR, Gonyou, HW 2008. Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Journal of Animal Science 86, 982–991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Edwards, SA 2004. Housing immature domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social organisation in a hierarchical society. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Allcroft, DJ, Edwards, SA 2003. Housing pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for performance and other economic traits. Livestock Production Science 82, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.Google Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K, Edwards, SA 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity if finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230–247.Google Scholar