Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:26:26.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of number and siting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. T. S. Morrow  and
N. Walker
A. T. S. Morrow
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR, UK
N. Walker
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two experiments of randomized block design were carried out at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland in 1991/92 involving groups of 20 pigs fed ad libitum from single-space feeders with built-in water supply from 37 kg to slaughter at 91 kg liveweight.Treatments were replicated 16 and 6 times respectively in Experiments 1 and 2. In the first experiment, one feeder perpen was compared with two feeders per pen positioned side by side. Two feeders increased feed intake (P < 0·05) but had no significant effects on growth rate or feed conversion. With two feeders, the total time that feeders were occupied and the number of visits to feeders were both increased, while the number of enforced withdrawals from feeders and the amount of queuing were both decreased compared with the single feeder. In the second experiment, placing two feeders 2 m or more apart instead of side by side had no significant effects on feed intake or growth rate but improved feed conversion efficiency by 4%. This improvement was associated with fewer and longer visits to feeders but no difference in enforced withdrawals or queuing. In both experiments all treatments showed broadly similar patterns of diurnal feeding behaviour with two peaks of activity daily, a smaller peak pre-midday and a larger one in the afternoon. This pattern was influenced more by number of visits to feeders than by the mean duration of each visit. It is recommended that two single-space feeders are used in pens of 20 finishing pigs when non-pelleted diets are offered ad libitum and that feeders are sited some distance apart, not side by side.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 465 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Albar, J. & Granier, R. (1989). Feeding with feeders: effect of the number of pigs per eating place on performance. Annales de Zootechnie 38, 200.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Van Lunen, T. A. & Sproule, D. (1990). Performance of grower finisher pigs obtaining feed from dry feeders or wet/dry feeders with different feeding spaces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 1197–1198.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. (1986). The design of the feeding environment for the pig. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K. & Blackshaw, A. W. (1990). Evaluation of two feeder designs for growing pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 30, 491–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. N. R. & van der Steen, H. A. M. (1990). Automatic recording of individual voluntary feed intake in group-housed pigs. Animal Production 50, 575.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. (1983). Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of animal needs. Animal Behaviour 31, 1195–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haer, L. C. M. & Merks, J. W. M. (1992). Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54, 95–104.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Armsby, A. W. & Spechter, H. H. (1988). Effects of floor area allowance on performance of growing pigs kept on fully slatted floors. Animal Production 46, 453–459.Google Scholar
English, P. R., Fowler, V. R., Baxter, S. & Smith, W. (1988). The Growing and Finishing Pig: Improving Efficiency. Ipswich: Farming Press.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. & Stricklin, W. R. (1981). Eating behaviour of beef cattle groups fed from a single stall or trough. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 123–133.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. L., Hagelso, A. M. & Madsen, A. (1982). Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed ‘ad libitum’ from one or several self feeders. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 307–333.Google Scholar
Hsia, L. C. & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1983). A note on social facilitation and competition in the feeding behaviour of pigs. Animal Production 37, 149–152.Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D. (1991). A note on hunger in the pig: sows on restricted rations will sustain an energy deficit to gain additional food. Animal Production 52, 233–235.Google Scholar
Kay, R. M., Armsby, A. W. & Lightfoot, A. L. (1989). Ad libitum feeding of finishing pigs using single-space or multi-space feeders. Animal Production 48, 641.Google Scholar
Maton, A. & Daelemans, J. (1991). Study of the wet-feed hopper versus the dry-feed hopper for finishing pigs. Revue del Agriculture – Landbouwtijdschrift 44, 763–773.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. & Curtis, S. E. (1985). Behavior and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. Journal of Animal Science 60, 20–24.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M. C. & Faure, J. M. (1984). On the feeding and social behaviour of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13, 129–135.Google Scholar
Morrow, A. T. S. & Walker, N. (1992). The effect of increasing workload to obtain food ad libitum on performance and behaviour of finishing pigs. Animal Production 54, 481 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Shi, X. S. & Dubois, S. (1993). Energy cost of standing activity in sows. Livestock Production Science 34, 127–136.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C. & Walker, N. (1989). Observations of voluntary feed intake and wastage from various types of self feed hopper. In The Voluntary Food Intake of Pigs (Eds Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. & Lawrence, T. L. J.), Occasional Publication, no. 13, pp. 114–116. Edinburgh: British Societyof Animal Production.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. & Blackshaw, J. K. (1987). A review of the factors influencing the aggressive and agonistic behaviour of the domestic pig. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27, 605–611.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C, Beattie, A. W. & Bodero, D. A. V. (1989). The effect of group size on the performance of growing pigs. Animal Production 49, 497–502.Google Scholar
Stricklin, W. R. & Gonyou, H. W. (1981). Dominance and eating behaviour of beef cattle fed from a single stall. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 135–140.Google Scholar
Walker, N. (1991). The effects on performance and behaviour of number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar