Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:03:12.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of static space occupied by individual weaner and growing pigs using an image-based monitoring system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2018

M. Fels ,
K. Konen ,
E. Hessel  and
N. Kemper
M. Fels*
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, D-30173 Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, Germany
K. Konen
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, D-30173 Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, Germany
E. Hessel
Affiliation:
Thünen Institute of Agricultural Technology, D-38116 Braunschweig, Bundesallee 47, Germany
N. Kemper
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, D-30173 Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: M. Fels, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study, precise, animal-based biometric data on the space needed for the body dimensions of individual pigs (static space) were collected. Per batch, two groups of eight piglets each were formed after weaning (35 days old). Using three-dimensional cameras that recorded a piglets’ pen from above and newly developed software, the static space of individuals was determined over 6 weeks. The area covered by an individual increased almost linearly with increasing body weight (R2 = 0.97). At the end of rearing (25 kg body weight), an individual covered 1704 cm2 in standing position, 1687 cm2 in sitting posture and 1798 cm2 in a recumbent position. According to the allometric equation: Space = k × body weight0.667, k values for the static space in standing position (k = 0.021), in recumbent position in general (k = 0.022) and in lateral recumbent posture (k = 0.027) were calculated. Compared with spatial requirements in different countries, the results of static space obtained in the present study revealed that pigs weighing 25 kg are provided with 0.09–0.18 m2 free space per pig which is not covered by the pig's body. This free space can be used as dynamic space needed for body movements or social interactions. The present study was not intended to enhance space recommendations in pig farming, but to demonstrate the amount of free space in a pigs’ pen. It was shown that innovative technologies based on image analysis offer completely new possibilities to assess spatial requirements for pigs.

Keywords

Image analysisk-valuepigspace
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 282 - 290
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Anil, L, Anil, SS and Deen, J (2007) Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 139–151.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2003) Swine Care Handbook. Des Moines, Iowa: National Pork Board. Available at http://porkgateway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/npb-swine-handbook1.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar
Anonymous (2008 a) Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union L47 52, 5–13. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:EN:PDF (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar
Anonymous (2008 b) Tierschutzverordnung Switzerland (TSchV) (Animal Protection Order). Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Council. Available at: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2008/2985.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar
Anonymous (2008 c) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals. Pigs, 3rd edn. Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. Ottawa, Canada: National Farm Animal Care Council and Canadian Pork Council.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung - TierSchNutztV)). Berlin, Germany: Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. Available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschnutztv/ (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar
Briese, A and Hartung, J (2009) Erhebung biometrischer Daten zur Platzabmessung an Lohmann Silver Legehennen. Berliner und Münchener Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift 122, 241–248.Google Scholar
Cho, JH and Kim, IH (2011) Effect of stocking density on pig production. African Journal of Biotechnology 10, 13688–13692.Google Scholar
EFSA (2005) Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types. The EFSA Journal 3, 268. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2005.268.Google Scholar
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I and Hopster, H (2003) Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 19–30.Google Scholar
FAWC (1991) Report on the European Commission, Proposal on the Transport of Animals. London: MAFF Publications.Google Scholar
FAWC (2013) FAWC Advice on Space and Headroom Allowances for Transport of Farm Animals. London, UK: FAWC. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-advice-on-space-and-headroom-allowances-for-transport-of-farm-animals (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar
Fels, M, Sange, MD and Kemper, N (2016) Planimetric measurement as a method for scientific assessment of space requirements of young suckling piglets in the creep area. Livestock Science 191, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritschen, RD and Muehling, AJ (1987) Space Requirements for Swine. Pork Industry Handbook PIH-55. Michigan: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Geers, R (2007) Lying behaviour (location, posture and duration). In Verlarde, A and Geers, R (eds). On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
Giersberg, MF, Kemper, N and Fels, M (2015) Planimetric measurement of floor space covered by fattening rabbits and breeding does in different body positions and weight classes. Livestock Science 177, 142–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giersberg, MF, Hartung, J, Kemper, N and Spindler, B (2016) Floor space covered by broiler chickens kept at stocking densities according to Council Directive 2007/43/EC. Veterinary Record 179, 124. doi: 10.1136/vr.103563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonyou, HW, Brumm, MC, Bush, E, Deen, J, Edwards, SA, Fangman, T, McGlone, J, Meunier-Salaun, M, Morrison, RB, Spoolder, H, Sundberg, PL and 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
Hemsworth, PH, Rice, M, Nash, J, Giri, K, Butler, KL, Tilbrook, AJ and Morrison, RS (2013) Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4953–4964.Google Scholar
Hurnik, JF and Lewis, NJ (1991) Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowances for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 577–580.Google Scholar
Kim, KH, Kim, KS, Kim, JE, Kim, DW, Seol, KH, Lee, SH, Chae, BJ and Kim, YH (2017) The effect of optimal space allowance on growth performance and physiological responses of pigs at different stages of growth. Animal 11, 478–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, J and Pond, WG (2003) Pig Production: Biological Principles and Applications. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Vines, B, Rudine, AC and DuBois, P (2004) The physical size of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2421–2427.Google Scholar
Meyer, E, Vogel, M and Wähner, M (2012) Investigations on acceptance and size of piglet nests. Livestock and Machinery 5, 362–365.Google Scholar
Moustsen, VA, Lahrmann, HP and D'Eath, RB (2011) Relationship between size and age of modern hyper-prolific crossbred sows. Livestock Science 141, 272–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, K, Tanaka, T, Nishida, K and Uetake, K (2011) Behavioral indexes of piglet welfare: comparison of indoor and outdoor housing systems. Animal Science Journal 82, 161–168.Google Scholar
Pastorelli, G, Musella, M, Zaninelli, M, Tangorra, F and Corino, C (2006) Static spatial requirements of growing-finishing and heavy pigs. Livestock Science 105, 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC (1983) A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Baxter, SH, Baxter, MR and MacCormack, JAD (eds). Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. The Hauge, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC and Phillips, CJC (2009) Space allowances for confined livestock and their determination from allometric principles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spindler, B, Giersberg, MF, Briese, A, Kemper, N and Hartung, J (2016) Spatial requirements of poultry assessed by using a colour-contrast method (Koba-Plan). British Poultry Science 57, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Aarnink, AAJ, Vermeer, HM, van Riel, J and Edwards, SA (2012) Effect of increasing temperature on space requirements of group housed finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138, 229–239.Google Scholar
Walker, R (2015) Swine: Planning Swine Facilities, RFAA082. UF/IFAS Extension Service. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/aa082 (Accessed 26 January 2018).Google Scholar