Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables.

With the current shift in the industry toward housing pigs in groups of 100 to 1,000 per pen have come questions as to whether pigs can perform as well in large groups as they do in small and whether large groups of pigs can use the space provided more efficiently. This study examined effects of small (18 pigs) vs. large (108 pigs) group sizes provided 0.52 m(2)/ pig (crowded) or 0.78 m(2)/pig (uncrowded) of space on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Eight 7-to 8-wk-long blocks, each involving 288 pigs, were completed. The average BW at the beginning of the study was 37.4 +/- 0.26 kg. Overall, ADG was 1.032 kg/d and 1.077 (+/-0.015) kg/d for crowded and uncrowded pigs, respectively (P = 0.018). Differences between the space allowance treatments were most evident during the final week of study. Overall G:F was also reduced (P = 0.002) in the crowded treatment. Pigs in the crowded groups spent less (P = 0.003) time eating over the 8-wk study than did pigs in noncrowded groups, but ADFI did not differ (P = 0.34) between treatments. Overall, ADG of large-group pigs was 1.035 kg/d, whereas small group pigs gained 1.073 kg/d (+/-0.015; P = 0.039). Average daily gain differences between the group sizes were most evident during the first 2 wk of the study. Over the entire study, G:F also differed, with large groups being less efficient (P = 0.005) than small groups. Although large-group pigs had poorer scores for lameness (P = 0.012) and leg scores (P = 0.02) throughout the 8-wk period, morbidity levels did not differ (P = 0.32) between the group sizes. Minimal changes in postural behavior and feeding patterns were noted in large groups. An interaction (P = 0.04) of group size and space allowance for lameness indicated that pigs housed in large groups at restricted space allowances were more susceptible to lameness. Although some behavioral variables, such as lying postures, suggest that pigs in large groups were able to use space more efficiently, overall productivity and health variables indicate that pigs in large and small groups were similarly affected by the crowding imposed in this study. Broken-line analysis of ADG indicated no difference in the response to crowding by pigs in large and small groups. Little support was found for reducing space allowances for pigs in large groups.

[1]  T. J. Hanrahan Observations on the Effects of Stocking Rate on the Performance of Gilts and Boars to Bacon Weight , 1981 .

[2]  M. Brumm Effect of space allowance on barrow performance to 136 kilograms body weight. NCR-89 Committee on Management of Swine. , 1996, Journal of animal science.

[3]  R. Dantzer,et al.  Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behavior and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. , 1987, Journal of animal science.

[4]  Kelly R. Robbins,et al.  A Method, SAS Program, and Example for Fitting the Broken-Line to Growth Data , 1986 .

[5]  M. Brumm,et al.  Response of pigs to space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. , 1996, Journal of animal science.

[6]  J. Eisemann,et al.  Effects of diet and housing density on growth and stomach morphology in pigs. , 1999, Journal of Animal Science.

[7]  E. Kornegay,et al.  The effects of restricted floor space allowance and virginiamycin supplementation on the feedlot performance of swine , 1983 .

[8]  H W Gonyou,et al.  Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. , 2006, Journal of animal science.

[9]  E. Kornegay,et al.  Influence of floor space allowance and dietary selenium and zinc on growth performance, clinical pathology measurements and liver enzymes, and adrenal weights of weanling pigs. , 1993, Journal of animal science.

[10]  S. Edwards,et al.  Effect of social group size and initial live weight on feeder space requirement of growing pigs given food ad libitum , 2002 .

[11]  John J. McGlone,et al.  Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary , 1994 .

[12]  S. Edwards,et al.  Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs , 1999 .

[13]  S. Edwards,et al.  The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes , 2000 .

[14]  S. Edwards,et al.  Housing pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for performance and other economic traits , 2003 .

[15]  H. Gonyou,et al.  Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. , 2003, Journal of animal science.

[16]  P. Lepage,et al.  Radioimmunoassay for Cortisol in Pig Saliva and Serum , 1997 .

[17]  A. M. Paterson,et al.  The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs , 1993 .

[18]  S. Curtis,et al.  Group size and floor-space allowance can affect weanling-pig performance. , 2000, Journal of animal science.

[19]  L. Johnston,et al.  Interaction of swine nursery and grow-finish space allocations on performance. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[20]  Board on Agriculture,et al.  Nutrient requirements of swine , 1964 .