Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed “AD libitum” from one or several self-feeders

Hansen, Laurits Lydehøj; Hagelsø, Anne Mette; Madsen, Ann

doi:10.1016/0304-3762(82)90065-7

Cited by 100 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have found contradictory results for this measurement. Walker (1991), Botermans and Svendsen (2000) and Kircher (2001), as in our study, found no change in the within-pen variation in daily weight gain for ad libitum dry-fed fattening pigs with restricted feeding space, whereas Hansen et al (1982) and Georgsson and Svendsen (2001) observed a greater variation between group members. Our findings indicate that the distribution of food intake over the individuals of a given group was similar in groups given food at different AFRs and that the lower weight gain observed with increased AFR could have resulted from a poorer utilization of food because of competition-induced stress (Hyun et al, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Other studies with dry ad libitum feeding and a restricted number of feeding places found no effect of the AFR on the lean meat proportion (Hansen et al, 1982;Walker, 1991). The lean meat proportions of most pigs fed at the AFR 7:1 or 13:1 in our study were within the quality range defined for Switzerland (lean meat proportion 540 to 595 g/kg: bonus on meat price; lean meat proportion 530 to 540 or 595 to 610 g/kg: normal prices; lean meat proportion , 530 or .610 g/kg: reduction in meat price; Proviande, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In the present investigation, weight gain was high but within the range of the results found in other studies with both liquid and dry ad libitum feeding systems. For example, Hansen et al (1982) and Kircher (2001), investigating weight gain of fatteners given ad libitum dry feeding at restricted AFRs ranging from 5:1 to 10:1, reported values varying between 670 and 876 g/day. With regard to sensor-controlled liquid feeding it has been stated that daily weight gain is higher compared with ad libitum dry feeding systems (Hü gle and Heege, 1989), and Marks et al (2002) reported values from 850 and 900 g/day.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restriction of feeding places may lead to competition for food, resulting in lower weight gains or more variation in weight between individuals (Hansen et al, 1982;Petherick and Blackshaw, 1987;Gonyou and Stricklin, 1998;Botermans and Georgsson, 2001;Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001;Turner et al, 2002). With dry feeding systems, restricted feeding leads to higher lean meat proportions compared with ad libitum feeding (Cameron, 1990;Ramaekers et al, 1996;Kirchgebner, 1997;Oksbjerg et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Performance, lean meat proportion and behaviour of fattening pigs given a liquid diet at different animal/feeding-place ratios

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensor feeding is a liquid feeding system for fattening pigs that is operated with a restricted animal/feeding-place ratio (AFR). The aim of the present study was to quantify the effect of three different AFRs (4:1, 7:1 and 13:1, calculated with a feeding space of 33 cm per animal) on the performance and behaviour of fattening pigs (mean initial weight 26·3 (s.d. 3·3) kg, live weight at slaughter 102 (s.d. 5) kg). The pigs were housed in groups of 40 and each AFR was tested with seven groups (21 groups in total). The daily weight gain of the individual pigs was calculated from the beginning of the experiments until slaughter. Additionally, the lean meat percentage was recorded (AutoFOM). Feeding behaviour was observed by means of 24-h video recording at the ages of 14 and 17 weeks with scan sampling every 5 min. The daily weight gain decreased with increasing AFR ( P , 0·01) and females had lower weight gains than barrows ( P , 0·001). The lean meat proportion was influenced by the AFR ( P , 0·01) and sex of the pigs ( P , 0·001). Proportions were highest with the AFR 13:1 and in females. The average number of pigs feeding simultaneously was highest for the AFR of 4:1 ( P , 0·01). Moreover, the ingestion rate per day (kg/min) increased with increasing AFR ( P , 0·05). The average number of pigs waiting behind other pigs feeding at the trough was highest with the AFR 13:1 ( P , 0·001). In conclusion, growth performance and pig behaviour were negatively affected by an AFR of 13:1, which cannot be recommended for use with this feeding system. With an AFR of 4:1 lean meat values were low.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance, lean meat proportion and behaviour of fattening pigs given a liquid diet at different animal/feeding-place ratios

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restricted feeder space increased tail biting in one experimental study (damaged tails, Hansen et al, 1982) and is a risk factor in epidemiological studies (Hunter et al, 2001;Moinard et al, 2003). Other experimental studies, in which low levels of tail biting occurred, found no effect of feeder space Svendsen, 2001 and.…”

Section: Availability Of Manipulable Materialsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

152

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Assessment of fighting ability or simple habituation: What causes young pigs (Sus scrofa) to stop fighting?

Rushen¹

1988

Aggr. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed “AD libitum” from one or several self-feeders

Cited by 100 publications

References 12 publications

Performance, lean meat proportion and behaviour of fattening pigs given a liquid diet at different animal/feeding-place ratios

Performance, lean meat proportion and behaviour of fattening pigs given a liquid diet at different animal/feeding-place ratios

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Assessment of fighting ability or simple habituation: What causes young pigs (Sus scrofa) to stop fighting?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About