Influence of pig rearing system on animal performance and manure composition

Abstract

A total of 200 crossbred pigs (castrated males and females) were used in five replicates to evaluate the influence of rearing conditions for fattening pigs on growth performance, manure production and gaseous emissions. Approximately at 36 kg body weight (BW), littermates were allocated to either a conventional (fully slatted floor, 0.65 m 2 /pig, considered as control, CON) or an alternative (sawdust bedding, 1.3 m 2 /pig, with free access to an outdoor area 1.1 m 2 /pig, OUT) system, until slaughter at approximately 115 kg BW. Pigs had free access to standard growing and finishing diets. Manure was stored as slurry below the slatted floor in the CON system and as litter, for the inside area, or slurry and liquid, for the outside area, in the OUT system. The amount and composition of manure were determined at the end of each replicate. Ammonia emission from the rooms was measured continuously. Dust and odour concentrations were measured in replicates 1 and 2, and CH 4 , N 2 O and CO 2 emissions were measured in replicate 3. Compared with the CON, the OUT pigs exhibited a faster growth rate (18%, P , 0.001) due to their greater feed intake (10.21 kg/day, P , 0.01), resulting in a heavier BW (17.3 kg, P , 0.001) and a lower lean meat content (21.6% points, P , 0.001) at slaughter. The total amount of manure produced per pig was similar in both systems (380 kg/pig), but because of the contribution of sawdust, dry matter (DM) content was higher ( P , 0.001) and concentrations in N, P, K, Cu and Zn in DM were lower ( P , 0.001) in manure from the OUT than from the CON system. In the OUT system, most of the manure DM (70%) was collected indoor, corresponding mostly to the contribution of the sawdust, and most of the manure water (70%) was collected outdoor. Pigs excreted indoor about 60% and 40% of urine and faeces, respectively. Ammonia emission from the room was lower for the OUT system, whereas total NH 3 emissions, including the outdoor area, tended to be higher (12.0 and 14.1 g/day N-NH 3 per pig for CON and OUT, respectively). Nitrous oxide emission was higher (1.6 and 4.6 g/day N-N 2 O per pig for CON and OUT, respectively) and methane emission was lower (12.1 and 5.9 g/day per pig for CON and OUT, respectively), for the OUT compared with the CON system.

Greenhouse gas emissions from swine operations: Evaluation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approaches through meta-analysis1

“…Powers, personal communication at Michigan State University. 20 Amon Blanes-Vidal et al, 2008;Cabaraux et al, 2009;Christensen and Thorbek, 1987;Guarino, 2008, 2009;Dourmad et al, 2009;Groenestein and Vanfaassen, 1996;Guarino et al, 2008;Haeussermann et al, 2006;Jelinek et al, 2007;Jensen and Jorgensen, 1994;Osada et al, 1998;Palkovicova et al, 2009;Philippe et al, 2007a3 Dong et al, 2007a. 0 16 Clark et al, 2005;DeSutter and Ham, 2005;Hamilton et al, 2005;Harper et al, 2000Harper et al, , 2004Kaharabata et al, 1998;Lague et al, 2005;Massé et al, 2003;Park et al 2006Park et al , 2010Pelletier et al, 2004;Sharpe and Harper, 1999;Sharpe et al, 2002;Shores et al, 2005;Zahn et al, 2001;Zhang et al, 2007.…”

“…Neither temperature nor size of operation was significant. The emissions were compared Osada et ú., 1998Nick et al, 2005Amon et al^007 Jdinàetal.,2007Pfiilippeaal., 2007aPhilippe a al., 2007bCosta and Guarino, 2008GiiariiioetaI,2O08 CabaratK et al, 2009Costa and Guatino, 2009Dourmad et al, 2009Paikovicova et al, 2009 Summary of swine buildings with pit ^"stems (95% CI) Nick et a]., 2004 Philippe tí al., 2007bBlanes-Mdal et al, 2008Cabaraux el al, 2009Dourmad et al, 2009Philippe Ö al., 2009Philippe et al, 2010 Siiinmar>' of swine buildings with bedded systems (95% CI) Amon et al .,2007Philippe et al, 2007a Summary of svvine buildings with straw flow systems (95% CI) Loyon « al, 2007 O\'a-all(95%CI) NjO emission factors on a per head per year basis. Farrowing swine had the greatest CH4 emissions whereas gestating swine had the greatest NjO emissions.…”

“…Cabaraux et al (2009) andDourmad et al (2009) reported that CH¿j and NjO emissions decreased in a sawdust bedding system as compared with a fully slatted floor/pit system. Philippe et al (2007a) reported that straw bedding systems produce more NH3 and N2O than keeping pigs on slatted floors but CH^ emissions are not different.…”

Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta‐analysis and integrated assessment

“…infrequently extra straw addition vs. no extra addition Groenestein & Van Faassen, 1996;Kavolelis, 2006;Gilhespy et al, 2009;Amon et al, 2007;Philippe et al, 2007aPhilippe et al, ,b, 2011Philippe et al, , 2013Ivanova-Peneva et al, 2008;Cabaraux et al, 2009;Dourmad et al, 2009;N 2 O, CH 4 Slatted floor vs. deep litter litter removal frequently vs. infrequently Groenestein & Van Faassen, 1996;Amon et al, 2007;Philippe et al, 2007aPhilippe et al, ,b, 2011Cabaraux et al, 2009;Dourmad et al, 2009;Acidification External storage NH 3 Acidified vs. not acidified Kai et al, 2008;Petersen et al, 2012Petersen et al, , 2014Dai & Blanes-Vidal, 2013;Wang et al, 2014;CH 4 Acidified vs. not acidified Petersen et al, 2012Petersen et al, , 2014Wang et al, 2014;Slurry storage External storage NH 3 Crusting vs. no-crust straw cover vs. no-cover wooden lid vs. no-cover wooden lid vs. crusting granules cover vs. no-cover artificial film cover vs. no-cover peat/kitchen oil cover vs. no-cover Sommer, 1997;H€ ornig et al, 1999;Portejoie et al, 2003;Misselbrook et al, 2005b;Balsari et al, 2006;Berg et al, 2006;Clemens et al, 2006;Amon et al, 2007;Smith et al, 2007;VanderZaag et al, 2009;…”

Diurnal rhythms, locations and behavioural sequences associated with eliminative behaviours in fattening pigs

“…Rather different results were obtained by Dourmad et al (2009) who found that under the same ambient temperature with 22 • C, 10 pigs reared in a pen with a free outdoor run deposited about 60% of their faeces and more than half of their urine indoors, but pigs were still observed to defecate and urinate away from their lying and feeding areas. The different results might be explained by the different group size, which could alter eliminative patterns because of the increasing commotion or tension among pigs (Hacker et al, 1994).…”