Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:23:19.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of stocking density and social regrouping stressors on growth performance, carcass characteristics, nutrient digestibility and physiological stress responses in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

A. B. G. Leek ,
B. T. Sweeney ,
P. Duffy ,
V. E. Beattie  and
J. V. O’Doherty
A. B. G. Leek
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
B. T. Sweeney
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry and Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. Duffy
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
V. E. Beattie
Affiliation:
Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 96 Duncrue Street, Belfast BT3 9AR, Northern Ireland
J. V. O’Doherty*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
*
E-mail: john.vodoherty@ucd.ie
Get access

Abstract

A 2 ✕ 2 factorial arrangement of treatments used 280 growing pigs and 240 finishing pigs to examine the main effects and interactions between two levels of stocking density (0·75 m2 v. 0·45 m2 per growing pig and 0·88 m2 v. 0·53 m2 per finishing pig) and grouping (static groups v. regrouped) on pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, nutrient digestibility and measurements of physiological indicators of stress responses. Regrouping was achieved by moving four unfamiliar pigs between replicate groups every 14 days. Average daily gain (ADG) and average daily food intake (ADFI) were reduced by an additive interaction between high density and regrouping in growing pigs (P < 0·01). In finishing pigs, regrouping reduced ADG (P 0·05) and carcass weight (P 0·05). Regrouping reduced apparent dry matter and gross energy digestibility in finishing pigs (P 0·05). Rectal temperature increased 3 h after mixing finishing pigs (P 0·05), but not growing pigs. In growing pigs, the neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio tended to increase (P 0·1) after regrouping, although plasma cortisol concentration was unaffected. In finishing pigs, the response to a Newcastle disease virus antigen challenge tended to decrease at high stocking density (P 0·1), although total IgG concentration was unaffected. In conclusion, the growth performance of growing and finishing pigs was affected by social stressors. However, effects on the physiological measurements did not concur with effects on growth performance.

Keywords

digestibilitygrowthpigssocial interactionstocking density
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , August 2004 , pp. 109 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Blecha, F. and Kelley, K. W. 1981. Effects of cold and weaning stressors on the antibody-mediated immune response of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 53: 439–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown-Borg, H.M, Klemcke, H. G. and Blecha, F. 1993. Lymphocyte profilerative responses in neonatal pigs with high or low plasma cortisol concentration after stress induced by restraint. American Journal of Veterinary Research 54: 2015–2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brumm, M. C. and Miller, P. S. 1996. Response of pigs to space allocation and diets of varying nutrient density. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2730–2737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. G. and Taverner, M. R. 1988. Genotype and sex effects on the relationship between energy intake and protein deposition in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 66: 676–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapple, R. P. 1993. Effect of stocking arrangement on pig performance. In Manipulating pig production IV (ed. Batterham, E. S.), pp. 87–97. Australasian Pig Science Association, Attwood, Australia.Google Scholar
Clark, J. R., Bell, R. W., Tribble, L. F. and Lennon, A. M. 1985. Effects of composition and density of the group on the performance, behaviour and age at puberty in swine. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, W. H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principals of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A. Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press, Loughborough.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R. and Kelley, K. W. 1989. Stress and immunity. Life Sciences 44: 1995–2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonds, M. S., Arentson, B. E. and Mente, G. A. 1998. Effect of protein levels and space allocation on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 814–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, S. A., Armsby, A. W. and Spechter, H. H. 1988. Effects of floor area allowance on performance of growing pigs kept on fully slatted floors. Animal Production 46: 453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekkel, E. D. 1997. The impact of farrow-to-finish production on health and welfare of pigs. Pig News and Information 18: 111N–116N.Google Scholar
Ekkel, E. D., Savenije, B., Schouten, W. G. P., Wiegant, V. M. and Tielen, M. J. M. 1997. The effects of mixing upon behaviour and circadian parameters of salivary cortisol. Physiology and Behavior 62: 181–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Council. 2001. Council directive 2001/88/EC of 23rd October 2001 amending directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities, L316 (2001/12/01).Google Scholar
Framstad, T., Sjaastad, Ø. and Aass, R. A. 1988. [Blood collection from pigs.] Norsk Veterinœrtidsskrift 100: 265–272.Google Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Chapple, R. P. and Frank, G. R. 1992. Productivity, time budgets and social aspects of eating in pigs penned in groups of five or individually. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H. W. and Stricklin, W. R. 1998. Effects of floor area allowance and group size on the productivity of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1326–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greer, E. B. 1987. Lack of effect of regular movement and of mixing of groups on the performance of growing pigs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27: 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haer, L. C. M. de. and Vries, A. G. de. 1993. Feed intake patterns of and the feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33: 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heetkamp, M. J. W., Schrama, J. W., Jong, L. de, Swinkels, J. W. G. M., Schouten, W. G. P. and Bosch, M. W. 1995. Energy metabolism of young pigs affected by mixing. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3562–3569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hessing, M. J. C., Coenen, G. J., Vaiman, M. and Renard, C. 1995. Individual differences in cell-mediated and humoral immunity in pigs. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 45: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyun, Y., Ellis, M., Riskowski, G. and Johnson, R. W. 1998. Growth performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environmental stressors. Journal of Animal Science 76: 721–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jong, I. C. de, Lambooij, E., Korte, S. M., Blokhuis, H. J. and Koolhaas, J. M. 1999. Mixing induces long-term hyperthermia in growing pigs. Animal Science 69: 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornegay, E. T. and Notter, D. R. 1984. Effects of floor space and number of pigs per pen on performance. Pig News and Information 5: 23–33.Google Scholar
Kornegay, E. T., Lindemann, M. D. and Ravindran, V. 1993. Effects of dietary lysine levels on performance and immune response of weanling pigs housed at two floor space allowances. Journal of Animal Science 71: 552–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® systems for mixed models, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. and Curtis, S.E. 1985. Behaviour and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. Journal of Animal Science 60: 20–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, J. J., Stansbury, W. F. and Tribble, L. F. 1987. Effects of heat and social stressors and within pen weight variation on young pig performance and agonistic behaviour. Journal of Animal Science 65: 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. 2002. Technical efficiency in pig production. How does Ireland rate? Pig farmers conference proceedings, October 2002. Teagasc, Sandymount, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Maule, A. G. and VanderKooi, S. P. 1999. Stress-induced immune-endocrine interaction. In Stress physiology (ed. Balm, P.), pp. 205–245. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, Sheffield.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domestic pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, M.C, Vantrimponte, M. N., Raab, A. and Dantzer, T. 1987. Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behaviour and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1371–1377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, A. S., Gonyou, H. W., Stookey, J. M. and McLaren, D. G. 1994. Effect of group composition and pen size on behaviour, productivity and immune response in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow-Tesch, J.L, McGlone, J. J. and Salak-Johnson, J. L. 1994. Heat and social stress effects on pig immune measures. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2599–2609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NCR-42 Committee on Swine Nutrition. 1993. An attempt to counteract growth depression from overcrowding of finishing pigs with a nutrient-dense diet. Journal of Animal Science 71: (suppl. 1) 179(abstr.).Google Scholar
NCR-89 Committee on Confinement Management of Swine. 1986. Effect of space allowance and tylosin feeding on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 62: 871–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyberg, L., Lundstrom, K., Edfors-Lilja, I. and Rundgren, M. 1988. Effects of transport stress on concentrations of cortisol, corticosteroid-binding globulin and glucocorticoid receptors in pigs with different halothane genotypes. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1201–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Doherty, J. V. and Callan, J. J. 1997. The use of chromic oxide as an indicator of digestibility in pig diets. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Science 36: 101–102.Google Scholar
Paterson, A. M. and Pearce, G. P. 1991. The effect of space restriction during rearing on growth and cortisol levels of male pigs. In Manipulating pig production III (ed. Batterham, E. S.), p. 68. Australasian Pig Science Association, Attwood, Australia.Google Scholar
Schinckel, A. P. 2001. Nutrient requirements of modern pig genotypes. In Recent advances in pig nutrition 3 (ed. Wiseman, J. and Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 399–438. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Stanogias, G. and Pearce, G. R. 1985. The digestion of fibre by pigs. 1. The effect of amount and type of fibre on apparent digestibility, nitrogen balance and rate of passage. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 513–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stookey, J. M. and Gonyou, H. W. 1994. The effects of regrouping on behavioural and production parameters in finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2804–2811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swiergiel, A. H. 1998. Modifications of operant thermoregulatory behaviour of the young pig by environmental temperature and food availability. Physiology and Behavior 63: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taché, Y., Martinez, V., Million, M. and Wang, L. 2001. Stress and the gastrointestinal tract. III. Stress-related alterations of gut motor function: role of brain corticotrophin-releasing factor receptors. American Journal of Physiology – Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 280: G173–G177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S. S. L., Shackelton, D. M. and Beames, R. M. 1991. The effect of mixing unfamiliar individuals on the growth and production of finishing pigs. Animal Production 52: 201–206.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P., Ewen, M., Rooke, J. A. and Edwards, S. A. 2000. The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66: 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanLunen, T. A. and Cole, D. J. A. 1996. The effect of lysine/digestible energy ratio on growth performance and nitrogen deposition of hybrid boars, gilts and castrated male pigs. Animal Science 63: 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallgren, P., Lill-Wilen, I. and Fossum, C. 1994. Influence of experimentally induced endogenous production of cortisol on the immune capacity of swine. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 42: 301–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C. T. 1993. The science and practice of pig production, first edition. Blackwell Science, UK.Google Scholar
Widowski, T. M., Curtis, S.E. and Graves, C. N. 1989. The neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio in pigs fed cortisol. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometery. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381–385.Google Scholar