Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:12:06.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divergent selection for residual feed intake in group-housed growing pigs: characteristics of physical and behavioural activity according to line and sex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2014

M. C. Meunier-Salaün ,
C. Guérin ,
Y. Billon ,
P. Sellier ,
J. Noblet  and
H. Gilbert
M. C. Meunier-Salaün*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France
C. Guérin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France
Y. Billon
Affiliation:
INRA, UE1372 GenESI, F-17700 Surgères, France
P. Sellier
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1313 GABI, F-78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
J. Noblet
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus, UMR1348 PEGASE, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France
H. Gilbert
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1313 GABI, F-78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France INRA, UMR1388 GenPhySE, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: marie-christine.salaun@rennes.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the impact of selection for residual feed intake (RFI) on the behavioural activity of lines divergently selected for RFI during seven generations. In all, six successive batches from the seventh generation of selection were raised in collective pens equipped with a single-place electronic feeder (SEF) from 10 weeks of age to 100 kg BW. Each batch included four groups of 12 pigs: high RFI (RFI+) castrated males, RFI+ females, low RFI (RFI−) castrated males, RFI− females. At 17 weeks of age, health criteria were evaluated using a gradient scale for increased severity of lameness, body lesions, bursae and tail biting. Individual behavioural activities were recorded by 24-h video tape on the day after health evaluation. The investigative motivation towards unfamiliar objects was quantified at 18 weeks of age. The daily individual feeding patterns were computed from SEF records during the 4 weeks surrounding 12, 17 and 22 weeks of age. All pigs spent significantly most of their time lying in diurnal (80% of total scan) and nocturnal (>89%) periods. The RFI− pigs showed a lower proportion of health problems (P<0.01) than RFI+ pigs. The RFI− pigs used the SEF less than the RFI+ pigs, in diurnal (5.3% v. 6.4% of video scans, P<0.05) and nocturnal periods (3.6% v. 4.5% of video scans, P<0.05). This was confirmed by a significantly lower daily number and duration of visits to the SEF computed from the SEF data. The feeding activity measured from the video recording was significantly correlated (R>0.34; P<0.05) with feeding patterns computed from the SEF. The RFI− pigs spent less time standing over the 24-h period (9.7% v. 12.2% of scans, i.e. 35 min/day, P<0.05). In terms of energy costs, this amounted to 14% of the line difference in terms of daily metabolizable energy intake. The castrated males used the SEF more than females, especially at night (4.7% v. 3.4% of total scans, P<0.05), whereas females displayed greater investigation of their environment (7.7±0.3% v. 6.6±0.2% of total scans, P<0.05) and the novel objects (10.7% v. 4.9% of total scans, P<0.05). In conclusion, the lower physical activity associated with reduced energy expenditure in RFI− pigs compared with RFI+ pigs contributed significantly to their improved efficiency and was not related to worsened health scores.

Keywords

piggeneticresidual feed intakephysical activitybehaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1898 - 1906
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Arthur, PF, Barchia, IM and Giles, LR 2008. Optimum duration of performance tests for evaluating growing pigs for growth and feed efficiency traits. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1096–1105.Google Scholar
Augspurger, NR, Ellis, M, Hamilton, DN, Wolter, BF, Beverly, JL and Wilson, ER 2002. The effect of sire line on the feeding patterns of grow-finish pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 103–114.Google Scholar
Barea, R, Dubois, S, Gilbert, H, Sellier, P, van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2010. Energy utilization in pigs selected for high and low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2062–2072.Google Scholar
Bryant, KL, Kornegay, ET, Knight, JW, Webb, KE Jr and Notter, D 1985. Supplemental biotin for swine. I. Influence on feedlot performance, plasma biotin and toe lesions in developing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 60, 136–144.Google Scholar
Courboulay, V 2004. Comment l’apport d’objets manipulables en hauteur ou au sol influence-t-il l’activité des porcs charcutiers logés sur caillebotis intégral? Journées Recherche Porcine 36, 389–394.Google Scholar
De Haer, LCM and Merks, JWM 1992. Patterns of daily food intake in growing pigs. Animal Production 54, 95–104.Google Scholar
De Haer, LCM, Luiting, P and Aarts, HLM 1993. Relations among individual (residual) feed intake, growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs in group housing. Livestock Production Science 36, 233–253.Google Scholar
Delumeau, O and Meunier-Salaün, MC 1995. Effect of early trough familiarity on the creep feeding behaviour in suckling piglets and after weaning. Behavioural Processes 34, 185–195.Google Scholar
EFSA 2007. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA Journal 564, 1–14.Google Scholar
Faure, J, Lefaucheur, L, Bonhomme, N, Ecolan, P, Meteau, K, Coustard, SM, Kouba, M, Gilbert, H and Lebret, B 2013. Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality. Meat Science 93, 37–45.Google Scholar
Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2005. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3166–3173.Google Scholar
Gilbert, H, Alaïn, S, Bidanel, JP, Lagant, H, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Noblet, J and Sellier, P 2009. Sélection divergente pour la consommation alimentaire résiduelle chez le porc en croissance: effets corrélatifs sur le comportement alimentaire. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 41, 31–32.Google Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, JP, Gruand, J, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Lagant, H, Noblet, J and Sellier, P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual intake in growing pig with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182–3188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, AJ, Patience, JF, Lonergan, SM, Dekkers, JCM and Gabler, NK 2012. Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 90, 164–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM, Oddy, VH and Richardson, EC 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 423–430.Google Scholar
Kirk, RK, Jorgensen, B and Jensen, HE 2008. The impact of elbow and knee joint lesions on abnormal gait and posture of sows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 5.Google Scholar
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D and Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486–494.Google Scholar
Labroue, F, Guéblez, R, Sellier, P and Meunier-Salaün, MC 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed Large-White and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goff, G, Dubois, S, Van Milgen, J and Noblet, J 2002. Influence of dietary fibre level on digestive and metabolic utilisation of energy in growing and finishing pigs. Animal Research 51, 245–259.Google Scholar
Lepron, E, Bergeron, R, Robert, S, Faucitano, L, Bernier, JF and Pomar, C 2007. Relationship between residual energy intake and the behaviour of growing pigs from three genetic lines. Livestock Science 111, 104–113.Google Scholar
Luiting, P, Schrama, JM, Vanderhel, W and Urff, EM 1991. Metabolic differences between White Leghorns selected for high and low residual food-consumption. British Poultry Science 32, 763–782.Google Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR and English, PR 1995. Comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN and Broom, DM 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Animal Science 62, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Dourmad, JY and Lebret, B 2006. Evaluation comparée de deux systèmes d’élevage par la réponse comportementale des porcs à l’introduction d’un nouvel objet dans le milieu de vie. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 38, 415–420.Google Scholar
Morrison, RS, Johnston, LJ and Hilbrands, AM 2007. The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional confinement system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 12–24.Google Scholar
Müller, R and Schrader, L 2003. A new method to measure behavioural activity levels in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 247–258.Google Scholar
Noblet, J, Shi, XS and Dubois, S 1993. Energy cost of standing activity in sows. Livestock Production Science 34, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastell, M, Tiusanen, J, Hakojärvi, M and Hänninen, L 2009. A wireless accelerometer system with wavelet analysis for assessing lameness in cattle. Biosystems Engineering 104, 545–551.Google Scholar
Perrin, WR and Bowland, JP 1977. Effects of enforced exercise on the incidence of leg weakness in growing boars. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauw, W, Soler, MJ, Tibau, J, Reixach, J and Gomez Raya, L 2006. The relationship between the residual feed intake and feed intake behavior in group-housed Duroc barrows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 956–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadler, LJ, Johnson, AK, Lonergan, SM, Nettleton, D and Dekkers, JCM 2011. The effect of selection for residual feed intake on general behavioural activity and the occurrence of lesions in Yorkshire gilts. Journal of Animal Science 89, 258–266.Google Scholar
Schenck, EL, McMunn, KA, Rosenstein, DS, Stroshine, RL, Nielsen, BD, Richert, BT, Marchant-Forde, JN and Lay, DC Jr 2008. Exercising stall-housed gestating gilts: effects on lameness, the musculo-skeletal system, production and behaviour. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3166–3180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006. Influence of different types of environmental enrichment on the behaviour of finishing pigs in two different housing systems: 1 Hanging toy versus rootable substrate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 222–229.Google Scholar
Studnitz, M, Jensen, MB and Pedersen, LJ 2007. Why do pigs root and in what will they root?: a review on the exploratory behaviour of pigs in relation to environmental enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 183–197.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.Google Scholar
Tribout, T and Bidanel, JP 2000. Genetic parameters of meat quality traits recorded on Large White and French Landrace station-tested pigs in France. In EAAP Publication No 100: quality of meat and fat in pigs as affected by genetics and nutrition (ed. C Wenk, JA Fernandez and M Dupuis), pp. 37–41. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium. Lelystad, The Netherlands. 114pp.Google Scholar
Yazdi, MH, Lundeheim, N, Rydhmer, L, Ringmar-Cederberg, E and Johansson, K 2000. Survival of Swedish Landrace and Yorkshire sows in reaction to osteochondrosis: a genetic study. Animal Science 71, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JM, Cai, W and Dekkers, JCM 2011. Effect of residual feed intake on feeding and daily feed intake patterns in Yorkshire swine. Journal of Animal Science 89, 639–647.Google Scholar
Zonderland, JJ, Bracke, MBM, den Hartog, LA, Kemp, B and Spoolder, HAM 2010. Gender effects on tail damage development in single or mixed sex groups of weaned piglets. Livestock Science 129, 151–158.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 1

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 1

Download Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 1(File)
File 34 MB
Supplementary material: File

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 2

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 2

Download Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 2(File)
File 479.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 3

Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 3

Download Meunier-Salaün supplementary material 3(File)
File 29.6 KB