HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2007-0449v1 86/4/982    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Street, B. R. Articles by Gonyou, H. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Street, B. R. Articles by Gonyou, H. W.

Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables¹

Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A8; and Prairie Swine Centre Inc., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7H 5N9

² Corresponding author: harold.gonyou{at}usask.ca

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 m²/ pig (crowded) or 0.78 m²/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.

Key Words: pigs • behavior • group size • health • productivity • space allowance