Advertisement

Impact of housing nursery pigs according to body weight on the onset of feed intake, aggressive behavior, and growth performance

  • J. E. G. Faccin
  • F. Laskoski
  • M. Quirino
  • M. A. D. Gonçalves
  • A. L. Mallmann
  • U. A. D. Orlando
  • A. P. G. Mellagi
  • M. L. Bernardi
  • R. R. Ulguim
  • F. P. BortolozzoEmail author
Regular Articles

Abstract

Housing nursery pigs according to body weight is an observed common practice in production systems and, supposedly, improves growth performance and reduces body weight (BW) variation. This 42-day study evaluated the effects of housing nursery pigs according to BW on performance, onset of feed intake, and aggressive behavior. A total of 504 pigs were ranked by BW at weaning and categorized into three groups of 168 pigs each: light, medium, and heavy. Pigs were randomly distributed to unsorted pens (Unsorted) containing 6 pigs of each weight group and sorted pens with 18 pigs from just one group per pen (Sorted). From weaning to day 3, pigs were fed a diet containing 1% iron oxide dye and rectal swabs presenting red coloration were evaluated to assess feed intake onset. Eight pens were video recorded to evaluate aggressive behavior. Sorted-Heavy pigs delayed the onset of feed intake (P ≤ 0.011) and presented more aggressive behaviors than Sorted-Light and Sorted-Medium pigs (P ≤ 0.036). In Unsorted, onset of feed intake showed no differences between weight categories. Also, no differences were observed for aggressive behavior between Sorted and Unsorted. Final BW showed no differences between Sorted and Unsorted pigs. The within-pen weight coefficient variation (CV) was slightly different (P = 0.042) between Sorted and Unsorted pigs (13.3 and 15.6%, respectively), at the end of the study. Thus, sorting nursery pigs by BW did not improve growth performance and also, induce a lag of post-weaning feed intake onset and increased fights in Heavy pigs.

Keywords

Growth rate Nursery pigs Behavior Housing Bodyweight variability 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of animal rights

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul approved the protocol used in this experiment according to the procedure PROPESQ-UFRGS 30545.

References

  1. Brouns, F., Edwards, S.A., 1994. Social rank and feeding behavior of group housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 39, 225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruininx, E.M.A.M., Van Der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C., Schrama, J.W., Vereijken, P.F.G., Vesseur, P.C., Everts, H., Den Hartog, L.A., Beynen, A.C., 2001. Individually measured feed intake characteristics and growth performance of group-housed weanling pigs: effects of sex, initial body weight, and body weight distribution within groups. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brumm, M.C., Ellis, M., Johnston, L.J., Rozeboom, D.W., Zimmerman D.R., NCR–89 Committee on swine management, 2002. Effect of removal and remixing of lightweight pigs on performance to slaughter. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1166–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cámara, L., Berrocoso, J.D., Fuentetaja, A., López-Bote, C.J, De Blas, C., Mateos, G.G., 2016. Regrouping of pigs by body weight at weaning does not affect growth performance, carcass quality or uniformity at slaughter of heavy weight pigs. Animal Science Journal, 87, 134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D’eath, R.B., 2002. Individual aggressiveness measured in a resident intruder test predicts the persistence of aggressive behavior and weight gain of young pigs after mixing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 77, 267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Langbein, J., Puppe, B., 2004. Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods–a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Laskoski, F., Faccin, J.E.G., Vier, C.M., Gonçalves, M.A.D., Orlando, U.A.D., Kummer, R., Mellagi, A.P.G., Bernardi, M.L., Wentz. I., Bortolozzo, F.P. 2019. Effects of pigs per feeder hole and group size on feed intake onset, growth performance, and ear and tail lesions in nursery pigs with consistent space allowance. Journal of Swine Health and Production, 27, 12–18.Google Scholar
  8. Madec, F., Le Dividich, J., Pluske, J.R., Verstegen, M.W.A, 2003. Environmental requirements and housing of the weaned pig. In: J.R. Pluske, J. Le Dividich, M.W.A. Verstegen (eds), Weaning the pig: concepts and consequences, Wagening, 2003, (Wagening Academic Publishers, Wagening, Netherlands), 337–355.Google Scholar
  9. O’Quinn, P.R., Dritz, S.S., Goodband, R.D., Tokach, M.D., Swanson J.C., Nelseen, J.L., Misser, R.E., 2001. Sorting growing-finishing pigs by weight fails to improve growth performance or weight variation. Journal of Swine Health and Production, 9, 11–16Google Scholar
  10. Patience, J.F., Engele, K., Beaulieu, A.D., Gonyou, H.W., Zijlstra, R.T., 2004.Variation: costs and consequences. In: Proceedings of the 15rd Banff Pork Seminar, Saskatoon, 2004, (Advances in Pork Production, Canada, Volume 15), 257–266Google Scholar
  11. Puppe, B., 1998. Effects of familiarity and relatedness on agonistic pair relationships in newly mixed domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rushen, J.A., 1987. Difference in weight reduces fighting when unacquainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 67, 951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sulabo, R.C., Jacela, J.Y., Tokach, M.D., Dritz, S.S., Goodband, R.D., Derouchey, J.M., Nelssen, J.L., 2010. Effects of lactation feed intake and creep feeding on sow and piglet performance. Journal of Animal Science, 88, 3145–3153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stukenborg, A., Traulsen, I., Puppe, B., Presuhn, U., Krieter, J., 2011. Agonistic behaviour after mixing in pigs under commercial farm conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 129, 28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Williams, I.H., 2003. Growth of the weaned pig. In: J.R. Pluske, J. Le Dividich, M.W.A. Verstegen (eds), Weaning the pig: concepts and consequences, Wagening, 2003, (Wagening Academic Publishers, Wagening, Netherlands), 17–36Google Scholar
  16. Wolter, B.F., Ellis, M., 2001. The effects of weaning weight and rate of growth immediately after weaning on subsequent pig growth performance and carcass characteristics. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 81, 361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wolter, B.F., Ellis, M., Corrigan, B.P., DeDecker, J.M., Curtis, S.E., Parr, E.N., Webel, D.M., 2003. Impact of early postweaning growth rate as affected by diet complexity and space allocation on subsequent growth performance of pigs in a wean-to-finish production system. Journal of Animal Science, 81(2), 353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. G. Faccin
    • 1
  • F. Laskoski
    • 1
  • M. Quirino
    • 1
  • M. A. D. Gonçalves
    • 2
  • A. L. Mallmann
    • 1
  • U. A. D. Orlando
    • 2
  • A. P. G. Mellagi
    • 1
  • M. L. Bernardi
    • 3
  • R. R. Ulguim
    • 1
  • F. P. Bortolozzo
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Veterinary Medicine Department, Veterinary SchoolUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Genus PIC, 100 Bluegrass Commons BlvdHendersonvilleUSA
  3. 3.Animal Science Department, Agronomy SchoolUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations