Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:37:48.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of feeding behaviour and performance of weaned pigs given food in two types of dry feeders with integrated drinkers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. Laitat ,
M. Vandenheede ,
A. Désiron ,
B. Canart  and
B. Nicks
M. Laitat
Affiliation:
Service de Médecine Porcine et Gestion des Exploitations Porcines
M. Vandenheede
Affiliation:
Service d’Hygiène et Bioclimatologie, University of Liège, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 4000 Liège, Belgium
A. Désiron
Affiliation:
Service d’Hygiène et Bioclimatologie, University of Liège, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 4000 Liège, Belgium
B. Canart
Affiliation:
Service d’Hygiène et Bioclimatologie, University of Liège, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 4000 Liège, Belgium
B. Nicks
Affiliation:
Service d’Hygiène et Bioclimatologie, University of Liège, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Performance of 80 (tests 1 and 2) or 60 (tests 3 and 4) weaned pigs were compared when using ‘Tubetype’ feeder (T), allowing the animals to mix meal and drinking water, or another type (V) where drinking and eating places are separated. The difference in growth rate was not significant but the mean daily water consumption (1 per pig per day) was higher with T than with V in each test but significantly only in tests 1 and 3 (1·84 v. 1·40, and 2·11 v. 1·26, P < 0·01).

Feeding behaviour was assessed during tests 2 and 4. Multifactor analysis of variance revealed effects (P < 0·01) of feeder, group size and period of the day on the occupation time and the average number of animals using the feeders simultaneously. These two variables were higher for V than for T (test 2: 23·4 per 24 h v. 21·5 per 24 h and 4·5 v. 3·7, P < 0·05; test 4: 20·0 per 24 h v. 18·2 per 24 h, P< 0·01). In each test, both feeders were used for a longer time and by more piglets during the ‘day’ than during the ‘night’ (P < 0·01). When grouping 40 pigs, animals used both feeders during almost all the day period (V: 15·9 per 16 h and T: 15·8 per 16 h). During the night period, this was only true with V (V: 7·4 per 8 h; T: 5·8 per 8 h). The use of feeder V in crowded conditions thus prevented preferential diurnal feeding activity, commonly described in pigs. In conclusion, even if productivity is not affected, feeding behaviour and thus eventually welfare are influenced by the type of feeder, especially with high numbers of animals.

Keywords

feeding behaviourfeed dispensersperformancepigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Anonymous. 1989. Single space feeders: principles of design. Pig International 19: 32–36.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. Water use and feed consumption by weaners. Pig International 21: 24.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1986. The design of the feeding environment for the pig. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen. Google Scholar
Baxter, M. R. 1992. The space requirements of housed livestock. In Farm animals and the environment (ed. Phillips, C. and Piggins, D., pp. 67–81. C.A.B. International, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Baxter, S. 1984. Intensive pig production: environmental management and design. Granada Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J. A. and Houpt, T. R. 1988. Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs. Physiology and Behavior 43: 99–109.Google Scholar
Feddés, J. J. R., Young, B. A. and DeShazer, J. A. 1989. Influence of temperature and light on feeding behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 215–222.Google Scholar
Labroue, F., Guéblez, R., Sellier, P. and Meunier-Salaün, M. C. 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 Dividich, J. 1981. Effects of environmental temperature on the growth rates of early-weaned piglets. Livestock Production Science 8: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Dividiert, J. and Noblet, J. 1982. Growth rate and protein and fat gain in early-weaned piglets housed below thermoneutrality. Livestock Production Science 9: 731–742.Google Scholar
Marlier, D., Nicks, B., Canart, B. and Shehi, R. 1994. Comparaison de l’évolution de 2 litières biomaîtrisées à base de sciure ou de paille, pour porcs à l’engraissement. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire 138: 43–53.Google Scholar
Maton, A. and Daelemans, J. 1991. Study of the wet-feed hopper versus the dry-feed hopper for finishing pigs. Revue de l’Agriculture 44: 763–773.Google Scholar
Maton, A. and Daelemans, J. 1992a. Third comparative study viz. the circular wet-feeder versus the dry-feed hopper for ad libitum feeding and general conclusions cone. wet feeding versus dry feeding of finishing pigs. Revue de l’Agriculture 45: 531–539.Google Scholar
Maton, A. and Daelemans, J. 1992b. The impact of feeding devices on water consumption by finishing pigs. Revue de l’Agriculture 45: 685–690.Google Scholar
Morrow, A. T. S. and Walker, N. 1994. Effects of number and siting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 122: 465–470.Google Scholar
Nicks, B., De’siron, A. and Canart, B. 1995. Bilan environnemental et zootechique de l’engraissement de 4 lots de porcs sur litière biomaîtrisée. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 27: 337–342.Google Scholar
Nicks, B, De’siron, A., Canart, B. and Clinquart, A. 1996. Comparaison des performances de porcs élevés sur litières ou sur caillebotis. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire 140: 445–450.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. L., Lawrence, A. B. and Whittemore, C. T. 1996. Feeding behaviour of growing pigs using single or multi-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47: 235–246.Google Scholar
Pluske, J. R. and Williams, I. H. 1996. The influence of feeder type and the method of group allocation at weaning on voluntary feed intake and growth in piglets. Animal Science 62: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. T. 1994. Pig housing. In Livestock housing, (ed. Wathes, C. M. and Charles, D. R.), pp. 273–304. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Walker, N. 1990a. The influence of hopper-type feeders on performance of pigs. Pig News and Information 11: 31–33.Google Scholar
Walker, N. 1990b. A comparison of single- and multi-space feeders for growing pigs fed non-pelleted diets ad libitum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 1–4.Google Scholar
Walker, N. 1991. The effects on performance and behaviour of number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35: 3–13.Google Scholar
Young, R. J. and Lawrence, A. B. 1994. Feeding behaviour of pigs in groups monitored by a computerized feeding system. Animal Production 58: 145–152.Google Scholar