Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:05:39.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth performance and carcass characteristics of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. H. Guy ,
P. Rowlinson ,
J. P. Chadwick  and
M. Ellis
J. H. Guy
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE 1 7RU, UK
P. Rowlinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE 1 7RU, UK
J. P. Chadwick
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE 1 7RU, UK
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE 1 7RU, UK
Get access

Abstract

A trial was conducted to compare the growth performance and carcass characteristics of 720 growing pigs housed in one of three different finishing systems: outdoor paddocks, straw yards and fully slatted pens. Two genotypes were used: ‘indoor’ (progeny of Large White ✕ Landrace sows mated to Large White boars) or ‘outdoor’ (progeny of part-Duroc or part-Meishan sows, mated to Large White boars). Groups of 20 pigs were reared from an average of 30 to 80 kg live weight and given ad libitum access to a commercial specification diet. The outdoor genotypes had significantly lower average daily gain than the indoor genotype (682, 673 and 719 g respectively for part-Duroc, part-Meishan and indoor-type pigs, P 0·01). Part-Meishan genotypes had significantly higher backfat levels than the indoor genotype (P 0·05), with an intermediate value for part-Duroc pigs (22·6, 21·1 and 21·8 mm respectively). Values for food conversion ratio were significantly higher for combined outdoor genotype groups when compared with the indoor genotype (2·76 v. jt>2·62, P 0·05). Average daily gains of pigs in straw yards and outdoor paddocks were significantly higher than for those in fully slatted pens (736 and 675 v. 627 g, P 0·01 respectively). Food conversion ratio was similar for pigs in outdoor paddocks and fully slatted pens, but significantly lower for those in straw yards (2·77 and 2·75 v. 2·55, P 0·01 respectively). Backfat depth (P1 + P3 mm) was significantly greater for animals finished in straw yards compared to those in outdoor paddocks (22·2 v. 20·6 mm, P 0·05) and intermediate for those finished in fully slatted pens (21·5 mm). Interaction between finishing system and genotype did not occur to any major degree, hence it appears unnecessary to specify a particular genotype for a particular finishing system. It was concluded that pigs of the outdoor genotype had a lower growth performance compared with the indoor genotype. Finishing systems however may have been confounded by other factors so that no clear recommendations can be made as to the optimum finishing system.

Keywords

carcass qualitygenotypespig housingperformance
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , June 2002 , pp. 493 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Arey, D. S. 1993. The effect of bedding on the behaviour and welfare of pigs. Animal Welfare 2: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, M., Roden, J. A., MacPherson, O., Willox, G. and English, P. R. 1993. A comparison of a straw-based and slatted floor housing system for the weaned pig. Animal Production 56: 477 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Chadwick, J. P. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A repeat national survey (ten years on) of muscle pH values in commercial bacon carcasses. Meat Science 9: 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Wood, J. D., Moncrieff, C. B. and Porter, S. J. 1992. Comparison of the Duroc and Large White as terminal sire breeds and their effect on pigmeat quality. Animal Production 54: 289–297.Google Scholar
Ellis, M. and McKeith, F. K. 1993. Factors affecting the eating quality of pork. In Growth of the pig (ed. Hollis, G. R.), pp. 215–239. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Etter-Kjelsaas, H. 1986. [Pig rearing in the open-fronted, deep-litter stall.] Tierhaltung, Band 16, p. 173 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Guy, J. H., Rowlinson, P., Chadwick, J. P. and Ellis, M. 2002a. Behaviour of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, J. H., Rowlinson, P., Chadwick, J. P. and Ellis, M. 2002b. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livestock Production Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S., D’Agaro, E. and Ellis, M. 1992. Genetic components of growth and ultrasonic fat depth traits in Meishan and Large White pigs and their reciprocal crosses. Animal Production 54: 105–115.Google Scholar
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1994. The welfare of livestock regulations 1994. SI 1994, no. 2126, Her Majestey’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M. 1993. Free-range pigs. Meat Focus International September: 396–398.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Evans, D. G. and Chadwick, J. P. 1984. The effects of source population, feeding regimen, sex and day of slaughter on the muscle quality characteristics of British crossbred pigs. Animal Production 39: 455–464.Google 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
Lee, P., Cormack, W. F. and Simmins, P. H. 1995. Performance of pigs grown outdoors during conversion of land to organic status and indoors on diets without growth promoters. Pig News and Information 16: 47N–49N.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. A. P., Bruce, J. M., Fowler, V. R. and English, P. R. 1995. A comparison of the productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43: 265–274.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1985. Rindside damage scale. MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1995. Pig yearbook (1995), p. 52. MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Ognik, W. D. 1981. [Influence of housing during the post weaning period on later finishing performance. Finishing performance of pigs reared in an open stall on straw and on a raised metal mesh floor.] Sterksel, Netherlands, Varkensproef bedrijf Zuid en West Nederland 21: 30 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Pearce, C. A. 1993. Behaviour and other indices of welfare in grower/finisher pigs kept in straw-flow, bare-concrete, full-slats and deep-straw. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Ruiterkamp, W. A. 1987. The behaviour of growing pigs in relation to housing. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67–70.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A. G., Shaw, J. M., Edwards, S. A., Hoste, S. and McCartney, A. 1999. The effect of dietary protein level on milk yield and composition and piglet growth and composition of the Meishan synthetic and European White breeds of sow. Animal Science 68: 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, H. A. M. van der. 1994. Genotypes for outdoor production. Pig News and Information 15: 129N–130N.Google Scholar
Wal, P. G. van der, Mateman, G., Vries, A. W. de, Vonder, G. M. A., Smulders, F. J. M., Geesink, G. H. and Engel, B. 1993. Scharrel (free range) pigs: carcass composition, meat quality and taste panel studies. Meat Science 34: 27–37.Google Scholar
Warriss, P. D., Kestin, S. C. and Robinson, J. M. 1983. A note on the influence of rearing environment on meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 9: 271–279.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1993. The science and practice of pig production. Longman, Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex.Google Scholar