Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-mnmn6 Total loading time: 0.463 Render date: 2021-03-08T23:00:48.067Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2013

P. S. Agostini
Affiliation:
Grup de Nutrició, Maneig i Benestar Animal, Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
A. G. Fahey
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Belfield, Ireland
E. G. Manzanilla
Affiliation:
Grup de Nutrició, Maneig i Benestar Animal, Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
J. V. O’Doherty
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Belfield, Ireland
C. de Blas
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Escuela Técnica de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
J. Gasa
Affiliation:
Grup de Nutrició, Maneig i Benestar Animal, Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of animal management and farm facilities on total feed intake (TFI), feed conversion ratio (FCR) and mortality rate (MORT) of grower-finishing pigs. In total, 310 batches from 244 grower-finishing farms, consisting of 454 855 Pietrain sired pigs in six Spanish pig companies were used. Data collection consisted of a survey on management practices (season of placement, split-sex by pens, number of pig origins, water source in the farm, initial or final BW) and facilities (floor, feeder, ventilation or number of animals placed) during 2008 and 2009. Results indicated that batches of pigs placed between January and March had higher TFI (P=0.006), FCR (P=0.005) and MORT (P=0.03) than those placed between July and September. Moreover, batches of pigs placed between April and June had lower MORT (P=0.003) than those placed between January and March. Batches which had split-sex pens had lower TFI (P=0.001) and better FCR (P<0.001) than those with mixed-sex in pens; pigs fed with a single-space feeder with incorporated drinker also had the lowest TFI (P<0.001) and best FCR (P<0.001) in comparison to single and multi-space feeders without a drinker. Pigs placed in pens with <50% slatted floors presented an improvement in FCR (P<0.05) than pens with 50% or more slatted floors. Batches filled with pigs from multiple origins had higher MORT (P<0.001) than those from a single origin. Pigs housed in barns that performed manual ventilation control presented higher MORT (P<0.001) in comparison to automatic ventilation. The regression analysis also indicated that pigs which entered to grower-finisher facilities with higher initial BW had lower MORT (P<0.05) and finally pigs which were sent to slaughterhouse with a higher final BW presented higher TFI (P<0.001). The variables selected for each dependent variable explained 61.9%, 24.8% and 20.4% of the total variability for TFI, FCR and MORT, respectively. This study indicates that farms can increase growth performance and reduce mortality by improving farm facilities and/or modifying management practices.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anderson, DM, VanLunen, TA and Sproule, D 1990. Performance of grower finisher pigs obtaining feed from dry feeders or wet/dry feeders with different feeding spaces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 11971198.Google Scholar
Björklund, L and Boyle, LA 2006. Effects of finishing boars in mixed and single sex groups and split marketing on pig welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48 (suppl. 1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, HL, Song, JI, Lee, JH and Albright, LD 2010. Comparison of natural and forced ventilation systems in nursery pig houses. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 26, 10231033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giersing, M and Andersson, A 1998. How does former acquaintance affect aggressive behaviour in repeatedly mixed male and female pigs? Applied Animal Behavior Science 59, 297306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW and Lou, W 2000. Effects of eating space and availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating behavior of grower/finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 865870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacker, RR, Ogilvie, JR, Morrison, WD and Kains, F 1994. Factors affecting excretory behavior of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 14551460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, DL and Alexander, TJ 1999. Methods of disease control. In Diseases of swine, 8th edition (ed. BE, Straw, S, D’Allaire, WL, Mengling and DJ, Taylor), pp. 10771110. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google ScholarPubMed
Hill, GM, Baido, SK, Cromwell, GL, Mahan, DC, Nelssen, JL and Stein, HH 2007. Evaluation of sex and lysine during the nursery period. Journal of Animal Science 85, 14531458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, TB, Toft, N, Bonde, MK, Kongsted, AG, Kristensen, AR and Sørensen, JT 2012. Herd and sow-related risk factors for mortality in sows in group-housed systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 103, 3137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larriestra, AJ, Maes, DG, Deen, J and Morrison, RB 2005. Mixed models applied to the study of variation of grower-finisher mortality and culling rates of a large swine production system. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 69, 2631.Google ScholarPubMed
Latorre, MA, Iguácel, F, Sanjoaquín, L and Revilla, R 2009. Effect of sire breed on carcass characteristics and meat and fat quality of heavy pigs reared outdoor and intended for dry cured meat production. Animal 3, 461467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Losinger, WC, Bush, EJ, Smith, MA and Corso, BA 1998. An analysis of mortality in the grower/finisher phase of swine production in the United States. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 33, 121145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, D, Duchateau, L, Larriestra, AJ, Deen, J, Morrison, RB and de Kruif, A 2004. Risk factors for mortality in grow-finishing pigs in Belgium. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series B Infections Diseases and Veterinary Public Health 51, 321326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, D, Deluyker, H, Verdonck, M, Castryck, F, Miry, C, Vrijens, B and de Kruif, A 2000. Herd factors associated with the seroprevalences of four major respiratory pathogens in slaughter pigs from farrow-to-finish pig herds. Veterinary Research 31, 313327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, AJ, Goodband, RD, Tokach, MD, Dritz, SS, Bergstrom, JR, DeRouchey, JM and Nelssen, JL 2010. The effects of feeder-trough space and gap setting on growth performance of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93 (suppl. 1), 562563.Google Scholar
Oliveira, J, Guitián, J and Yus, E 2007. Effect of introducing piglets from farrow-to-finish breeding farms into all-in all-out fattening batches in Spain on productive parameters and economic profit. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80, 243256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, J, Yus, E and Guitián, J 2009. Effects of management, environmental and temporal factors on mortality and feed consumptions in integrated swine fattening farms. Livestock Production Science 123, 221229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DC 1991. A comparison of offering meal and pellets to finishing pigs from self-feed hoppers with and without built-in watering. Animal Feed Science and Technology 34, 2936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, HG 1991. The evaluation of single-space and wet-and-dry feeders for the Australian environment. In Manipulating Pig Production III (ed. ES, Batterham), pp. 158161. Australasian Pig Science Association, Albury, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, SV, Jensen, TB, Plà, LM and Kristensen, AR 2011. Optimal replacement policies and economic value of clinical observations in sow herds. Livestock Production Science 138, 207219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, N, Eveno, E, Grasland, B, Nignol, AC, Oger, A, Jestin, A and Madec, F 2009. Individual risk factors for Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) in pigs: a hierarchical Bayesian survival analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 90, 168179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saha, CK, Zhang, G, Kai, P and Bjerg, B 2010. Effects of a partial pit ventilation system on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from a fattening pig room. Biosystems Engineering 105, 279287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Y and Koketsu, Y 2008. Mortality, death interval, survivals, and herd factors for death in gilts and sows in commercial breeding herds. Journal of Animal Science 86, 31593165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Fels-Klerx, HJ, Puister-Jansen, LF, van Asselt, ED and Burgers, SLGE 2011. Farm factors associated with the use of antibiotics in pig production. Journal of Animal Science 89, 19221929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heugten, E 2010. Growing-finishing swine nutrient recommendations and feeding management. In National Swine Nutrition Guide (ed. DJ, Meisinger), pp. 8095. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 63
Total number of PDF views: 506 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *