Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T01:40:57.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of optimal space allowance on growth performance and physiological responses of pigs at different stages of growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

K. H. Kim ,
K. S. Kim ,
J. E. Kim ,
D. W. Kim ,
K. H. Seol ,
S. H. Lee ,
B. J. Chae  and
Y. H. Kim
K. H. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
K. S. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
J. E. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
D. W. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
K. H. Seol
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
S. H. Lee
Affiliation:
College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 34341, Republic of Korea
B. J. Chae
Affiliation:
College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 34341, Republic of Korea
Y. H. Kim*
Affiliation:
Department of Swine Science, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Republic of Korea
*
†E-mail: yhkims@korea.kr
Get access

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the optimal space allowance for maximizing the growth performance of pigs at each of the following five growth stages (based on BW ranges): stage 1, 11 to 25 kg BW; stage 2, 25 to 45 kg BW; stage 3, 45 to 65 kg BW; stage 4, 65 to 85 kg BW; and stage 5, 85 to 110 kg BW. A total of 1590 crossbred (Landrace×Yorkshire×Duroc) pigs were assigned to one of four treatments at each growth stage, with three replicates each. Pen areas at each growth stage were 6, 11, 16, 19.5 and 20 m2 for stages 1 to 5, respectively. Space allowances for the four treatments at each growth stage were modified by varying the number of pigs per pen (22, 25, 28 and 31 pigs in T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively). Blood samples were collected on the final day of each growth stage. The average daily gain (ADG) decreased significantly with decreased space allowances at all growth stages, except at stage 2. Average daily feed intake (ADFI) was not significantly affected by space allowances at stages 1 to 4; however, at stage 5, there was a linear effect of space allowance on ADFI. Thus, the feed conversion ratio showed results similar to those for ADG. Serum cortisol concentrations, indicating the level of stress response, increased as space allowances decreased. The highest serum cortisol concentrations were observed in T3 at stages 2 to 5. Serum tumor necrosis factor-α levels were significantly higher in association with a small space allowance than with at large space allowance at stages 2, 4 and 5. Serum interleukin-1β levels also increased in a significant linear manner at every growth stage in pigs reared at a low space allowance, except at stage 4 (P=0.068). This study found that limited space allowance decreases the growth performance of pigs and induces stress and inflammatory responses. We confirmed that no significant effect of space allowance on growth performance and serum cortisol concentrations are observed between T1 and T2 across all growth stages. We suggest that the optimal space allowances for pigs according to their BW are as follows: 0.24, 0.44, 0.64, 0.78 and 0.80 m2/pig for BWs of 11 to 25, 25 to 45, 45 to 65, 65 to 85 and 85 to 115 kg, respectively.

Keywords

pigspace allowancegrowthstressinflammatory cytokine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 478 - 485
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Arnone, M and Dantzer, R 1980. Does frustration induce aggression in pigs? Applied Animal Ethology 6, 351–362.Google Scholar
Balaji, R, Wright, KJ, Hill, CM, Dritz, SS, Knoppel, EL and Minton, JE 2000. Acute phase responses of pigs challenged orally with Salmonella typhimurium . Journal of Animal Science 78, 1885–1891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Newman, EA, McCallum, TH and Chilton, D 1992. Effects of pen size, partial stalls and method of feeding on welfare-related behavioural and physiological responses of group-housed pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, BA, Nienaber, JA, Christenson, RK, Manak, RC, DeShazer, JA and Hahn, GL 1985. Peripheral concentrations of cortisol as an indicator of stress in the pig. American Journal of Veterinary Research 46, 1034–1038.Google Scholar
Brumm, MC, Ellis, M, Johnston, LJ, Rozeboom, DW and Zimmerman, DR, NCR-89 Committee on Swine Management 2001. Interaction of swine nursery and grow-finish space allocations on performance. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1967–1972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brumm, MC and Miller, PS 1996. Response of pigs to space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2730–2737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, JH and Kim, IH 2011. Effect of stocking density on pig production. African Journal of Biotechnology 10, 13688–13692.Google Scholar
Colditz, IG 2002. Effects of the immune system on metabolism: implications for production and disease resistance in livestock. Livestock Production Science 75, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, NJ, Schaefer, AL, Lepage, P and Jones, SM 1996. Salivary vs. serum cortisol for the assessment of adrenal activity in swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 329–335.Google Scholar
Dinarello, CA 2000. Proinflammatory cytokines. Chest 118, 503–508.Google Scholar
Dubreuil, P, Couture, Y, Farmer, C and Petitclerc, D 1993. Hematological and biochemical changes following an acute stress in control and somatostatin-immunized pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73, 241–252.Google Scholar
Duncan, DB 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, MS, Arentson, BE and Mente, GA 1998. Effect of protein levels and space allocations on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 814–821.Google Scholar
Eisemann, JH and Argenzio, RA 1999. Effects of diet and housing density on growth and stomach morphology in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2709–2714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, J, Molina, PE, Gelato, MC and Lang, CH 1994. Differential tissue regulation of insulin-like growth factor-I content and binding proteins after endotoxin. Endocrinology 134, 1685–1692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fossum, C 1998. Cytokines as markers for infections and their effect on growth performance and well-being in the pig. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 15, 439–444.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, TJ 1981. Observations on the effects of stocking rate on the performance of gilts and boars to bacon weight. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science 11, 141–151.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Rice, M, Nash, J, Giri, K, Butler, KL, Tilbrook, AJ and Morrison, RS 2013. Effects of group size and floor space allowance on grouped sows: aggression, stress, skin injuries, and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4953–4964.Google Scholar
Hicks, TA, McGlone, JJ, Whisnant, CS, Kattesh, HG and Norman, RL 1998. Behavioral, endocrine, immune, and performance measures for pigs exposed to acute stress. Journal of Animal Science 76, 474–483.Google Scholar
Kelly, K 1980. Stress and immune functions: a bibliographic review. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 11, 445–478.Google Scholar
Korean Feeding Standard for Swine 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 2nd revised edition. National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju-gun, Republic of Korea.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ and Curtis, SE 1985. Behavior and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. Journal of Animal Science 60, 20–24.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ and Newby, BE 1994. Space requirements for finishing pigs in confinement: behavior and performance while group size and space vary. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 331–338.Google Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Salak, JL, Lumpkin, EA, Nicholson, RI, Gibson, M and Norman, RL 1993. Shipping stress and social status effects on pig performance, plasma cortisol, natural killer cell activity, and leukocyte numbers. Journal of Animal Science 71, 888–896.Google Scholar
Morrow-Tesch, JL, McGlone, JJ and Salak-Johnson, JL 1994. Heat and social stress effects on pig immune measures. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2599–2609.Google Scholar
Murtaugh, MP, Baarsch, MJ, Zhou, Y, Scamurra, RW and Lin, G 1996. Inflammatory cytokines in animal health and disease. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 54, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, HK, Choi, HB, Ju, WS, Chung, CS and Kim, YY 2010. Effects of space allocation on growth performance and immune system in weaning pigs. Livestock Science 132, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, RF and Misson, BH 1989. Changes in pig salivary cortisol in response to transport simulation, food and water deprivation, and mixing. British Veterinary Journal 145, 501–505.Google Scholar
Schmolke, SA, Li, YZ and Gonyou, HW 2003. Effect of group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 874–878.Google Scholar
Street, BR and Gonyou, HW 2008. Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Journal of Animal Science 86, 982–991.Google Scholar
Van Heugten, E, Coffey, MT and Spears, JW 1996. Effects of immune challenge, dietary energy density, and source of energy on performance and immunity in weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2431–2440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeer, HM, de Greef, KH and Houwers, HWJ 2014. Space allowance and pen size affect welfare indicators and performance of growing pigs under comfort class conditions. Livestock Science 159, 79–86.Google Scholar
Webel, DM, Finck, BN, Baker, DH and Johnson, RW 1997. Time course of increased plasma cytokines, cortisol, and urea nitrogen in pigs following intraperitoneal injection of lipopolysaccharide. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1514–1520.Google Scholar