Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T17:34:40.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foraging behaviour, nutrient intake from pasture and performance of free-range growing pigs in relation to feed CP level in two organic cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2015

M. Jakobsen ,
A. G. Kongsted  and
J. E. Hermansen
M. Jakobsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Blichers Allé 20, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
A. G. Kongsted
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Blichers Allé 20, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
J. E. Hermansen
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Blichers Allé 20, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: malene.jakobsen@agro.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

In organic pig production one of the major challenges is to be able to fulfil amino acid requirements based on organic and locally grown protein feed crops. The pig is an opportunistic omnivore with a unique capacity for foraging above and below the soil surface. It is hypothesized that direct foraging in the range area can pose an important contribution in terms of fulfilling nutrient requirements of growing pigs. Foraging activity, lucerne nutrient intake and pig performance were investigated in 36 growing pigs, foraging on lucerne or grass and fed either a standard organic pelleted feed mixture (HP: high protein) or a grain mixture containing 48% less CP (LP: low protein) compared with the high protein feed mixture, from an average live weight of 58 kg to 90 kg in a complete block design in three replicates. The pigs were fed 80% of energy recommendations and had access to 4 m2 of pasture/pig per day during the 40 days experimental period from September to October 2013. Behavioural observations were carried out 12 times over the entire experimental period. For both crops, LP pigs rooted significantly more compared with HP pigs but the effect of CP level was more pronounced in grass (44% v. 19% of all observations) compared with lucerne (28% v. 16% of all observations). Feed protein level turned out not to have any significant effect on grazing behaviour but pigs foraging on lucerne grazed significantly more than pigs foraging on grass (10% v. 4% of all observations). Daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio were significantly affected by feed protein and forage crop interactions. Compared to HP pigs, LP treated pigs had 33% lower daily weight gain (589 v. 878 g) and 31% poorer feed conversion ratio (3.75 v. 2.59 kg feed/kg weight gain) in grass paddocks, whereas in lucerne paddocks LP pigs only had 18% lower daily weight gain (741 v. 900 g) and a 14% poorer feed conversion ratio (2.95 v. 2.54 kg feed/kg weight gain) compared with HP pigs. LP pigs foraging on lucerne used 169 g less concentrate CP/kg weight gain, compared with HP pigs, indicating the nitrogen efficiency of the system. The results indicate that direct foraging of lucerne may be a valuable strategy in terms of accommodating CP and lysine requirements of organic growing pigs.

Keywords

organicgrowing pigsbehaviourforage intakeperformance
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 2006 - 2016
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Andresen, N 2000. The foraging pig. Resource Utilization, Interaction, Performance and Behaviour of pigs in Cropping Systems. Thesis PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Andresen, N and Redbo, I 1999. Foraging behaviour of growing pigs on grass land in relation to stocking rate and feed CP level. Applied Animal Behaviour 62, 183–197.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Håndbog i svinehold. Landbrugsforlaget, Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Bonde, MT, Rousing, T, Badsberg, JH and Sørensen, JT 2004. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Production Science 87, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D, Lærke, HN, Poulsen, HD and Jørgensen, H 1999. Roughages for growing pigs, with emphasis on chemical composition, ingestion and faecal digestibility. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 49, 129–136.Google Scholar
Council Regulation No. 889, EC 2008. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:250:0001:0084:EN:PDF Google Scholar
Council Regulation No. 836, EU 2014. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 836/2014 of 31 July 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0836&from=EN Google Scholar
Edwards, S 2003. Intake of nutrients from pasture by pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62, 257–265.Google Scholar
Eriksen, J and Kristensen, K 2001. Nutrient excretion by outdoor pigs: a case study of distribution, utilization and potential for environmental impact. Soil Use and Management 17, 21–29.Google Scholar
EU Regulation (EC) 2009. Commission Regulation No 152/2009. Laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:054:0001:0130:EN:PDF Google Scholar
Eurofins Steins 2013. Eurofins Steins Laboratory. Retrieved November 3, 2013, from http://www.eurofins.dk/dk/f0devarer-agro.aspx Google Scholar
Greve, MV 2013. Jordbundsdata. Retrieved November 11, 2014, from http://www.djfgeodata.dk/datasaml/jord2.html Google Scholar
Gustafson, GM and Stern, S 2003. Two strategies for meeting energy demands of growing pigs at pasture. Livestock Production Science 80, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B 1989. Determination of nitrogen as elementary-N, an alternative to Kjeldahl. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, EM, Djurhuus, J and Kristensen, K 2000. Lang- eller kortvarig dyrkning af rajgræs som efterafgrøde på sandjord (Grøn Viden, markbrug no. 221. Afdeling for Jordbrugssystemer, Forskningscenter Foulum, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Hanson, RP and Karstad, L 1959. Feral swine in the south-eastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 23, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermansen, JE, Eriksen, J and Oksbjerg, N 2005. Slagtesvin på græs – produktionsmæssige muligheder og miljømæssige risici. Science News on Organic Farming in the Nordic Countries 4, 16–18.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, SM, López, IF and Navarrete, S 2009. Ingestion of energy, protein and amino acids from pasture by grazing European wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in a semi-extensive production system. Livestock Science 122, 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsted, K, Kongsted, AG, Jørgensen, U and Sørensen, J 2012. Combined production of free-range pigs and energy crops-animal behaviour and crop damages. Livestock Science 150, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høøk Presto, M, Andersson, HK, Folestam, SF and Lindberg, JE 2008. Activity behaviour and social interactions of pigs raised outdoors and indoors. Archiv Tierzucht, Dummerstorf 51, 338–350.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, M 2014. Organic growing pigs in pasture systems – effect of feeding strategy and cropping system on foraging activity, nutrient intake from the range area and pig performance. Master Thesis, Science and Technology, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1993. The activity and straw directed behaviour of pigs offered foods with different CP content. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 211–221.Google Scholar
Kanga, JS, Kanengoni, AT, Makgothi, OG and Baloyi, JJ 2012. Estimating pasture intake and nutrient digestibility of growing pigs fed a concentrate-forage diet by n-alkane and acid-insoluble markers. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47, 1797–1802.Google Scholar
Kongsted, AG, Horsted, K and Hermansen, JE 2013. Free-range pigs foraging on Jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosus L.) – effect of feeding strategy on growth, feed conversion and animal behaviour. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 63, 76–83.Google Scholar
Kyntäjä, SK, Partanen, P, Siljander-Rasi, H and Jalava, T 2014. Tables of composition and nutritional values of organically produced feed materials for pigs and poultry. MTT Report 164, Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://orgprints.org/28116/ Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I 1994. The voluntary food intake and diet selection of pigs. In Principles of pig science (ed. DJA Cole, J Wiseman and MA Varley), pp. 85–105. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1991. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein contents. Animal Production 52, 337–346.Google Scholar
Little, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW and Wolfinger, RD 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Madsen, MT, Mcevoy, F, Nielsen, MBF and Svalastoga, E 2008. Sammenhæng mellem spæktykkelse og poltes indhold af fedt. Notification No. 814, Knowledge Centre for Pig Production, Denmark. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://vsp.lf.dk/Publikationer/Kilder/lu_medd/2008/814.aspx?full=1 Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Mogensen, L, Kristensen, T, Nguyen, L and Knudsen, MT 2011. Udledningen af klimagasser fra dyrkning, forarbejdning og transport af foder. In Kvæg og klima. Udledning af klimagasser fra kvægbedriften med fokus på metan emissionen (DCA – Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture, Report No. 001, ed. T Kristensen and P Lund), ), pp. 73–100. Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mowat, D, Watson, CA, Mayes, RW, Kelly, H, Browning, H and Edwards, SA 2001. Herbage intake of growing pigs in an outdoor organic production system. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Penicuik, Lothian, UK, pp. 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachuonyo, HA, Allen, VG and McGlone, JJ 2005. Behavior, preference for, and use of lucerne, tall fescue, white clover, and buffalograss by pregnant gilts in an outdoor production system. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2225–2234.Google Scholar
Riart, GR 2002. Some aspects of outdoor pig production in Argentina. Thesis PhD, University of Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Rivero, J, López, I and Hodgkinson, S 2013. Pasture consumption and grazing behaviour of European wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) under continuous and rotational grazing systems. Livestock Science 154, 175–183.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Estévez, V, García, A, Peña, F and Gómez, AG 2009. Foraging of Iberian pigs grazing natural pasture in the dehesa. Livestock Science 120, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, CJ and Williams, WT 1983. Ingestion of earthworms, Pontoscolex corethrurus, by village pigs, Sus scrofa papuensis, in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Applied Animal Ethology 11, 131–139.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 1990. SAS/STAT® users guide. SAS Institute Inc, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schley, L and Roper, TJ 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Review 33, 43–56.Google Scholar
Smith, J and Bauer, C 2014. Can the range contribute to the nutritional needs of organic pigs and poultry? ICOPP REPORTS. Organic Research Centre, UK.Google Scholar
Sommer, SG, Søgaard, HT, Møller, HB and Morsing, S 2001. Ammonia volatilization from sows on grassland. Atmospheric Environment 35, 2023–2032.Google Scholar
Stern, S and Andresen, N 2003. Performance, site preferences, foraging and excretory behaviour in relation to feed allowance of growing pigs on pasture. Livestock Production Science 79, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strudsholm, K and Hermansen, JE 2005. Performance and carcass quality of fully or partly outdoor reared pigs in organic production. Livestock Production Science 96, 261–268.Google Scholar
Studnitz, M 2001. Influence of nose ringing on the behaviour and welfare of outdoor gilts. Thesis PhD, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Sundrum, A, Schneider, K and Richter, U 2005. Possibilities and limitations of protein supply in organic poultry and pig production. Final Project Report EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision, no. D 4.1 (Part 1). University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, Department of Animal Nutrition and Animal Health, Kassel, Germany. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from http://orgprints.org/10983/ Google Scholar
Tybirk, P 2012. Fodervurdering. Knowledge Centre for pig production. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://vsp.lf.dk/Viden/Foder/Raavarer/Fodervurdering.aspx?full=1 Google Scholar
Weltin, J, Alarcon, AC, Salomé, L, Berger, U and Bellof, G 2014. Luzernesilage aus spezieller Nutzung und technologischer Aufbereitung in der ökologischen Geflügel- und Schweinefütterung. Hochschule Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Fakultät Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft, Fachgebiet Tierernährung, Freising, Germany. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://orgprints.org/26279/ Google Scholar