Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:07:22.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling feeding behaviour, rate of feed passage and daily feeding cycles, as possible causes of fatigued pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

C. R. G. Lewis  and
J. J. McGlone
C. R. G. Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2141, USA
J. J. McGlone*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2141, USA
*
†E-mail: john.mcglone@ttu.edu
Get access

Abstract

This study was initiated to understand whether feeding behaviour and physiology may contribute to the rate of fatigued pigs at processing plants. Specifically, this study sought to determine: (1) how often pigs eat during the day, (2) the times of the day they eat and (3) a first approximation of the time from feed consumption to excretion (rate of passage) when housed in a group in conventional finishing facilities. Finally, models were constructed to try to predict the percentage of pigs with empty/diminished gastrointestinal (GI) tracts depending on the time of day of truck loading and transport durations. Pigs were randomly selected, weighed and selected for behavioural observations. From video records and live observations, the number of meals (feeding bouts) per day and the time of the day meals took place were recorded. Feed containing chromic oxide was fed to determine when a given meal was excreted. With the feeding times of day determined, models were constructed of the percentage of pigs that would have empty stomachs depending on the time of day pigs were removed from the barn and the length of transport/lairage. Finishing pigs housed in groups ate 5.6 ± 0.6 meals per day with an average feeding bout (meal) length of 11.3 ± 1.1 min. Many pigs fed ad libitum ate most of their meals during the afternoon and evening. The rate of passage of feed was 20.5 h (range = 18 to 24 h). Because fewer pigs ate in the late evening through morning, if pigs were shipped at these times they would have an increased risk of arriving at the stun at a plant with an empty GI tract. Some of the variation in rates of fatigued pigs and pork quality may be explained by times of day taken off feed and transport duration. Shipping in the afternoon or early evening may result in fewer pigs with empty/diminished GI tracts at processing which may influence the rate of fatigued pigs and pork quality.

Keywords

behaviourboutfatigued pigfeed passagepig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , April 2008 , pp. 600 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Benjamin, M 2005. Pig trucking and handling – stress and fatigued pig. Advances in Pork Production 16, 57–66.Google Scholar
Bidner, BS, Ellis, M, Miller, KD, Hemann, M, Campion, D, McKeith, FK 1999. Effect of the RN gene and feed withdrawal prior to slaughter on fresh longissimus quality and sensory characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 77, 49.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, RH, Parrott, RF, Forling, ML, Good, JA, Lloyd, DM, Rodway, RG, Broom, DM 1996. Stress and travel sickness in pig: Effects of road transport on plasma concentrations of cortisol, beta endorphin, lysine and vasopressin. Journal of Animal Science 63, 507–519.Google Scholar
Carr SN 2006. Dietary modifications to improve Pork quality. Proceedings 59th Meat Science Association, Reciprocal Meat Conference, pp. 67–72.Google Scholar
Dailey, JW, McGlone, JJ 1997. Pregnant gilt behavior in outdoor and indoor intensive pork production systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis M and Ritter M 2005. Transport losses: causes and solution. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
EU Council Directive 91/630/EEC, 1991. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references_en.htm#ref91-630 (accessed 18/06/2007).Google Scholar
Fernendez, X, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Ecolan, P, Mormede, P 1995. Interactive effect of food deprivation and agonistic behaviour on blood parameters and muscle glycogen in pigs. Physiology and Behavior 58, 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, MA, Mathew, AG, Vickers, JR, Clift, RA 2002. Characterization of microbial populations and volatile fatty acid concentrations in the jejunum, ileum, and cecum of pigs weaned at 17 vs 24 days of age. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2904–2910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, AD, Hill, WG, Brampton, BR, Webb, AJ 1999. Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates for feeding pattern and performance test traits in pigs. Animal Science 68, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulbert, LE, McGlone, JJ 2006. Evaluation of drop vs. trickle feeding systems for crated or grouped penned gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1004–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ji, F, McGlone, JJ, Kim, SW 2006. Effects of dietary humic substances on pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, and ammonia emission. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2482–2490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, KW, McGlone, JJ, Gaskins, CT 1980. Porcine aggression measurements and effects of crowding and fasting. Journal of Animal Science 50, 336–341.Google Scholar
Kim, BG, Lindemann, MD, Cromwell, GL, Balfagon, A, Agudelo, JH 2007. The correlation between passage rate of digesta and dry matter digestibility in various stages of swine. Livestock Science 109, 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, CRG, McGlone, JJ 2007. Moving finishing pigs in different group sizes: cardiovascular responses, time, and ease of handling (short communication). Livestock Science 107, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, JJ, Salak, JL, Lumpkin, EA, Nickolson, RL, Gibson, M, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peeters, E, Driessen, B, Steegmans, R, Henot, D, Geers, R 2004. Effect of supplemental tryptophan, vitamin E, and a herbal product on responses by pigs to vibration. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2410–2420.Google Scholar
Petrie, CL, Gonyou, HW 1988. Effects of auditory, visual and chemical stimuli on the ingestive behavior of newly weaned piglets. Journal of Animal Science 66, 661–668.Google Scholar
Rademacher C and Davies P 2005. Factors associated with the incidence of mortality during transport of market hogs. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, pp. 186–191.Google Scholar
Salak-Johnson, JL, McGlone, JJ, Whisnant, CS, Norman, RL, Kraeling, RR 1997. Intracerebroventricular porcine corticotrophin-releasing hormone and cortisol effects on pig immune measures and behavior. Physiology and Behavior 61, 15–23.Google Scholar
Stein, HH, Kim, SW, Neilsen, TT, Easter, RA 2001. Standardized ileal protein and amino acid digestibility by growing pigs and sows. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2113–2122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warriss, PD 1998. The welfare of slaughter pigs during transport. Animal Welfare 7, 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warriss, PD, Brown, SN 1983. The influence of presaughter fasting on carcass and liver yield in pigs. Livestock Production Science 10, 273–282.Google Scholar