Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:31:59.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of mixing unfamiliar individuals on the growth and production of finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. S. L. Tan ,
D. M. Shackleton  and
R. M. Beames
S. S. L. Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A2
D. M. Shackleton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A2
R. M. Beames
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A2
Get access

Abstract

The effect on productivity of mixing finishing pigs from different litters was studied. Two hundred and ten Yorkshire × Landrace pigs of about 76 kg were assigned in groups of six to each of four treatments. In treatment 1, pigs were retained as unmixed littermates while in treatments 2 and 3, three pigs from one litter were mixed with three pigs from another litter. Additionally pigs in treatment 3 were injected with a tranquilizer prior to mixing. In treatment 4, groups of five littermates were introduced into the pen of either a lighter weight or heavier weight pig. All groups were housed in 6·65 m2 partially slatted pens and fed from a communal food trough.

Besides promoting aggression and fighting, mixing significantly depressed productivity, and both short-and long-term economic returns. Over the 3-week experimental period the proportional live-weight gains observed in the unmixed pigs over those of the mixed groups, were substantial: 0·099 over the 3: 3 mixed groups, 0·141 over the tranquilizer-treated groups, and 0·127 over the 5: 1 mixed groups. Consequently, mixing would necessitate additional inputs of food, housing, and labour because of the increased days to market.

The tranquilizer not only did not eliminate fighting but had a long-term negative effect on production and was thus a contra-indicated expense. Introducing a single pig into a group in an occupied pen also lowered production, as did moving without mixing. However, moving effects were short lived and had minimal negative influences on overall productivity.

Keywords

behaviourgrowthneurolepticspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 201 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

REFERENCES

Arnone, M. and Dantzer, R. 1980. Does frustration induce aggression in pigs? Applied Animal Ethology 6: 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashfield, G. 1984. Pigs at play are less aggressive, more productive. Feedstuffs 56: 1.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K. 1981. The effect of pen design and the tranquilising drug, Azaperone, on the growth and behaviour of weaned pigs. Australian Veterinary Journal 57: 272–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callear, J. F. F. and Gestel, J. F. E. Van. 1971. An analysis of the results of field experiments in pigs in the U.K. and Ireland with the sedative neuroleptic Azaperone. Veterinary Record 89: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantzer, R. 1970. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 1: 117.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R. and Mormede, P. 1979. Effects of lithium on aggressive behaviour in domestic pigs. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2: 200–303.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. 1972. Social environment of the pig. In Pig Production (ed. Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 129–139. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. and Meese, G. B. 1971. Aggressive behaviour in groups of domesticated pigs on removal and return of individuals. Animal Production 13: 685–693.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. 1974. The behaviour of growing pigs during experimental social encounters. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Cambridge 82: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, T. H., Tanksley, T. D. and Knabe, D. A. 1981. Behavior and performance of pigs grouped by three different methods at weaning. Journal of Animal Science 53: (Suppl. I), p. 127 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Graves, H. B., Graves, K. L. and Sherritt, G. W. 1978. Social behaviour and growth of pigs following mixing during the growing-finishing period. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 169–180.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. L., Hagelso, A. M. and Madsen, A. 1982. Behavioural results and performance of bacon pigs fed ad libitum from one of several self-feeders. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houpt, K. A. and Wolski, T. R. 1982. Domestic Animal Behaviour for Veterinarians and Animal Scientists. Iowa State University Press, Iowa.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. H. 1971. Biological implications of intensive swine rearing systems. Journal of Animal Science 32: 560–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. 1984. Effects of confinement on social interaction patterns in dry sows. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 12: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, K. W., Mcglone, J. J. and Gaskins, C. T. 1980. Porcine aggression: measurement and effects of crowding and fasting. Journal of Animal Science 50: 336–341.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, J. B. 1970. Den Danske Drylaege Forening 13: 391–428.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 1985. A quantitative ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviors in recently regrouped pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61: 559–565.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 1986. Influence of resources on pig aggression and dominance. Behavioural Processes 12: 135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcglone, J. J. and Curtis, S. E. 1981. A behavior-performance study to evaluate an alternative nursery pen design for swine. Journal of Animal Science 53: Suppl. I, pp. 129–130 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. and Curtis, S. E. 1985. Behavior and performance of weanling pigs in pens equipped with hide areas. Journal of Animal Science 60: 20–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlone, J. J., Stansbury, W. F. and Tribble, L. F. 1986. Aerosolized 5a-androst-en-3-one reduced agonistic behavior and temporarily improved performance of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 63: 679–684.Google Scholar
Marsboom, R. 1969. On the pharmacology of Azaperone, a neuroleptic used for the restraint of wild animals. Ada Zoologica et Pathologica, Antwerp 48: 155–161.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Baldwin, B. A. 1975. The effects of ablation of the olfactory bulbs on aggressive behaviour i n pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 251–262.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Baldwin, B. A. 1977. Sensory factors in the social behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 203 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1972. A note on instability of the dominance hierarchy and variations in level of aggression within groups of fattening pigs. Animal Production 14: 359–362.Google Scholar
Meese, G. B. and Ewbank, R. 1973. The establishment and nature of the dominance hierarchy in the domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 21: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, B. W. 1978. Some observations on the activity and aggressive behaviour of pigs when penned prior to slaughter. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 323–339.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1973. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 7th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington.Google Scholar
Porter, D. B. and Slusser, C. A. 1984. Reducing stress in swine. Animal Nutrition and Health: (Nov/Dec), pp. 14–23.Google Scholar
Stone, M. W. 1983. Cannabilism and other bad habits. III. Western Hog Journal 4: (3): 6.Google Scholar
Symoens, J. 1975. Psychic stress as a cause of post-weaning diarrhea in piglets. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 205 (Abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symoens, J. and Brande, M. Van Den. 1969. Prevention and cure of aggressiveness in pigs using the sedative Azaperone. Veterinary Record 85: 64–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teague, H. S. and Grifo, A. P. 1961. Movement and resorting of pigs during the growing-finishing period. Animal Science Mimeograph No. 124, Ohio Agriculture Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Tindsley, W. E. C. and Lean, I. J. 1984. Effects of weight range at allocation on production and behaviour i n fattening pig groups. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 12: 79–92.Google Scholar