Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T01:00:49.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal and management factors influencing grower and finisher pig performance and efficiency in European systems: a meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

S. L. Douglas ,
O. Szyszka ,
K. Stoddart ,
S. A. Edwards  and
I. Kyriazakis
S. L. Douglas
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
O. Szyszka
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
K. Stoddart
Affiliation:
BPEX, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
I. Kyriazakis*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: ilias.kyriazakis@newcastle.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

A meta-analysis on the effects of management and animal-based factors on the performance and feed efficiency of growing pigs can provide information on single factor and interaction effects absent in individual studies. This study analysed the effects of such factors on average daily gain (ADG), feed intake (FI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of grower and finisher pigs. The multivariate models identified significant effects of: (1) bedding (P<0.01), stage of growth (P<0.001) and the interaction bedding×lysine (P<0.001) on ADG. ADG was higher on straw compared with no bedding (710 v. 605 g/day). (2) FI was significantly affected by stage of growth (P<0.01), bedding (P<0.01), group composition (P<0.05), group size (P<0.01), feed CP content (P<0.01), ambient temperature (P<0.01) and the interaction between floor space and feed energy content (P<0.001). Pigs housed on straw had a lower FI in comparison with those without (1.44 v. 2.04 kg/day); a higher FI was seen for pigs separated by gender in comparison with mixed groups (2.05 v. 1.65 kg/day); FI had a negative linear relationship with group size, the CP content of the feed and ambient temperature. (3) Stage of growth (P<0.001), feed CP (P<0.001) and lysine content (P<0.001), ambient temperature (P<0.001) and feed crude fibre (CF) content (P<0.01) significantly affected FCR; there were no significant interactions between any factors on this trait. There was an improvement in FCR at higher ambient temperatures, increased feed CP and lysine content, but a deterioration of FCR at higher CF contents. For ADG, the interaction of bedding×lysine was caused by pigs housed without bedding (straw) having higher ADG when on a feed lower in lysine, whereas those with bedding had a higher ADG when on a feed higher in lysine. Interaction effects on FI were caused by animals with the least amount of floor space having a higher FI when given a feed with a low metabolisable energy (ME) content, in contrast to all other pigs, which showed a higher FI with increased ME content. The meta-analysis confirmed the significant effect of several well-known factors on the performance and efficiency of grower and finisher pigs, the effects of some less established ones and, importantly, the interactions between such factors.

Keywords

efficiencyfinishersgrowersmeta-analysispigs
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 7 , July 2015 , pp. 1210 - 1220
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

Affentranger, P, Gerwig, C, Seewer, GJF, Schwörer, D and Künzi, N 1996. Growth and carcass characteristics as well as meat and fat quality of three types of pigs under different feeding regimens. Livestock Production Science 45, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agostini, PS, Fahey, AG, Manzanilla, EG, O'Doherty, JV, de Blas, C and Gasa, J 2013. Management factors affecting mortality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of grow-finishing pigs. Animal 7, 1–7.Google Scholar
Asmus, MD, DeRouchey, JM, Tokach, MD, Dritz, SS, Houser, TA, Nelssen, JL and Goodband, RD 2014. Effects of lowering dietary fiber before marketing on finishing pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, carcass fat quality, and intestinal weights. Journal of Animal Science 92, 119–128.Google Scholar
Averós, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, KH, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaun, MC 2012. Meta-analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behaviour and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 6, 1275–1289.Google Scholar
Averós, X, Brossard, L, Dourmad, JY, De Greef, KH, Edge, HL, Edwards, SA and Meunier-Salaun, M 2010. A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127, 73–85.Google Scholar
Bartussek Von, H, Steinwender, R, Hausleitner, A, Schauer, A and Solkner, J 1993. Influence of keeping restricted fed pigs in groups without or with straw litter at different ambient temperatures on daily gain, feed conversion and carcass quality. Bodenkultu 44, 163–182.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE and Moss, BW 1999. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, H, Werner, DN, Baulain, U, Brade, W and Weissmann, F 2010. Genotype-environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems. Animal 4, 535–544.Google Scholar
British Pig Executive (BPEX) 2009. Defining the benefits of new genotypes. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/298215/291093/Defining%20the%20benefits%20of%20new%20genotypes.pdf Google Scholar
Cameron, ND, Garth, GB, Penman, JC and Fiskin, A 2003. Sensitivity to dietary lysine: energy content in pigs divergently selected for components of efficient lean growth rate. Animal Science 76, 175–189.Google Scholar
Cesaro, G, Gallo, L, Carraro, L, Tagliapitera, F, Bunger, L and Schiavon, S 2013. Energy balance estimated from individual measurments of body weight and backfat thickness of heavy pigs of four genetic lines fed different diets. Agriculturae Conspectus Sceintificus 78, 221–224.Google Scholar
Collin, A, van Milgen, J, Dubois, S and Noblet, J 2001. Effect of high temperature on feeding behaviour and heat production in group-housed young pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 86, 63–70.Google Scholar
Conte, S, Boyle, LA, Lawlor, PG and O'Connell, NE 2010. Influence of within pen gender composition and weight variation on the welfare and growth performance of finishing pigs. Advances in Animal Biosciences 1, 184–184.Google Scholar
Conte, S, Lawlor, PG, O'Connell, N and Boyle, LA 2012. Effect of split marketing on the welfare, performance, and carcass traits of finishing. Journal of Animal Science 90, 373–380.Google Scholar
Conte, S, Boyle, LA, O'Connell, NE, Lynch, PB and Lawlor, PG 2011. Effect of target slaughter weight on production efficiency, carcass traits and behaviour of restrictively-fed gilts and intact male finisher pigs. Livestock Science 136, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Dunshea, FR, Butler, KL, McCauley, I, Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, PH 2003. The effects of immuno- and surgical-castration on the behaviour and consequently growth of group-housed, male finisher pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, A and Kanis, E 1991. Effects of recombinant porcine somatotropin* on growth, feed intake and feed efficiency curves from 60 to 140 kg of pigs of three genotypes and two sexes. Livestock Production Science 29, 197–211.Google Scholar
de Greef, KH, Kemp, B and Verstegen, MWA 1992. Performance and body composition of fattening pigs of two strains during protein deficiency and subsequent realimentation. Livestock Production Science 30, 141–153.Google Scholar
de Haer, LCM, de Vries, AG 1993a. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livestock Production Science 33, 277–292.Google Scholar
de Haer, LCM, de Vries, AG 1993b. Effects of genotype and sex on the feed intake pattern of group housed growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 36, 223–232.Google Scholar
de Haer, LCM, Luiting, P and Aarts, HLM 1993. Relations among individual (residual) feed intake, growth performance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs in group housing. Livestock Production Science 36, 233–253.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Ekkel, ED, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Ruis, MA, Koolhaas, JM and Blokhuis, HJ 1998. Effects of strawbedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs. Physiology & Behavior 64, 303–310.Google Scholar
de Lange, CFM, Piwarski, B and Gillis, D 1994. Phase and split-sex feeding of growing-finishing pigs. In Prairie Swine Centre Annual Research Report 1994, pp. 22–25. Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
Defra 2007. Sustainable systems for weaner management: AGEWEAN. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/300443/297140/AGEWEAN%20final%20report Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Armsby, AW and Spechter, HH 1988. Effects of floor area allowance on performance of growing pigs kept on fully slatted floors. Animal Production 4, 453–459.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Wood, JD, Moncrieff, CB and Porter, SJ 1992. Comparison of the Duroc and Large White as terminal sire breeds and their effect on pigmeat quality. Animal Production 54, 289–297.Google Scholar
Ekkel, ED, van Doorn, CE, Hessing, MJ and Tielen, MJ 1995. The specific-stress-free housing system has positive effects on productivity, health, and welfare of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1544–1551.Google Scholar
Emmans, G and Kyriazakis, I 2001. Consequences of genetic change in farm animals on food intake and feeding behaviour. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 60, 115–125.Google Scholar
Fàbrega, E, Tibau, J, Soler, J, Fernández, J, Font, J, Carrión, D, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2003. Feeding patterns, growth performance and carcass traits in group- housed growing-finishing pigs: the effect of terminal sire line, halothane genotype and age. Animal Science 77, 1357–7298.Google Scholar
Faure, J, Lefaucheur, L, Bonhomme, N, Ecolan, P, Meteau, K, Coustard, SM, Kouba, M, Gilbert, H and Lebret, B 2013. Consequences of divergent selection for residual feed intake in pigs on muscle energy metabolism and meat quality. Meat Science 93, 37–45.Google Scholar
Finn, J 2004. Pig group size – what is the optimum? Proceedings of Regional Pig Conferences, pp. 82–90. Kanturk, Kilkenny, Longford, Republic of Ireland.Google Scholar
Gaines, AM, Peterson, BA and Mendoza, OF 2012. Herd management factors that influence whole herd feed efficiency. In Feed efficiency in Swine (ed. JF Patience), pp. 15–39. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Georgsson, L and Svendsen, J 2002. Degree of competition at feeding differentially affects behavior and performance of group-housed growing-finishing pigs of different relative weights. Journal of Animal Science 80, 376–383.Google Scholar
Gilbert, H, Bidanel, JP, Gruand, J, Caritez, JC, Billon, Y, Guillouet, P, Lagant, H, Noblet, J, Sellier, P 2007. Genetic parameters for residual feed intake in growing pigs, with emphasis on genetic relationships with carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3182–3188.Google Scholar
Giles, LR 1992. Energy expenditure of growing pigs at high ambient temperatures. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Guy, JH, Rowlinson, P, Chadwick, JP and Ellis, M 2002. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems. Animal Science 74, 493–502.Google Scholar
Henken, AM, van der Hel, W, Brandsma, HA and Verstegen, MW 1991. Difference in energy metabolism and protein retention of limit-fed growing pigs of several breeds. Journal of Animal Science 69, 1443–1453.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1453–1458.Google Scholar
Hyun, Y and Ellis, M 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 80, 568–574.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 1993. The activity and straw directed behaviour of pigs offered foods with different crude protein content. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 211–221.Google Scholar
Kritas, SK, Alexopoulos, C, Kyriakis, CS, Tzika, E and Kyriakis, SC 2007. Performance of fattening pigs in a farm infected with both porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus and porcine circovirus type 2 following sow and piglet vaccination with an attenuated PRRS vaccine. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 54, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1991. Diet selection in pigs – dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein. Animal Production 52, 337–346.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1992a. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on the growth and body composition of pigs. 1. The effects of energy intake at constant, high protein intake. British Journal of Nutrition 68, 603–613.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1992b. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on the growth and body composition of pigs. 2. The effects of varying both energy and protein intake. British Journal of Nutrition 68, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I and Emmans, GC 1995. The voluntary feed intake of pigs given feeds based on wheat bran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal, in relation to measurements of feed bulk. British Journal of Nutrition 73, 191–207.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Emmans, GC and Whittemore, CT 1991. The ability of pigs to control their protein intake when fed in three different ways. Physiology and Behavior 50, 1197–1203.Google Scholar
Labroue, F, Gueblez, R and Sellier, P 1997. Genetic parameters of feeding behaviour and performance traits in group-housed Large White and French Landrace growing pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 29, 451–468.Google Scholar
Latorre, MA, Lázaro, R, Gracia, ML, Nieto, M and Meteos, GG 2003. Effect of sex and terminal sire genotype on performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of pigs slaughtered at 117 kg body weight. Meat Science 65, 1369–1377.Google Scholar
Latorre, MA, Lázaro, R, Valencia, DG, Medel, P and Mateos, GG 2004. The effects of gender and slaughter weight on the growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality characteristics of heavy pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 526–533.Google Scholar
Le Dividich, J, Noblet, J and Bikawa, T 1987. Effect of environmental temperature and dietary energy concentration on the performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs fed to equal rate of gain. Livestock Production Science 17, 235–246.Google Scholar
Le Naou, T, Le Floc'h, N, Gilbert, H and Gondret, F 2012. Metabolic changes and tissue responses to selection on residual feed intake in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4771–4780.Google Scholar
Lopez, J, Jesse, GW, Becker, BA and Ellersieck, MR 1991. Effects of temperature on the performance of finishing swine: I. Effects of a hot, diurnal temperature on average daily gain, feed intake, and feed efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 69, 1843–1849.Google Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowlerb, VR and English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.Google Scholar
Maes, D, Deluyker, H, Verdonck, M, Castryck, F, Miry, C, Vrijens, B, Verbeke, W, Viaene, J and de Kruif, A 1999. Effect of vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in pig herds with an all-in/all-out production system. Vaccine 17, 1024–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magowan, E, McCanna, MEE and O’Connell, NE 2008. The effect of feeder type and change of feeder type on growing and finishing pig performance and behaviour. Animal Feed Science and Technology 142, 133–143.Google Scholar
Magowan, E, McCann, MEE, Beattie, VE, McCracken, KJ, Henry, W, Smyth, S, Bradford, R, Gordon, FJ and Mayne, CS 2007. Investigation of growth rate variation between commercial pig herds. Animal 1, 1219–1226.Google Scholar
McGloughlin, P, Allen, P, Tarrant, PV and Joseph, RL 1998. Growth and carcass quality of crossbred pigs sired by Duroc, Landrace and Large White boars. Livestock Production Science 18, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, S, Kumar, S, De Boever, J, Ducatelle, R and De Brabander, D 2012. Effect of feed processing on growth performance and gastric mucosa integrity in pigs from weaning until slaughter. Animal Feed Science and Technology 175, 175–181.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) 2004a. Finished pigs: system research production trial 1 dry versus liquid feeding in two contrasting finishing systems (fully slatted versus straw basedhousing). MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) 2004b. Finished pigs: system research production trial 2 evaluation of phase feeding in two contrasting pig systems (fully slatted versus straw based housing). MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) 2005a. Finished pigs: system research production trial 2 controlled fermentation of cereals in liquid diets fed to pigs in two contrasting finishing systems (fully slatted versus straw based housing). MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) 2005b. Finished pigs: system research production trial 1 reducing the crude protein content of liquid diets fed to pigs in two contrasting finishing systems (fully slatted versus straw based housing). MLC, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Morales, J, Perez, JF, Baucells, MD, Mourot, J and Gasa, J 2002. Comparative digestibility and lipogenic activity in Landrace and Iberian finishing pigs fed ad libitum corn- and corn–sorghum–acorn-based diets. Livestock Production Science 77, 195–205.Google Scholar
Morrow, ATS and Walker, N 1994. Effects of number and siting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behaviour of growing pigs. The Journal of Agricultural Science 122, 465–470.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Lawrence, AB and Whittemore, CT 1995. Effect of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour, and performance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livestock Production Science 44, 73–85.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Lawrence, AB and Whittemore, CT 1996. Feeding behaviour of growing pigs using single or multi-space feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47, 235–246.Google Scholar
Noblet, J and van Milgen, J 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. Journal of Animal Science 82 (E-suppl.), E229–E238.Google Scholar
O'Connell, AA and McCoach, DB 2008. Multilevel modeling of educational data. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Patience, JF 2012. Feed efficiency in swine. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, p. 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patience, JF, Gonyou, HW, Lemay, S and Zijlstra, R 1999. Improving net income in declining markets. In Factsheet, Prairie Swine Centre, Saskatoon, SK (ed. PS Centre), Praire Swine Centre, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
Pauly, C, Spring, P, O’Doherty, JV, Ampuero Kragten, S and Bee, G 2009. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of group-penned surgically castrated, immunocastrated (Improvac) and entire male pigs and individually penned entire male pigs. Animal 3, 1057–1066.Google Scholar
Peeters, E, Driessen, B, Moons, CPH, Ödberg, FO and Geers, R 2006. Effect of temporary straw bedding on pigs’ behaviour, performance, cortisol and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 234–248.Google Scholar
Philippe, F, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M and Nicks, B 2007. Comparison of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during the fattening of pigs, kept either on fully slatted floor or on deep litter. Livestock Science 111, 144–152.Google Scholar
Renaudeau, D, Gourdine, JL and St-Pierre, NR 2011. A meta-analysis of the effects of high ambient temperature on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2220–2230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renaudeau, D, Collin, A, Yahav, S, de Basilio, V, Gourdine, JL, Collier, RJ 2012. Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. Animal 6, 707–728.Google Scholar
Rinaldo, D and Le Dividich, J 1991. Assessment of optimal temperature for performance and chemical body composition of growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 29, 61–75.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ and St-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T, Calabrese, JM, Grodzycki, M, Paulick, M, Pearce, MC, Rau, F and von Borell, E 2011. Impact of single-sex and mixed-sex group housing of boars vaccinated against GnRF or physically castrated on body lesions, feeding behaviour and weight gain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130, 42–52.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
Smith, LA, Houdijk, JG, Homer, D and Kyriazakis, I 2013. Effects of dietary inclusion of pea and faba beans as a replacment for soybean meal on grower and finisher pig performance and carcass quality. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3733–3741.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HA, Edwards, SA and Corning, S 2000. Aggression among finished pigs following mixing in kennelled and unkennelled accommodation. Livestock Production Science 63, 121–129.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
Szabó, C, Jansman, AJ, Babinszky, L, Kanis, E and Verstegen, MW 2001. Effect of dietary protein source and lysine: DE ratio on growth performance, meat quality, and body composition of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2857–2865.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Edwards, SA and Bland, VC 1999. The influence of drinker allocation and group size on the drinking behaviour, welfare and production of growing pigs. Animal Science 68, 617–624.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Allcroft, DJ and Edwards, SA 2003. Housing pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for performance and other economic traits. Livestock Production Science 82, 39–51.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Dahlgren, M, Arey, DS and Edwards, SA 2002. Effect of social group size and initial live weight on feeder space requirement of growing pigs given food ad libitum. Animal Science 75, 1357–7928.Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.Google Scholar
van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, JY, Sève, B and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387–405.Google Scholar
Walker, N 1991. The effects on performance and behaviour of number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 3–13.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003a. Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model logic and concepts. Animal Science 77, 255–266.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003b. Predicting the consequences of social stressors on pig food intake and performance. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2995–3007.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Houdijk, JGM, Miller, AC, Gill, BP and Kyriazakis, I 2009. The effect of weaner diet protein content and diet quality on the long term performance of pigs to slaughter. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1261–1269.Google Scholar
Whittemore, CT and Kyriazakis, I 2006. Whittemores’s Science and Practice of Pig Production. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Whittemore, EC, Kyriazakis, I, Tolkamp, BJ and Emmans, GC 2002. The short-term feeding behavior of growing pigs fed foods differing in bulk content. Physiology & Behavior 76, 131–141.Google Scholar
Woyengo, TA, Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2014. Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: a review. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1293–1305.Google Scholar