Effect of floor space allowances on growth performance of finishing pigs marketed at 138 kilograms

Review: Space allowance for growing pigs: animal welfare, performance and on-farm practicality

There is considerable variation in the recommended minimum space allowance for growing pigs in scientific literature, and growing pressure, arising from recent reviews of current animal welfare standards for pigs, to increase the minimum space allowances set in legislation in some countries (e.g., European Union countries and New Zealand). The space provided for growing pigs needs to accommodate their physical body size in addition to social behaviour, activity, and essential functional behaviours. However, recommended minimum space allowances vary according to criteria such as temperature, live weight, flooring type, group size, behaviour, and enrichment availability. Though there may be justification for increasing current space requirements, this will present a practical issue on existing farms and could even result in unintended negative welfare outcomes, depending on how farmers address an increased requirement for space. This is not helped by inconsistent scientific approaches to assessing the effect of space on pig performance, and a lack of information on how space allowance impacts a pig's affective state. This review explores the scientific basis of the most common approaches to determining minimum space allowances for growing pigs and discusses the various factors that influence and interact with their spatial requirements. Consideration is given to their nutrition, physical environment, health, and behaviour to understand the welfare, performance, and practicality implications of differing recommendations for space allowance. More research is needed that investigates a range of space allowances to better understand the relationship between animal welfare and performance outcomes, and space allowance. This must replicate commercial conditions so that recommendations are relevant, future-focused, and achieve positive welfare outcomes in a practical but meaningful manner.

The impact of floor space allowance and dietary energy level on finishing pigs, from 65 to 120 kg, on growth performance

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of lowering floor space allowance in finishing hogs from 65 to 120 kg when fed high- vs. low-energy diets on growth performance. Eighty-eight mixed-sex pens with 24 ± 1 pigs per pen were randomly assigned by weight in a complete block design to one of eight treatments in a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement with two energy levels: low (LE, 3267 ± 15 kcal/kg) vs. high (HE, 3389 ± 15 kcal/kg) accomplished through fat inclusion; and four floor space allowances: 0.6, 0.63, 0.65, and 0.67 m²/pig. Assigned floor space was accomplished by moveable gates in the rear of the pen which were adjusted at each pig removal until the marketing phase. Pen weight was measured at days 0, 29, and 48, with feed disappearance measured at days 29 and 48 to calculate average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain-to-feed ratio (GF). Data were analyzed by pen (SAS 9.4, Cary, NC), as repeated measures, with the fixed effects of floor space allowance, dietary energy level, and the interaction between floor space allowance and energy level. For the overall experiment, decreased floor space had no effect (P > 0.1) on ADG, ADFI, or GF. Energy had a significant effect (P < 0.01) on ADFI (3.17 vs. 3.12 kg for LE and HE, respectively) and GF (0.35 and 0.36 for LE and HE, respectively), and tended to impact (P = 0.08) ADG (1.12 vs. 1.13 kg, for LE and HE, respectively). In conclusion, reducing space allowance from 0.67 m² down to 0.6 m² did not affect the growth performance of pigs from 65 to 120 kg. Pigs fed LE consumed more than the HE diets but had generally similar growth and no difference in body weight.

Effect of Phase Feeding, Space Allowance and Mixing on Productive Performance of Grower-Finisher Pigs

This study investigates the effects of space allowance (SA), mixing and phase feeding (PF) on performance of grower-finisher pigs. Three trials (T) were conducted. In T1 and T2, 345 pigs/trial were moved to finisher stage at 11 weeks of age and assigned to two SAs: 0.96 (n = 15 pens; 10 pigs/pen) and 0.78 (n = 15; 13 pigs/pen) m²/pig. Mixing was applied to 5 pens of each SA leading to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement (SA × Mixing). For PF, 2 diets with 0.95 and 0.82 g SID Lys/MJ NE were applied to 5 pens of each SA (not mixed) leading to another 2 × 2 factorial arrangement (SA × PF). In T3, 230 pigs were moved to the grower-finisher stage at 11 weeks of age, mixed, and assigned to 4 treatments (SA × PF; n = 5 pens). Data were analyzed using general linear mixed models. SA did not affect performance (p > 0.05). Non-mixed pigs were 5.40 (T1) and 5.25 (T2) kg heavier than mixed pigs at 21 weeks of age (p < 0.001). PF reduced performance of pigs by 3.45 (T1) and 4.05 (T2) kg at 21 weeks of age (p < 0.001). In conclusion, mixing and reducing SID Lys:NE ratio from 0.95 to 0.82 g/MJ at 15-16 weeks of age, have a more marked impact on performance than reducing SA from 0.96 to 0.78 m²/pig.

Dietary energy level, feeder space, and group size on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing barrows and gilts

To benefit from feeding low net energy (NE) diets, growing-finishing pigs must be able to increase feed intake to compensate for lower caloric density, but this might be difficult in pens with a high stocking density. Access to the feeder, trough space, and(or) floor area may limit voluntary feed intake. The objective of this study was to clarify the relationships among dietary NE level, feeder space, group size, sex, and interactions in growing-finishing pigs. In a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,920 pigs (33 kg) housed in 96 fully slatted floor pens (6.1 × 2.4 m) with 2 or 3 feeder spaces, and 18 or 22 barrows or gilts per pen, were fed either low (9.2 MJ/kg) or high (9.85 MJ/kg) NE diets over 5 growth phases (Grower 1: day [d] 0 to 20, Grower 2: d 21 to 41, Grower 3: d 42 to 62, Finisher 1: d 63 to 80, Finisher 2: d 81 to slaughter). Pen body weight (BW) and average daily feed disappearance (ADFD) were measured for each growth phase, biweekly from the start of shipping and at slaughter. Warm carcasses were weighed and graded (Destron). For the entire trial, pigs fed low versus (vs.) high NE diets had 0.119 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) ADFD, but 0.556 MJ/d lower (P < 0.050) average daily caloric disappearance (ADCD), and 0.017 kg/kg lower (P < 0.001) gain-to-feed (G:F). Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs had 0.062 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) ADFD, 0.730 MJ/d greater (P < 0.010) ADCD, and 0.029 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) average daily weight gain (ADWG). Pigs in pens with 3 vs. 2 feeding spaces had 0.051 kg/d greater (P < 0.010) ADFD, 0.511 MJ/d greater (P = 0.050) ADCD but 0.004 kg/kg lower (P < 0.050) G:F. Pigs fed low vs. high NE diets had 0.6 kg lower (P < 0.050) carcass weight and 0.9 mm lower (P < 0.050) loin depth. Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs took 2.8 days less (P < 0.001) to reach 130 kg slaughter BW. Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs had a 0.4 %-point decrease (P < 0.050) in dressing percentage. Feeding low vs. high NE diets reduced (P < 0.001) feed cost by Can$21.87/tonne, $3.34/pig, $0.03/kg gain, and increased (P < 0.05) gross income subtracting feed cost by $1.82/pig. Housing 18 vs. 22 pigs per pen increased (P < 0.010) ISFC by $1.98 per pig. Lack of interactions between NE level, feeder space, and group size for ADFD indicate that low NE diets can be fed to pigs even if they have lower than recommended floor area allowance during part of the finishing phase.

Effects of dietary chromium propionate and space allowance on performance and carcass responses of growing-finishing pigs

In a 72-d trial, 256 pigs (Line 600 × 241, DNA Columbus, NE) were used to determine the effect of dietary Cr (Cr propionate; Kemin Industries, Des Moines, IA) and physical space restriction on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing pigs. Pens were blocked by initial weight and randomly assigned to treatments with eight pigs per pen and eight pens per treatment. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial with main effects of Cr (control and Cr propionate, 200 µg/kg added Cr) and space allowances (0.91 m²/animal: normal and 0.63 m²/animal: restricted). Pigs were fed in three dietary phases and pigs were weighed approximately every 14 d throughout the study. Feed efficiency was calculated as both a standard gain to feed ratio and as an adjusted G:F ratio at a common final bodyweight. There were no evidence of space allocation × Cr interactions for any measured responses (P > 0.05). Space restriction decreased (P < 0.001) daily weight gain, final body weight, hot carcass weight, and daily feed intake, but increased carcass yield (P = 0.009) and decreased backfat depth (P = 0.003). Feed efficiency was greater for pigs provided a normal space allowance when adjusted for a common final bodyweight (P = 0.021), although no evidence of a difference was observed for unadjusted G:F (P = 0.687). Adding Cr to the diet reduced G:F on both an adjusted and unadjusted basis (P ≤ 0.021). There was marginally significant evidence that pigs provided Cr had lower average daily gain (P = 0.079) and final bodyweight (P = 0.056) compared to pigs not provided added Cr. There was marginally significant evidence that Cr resulted in greater backfat depth (P = 0.069), although no evidence of a difference in other carcass parameters were observed (P > 0.10). These results demonstrated that there were no interactions between Cr propionate and space allocation, illustrating that under the conditions of this study Cr propionate did not provide an advantage in growth performance or carcass characteristics in either adequate or restricted space allocation.

Effect of space allowance and mixing on growth performance and body lesions of grower-finisher pigs in pens with a single wet-dry feeder

BACKGROUND

Low space allowance (SA) and mixing may result in reduced growth performance (GP) and animal welfare issues because of adverse social behaviours directed to pen mates. This could be exacerbated in pens with single space feeders owing to social facilitation of feeding behaviour. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of SA and mixing on GP and body lesions (BL) in pens with one single space wet-dry feeder.

RESULTS

Two experiments were conducted on grower-finisher pigs from 10 to 21 weeks of age. In Exp1, pigs (N = 216) were assigned to three SA; 0.96 m²/pig (n = 6 pens; 10 pigs/pen; SA96), 0.84 m²/pig (n = 6; 12 pigs/pen; SA84) and 0.72 m²/pig (n = 6; 14 pigs/pen; SA72), in a randomized design. In Exp2, pigs (N = 230) were used in a 2 × 2 factorial randomized design considering SA and mixing as treatments. Pigs were assigned to two SA; 0.96 m²/pig (n = 10 pens; 10 pigs/pen; SA96) and 0.78 m²/pig (n = 10; 13 pigs/pen; SA78) and were either mixed or not at the entry to the finishing facility. GP was not affected by SA (P > 0.05) in either experiment. In Exp2, non-mixed pigs were 5.4 kg heavier (P <  0.001), gained 74 g more per day (P = 0.004), consumed 101.8 g more of feed per day (P = 0.007) and tended to have higher feed efficiency (P = 0.079) than mixed pigs from 11 to 21 weeks of age. Number of BL was affected by SA in both experiments. In Exp1, SA72 pigs had 74.4 and 97.4% more BL than SA96 and SA84 pigs at 20 weeks of age respectively (P <  0.01). In Exp2, SA78 pigs had 48.6, 43.6 and 101.3% more BL than SA96 pigs at 12, 16 and 21 weeks of age respectively (P <  0.05). Mixing did not affect the number of BL from 12 to 21 weeks of age in Exp2 (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mixing had a considerable effect on growth performance thus, strategies to avoid or mitigate mixing should be considered. Although space allowance had no effect on growth performance, high number of body lesions in the lower space allowance indicates that space allowances equal or below 0.78 m²/pig are detrimental to the welfare of pigs despite following the EU legislation.

Postweaning mortality in commercial swine production. I: review of non-infectious contributing factors

Postweaning mortality is a complex causal matrix involving animal, environment, and infectious etiologic factors. Despite advances in swine productivity such as total pigs born, growth rate, feed intake, and efficiency, there have been modest to no improvements in postweaning mortality rates over the last several years. Industry averages for postweaning mortality range from four to eight percent for each the nursery, grow-finish, or wean-finish stages. Retrospective mortality causal analyses of individual databases have been performed. However, little information derived from meta-analysis, systematic review, or comprehensive literature reviews are available. In order to develop and evaluate strategies to comprehensively manage and reduce postweaning mortality, addressing the complexity and range of impact that factors have on mortality is necessary to identify and prioritize such contributing factors. Our objective is to describe the current state of knowledge regarding non-infectious causes of postweaning mortality, focusing on estimates of frequency and magnitude of effect where available. Postweaning mortality can be generalized into non-infectious and infectious causes, with non-infectious factors further classified into anatomic abnormalities, toxicity, animal factors, facility factors, nutritional inadequacies, season, and management factors. Important non-infectious factors that have been identified through review of literature include birth weight, pre-weaning management, weaning age and weight, and season. Additionally, reasons for mortality with a low incidence but a high magnitude include abdominal organ torsion/volvulus, sodium ion or ionophore toxicosis, or dietary imbalance due to feed formulation or manufacture error. Many interactive effects are present between and among infectious and non-infectious factors, but an important trend is the impact that non-infectious factors have on the incidence, severity, and resolution of infectious disease. Strategies to reduce postweaning mortality must consider the dynamic, complex state that forms the causal web. Control of postweaning mortality through understanding of the complexity, evaluation of mortality reduction strategies through rigorous scientific evaluation, and implementation remains an area of opportunity for continued growth and development in the global swine industry.

Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg

A total of 976 pigs (PIC 327 × Camborough; PIC, Hendersonville, TN; initially 22.0 ± 1.53 kg body weight [BW]) were used in a 160-d growth study to evaluate the effects of increasing space allowance and varying marketing strategies on growth performance of pigs raised to market weights of ~165 kg. Pens of pigs were blocked by location within the barn and allotted to one of six treatments. Pen served as the experimental unit, and there were eight replicate pens per treatment. The first four treatments consisted of increased initial stocking density and did not utilize topping strategies: (1) 14 pigs/pen (1.17 m²/pig), (2) 17 pigs/pen (0.97 m²/pig), (3) 20 pigs/pen (0.82 m²/pig), and (4) 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m²/pig). The fifth treatment began with 25 pigs/pen (0.66 m²/pig) and had four marketing events with the heaviest 3 pigs/pen removed on day 93, and additional pigs removed to a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 122 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147 with final marketing on day 160. The final treatment began the experiment with 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m²/pig) with three marketing events to achieve a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 108 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147. Pens of pigs were weighed and feed disappearance measured on days 0, 55, 93, 108, 122, 135, 147, and 160. As space allowance decreased from 1.17 to 0.71 m²/pig via increased initial pen inventory (treatments 1 to 4), overall average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) decreased (linear, P < 0.001), while gain:feed ratio (G:F) did not differ (P > 0.05). The treatments with multiple marketing events were compared with each other and with the treatment that began with 0.71 m²/pig and only marketed once at the end of the study. Overall ADG and ADFI were not different (P > 0.05) among these three treatments. Marketing pigs three or four times improved (P < 0.05) G:F compared with the treatment that began the study with 0.71 m²/pig and marketed only once. Reducing floor space allowance for heavy weight pigs decreased intake, which resulted in lower growth rate and final BW, with these reductions occurring before the critical k-value was reached. Total weight gain per pen was maximized with the lowest space allowance and the multiple marketing treatments. Thus, strategic use of pig removals prior to final marketing may allow producers to maximize both number of pigs and total weight marketed through a barn when feeding to heavy weights.

Effects of increasing space allowance by removing a pig or gate adjustment on finishing pig growth performance

A total of 256 pigs (initially 55.9 ± 4.88 kg) were used in a 71-d study to determine the effects of increasing space allowance and pig removal on pig growth performance. Pens of pigs were blocked by body weight (BW) and allotted to 1 of 4 space allowance treatments, initially with 8 pigs per pen and 8 pens per treatment. First 2 treatments included pens with 0.91 m2 per pig or 0.63 m2 per pig for the entire study; two additional treatments initially provided 0.63 m2 per pig, but either a gate was adjusted on days 28, 45, and 62 or the heaviest pig in the pen was removed from the pen on days 28 and 45 to provide more space and keep pigs in accordance with their predicted minimum space requirement [(m2) = 0.0336 × (BW, kg)0.67]. From days 0 to 14 (56 to 69 kg), there was no effect of stocking density observed for average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain:feed (G:F). From days 14 to 28 (69 to 83 kg), pigs provided 0.91 m2 had increased (P < 0.05) ADG and G:F compared with those allowed 0.63 m2. Pigs provided 0.91 m2 were marginally heavier (P = 0.081) on day 28 and had greater ADFI (P = 0.025) during days 28 to 45 than those provided 0.63 m2 or those that had the heaviest pig removed. From days 45 to 62 (98 to 116 kg), pigs provided 0.91 m2 were heavier (P < 0.01) than all others, wheras pigs provided 0.63 m2 had reduced ADFI compared with other treatments. From days 62 to 71 (116 to 124 kg), pigs provided 0.91 m2 and those with space adjustment treatments had greater (P < 0.05) ADG and ADFI than those provided 0.63 m2. Overall (56 to 124 kg), pigs provided 0.91 m2 had increased (P = 0.001) ADG compared with those allowed 0.63 m2 with pigs provided space adjustments intermediate. In summary, pigs with 0.91 m2 grew faster and consumed more feed than pigs restricted in space. As pigs reached the critical k value, gate adjustments and pig removals affected growth similarly. As pigs grew to the predicted space requirement and were subsequently allowed more space, performance was greater than those provided 0.63 m2 but less than those allowed 0.91 m2. It appears that the industry accepted critical k value, 0.0336, may not be adequate for optimal pig performance across multiple BW ranges.

Effects of wet/dry feeder and pen stocking density on grow-finish pig performance

Three thousand one hundred and eighty-two terminal cross pigs (barrows and gilts) PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams were used from three consecutive grow-finish groups (initial BW of 21.51 ± 0.42 kg, 31.61 ± 1.18 kg, 29.41 ± 0.28 kg for replicates 1-3). Pigs were randomly assigned to each pen at the start of the trial and the research period continued for 106, 94, and 100 d for the first, second, and third replicates, respectively. The experimental treatments were designed as a two by three factorial (pen space of 0.65 or 0.78 m²/pig with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space), each pen had an equal number of barrows and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each pen was equipped with one double-sided wet/dry feeder, 37.5 cm wide, with one nipple drinker. All pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water supply during the trial period. Pigs for all the three replicates were fed with the same series of diets. Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial and at the end of the trial to calculate ADG. Feed was removed from the feeders and weighed to determine ADFI and G:F. To express floor space allowance, the k value was estimated by the equation: space per pig   ( m 2 ) = k × BW  ( kg ) 0.67 . No interactions (P > 0.05) of floor space allowance with pigs per feeder were observed. Pigs with less floor space allowance had reduced BW (128.8 vs. 129.5 kg, P = 0.026), ADG (1.00 vs. 1.02 kg/d, P = 0.002), and ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61 kg/d, P < 0.001). However, G:F was improved (0.402 vs. 0.397, P = 0.039) with less floor space allowance per pig. Increased pigs per feeder space reduced final BW (129.7, 129.4, 128.4 kg, linear; P = 0.001). However, ADG had a quadratic relationship (P = 0.005) with pigs per feeder space with means of 1.03, 1.01, and 1.01 kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Overall, ADFI had a quadratic relationship (P < 0.0001) with number of pigs per feeder space with means of 2.62, 2.52, and 2.55 kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic relationship (P = 0.005) with number of pigs per feeder space with means of 0.395, 0.404, and 0.400 for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. In conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m²/pig in the grow-finish period reduced ADFI and ADG compared with 0.78 m²/pig. Overall, with the type of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 pigs per feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, compared with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. However, G:F improved as the number of pigs per feeder space increased.