Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2020, 65(7):258-267 | DOI: 10.17221/25/2020-CJAS

Examination of high-resolution feed intake data of grower finisher pigs confronted with typical short-term disturbances in stable routineOriginal Paper

Peter Loibl*,1, Wilhelm Windisch1, Wolfgang Preißinger2
1 TUM School of Live Science Weihenstephan, Chair for Animal Nutrition, Technical University of Munich, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
2 Institute for Animal Nutrition, Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture, Grub, Germany

Modern pig feeding systems allow the collection of highly detailed feeding data for each animal. These data enable the examination of individual feeding behaviours to assess an animal's wellbeing. As such, four different treatments ‒ undisturbed control, starving (no feed for 24 h, restrictive feeding), feed change (changes in feed composition) and social stress (exchanging of animals between the pens and short-term reduction of accessible water) ‒ were designed to simulate typical short-term disturbances in a practical stable routine. Each treatment was conducted over 2 pens with 12 animals each. Zootechnical performance and feed intake behaviour measures were assessed for each animal. Treatments did not affect zootechnical performance. Results showed that short-term disturbances did not influence feed intake behaviours, such as daily feed intake, amount of intake per feeder visit, number of daily feeder visits and daily feeding action with highest feed intake. Animals developed individual feeding patterns that persisted through artificial short-term disturbances. However, data suggested that an individual animal's behavioural pattern was strongly influenced by the group (pen) due to group dynamics among animals.

Keywords: fattening pigs; feed intake behaviour; single space feeder; feeder visit

Published: July 31, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Loibl P, Windisch W, Preißinger W. Examination of high-resolution feed intake data of grower finisher pigs confronted with typical short-term disturbances in stable routine. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2020;65(7):258-267. doi: 10.17221/25/2020-CJAS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    Supplementary files:

    Download file25-2020 Supplementary materials.pdf

    File size: 820.66 kB

    References

    1. Ballari SA, Barrios-Garcia MN. A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mam Rev. 2014 Apr;44(2):124-34. Go to original source...
    2. Broom DM. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1988 Jul 1;20(1-2):5-19. Go to original source...
    3. Cahill VR, Teague HS, Kunkle LE, Moxon AL, Rutledge EA. Measurement of and ways of affecting sex-influenced performance of growing-finishing swine. J Anim Sci. 1960 Nov 1;19(4):1036-40. Go to original source...
    4. Cole DJA, Duckworth JE, Holmes W. Factors affecting voluntary feed intake in pigs - 3. The effect of a period of feed restriction, nutrient density of the diet and sex on intake, performance and carcass characteristics. Anim Sci. 1968 Nov;10(4):345-57. Go to original source...
    5. Cox S. Precision livestock farming'07: Papers Presented at the 3rd European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming, Skiathos, Greece, 3-6 June 2007. Wageningen Academic Pub; 2007. Go to original source...
    6. Czycholl I. The role of fibre with respect to feeding behaviour. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society of Nutrition Physiology, March 13th to 15th, 2018. Göttingen; 2018. p. 193-5.
    7. Eurostat. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. Luxembourg; 2019.
    8. Ewbank R. Social hierarchy in suckling and fattening pigs: A review. Livest Prod Sci. 1976 Dec 1;3(4):363-72. Go to original source...
    9. Hale OM, Southwell BL. Differences in swine performance and carcass characteristics because of dietary protein level, sex and breed. J Anim Sci. 1967 Mar 1;26(2):341-4. Go to original source...
    10. Hameenoja P. Animal health and welfare - Pig production. Acta Vet Scand Suppl. 2002 Mar 1;95:33-6. Go to original source...
    11. Kallabis KE, Kaufmann O. Effect of a high-fibre diet on the feeding behaviour of fattening pigs. Arch Tierzucht. 2012 Oct 10;55(3):272-84. Go to original source...
    12. Kirchgeßner M, Stangl G, Schwarz FJ, Roth FX, Sudekum KH, Eder K. Tierernährung [Animal nutrition]. 14th ed. Frankfurt: DLG-Verlag; 2014. German.
    13. Lassen J, Sandoe P, Forkman B. Happy pigs are dirty! - Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest Sci. 2006 Sep 1;103(3):221-30. Go to original source...
    14. Nielsen BL. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999 Mar 1;63(1):79-91. Go to original source...
    15. Nielsen BL, Lawrence AB, Whittemore CT. Effects of single-space feeder design on feeding behaviour and performance of growing pigs. Anim Sci. 1995 Mar;61:575-9. Go to original source...
    16. Ott S, Moons CPH, Kashiha MA, Bahr C, Tuyttens FAM, Berckmans D, Niewold TA. Automated video analysis of pig activity at pen level highly correlates to human observations of behavioural activities. Livest Sci. 2014 Feb 1;160:132-7. Go to original source...
    17. Preißinger W. Dietary fiber displaces no concentrated feed and makes pigs less aggressive. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society of Nutrition Physiology, March 13th to 15th, 2018. Göttingen; 2018. p. 196-200.
    18. Schamun S, Hoy S. Untersuchungen zum Futteraufnahmeverhalten von Mastschweinen an einer elektronischen Abrufstation unter Berücksichtigung der Rangordnung [Investigations on feed intake behaviour of fattening pigs fed at an electronic feeding station taking into account the rank order]. Züchtungsk. 2011;83(6):426-38. German.
    19. Shono M, Shono H, Ito Y, Muro M, Maeda Y, Sugimori H. A new periodogram using one-way analysis of variance for circadian rhythms. Psych Clin Neurosci. 2000 Jun; 54(3):307-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Signoret JP, Baldwin BA, Fraser D, Hafez ESE. The behaviour of swine. In: Hafez ESE, editor. Behaviour of domestic animals. London: Baillière Tindall; 1975. p. 295-329.
    21. Tolkamp BJ, Allcroft DJ, Austin EJ, Nielsen BL, Kyriazakis I. Satiety splits feeding behaviour into bouts. J Theor Biol. 1998 Sep 21;194(2:235-50. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Vandermeulen J, Bahr C, Tullo E, Fontana I, Ott S, Kashiha M, Guarino M, Moons CPH, Tuyttens FAM, Niewold TA, Berckmans D. Discerning pig screams in production environments. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 29;10(4):e0123111. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Veissier I, Forkman B. The nature of animal welfare science. Annu Rev Biomed Sci. 2018 Dec 1;10:T15-T26.
    24. Yeates MP, Tolkamp BJ, Allcroft DJ, Kyriazakis I. The use of mixed distribution models to determine bout criteria for analysis of animal behaviour. J Theor Biol. 2001 Dec 7; 213(3):413-25. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Zentral Verband der Deutschen Schweineproduktion. Richtlinie für die Stationsprüfung auf Mastleistung, Schlachtkörperwert und Fleischbeschaffenheit beim Schwein [Guidelines for station testing of growth, carcase worth and meat quality of pigs]. 2007. German.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content