Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T20:57:04.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects on performance and behaviour of mixing 20-kg pigs fed individually

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Rundgren  and
I. Löfquist
M. Rundgren
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-75-007 Uppsala, Sweden
I. Löfquist
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-75-007 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

The effects of mixing on agonistic behaviour and performance were studied in 90 individually fed pigs, grouped at a mean live weight of 23 kg by one of the following three methods: (1) six unmixed littermates; (2) three pigs from each of two litters; and (3) one pig from each of six litters. Unmixed animals (treatment 1) did not fight and the mode of fighting differed between treatment 2 and 3. Mixing decreased daily weight gain in the period 23 to 100 kg for barrows, but not for gilts. For gilts, food conversion efficiency was negatively correlated with the number of received attacks in the observation period (80 min after mixing), and for the barrows to fighting injury scores.

Type
Papers
Information
Animal Production , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 311 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

Bryant, M. J. and Ewbank, R. 1972. Some effects of stocking rate and group size upon agonistic behaviour in groups of growing pigs. British Veterinary Journal 128: 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friend, T. H., Knabe, D. A. and Tanksley, T. D. 1983. Behavior and performance of pigs grouped by three different methods at weaning. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1406–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graves, H. B., Graves, K. L. and Sherritt, G. W. 1978. Social behavior and growth of pigs following mixing during the growing-finishing period. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, G., James, J. W. and Hodgens, N. 1964. Social behaviour of domestic animals. IV. Growing pigs. Animal Production 6: 129–139.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. 1981. Influence of psychical and olfactory environment on swine aggression. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Mardarowics, L. 1985. The influence of moving pigs to another building according to normal commercial procedure on their health and productivity. IBT Report, No 204, Department of Building Technology, N-1432. As-NLH, Norway.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
Meyer, B., Hagelso, M., Hansen, L. L. and Jeppesen, L. L. 1984. Effect of environment and rank order on agonistic behaviour in pigs. Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology of Farm Animals, Kiel (ed. Unshelm, J., Putten, G. van and Zeeb, K.), pp. 162–165.Google Scholar
Shkrritt, G. W., Graves, H. B., Gobble, J. L. and Hazlett, V. E. 1974. Effects of mixing pigs during the growing-finishing period. Journal of Animal Science 39: 834–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar