Figure 1 - uploaded by Raffaella Rossi
Content may be subject to copyright.
Floor plan of three pig housing rooms in a study on the effects of group size-space allowance and floor type on growth performance and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs in Italy. Room One: partially slatted floor, mechanically cross-ventilated; Room Two: totally slatted floor, mechanically ventilated; Room Three: solid floor, natural ventilation. LSA, low space allow- ance of 1.0 m 2 per animal; HSA, high space allowance of 1.4 m 2 per animal; FT, feeding trough.
Source publication
Objective: To evaluate the effects of group size-space allowance and floor type on growth performance and carcass characteristics in pigs slaughtered at 160 kg live weight (LW). Materials and methods: (Landrace × Large White) × Duroc pigs (N = 216), averaging 89.8 ± 0.4 kg LW at approximately 6 months of age, were evenly distributed among 18 pens (...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... room had a different floor type and ventilation system. Figure 1 shows the top view of the three pig rooms and Figure 2 shows a cross sec- tion of each room, including the flooring type and the ventilation system. Room One (Figure 2A) had a 20% slatted floor, with 10-cm slats and 2-cm gaps, and was cross-ventilated mechanically. ...
Similar publications
A small demonstration sow herd has been housed during breeding and gestation in a deep-bedded hoop structure. Conception rates, number of pigs born alive, and birth weights were excellent. These results indicate that hoops provide a realistic alternative for housing gestating sows. A discussion of the decision considerations related to animal envir...
Citations
... Pigs raised in an enriched environment had lower stress levels and better feed conversion than pigs housed in conventional pens. Numerous studies have shown that a reduction in floor space negatively affects average daily feed intake and growth rate [39][40][41]. Similarly, average daily gain and body weight improved when the feeding area was increased during the growing and finishing phases [42]. ...
The phenomenon of growth can be viewed as the key basis of pig production and has therefore long been the subject of intensive research. Growth is the result of a series of biological processes in the animal and it is not surprising that an immense amount of research has been carried out by scientists from various disciplines. Since growth is influenced by genetic and environmental factors and their interaction, most of the studies mentioned here deal with these aspects. In addition, this review deals with the different methods for the description of growth and the application of some growth models in various studies in pigs. It is concluded that understanding the relationships between the factors that influence growth and developing accurate models are essential for implementing strategies to better utilize growth potential of pigs.
... In a first trial, Rossi et al. [36] compared the effect of two different floor space allowances: a low space allowance (LSA; k = 0.033; 1.0 m 2 per animal; 126 pigs) and a high space allowance (HSA; k = 0.047; 1.4 m 2 per animal; 90 pigs) in the body weight range of about 90 to 156 kg. Pigs on all floor types tended to gain more weight with HSA than with LSA during the last phase of the production cycle. ...
This review aims to give an overview of the most significant available information on welfare issues of Italian heavy pigs on farms. These animals, whose meat is used to produce typical products, are characterized by much higher body weights and age at slaughter (approximately 160–170 kg, and 9 months of age) than most pigs reared in Europe, resulting in peculiar behavioral and rearing-related needs. To highlight the main findings and the areas in which additional research is needed, the paper was organized by allocating the studies on the basis of the Welfare Quality four principles framework, i.e., good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior. The results indicate the possibility of improvement with regard to the management of feeding, watering, and some environmental parameters (light, thermal comfort, enrichments) and a lack of knowledge on the actual space requirements (and a corresponding regulatory gap). Moreover, deficiencies concerning the prevalence of injuries and disease and the relationship between lesions observed post-mortem and rearing conditions needs to be addressed. Lastly, the absence of research concerning the evaluation of the emotional state of animals has been highlighted. It is hoped that these findings will, in the future, serve as a basis for the development of specific policies for these animals in order to increase the ethical value of the entire production chain, in accordance with consumers’ demand and expectation for high animal welfare standards.
... Small space allowances can adversely affect productivity but also pen hygiene (Jensen et al., 2012). Pigs naturally avoid defecating in their lying areas, and generally hygiene will deteriorate as pigs get larger (Hacker et al., 1994;Rossi et al., 2008), as they will not be able to separate their dunning and lying areas with reduced space (Jensen et al., 2012). According to the EFSA the equation to calculate space allowance should be A = 0.036 × BW 0.67 for pigs up to 110 kg, but pigs above 110 kg should have a k = 0.047; this equation is based solely on lying behavior and does not incorporate space for fundamental behaviors (such as feeding, drinking, excretion and exploration; Vermeer et al., 2014). ...
The main objectives of this chapter are to define animal welfare and to identify where intensive production systems may put finishing pigs at risk of poor animal welfare. The chapter discusses pig behavior and how this is affected by production systems, group size, living condition as well as systems for monitoring animal health and care.
... There is tendency for high stocking density to adversely affect the FCR of finishing pigs (Leek et al. 2004). FCE tend to be superior for space (1.4 m 2 /pig) than in finisher pigs (1 m 2 /pig) up to 160 kg body weight (Rossi et al. 2008). Pigs that were crowded (0.52 m 2 /pig) had inferior feed efficiency (2.7 vs 2.5 lb feed/lb gain, respectively) than pigs that were not crowded (0.78 m 2 /pig), ADG was more in un-crowded, feeding time was lesser in crowded pigs with no difference in ADFI between two groups (Street and Gonyou 2008). ...
... Thus, social stress in the restricted pen space may have contributed to the leaner pigs with lower dressing percentage (Morrison et al. 2003). Back fat thickness was higher for higher space allowance (1.4 m 2 ) than lower space allowance (1 m 2 ) of finisher pigs (Rossi et al. 2008). Brumm (2004) found that in finishing pigs (120 kg LW), back fat increased from 19.4 to 21.4 mm when available space increased from k=0.023 to k=0.030. ...
Pork production in India has almost doubled from 0.204 MT to 0.402 MT in last decade (2007–08 to 2017–18). Best utilization of pen space without adversely affecting the productivity and well-being of pigs is crucial for pork sector. Most of the developed countries recommend floor space requirement of 0.15 m2/pig for weaners and South Asian countries as 0.3 to 0.5 m2/pig without any provision of open space. In India, very few studies have been carried out on space allowance in pigs. Since, Indian Standards (IS: 3916–1966) for pig housing are very old (1960s), study on the floor space requirement for individual pig in all the stages and different group sizes is very much essential for practical pig rearing. The negative impact of crowding on feed intake and growth is well documented. Higher stocking density may also adversely affect feed conversion efficiency. However, reduction in floor area (33% and 50%) in comparison to IS did not affect major performance traits. Space allowance is one of the important factors in the establishment of social rank. In European countries, the most economical allocation of pen floor space was less than the space needed for optimal performance. Reduced space allowances may lead to amplified aggression-related skin lesion scores. Thus, in space restricted environments, the dominance hierarchy becomes less stable amongst pigs and tail and ear biting are also commonly observed. Based on studies done so far it is concluded that there is scope of reduction in floor space allowance in comparison to IS specifications without compromising welfare status of pigs and further research in this area need to be encouraged.
... As concerns studies on the impact of space allowance on carcass and meat quality, Serrano et al. [11] found a decrease in backfat MUFA (Mono Unsaturated Fatty Acids) as space allowance increased. Rossi et al. [12] found no differences in meat quality together with increased backfat thickness in heavy pigs raised at space allowances of 1.4 vs. 1m 2 /head. Conversely, the effects of different space allowances on cured ham quality have never been investigated. ...
... A similar effect was observed also by Flohr et al. [34], who studied the effect of the removal of pigs from a group and observed that relieving stock pressure and providing additional floor space resulted in improvements in gain, suggesting that the allometric method is valid also for the prediction of floor space needs for heavy pigs. With respect to overall growth parameters, the only similar study carried out on Italian heavy pigs [12] found tendentially higher final BW in pigs kept at high space allowance (however, in the mentioned study group size was not constant). Other studies were carried out using lighter pigs (below 100 kg BW): Jensen et al. [35] found a tendential improvement in ADG for pigs kept at higher space allowances, whereas Gonyou et al. [36] separately analyzed the effects of group size and space allowance and found that both reduced group size and increased floor space area lead to higher ADG. ...
Sixty barrows (Body Weight–BW- range: 23.9–160 kg) were allotted to two experimental groups (6 pens of 5 pigs each): the control group was kept at a space allowance of 1m²/head; the second group was kept at 1.3m²/head. Behaviour, growth parameters, carcass and meat quality were assessed, as well as fat and cured ham quality. Results showed that pigs raised at 1.3m²/head spent more time laying (particularly in lateral recumbency, P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively) compared to pigs kept at lower space allowance. They also reduced the aimless exploration of the slatted pen floor (P<0.001) and increased overall expression of other, mainly active, behaviors (e.g., drinking, walking and standing, P<0.01). Pigs raised at 1.3m2/head showed higher final BW (P = 0.02), more favourable Average Daily Gain (ADG) and gain-to-Feed ratio (G:F) both during the last period of the trial (P<0.05 for both parameters) and over the entire trial (P = 0.01 for both parameters). No significant difference was observed between groups for carcass traits and the main meat quality attributes. Subcutaneous fat from green hams had higher α-linolenic acid content (P<0.01) in the group reared at greater space allowance. Green hams from this group lost less weight at trimming (P<0.01) and the resulting cured hams received better sensory evaluations (P<0.05). No difference was observed in fatty acid composition and unsaturation levels of the subcutaneous fat from cured hams. Our data suggest that heavy pigs intended for Parma ham would benefit from the adoption of higher individual floor space allowances, both in terms of animal welfare (increased possibility to rest) and of productive parameters, without having any detrimental effect on the suitability of the thighs for dry-curing or on the quality of the final product.
... Large-scale intensive pig farming system has been rising globally due to increase of market demands for pork products during the last two decades [1]. As the public interest in animal welfare increases to the livestock animals, pork producers are confronted with both profitability and welfare issues, although these seem inversely related [2]. ...
Objective:
This experiment was conducted to evaluate the optimal space allowance on growth performance, blood profile and pork quality of growing-finishing pigs.
Methods:
A total of ninety crossbred pigs ([Yorkshire x Landrace] x Duroc, 30.25 ± 1.13 kg) were allocated into three treatments (0.96: four pigs / pen, 0.96 m2/pig; 0.80: five pigs / pen, 0.80 m2/pig; 0.69: six pigs / pen, 0.69 m2/pig) in a randomized complete block (RCB) design. Pigs were housed in balanced sex and had free access to feed in all phases for 14 weeks (growing phase I, growing phase II, finishing phase I and finishing phase II).
Results:
There was no statistical difference in growing phase, but a linear decrease was observed on average daily gain (ADG, p<0.01), average daily feed intake (ADFI, p<0.01), and body weight (BW, p<0.01) with decreasing space allowance in late finishing phase. On the other hand, a quadratic effect was observed on gain to feed ratio in early finishing phase (p<0.03). Consequently, overall ADG, ADFI, and final BW linearly declined in response to decreased space allowance (p<0.01). The pH of pork had no significant difference in 01 hour after slaughter, whereas there was a linear decrease in 24 h after slaughter with decreasing space allowance. Floor area allowance did not affect pork colors, but shear force linearly increased as floor space decreased (p<0.01). There was a linear increase in serum cortisol concentration on 14 week (p<0.05) with decreased space allocation. Serum IgG was linearly ameliorated as space allowance increased on 10 week (p<0.05) and 14 week (p<0.01).
Conclusion:
Data from current study indicated that stress derived from reduced space allowance deteriorates the immune system as well as growth performance of pigs, resulting in poor pork quality. Recommended adequate space allowance in a grow-to-finish production system is more than 0.80 m2/pig for maximizing growth performance and production efficiency.
... Pigs avoid defecating in their lying area (Whatson, 1985), and if there is insufficient space for pigs to separate lying and defecating areas, pen hygiene could be negatively affected. The latter is already seen when pigs gain weight (Hacker et al., 1994;Rossi et al., 2008), which is explained by an increase in stocking density. In addition, some environmental issues might be related to high stocking densities, including the difficulties in dissipating heat at high temperatures (Lambooy and Engel, 1991). ...
Concurrent with a tendency toward higher slaughter weights of fattening pigs, minimum requirements for space allowance are increasing. Allowing pigs more space in existing standard pens, however, leads to a decrease in the number of pigs per pen, which jeopardizes the economic viability of the pig farm. A possible solution includes creating a twolevel pen by constructing a second level in an existing pen, to enable an increase in space allowance per pig with the same number of pigs. We investigated the effect of such a pen on the behavior, performance, and postslaughter results of fattening pigs during the entire fattening period (30 to 110 kg). A total of 444 pigs were distributed over standard control pens (0.74 m²/pig) and two-level pens (0.99 m²/pig). Feed was provided only in a trough at the ground level of the pen. The results show that the increased space allowance and choice of levels in two-level pens influenced the pigs’ behavior in a positive way, as they performed less manipulation of pen mates (P < 0.0001). Moreover, pigs lay down more (P = 0.0007) and showed less head knocking (P = 0.005) in two-level pens, suggesting that they were calmer. In line with the behavioral results, pigs in twolevel pens had fewer lesions on tails (P = 0.006), ears (P = 0.008), and shoulders (P = 0.01). Growth performance was not affected (P > 0.05), but postslaughter measurements revealed fewer livers with white spots in pigs from two-level pens. This result might be related to lower disease pressure in pens with lower stocking densities. In conclusion, a two-level pen seemed to have positive effects on the behavior of pigs (in terms of pen mate manipulation) and the increase in space allowance seemed to make the pigs calmer. The use of the second level by heavier pigs should, however, be further studied to investigate whether this extra space could be fully counted for the minimal space requirements. © 2017 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.
... Pigs avoid defecating in their lying area (Whatson, 1985), and if there is insufficient space for pigs to separate lying and defecating areas, pen hygiene could be negatively affected. The latter is already seen when pigs gain weight (Hacker et al., 1994;Rossi et al., 2008), which is explained by an increase in stocking density. In addition, some environmental issues might be related to high stocking densities, including the difficulties in dissipating heat at high temperatures (Lambooy and Engel, 1991). ...
Concurrent with a tendency toward higher slaughter weights of fattening pigs, minimum requirements for space allowance are increasing. Allowing pigs more space in existing standard pens, however, leads to a decrease in the number of pigs per pen, which jeopardizes the economic viability of the pig farm. A possible solution includes creating a two-level pen by constructing a second level in an existing pen, to enable an increase in space allowance per pig with the same number of pigs. We investigated the effect of such a pen on the behavior, performance, and postslaughter results of fattening pigs during the entire fattening period (30 to 110 kg). A total of 444 pigs were distributed over standard control pens (0.74 m/pig) and two-level pens (0.99 m/pig). Feed was provided only in a trough at the ground level of the pen. The results show that the increased space allowance and choice of levels in two-level pens influenced the pigs' behavior in a positive way, as they performed less manipulation of pen mates ( < 0.0001). Moreover, pigs lay down more ( = 0.0007) and showed less head knocking ( = 0.005) in two-level pens, suggesting that they were calmer. In line with the behavioral results, pigs in two-level pens had fewer lesions on tails ( = 0.006), ears ( = 0.008), and shoulders ( = 0.01). Growth performance was not affected ( > 0.05), but postslaughter measurements revealed fewer livers with white spots in pigs from two-level pens. This result might be related to lower disease pressure in pens with lower stocking densities. In conclusion, a two-level pen seemed to have positive effects on the behavior of pigs (in terms of pen mate manipulation) and the increase in space allowance seemed to make the pigs calmer. The use of the second level by heavier pigs should, however, be further studied to investigate whether this extra space could be fully counted for the minimal space requirements.
... Similarly, BFT was not influenced by floor space reduction which is in agreement with studies of Brumm (1996) and Wolter et al. (2001). Whereas, reduced BFT with reduction in floor space have been reported in few studies (Morrison et al. 2003, Brumm 2004, Rossi et al. 2008. Morrison et al. (2003) found that restricted (0.45-0.74 m 2 / pig) pen space for crossbred (Large White × Landrace) pigs of 10 to 23 weeks of age resulted in lower back fat measurement compared to pigs that had unrestricted (0.88 m 2 /pig) pen space. ...
... Brumm (2004) found that in finishing pigs (120 kg BW), back fat increased from 19.4 to 21.4 mm when available space increased from k = 0.023 to k = 0.030. Similarly, Rossi et al. (2008) allotted high (1.4 m 2 /pig; k = 0.047) and low (1.0 m 2 /pig; k = 0.033) floor space for (Landrace × Large White) × Duroc pigs of 90-160 kg body weight and found that BFT was higher for higher space allowance. In our study, backfat and dressing % were not affected as even lowest floor space group (about 9 to 80 kg BW, 0.45 to 0.9 m 2 /pig floor space, and k = 0.102 to 0.049 coefficient) had more space allowance than unrestricted or higher floor space of other mentioned studies. ...
Present study assessed the effect of floor space allowances on carcass traits of crossbred (Landrace × Desi) barrows in Indian conditions. Crossbred barrows (36) were reared with 3 different floor space allowances (12 each) having group size of 4 pigs/pen. One group (TIS) was provided floor space as per Indian Standards (0.9, 1.35 and 1.8 m2/pig for weaner, grower and finisher stages, respectively) specifications, while other two groups with 33% (T2/3) and 50% (T1/2) reduced floor space allowances. Pigs were reared up to 29 weeks of age. Final weight of pigs did not differ significantly among the groups. Six animals from each group were slaughtered. None of the major economic carcass traits, viz. carcass weight, dressing %, back fat thickness (BFT), loin eye area (LEA), estimated lean meat percentage etc. was adversely affected. Major cut-up parts, share of edible as well as inedible offal and composition of pork (moisture, CP and EE) also did not differ among groups. It indicates scope of 50 % reduction in floor space allowance for pig production in India without affecting final body weight and major carcass characteristics.
... For every 0.1 m 2 increase in space for weaner pigs at a floor space of 0.18 m 2 per pig, increase in growth performance and FCE equated to 8.6 % and 1.2%, respectively (Kornegay and Notter, 1984). FCE tended to be higher for space (1.4 m 2 /pig) than (1 m 2 /pig) in finisher pigs up to 160 kg body weight (Rossi et al., 2008). Sharma et al. (2004) reported maximum FCE for 0.9 m 2 /pig space for Hampshire grower pigs (12-35 kg BW) among 4 different space allocations i.e. 0.4, 0.6, 0.9 and 1.2 m 2 with group size of 12, 9, 6 and 9, respectively. ...
Study was conducted in 36 crossbred (Landrace x Desi) weaned male piglets (6 weeks of age) divided into three groups (n=12) based on space allocation viz. T1 {0.9 m2/weaner pig- as per Indian Standards (IS)}, T2 (0.6 m2/pig- 33% reduction of IS) and T3 (0.45 m2/pig- 50% reduction of IS). The average initial (6 week) and final (14 week) body weight of weaner barrows were 8.67±0.26, 9.01±0.33, 9.13±0.36 kg and 19.57±1.19, 21.02±1.22, 21.55±1.28 kg for T1, T2 and T3 groups, respectively. Average total body weight gain during the experimental period was 10.90±1.09, 12.01±0.97 and 12.42±1.19 kg for T1, T2 and T3 groups, respectively. Average daily gain (ADG) of weaner barrows during the experimental period was 194.72±19.46, 214.44±17.37 and 221.73±21.23 g/day for T1, T2 and T3 groups, respectively. The overall feed conversion efficiency (FCE) for T1, T2 and T3 groups for whole period was 0.477±0.009, 0.447±0.006 and 0.461±0.011, respectively. Main economic indicators like ADG, FCE and health indicators like mean total lesion score and mean lesion score of body parts (except head and ears) did not differ significantly among groups and these values were within the acceptable limits. Even lowest k value (coefficient used for floor space allocation based on body weight of pigs) i.e. for T3 group, was higher than suggested critical k value in western countries and performance of animals of this group were also not affected. Therefore, weaner barrows of up to 20 kg body weight can be reared in economically efficient manner using 0.45 m2/pig space allowance in Indian conditions. © 2015, Agricultural Research Communication Centre. All rights reserved.
