scholarly journals 47. Effect of environmental enrichment and group size on the water use and waste in grower-finisher pigs

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Shilpi Misra ◽  
Eddie A.M. Bokkers ◽  
John Upton ◽  
Amy J. Quinn ◽  
Keelin O'Driscoll
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpi Misra ◽  
Eddie A. M. Bokkers ◽  
John Upton ◽  
Amy J. Quinn ◽  
Keelin O’Driscoll

AbstractThe grower-finisher stage accounts for 64% of the total on-farm herd water use. Part of this is consumed by the pigs, but a part is also wasted. Drinking water usage and wastage is affected by different factors. We investigated how different group sizes and different levels of enrichment affect water usage (ingested plus wasted), water wastage, behavior and performance in grower-finisher pigs. Pigs (n = 672), 11 weeks of age (77 ± 2 days) were used for the experiment. The effect of group size: SMALL (12 pigs), MEDIUM (24 pigs), and LARGE (48 pigs) was assessed across two levels of enrichment (LOW—wooden post, hanging rubber toy, HIGH—Same as LOW + fresh grass). There was no effect of group size on water use or wastage. Pigs with HIGH enrichment (10.4 ± 0.4 L/pig/day) used less water than LOW enrichment (11.0 ± 0.4 L/pig/day; p < 0.001). The water wastage/drinker/hour was lower in pens with HIGH enrichment than LOW (p = 0.003). The drinking bout number (p = 0.037) and total occupancy/hour (p = 0.048) was also higher for pens with LOW than HIGH enrichment. Aggressive and harmful behaviour were performed less in LARGE groups and pens with HIGH enrichment. Thus, HIGH enrichment allowance reduced water usage and wastage so may have benefits for the environment, as well as animal welfare.


2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Zucca ◽  
S.P. Marelli ◽  
Veronica Redaelli ◽  
Eugenio Heinzl ◽  
Heidi Cardile ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 617-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. P. Turner ◽  
S. A. Edwards ◽  
V. C. Bland

AbstractCurrent Welfare Code recommendations suggest one nipple drinker per 10 pigs, while farmers have often used a ratio of one per 20 animals. This statement is based on information from pig farmers and advisors in the United Kingdom. Neither approach is based on empirical investigation. The use of larger group sizes in commercial herds raises further questions, since the relationship between group size and the appropriate number of drinking points cannot be assumed to be linear. The aim was to assess the two conflicting drinker allocations for their effect on welfare, as measured by drinking behaviour, social behaviour and performance, and any effect of group size on these. A total of 640 Large White × Landrace growing pigs were assigned to four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement (60 pigs, three drinkers; 20 pigs, one drinker; 60 pigs, six drinkers and 20 pigs, two drinkers). Drinker provision had no significant effect on water use (5.10, 3.88, 4.99 and 3.45 s.e. 0.231 I per pig per day respectively) but in a larger group more water was used in less drinking time (P < 0.001). The diurnal pattern of water use was similar for each treatment. More aggression occurred at the drinker in large groups with a poorer drinker allocation (11.0 v. 3.8% of drinking bouts terminated by aggression for 60 pigs with three drinkers and mean all other treatments respectively, P < 0·05). Overt aggression (2.22, 2.27, 1.76 and 2.07 (s.e. 0.284) aggressive acts per pig per h, respectively) and lesion score counts of a sample of pigs from each pen suggested no difference between treatments. Providing one drinker per 20 animals, even in a large group, did not affect drinking behaviour, social behaviour or production. These findings should not be extrapolated to situations of different ambient temperature, water flow rate or feeding strategy.


2001 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Fimbel ◽  
Amy Vedder ◽  
Ellen Dierenfeld ◽  
Felix Mulindahabi

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Levine ◽  
Rachel Best ◽  
Paul Taylor

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document