Behavioural response of crossbred (Landrace × Desi) pigs under different floor space allowances

SANDEEP KASWAN; B H M PATEL; S K MONDAL; SANJAY KUMAR

doi:10.56093/ijans.v88i11.85063

Authors

SANDEEP KASWAN Assistant Professor, Department of Livestock Production Management, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab
B H M PATEL Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bengaluru Campus, Karnataka
S K MONDAL Principal Scientist, Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute (ICAR), Salt Lake, Kolkata
SANJAY KUMAR Principal Scientist, Division of Livestock Economics, Statistics and Information Technology

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v88i11.85063

Keywords:

Behaviour, Crossbred pigs, Floor area, Space allowance

Abstract

Present investigation was carried out to study the behaviour of pigs at 33 and 50% reduced floor space allowances in relation to Indian standards (IS: 3916-1966) for housing of pigs. Crossbred (Landrace × Desi) barrows (36) were reared with 3 different floor space allowances (n = 4 (group size) × 3 (replications) = 12 each) i.e. group TIS (control) had floor space allowance as per Indian standards, while T_2/3 and T_1/2 treatment groups had 33 and 50% reduced floor space allocation per pig. Accordingly, during weaner (6–14 weeks), grower (15–22 weeks) and finisher (23–28 weeks) stages, 3 different floor spaces were provided. During each growth stage (weaner/grower/ finisher), activities of each unit (consisting of 4 animals) were recorded thrice in sessions of 2 consecutive hours (an hour before (preprandial) and after (prandial and postprandial) offering of second meal in afternoon). Total time spent in agonistic activities did not differ among the groups. However, parallel pressing agonistic activity was more in T_1/2 group during grower and finisher stages at prandial and postprandial time while in TIS group during weaner stage at preprandial time. Time spent resting was higher in TIS group at prandial and postprandial time during weaner stage while it was higher in T_2/3 group during grower stage. Exploratory activities and social interactions were maximum in T_2/3 group during weaner and finisher stages and differed significantly from T_1/2 group. From behavioural response, it can be concluded that suitable floor space allowance should lie in between 33 to 50% reduction in relation to IS specifications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anil L, Anil S S and Deen J. 2007. Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87: 139–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A06-051

Averos X, Brossard L, Dourmad J Y, de Greef K H, Edge H L, Edwards S A and Meunier-Salaün. 2010. Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing– finishing pigs. Animal 4: 777–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991613

Blackshaw J K. 1981. Environmental effect of lying behaviour and use of trough space in weaned pigs. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 281–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(81)90084-5

Brumm M C and Miller P S. 1996. Response of pigs to space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2730–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112730x

Cho J H and Kim I H. 2011. Effect of stocking density on pig production. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(63): 13688– 92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.1691

de Greef K H, Vermeer H M, Houwers H W J and Bos A P. 2011. Proof of principle of the comfort class concept in pigs: Experimenting in the midst of a stakeholder process on pig welfare. Livestock Science 139: 172–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.005

FAO Statistical Yearbook. 2014. Europe and Central Asia Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia, Budapest, 2014. pp 46. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3621e.pdf.

Fu L, Li H, Liang T, Zhou B, Chu Q, Schinckel A P, Yang X, Zhao R, Li P and Huang R. 2016. Stocking density affects welfare indicators of growing pigs of different group sizes after regrouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174: 42–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.002

Gonyou H W and Lou Z. 2000. Effects of eating space and availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating behaviour of grower/finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78: 865–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.784865x

Indian Standard (IS: 3916-1966). 1966. Code of practice for pig housing. Indian Standard Institution, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Available at https://archive.org/details/gov.in.is.3916.1966.

Jensen M B, Studnitz M and Pedersen L J. 2010. The effect of type of rooting material and space allowance on exploration and abnormal behaviour in growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 87–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.002

Jensen P. 1982. An analysis of agonistic interaction patterns in group-housed dry sows-Aggression regulation through an “avoidance order”. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 47–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(82)90165-1

Kaswan S, Patel B H M, Mondal S K, Kumar S, Bharti P K and Upadhyay D. 2018. Economic analysis of crossbred (Landrace × Desi) pig reared under different floor space allowances. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 88(4): 484–87.

Kritas S K and Morrison R B. 2004. An observational study on tail biting in commercial grower-finisher barns. Journal of Swine Health and Production 12: 17–22.

Kyriazakis I and Whittemore C T. 2006. Whittemore’s Science and Practice of Pig Production. 3rd edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470995624

Marchant-Forde J N. 2009. The Welfare of Pigs: Animal Welfare Series. Springer Science and Business Media B.V. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8909-1

Martin P and Bateson P. 1993. Measuring Behaviour – An Introductory Guide. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342

Moinard C, Mendl M, Nicol C J and Green L E. 2003. A case study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 333–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00276-9

Morrison R S, Hemsworth P H, Cronin G M and Campbell R G. 2003. The effect of restricting pen space and feeder availability on the behaviour and growth performance of entire male growing pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 163–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00117-5

Pearce G P and Paterson A M. 1993. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 11–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90095-7

Seguin M J, Barney D and Widowski T M. 2006. Assessment of a group-housing system for gestating sows: Effects of space allowance and pen size on the incidence of superficial skin lesions, changes in body condition, and farrowing performance. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14: 89–96.

Snedecor G W and Cochran W S. 1994. Statistical Methods. 9th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Van Der Staay F J, van Zutphen J A, de Ridder M M and Nordquis R E. 2017. Effects of environmental enrichment on decisionmaking behaviour in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 194: 14–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.006

Vermeer H M, de Greef K H and Houwers H W J. 2014. Space allowance and pen size affect welfare indicators and performance of growing pigs under comfort class conditions. Livestock Science 159: 79–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.10.021

Weng R C, Edwards S A and English P R. 1998. Behaviour, social interactions and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59: 307–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00143-3

Whittaker A L, Van Wettere W H and Hughes P E. 2012. Space requirements to optimize welfare and performance in group housed pigs—A review. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 7(2): 48–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2012.48.54