A primary swine production goal is to increase efficiency of lean tissue gains. While many swine production systems currently utilize ad libitum feeding, recent research suggests that altering feeding patterns may impact feed efficiency. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare two feeding patterns and evaluate their impact on whole body tissue accretion, feeding behavior and activity in growing pigs. Forty eight individually housed gilts (55.9±5.2kg on test BW) were assigned into one of two feeding treatments: 1) Free access to the feeder (Free Access) or 2) twice daily access where gilts were allowed to eat ad libitum between 08:00-09:00h and again from 17:00-18:00h (2×). Pig performance was recorded weekly for 55days and average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain:feed (G:F) was calculated. Body composition was assessed in 12 gilts per treatment using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at day -3 and 55 of treatment, and tissue accretion rates were calculated. Gilt behaviors were assessed via video analysis during week 7 and included time spent eating, feeding rate, enrichment interaction, postural changes, standing, sitting, and lying behaviors. Gilts fed 2× had lower ADG and ADFI compared to Free Access gilts (P≤0.01); however, no treatment difference in G:F was observed (P=0.83). At day 55 gilts fed 2× had a lower fat:protein compared to Free Access gilts (P=0.05). Fat, lean, and protein accretion rates were lower in gilts fed 2× compared to those fed Free Access (P=0.01). Gilts fed 2× ate less frequently and for a shorter duration of time, interacted with enrichment more frequently (P≤0.005), and tended to have less frequent postural changes compared to Free Access gilts (P=0.08). No treatment differences were observed in duration of time spent standing, sitting, or lying (P≥0.39). Although feed regimen did not alter feed efficiency, these data indicate that twice daily feeding reduced gilt adiposity and growth without altering the pig's behavioral expression of hunger. Therefore, twice daily feeding may be a method of increasing percent of lean tissue without negatively impacting gilt welfare.
No abstract
Increasing feed efficiency in swine is important for increasing sustainable food production and profitability for producers; therefore, this is often selected for at breeding. Residual feed intake (RFI) can be used for the genetic selection of pigs for feed efficiency. In our selection project, low-RFI pigs consume less feed for equal weight gain compared to their less efficient, high-RFI counterparts. However, little is known about how feed efficiency influences the pig's behavioral reactivity toward fear-eliciting stimuli. In this study, behavioral reactivity of pigs divergently selected for RFI was evaluated using human approach-(HAT) and novel object tests (NOT). Forty low-RFI (more feed efficient) and 40 high-RFI (less feed efficient) castrated male pigs (barrows; 46.5 ± 8.6 kg) from 8th generation Yorkshire RFI selection lines were randomly selected and evaluated once using HAT and once using NOT over a four week period utilizing a crossover experimental design. Each pig was individually tested within a 4.9 × 2.4 m test arena for 10 min; behavior was evaluated using live and video observations. The test arena floor was divided into four zones; zone 1 being oral, nasal, and/or facial contact with the human (HAT) or orange traffic cone (NOT) and zone 4 being furthest from the human or cone and included the point where the pig entered the arena. During both HAT and NOT, low-RFI pigs crossed fewer zones (P < 0.0001), had fewer head movements (P ≤ 0.02), defecated less frequently (P ≤ 0.03), displayed a shorter duration of freezing (P = 0.05), and froze less frequently (HAT: low-RFI = 4.9 ± 0.65 vs. high-RFI = 7.5 ± 0.96; NOT: low-RFI = 4.7 ± 0.66 vs. high-RFI = 7.2 ± 0.96; P < 0.0001) compared to high-RFI pigs. During HAT, low-RFI pigs also attempted to escape less frequently (low-RFI = 0.4 ± 0.14 vs. high-RFI = 1.1 ± 0.30; P = 0.001) compared to high-RFI pigs. In contrast, compared to the high-RFI pigs, low-RFI pigs took 48 s longer during HAT and 52 s longer during NOT to approach zone 1 (P ≤ 0.04). These results indicate that low-RFI pigs had decreased behavioral reactivity during HAT and NOT compared to high-RFI pigs. This may suggest that reducing a pig's behavioral reactivity is an important component of improving feed efficiency; however, it may have implications for animal handling and facility design. KeywordsSwine Feed Efficiency, Pig, Feed efficiency, Stress, Fear, Human approach, Novel object Disciplines Agriculture | Animal Sciences | Genetics and Genomics | Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine CommentsThis is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. 21 NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Applied Animal Behaviour S...
Increasing feed efficiency is an important goal for improving sustainable pork production and profitability for producers. To study feed efficiency, genetic selection based on residual feed intake (RFI) was used to create 2 divergent lines. Low-RFI pigs consume less feed for equal weight gain compared to their less efficient, high-RFI counterparts. Therefore, our objective was to assess how a pig's behavioral reactivity toward fear-eliciting stimuli related to RFI selection and improvement of feed efficiency. In this study, behavioral reactivity of pigs divergently selected for RFI was evaluated using human approach (HAT) and novel object (NOT) tests. Forty low-RFI and 40 high-RFI barrows and gilts (n = 20 for each genetic line; 101 ± 9 d old) from ninthgeneration Yorkshire RFI selection lines were randomly selected and evaluated once using HAT and once using NOT over a 2-wk period utilizing a crossover experimental design. Each pig was individually tested within a 4.9 × 2.4 m test arena for 10 min; behavior was evaluated using live and video observations. The test arena floor was divided into 4 zones; zone 1 being oral, nasal, and/or facial contact with the human (HAT) or orange traffic cone (NOT) and zone 4 being furthest from the human or cone and included the point where the pig entered the arena. During both HAT and NOT, low-RFI pigs entered zone 1 less frequently compared to high-RFI pigs (P ≤ 0.03). During NOT, low-RFI pigs changed head orientation more frequently (P = 0.001) but attempted to escape less frequently (low-RFI = 0.97 ± 0.21 vs. high-RFI = 2.08 ± 0.38; P = 0.0002) and spent 2% less time attempting to escape compared to high-RFI pigs (P = 0.04). Different barrow and gilt responses were observed during HAT and NOT. During HAT, barrows spent 2% more time within zone 1 (P = 0.03), crossed fewer zone lines (P < 0.0001), changed head orientation less frequently (P = 0.002), and froze less frequently compared to gilts (P = 0.02). However, during NOT, barrows froze more frequently (P = 0.0007) and spent 2% longer freezing (P = 0.05). When the behavior and RFI relationship was examined using odds ratios, decreasing RFI by 1 kg/d decreased the odds of freezing by 4 times but increased the odds of attempting to escape by 5.26 times during NOT (P ≤ 0.04). These results suggest that divergent selection for RFI resulted in subtle behavioral reactivity differences and did not impact swine welfare with respect to responses to fear-eliciting stimuli. ABSTRACT: Increasing feed efficiency is an important goal for improving sustainable pork production and profitability for producers. To study feed efficiency, genetic selection based on residual feed intake (RFI) was used to create 2 divergent lines. Low-RFI pigs consume less feed for equal weight gain compared to their less efficient, high-RFI counterparts. Therefore, our objective was to assess how a pig's behavioral reactivity toward fear-eliciting stimuli related to RFI selection and improvement of feed efficiency. In this study, behavioral reactivit...
Accelerometers track changes in physical activity which can indicate health and welfare concerns in dogs. The FitBark 2 (FitBark) is an accelerometer for use with dogs; however, no studies have externally validated this tool. The objective of this study was to evaluate FitBark criterion validity by correlating FitBark activity data to dog step count. Dogs (n = 26) were fitted with a collar-mounted FitBark and individually recorded for 30 min using a three-phase approach: (1) off-leash room explore; (2) human–dog interaction; and (3) on-leash walk. Video analysis was used to count the number of times the front right paw touched the ground (step count). Dog step count and FitBark activity were moderately correlated across all phases (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). High correlations between step count and FitBark activity were observed during phases 1 (r = 0.795, p < 0.001) and 2 (r = 0.758, p < 0.001), and a low correlation was observed during phase 3 (r = 0.498, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the FitBark is a valid tool for tracking physical activity in off-leash dogs; however, more work should be done to identify the best method of tracking on-leash activity.
Swine welfare has become an ever increasing area of public interest in the United States (USA) and has resulted in dramatic changes to legislation, policy and practices in swine production. Over the past decades, consumer engagement, animal protection campaigns and increase knowledge about swine welfare arising from education and research programmes have escalated swine welfare to a top industry priority. For both mainstream and niche pork marketing streams, science based and culturally relevant programmes have been developed to assess swine welfare, articulate standards of care and verify compliance to assure purchasers and consumers of pork about on-farm husbandry practices that impact animal welfare. This response has transitioned primarily from education of producers and/or consumers, to outcome-based animal welfare assessment programmes with independent third party verification audits. This review paper will evaluate some factors that have influenced the development of swine welfare standards in the USA and describe programmes developed to improve and evolve on-farm swine welfare for the future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.