...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Animal Science >Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables.
【24h】

Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables.

机译:两组大小和两个地板空间分配的育肥猪对生产,健康,行为和生理变量的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

With the current shift in the industry toward housing pigs in groups of 100 to 1,000 per pen have come questions as to whether pigs can perform as well in large groups as they do in small and whether large groups of pigs can use the space provided more efficiently. This study examined effects of small (18 pigs) vs. large (108 pigs) group sizes provided 0.52 m(2)/ pig (crowded) or 0.78 m(2)/pig (uncrowded) of space on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Eight 7-to 8-wk-long blocks, each involving 288 pigs, were completed. The average BW at the beginning of the study was 37.4 +/- 0.26 kg. Overall, ADG was 1.032 kg/d and 1.077 (+/-0.015) kg/d for crowded and uncrowded pigs, respectively (P = 0.018). Differences between the space allowance treatments were most evident during the final week of study. Overall G:F was also reduced (P = 0.002) in the crowded treatment. Pigs in the crowded groups spent less (P = 0.003) time eating over the 8-wk study than did pigs in noncrowded groups, but ADFI did not differ (P = 0.34) between treatments. Overall, ADG of large-group pigs was 1.035 kg/d, whereas small group pigs gained 1.073 kg/d (+/-0.015; P = 0.039). Average daily gain differences between the group sizes were most evident during the first 2 wk of the study. Over the entire study, G:F also differed, with large groups being less efficient (P = 0.005) than small groups. Although large-group pigs had poorer scores for lameness (P = 0.012) and leg scores (P = 0.02) throughout the 8-wk period, morbidity levels did not differ (P = 0.32) between the group sizes. Minimal changes in postural behavior and feeding patterns were noted in large groups. An interaction (P = 0.04) of group size and space allowance for lameness indicated that pigs housed in large groups at restricted space allowances were more susceptible to lameness. Although some behavioral variables, such as lying postures, suggest that pigs in large groups were able to use space more efficiently, overall productivity and health variables indicate that pigs in large and small groups were similarly affected by the crowding imposed in this study. Broken-line analysis of ADG indicated no difference in the response to crowding by pigs in large and small groups. Little support was found for reducing space allowances for pigs in large groups.
机译:随着当前行业向以每只猪100到1,000只的猪群的形式转移猪圈的问题,人们开始质疑大型猪群是否能像小猪群一样出色,以及大型猪群是否可以更有效地利用提供的空间。这项研究检查了小型(18头猪)与大型(108头猪)组在生产,健康,行为,产蛋量,生猪拥挤0.52 m(2)/猪(未拥挤)或0.78 m(2)/猪(未拥挤)的影响。和生理变量。完成了8个7至8周长的块,每块288头猪。在研究开始时的平均体重为37.4 +/- 0.26公斤。总体而言,拥挤和不拥挤的猪的平均日增重分别为1.032公斤/天和1.077(+/- 0.015)公斤/天(P = 0.018)。在研究的最后一周,空间津贴治疗之间的差异最为明显。在拥挤的治疗中,总G:F也降低了(P = 0.002)。在8周研究中,拥挤组中的猪比非拥挤组中的猪花费更少的时间(P = 0.003),但是两次治疗之间的ADFI没有差异(P = 0.34)。总体而言,大型猪的日增重为1.035千克/天,而小型猪的日增重为1.073千克/天(+/- 0.015; P = 0.039)。在研究的前两周内,各组之间的平均日增重差异最为明显。在整个研究中,G:F也有所不同,大型小组的效率(P = 0.005)比小型小组低。尽管大型猪在整个8周期间的la足得分(P = 0.012)和腿部得分(P = 0.02)均较差,但各组之间的发病率水平没有差异(P = 0.32)。在大组中,姿势行为和进食方式的变化最小。组大小和space行空间津贴的相互作用(P = 0.04)表明,以有限的空间津贴大批饲养的猪更容易出现susceptible行。尽管某些行为变量(例如躺着的姿势)表明,大型猪群能够更有效地利用空间,但总体生产率和健康状况变量表明,大型和小型群猪同样受到本研究中拥挤的影响。 ADG的折线分析表明,无论大小,猪群拥挤的反应均无差异。在减少大型猪群的空间配额方面,几乎没有得到支持。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号