DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of different space allowances on growth performance, blood profile and pork quality in a grow-to-finish production system

  • Jang, J.C. (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, College of Animal Life Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jin, X.H. (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, College of Animal Life Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hong, J.S. (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, College of Animal Life Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Y.Y. (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, College of Animal Life Sciences, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.02.13
  • Accepted : 2017.05.24
  • Published : 2017.12.01

Abstract

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 [$(Yorkshire{\times}Landrace){\times}Duroc$, $30.25{\pm}1.13kg$] were allocated into three treatments (0.96: four pigs/pen, $0.96m^2/pig$; 0.80: five pigs/pen, $0.80m^2/pig$; 0.69: six pigs/pen, $0.69m^2/pig$) in a randomized complete block 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 1 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 $0.80m^2/pig$ for maximizing growth performance and production efficiency.

Keywords

Space Allowance;Growing-finishing Pigs;Growth Performance;Immune;Pork Quality

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET)

References

  1. Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C. Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute; 1999. Discussion Paper No. 28.
  2. Rossi R, Costa A, Guarino M, et al. Effect of group size, floor space allowance and floor type on growth performance and carcass characteristics of heavy pigs. J Swine Health Prod 2008;16:304-11.
  3. Brumm MC, Ellis M, Johnston LJ, Rozeboom DW, Zimmerman DR. Interaction of swine nursery and grow-finish space allocations on performance. J Anim Sci 2001;79:1967-72. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7981967x
  4. Hamilton DN, Ellis M, Wolter BF, Schinckel AP, Wilson ER. The growth performance of the progeny of two swine sire lines reared under different floor space allowances. J Anim Sci 2003;81:1126-35. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8151126x
  5. National Research Council. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Swine. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2012.
  6. Gonyou HW, Brumm MC, Bush E, et al. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and growerfinisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. J Anim Sci 2006;84:229-35. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.841229x
  7. Lindermann MD, Kim BG. Technical note: a model to estimate individual feed intake of swine in group feeding. J Anim Sci 2007;85:972-5. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-412
  8. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 10th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists; Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC International; 2000.
  9. Kauffman RG, Eikelenboom PG, Van der Wal, Engel B, Zaar M. A comparision of methods to estimate water-holding capacity in postrigor porcine muscle. Meat Sci 1986;18:307-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(86)90020-3
  10. Steel RG, Torrie JH. Principle and procedures of statistic: A biometrical approach. New York, USA: Me-Graw Hill Book; 1980. p. 161.
  11. Gonyou HW, Chapple RP, Frank GR. Productivity, time budgets and social aspects of eating in pigs penned in groups of five or individually. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1992;34:291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80090-5
  12. Pearce GP, Paterson AM. The effect of space restriction and provision of toys during rearing on the behaviour, productivity and physiology of male pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1993;36:11-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90095-7
  13. White HM, Richert BT, Schinckel AP, et al. Effects of temperature stress on growth performance and bacon quality in grow-finish pigs housed at two densities. J Anim Sci 2008;86:1789-98. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0801
  14. Petherick JC. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In: Baxter SH, Baxter MR, McCormack JAC, editors. Farm animal housing and welfare. Lancaster, UK: Martinus Nuhoff Publishers; 1983. p. 103-20.
  15. The European Community. European Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23rd October 2001 amending directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. L316 (2001/12/01); 2001.
  16. Schinckel AP. Describing the pig. In: Kyriazakis I, editor. A quantitative biology of the pig. NY, USA: CABI; 1999.
  17. Terlouw EM, Schouten WPG, Ladewig J. In: Appleby C, Hughes BO, ediotrs. Physiology in animal welfare. Oxon, NY: CABI; 1997.
  18. McGlone JJ, Vines B, Rudine AC, DuBois P. The physical size of gestating sows. J Anim Sci 2004;82:2421-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8282421x
  19. Zhang ZF, Li J, Park JC, Kim IH. Effect of vitamin levels and different stocking densities on performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood characteristics of growing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2013;26:241-6. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12434
  20. Bohus B, Koolhaas JM, Nyakas C, et al. Physiology of stress: a behavioral view. In: Wiepkema PR, van Adrichem PWM, editors. Biology of stress in farm animals: an integrative approach. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1987.
  21. Li P, Yin YL, Li D, Kim SW, Wu G. Amino acids and immune function. Br J Nutr 2007;98:237-52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711450769936X
  22. Woof JM, Kerr MA. The function of immunoglobulin A in immunity. J Pathol 2006;208:270-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1877
  23. Tuchscherer M, Puppe B, Tuchscherer A, Kanitz E. Effects of social status after mixing on immune, metabolic, and endocrine responses in pigs. Physiol Behav 1998;64:353-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(98)00084-5
  24. Stefanski V, Hendrichs H. Social confrontation in male guinea pigs: behavior, experience, and complement activity. Physiol Behav 1996;60:235-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(95)02269-4
  25. Liorancas V, Bakutis B, Januskeviciene G. Influence of rearing space on the behavior, performance, carcass and meat quality of pigs. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 2006;62:274-7.
  26. Warriss PD, Kestin SC, Robinson JM. A note on the influence of rearing environment on meat quality in pigs. Meat Sci 1983;9:271-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(83)90037-2
  27. Enfalt A, Lundstrom K, Ingemar Hansson KI, Lundeheim N, Nystrom PE. Effects of outdoor rearing and sire breed (Duroc or Yorkshire) on carcass composition and sensory and technological meat quality. Meat Sci 1997;45:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00101-5
  28. Maganhini MB, Mariano B, Soares AL, et al. Meats PSE (pale, soft, exudative) and DFD (dark, firm, dry) of an industrial slaughterline for swine loin. Cienc Tecnol Aliment 2007;27:69-72. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612007000500012
  29. Dokmanovic M, Baltic MZ, Duric J, et al. Correlations among stress parameters, meat and carcass quality parameters in pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:435-41. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0322
  30. Warriss D, Brown SN, Knowles TG. Measurements of the degree of development of rigor mortis as an indicator of stress in slaughtered pigs. Vet Rec 2003;153:739-42.
  31. Hambrecht E, Eissen JJ, Verstegen MWA. Effect of processing plant on pork quality. Meat Sci 2003;64:125-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00166-3
  32. Wolter BF, Ellis M. Impact of large group sizes on growth performance in pigs in the USA. Pigs of News Inf. 2002;23:17-20.
  33. Jenen T, Kold Nielsen C, Vinther J, D'Eath RB. The effect of space allowance for finishing pigs on productivity and pen hygiene. Livest Sci 2012;149:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.06.018
  34. Bornett HLI, Guy JH, Cain PJ. Impact of animal welfare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. J Agric Environ Ethics 2003;16:163-86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022994131594