Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:36:25.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of equations to predict the influence of floor space on average daily gain, average daily feed intake and gain : feed ratio of finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2017

J. R. Flohr ,
S. S. Dritz ,
M. D. Tokach ,
J. C. Woodworth ,
J. M. DeRouchey  and
R. D. Goodband
J. R. Flohr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
S. S. Dritz*
Affiliation:
Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
M. D. Tokach
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
J. C. Woodworth
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
J. M. DeRouchey
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
R. D. Goodband
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506, KS, USA
*
†E-mail: dritz@vet.k-state.edu
Get access

Abstract

Floor space allowance for pigs has substantial effects on pig growth and welfare. Data from 30 papers examining the influence of floor space allowance on the growth of finishing pigs was used in a meta-analysis to develop alternative prediction equations for average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and gain : feed ratio (G : F). Treatment means were compiled in a database that contained 30 papers for ADG and 28 papers for ADFI and G : F. The predictor variables evaluated were floor space (m2/pig), k (floor space/final BW0.67), Initial BW, Final BW, feed space (pigs per feeder hole), water space (pigs per waterer), group size (pigs per pen), gender, floor type and study length (d). Multivariable general linear mixed model regression equations were used. Floor space treatments within each experiment were the observational and experimental unit. The optimum equations to predict ADG, ADFI and G : F were: ADG, g=337.57+(16 468×k)−(237 350×k2)−(3.1209×initial BW (kg))+(2.569×final BW (kg))+(71.6918×k×initial BW (kg)); ADFI, g=833.41+(24 785×k)−(388 998×k2)−(3.0027×initial BW (kg))+(11.246×final BW (kg))+(187.61×k×initial BW (kg)); G : F=predicted ADG/predicted ADFI. Overall, the meta-analysis indicates that BW is an important predictor of ADG and ADFI even after computing the constant coefficient k, which utilizes final BW in its calculation. This suggests including initial and final BW improves the prediction over using k as a predictor alone. In addition, the analysis also indicated that G : F of finishing pigs is influenced by floor space allowance, whereas individual studies have concluded variable results.

Keywords

swinefloor spacegrowthk-valueprediction
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 1022 - 1029
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AAFC 1993. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals: Pigs. Agriculture and Agri-Feed Canada Publication 1898/E, Ottawa, Canada. p. 55.Google Scholar
Altman, DG and Bland, JM 1983. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 32, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapple, RP 1993. Effect of stocking arrangement on pig performance. In Manipulating pig production IV (ed. ES Batterham), p. 87. Australasian Pig Science Association, Attonwood, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
Cochran, WG and Cox, GM 1957. Experimental Design, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
European Community 2001. European Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23rd October 2001 amending directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L316.Google Scholar
Flohr, JR, Tokach, MD, DeRouchey, JM, Woodworth, JC, Goodband, RD and Dritz, SS 2016. Evaluating the removal of pigs from a group and subsequent floor space allowance on the growth performance of heavy weight finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4388–4400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelhbach, GD, Becker, DE, Cox, JL, Harmon, BG and Jensen, AH 1966. Effects of floor space allowance and number per group on performance of grow-finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 25, 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW, Brumm, MC, Bush, E, Deen, J, Edwards, SA, Fangman, R, McGlone, JJ, Meunier-Salaun, M, Morrison, RB, Spoolder, H, Sundberg, PL and Johnson, AK 2006. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. Journal of Animal Science 84, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, HW and Stricklin, WR 1998. Effects of floor area allowance and group size on the productivity of growing/finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1326–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, AF and Kornegay, ET 1983. The effects of restricted floor space allowance and virginiamycin supplementation on the feedlot performance of swine. Livestock Production Science 10, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, RE and Raftery, AE 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, PW 2009. Voluntary feed intake and pig breeding. In Voluntary feed intake (ed. DP Torralladona and E Roura), p. 16. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kornegay, ET and Notter, DR 1984. Effects of floor space and number of pigs per pen on performance. Pig News Information 5, 23–33.Google Scholar
Lin, LI-K 1989. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, DG and Butler, DG 1993. Statistical validation. Ecological Modeling 68, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midwest Plan Service 1991. Swine housing and equipment handbook, midwest plan service MWPS-8, 4th edition. 3rd Printing, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Mitchell, PL 1997. Misuse of regression for empirical validation of models. Agricultural Systems 54, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J, Kutner, MN, Nachtsheim, CJ and Wasserman, W 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Nitikanchana, S, Dritz, SS, Tokach, MD, DeRouchey, JM, Goodband, RD and White, BJ 2015. Regression analysis to predict growth performance from dietary net energy in growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 2826–2839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulk, CB, Bergstrom, JR, Tokach, MD, Dritz, SS, Burnett, DD, Stephenson, EW, Vaughn, MA, DeRouchey, JM, Goodband, RD, Nelssen, JL and Gonzalez, JM 2015. Equations generated to predict iodine value of pork carcass back, belly, and jowl fat. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1666–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peixoto, JL 1987. Hierarchical variable selection in polynomial regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 41, 311–313.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC and Baxter, SH 1981. Modelling the static special requirements of livestock. In Modelling, design and evaluation of agricultural buildings (ed. JAD MacCormack), pp. 75–82. Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Powell, TA, Brumm, MC and Massey, RE 1993. Economics of space allocation for grower-finisher hogs: a simulation approach. Review of Agricultural Economics 15, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shull, CM 2010. Effect of floor space in nursery and grow-finish periods on the growth performance of pigs. Master’s thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tedeschi, LO 2006. Assessment of adequacy of mathematical models. Agricultural Systems 89, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, LL, Goodband, RD, Tokach, MD, DeRouchey, JM, Woodworth, JC and Dritz, SS. 2015. The effects of increasing stocking density on finishing pig growth performance and carcass characteristics. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports. 1. https://dx.doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Flohr et al supplementary material

Flohr et al supplementary material 1

Download Flohr et al supplementary material(File)
File 36.2 KB