Literature DB >> 12854801

Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer.

M S Honeyman1, J D Harmon.   

Abstract

Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures or confinement during winter and summer was evaluated in Iowa. Hoops are large, tent-like shelters with cornstalks or straw for bedding. During summer and winter seasons for 3 yr (1998 to 2001), six trials were conducted using three hoop barns (designed for 150 pigs per pen, one pen per hoop) or a mechanically ventilated confinement barn with slatted floors (designed for 22 pigs per pen, six pens in the barn). A total of 3,518 pigs started the trials. Summer trials were June through October, and winter trials were December through April. Target stocking density was 1.11 m2/pig in hoops and 0.74 m2/pig in confinement. Identical corn-based diets were fed ad libitum from 16 to 118 kg for 127 d. Pigs were scanned before harvest for backfat and loin muscle area. When seasons were merged (season x housing interaction, P > or = 0.05), hoop-fed pigs had more backfat (21.8 +/- 0.3 vs 20.8 +/- 0.2 mm; P < 0.001), smaller loin muscle area (41.3 +/- 0.3 vs 43.0 +/- 0.2 cm2; P < 0.001), less lean percentage (51.1 +/- 0.2 vs 52.1 +/- 0.1%; P < 0.001), and less yield (74.9 vs 75.8 +/- 0.1%; P < 0.001) than confinement-fed pigs. When season x housing type interactions were observed (P < 0.004), summer hoop-fed pigs had greater ADG (834 +/- 5 vs 802 +/- 3 g/d; P < 0.001), required fewer days to 113 kg (174.9 +/- 0.9 vs 178.5 +/- 0.6 d; P < 0.01), had similar ADFI (2.40 +/- 0.03 vs 2.35 +/- 0.02 kg/d, as-fed basis) and gain:feed (G:F; 348 +/- 4 vs 342 +/- 3 g/kg) compared with confinement-fed pigs. Lean gain/day and efficiency of lean gain did not differ between housing systems. During winter, hoop-fed pigs had similar ADG (794 +/- 5 vs 801 +/- 3 g/ d), required more days to 113 kg (176.7 +/- 0.9 vs 172.9 +/- 0.6 d; P < 0.01), had greater ADFI (2.54 +/- 0.03 vs 2.35 +/- 0.02; P < 0.001), less G:F (313 +/- 4 vs 341 +/- 3; P < 0.001), less lean gain/day (312 +/- 2 vs 322 +/- 1 g/d; P < 0.01), and less efficiency of lean gain (130 +/- 2 vs 144 +/- 1 g lean gain/kg feed; P < 0.01) than confinement-fed pigs. Percentage of mortalities and culls did not differ between housing systems. During summer, there was a trend for fewer light pigs at marketing (< 100 kg) from hoops (0.8 vs 1.7%; P = 0.10). During winter, there were more light pigs at marketing from hoops (3.9 vs 1.3%; P = 0.01) than from confinement. Bedding use in hoops was 92 and 122 kg/pig for summer and winter, respectively. Performance of finishing pigs in bedded hoop structures depends in part on thermal environment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12854801     DOI: 10.2527/2003.8171663x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of pork quality and sensory characteristics for antibiotic free yorkshire crossbreds raised in hoop houses.

Authors:  N Whitley; D Hanson; W Morrow; M T See; S-H Oh
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 2.509

2.  Comparison of Growth Performance of Antibiotic-free Yorkshire Crossbreds Sired by Berkshire, Large Black, and Tamworth Breeds Raised in Hoop Structures.

Authors:  N Whitley; W E M Morrow; M T See; S-H Oh
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.509

Review 3.  Research trends in outdoor pig production - A review.

Authors:  Hyun-Suk Park; Byungrok Min; Sang-Hyon Oh
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.509

Review 4.  How Housing Conditions Determine the Welfare of Pigs.

Authors:  Agnieszka Ludwiczak; Ewa Skrzypczak; Joanna Składanowska-Baryza; Marek Stanisz; Piotr Ślósarz; Przemysław Racewicz
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 2.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.