生产性能测定站对生长猪应激水平和采食行为的影响

doi:10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2013.09.011

畜牧兽医学报 ›› 2013, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (9): 1411-1416.doi: 10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2013.09.011

生产性能测定站对生长猪应激水平和采食行为的影响

于世征，郝月，顾宪红^*

(中国农业科学院北京畜牧兽医研究所，动物营养学国家重点实验室，北京 100193)

收稿日期:2013-01-04 出版日期:2013-09-23 发布日期:2013-09-23
通讯作者: 顾宪红，研究员，博导，主要从事畜禽应激、福利与健康养殖研究，E-mail: guxianhong@vip.sina.com
作者简介:于世征(1985-)，男，河北保定人，硕士生，主要从事猪的福利饲养研究，E-mail: ysz6935163@126.com
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划课题(2012BAD39B02)；公益性行业(农业)科研专项(201003011；201003060)

Effects of Electronic Feeding Station on Stress Level and Feeding Behavior of Growing Pigs

YU Shi-zheng, HAO Yue, GU Xian-hong^*

(State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China)

Received:2013-01-04 Online:2013-09-23 Published:2013-09-23

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本试验旨在研究生产性能测定站对猪只应激水平及采食行为的影响。选用体重为(28.2±3.41)kg的大白生长猪122头，公母各半，按圈随机分成普通料槽15头组、测定站15头组以及测定站8头组，15头组3个重复，8头组4个重复，试验期44 d。试验期间，测定猪只皮肤温度和唾液皮质醇水平，并对猪只采食行为进行分析。结果表明：3个处理之间，猪只唾液皮质醇水平差异不显著。测定站显著提高了猪只第2天时的皮肤温度（P<0.05），极显著降低了第15天的猪只皮温（P<0.01）。测定站8头组猪只采食量略高于测定站15头组，并且30 d以后猪只采食量差距呈增大趋势。测定站8头组猪只采食次数低于测定站15头组，但日累计采食时间高于测定站15头组。测定站8头组和15头组猪只在09:00、15:00以及19:00时存在采食高峰，但测定站15头组猪只日节律采食行为变化曲线较为平缓。

Abstract:

The aim of this experiment was to study the effects of electronic feeding station on stress response and feeding behavior of growing pigs. One hundred and twenty-two Large White growing pigs with initial weight of (28.2±3.41) kg were randomly allotted into station 15 group, common silo 15 group and station 8 group by pens. The pigs were stratified by sex. The 15 groups had 3 replications, and 8 group had 4 replications. Feeding period was 44 days. During the test period, the skin temperature of pigs was tested, and the saliva was collected to determine the cortisol concentration. At the same time, the feeding behavior was analyzed. The results showed that salivary cortisol level of pigs had no significant differences between the three treatments. The station significantly increased the pig skin temperature (P<0.05) on 2^nd day, and significantly decreased skin temperature (P<0.01) on 15^th day. Feed intake of pigs in station 8 group was slighter higher than that in station 15 group, and the gap of feed intake tended to be lager after 30 days. Intake times of pigs in station 8 group was lower than that in station 15 group, but the cumulative feeding time during a day was higher than that in station 15 group. Both station 8 and 15 group had feeding peaks at 09:00, 15:00 and 19:00，but the daily feeding behavior curve of pigs in station 15 group was more gentle.

中图分类号:

S828
S815.4

于世征，郝月，顾宪红. 生产性能测定站对生长猪应激水平和采食行为的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2013, 44(9): 1411-1416.

YU Shi-zheng, HAO Yue, GU Xian-hong. Effects of Electronic Feeding Station on Stress Level and Feeding Behavior of Growing Pigs[J]. ACTA VETERINARIA ET ZOOTECHNICA SINICA, 2013, 44(9): 1411-1416.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.xmsyxb.com/CN/10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2013.09.011

https://www.xmsyxb.com/CN/Y2013/V44/I9/1411

参考文献

［1］MORROW A T S, WALKER N. Effects of number and siting of single-space feeders on performance and feeding behavior of growing pigs［J］. Agric Sci, 1994, 122:465-470.

［2］JENSEN K H, SORENSEN L S， BERTELSEN D, et al. Management factors affecting activity and aggression in dynamic group housing systems with electronic sow feeding: a field trial［J］. Anim Sci, 2000, 71(7): 535-545.

［3］ANIL L，ANIL S S, DEEN J, et al. Evaluation of well-being, productivity and longevity of pregnant sows housed in groups in pens with an electronic sow feeder or separately in gestation stalls［J］. Am J Vet Res, 2006, 66(3):1630-1638.

［4］AREY D S, EDWARDS S A. Factors influencing aggression between sows after mixing and the consequences for welfare and production［J］. Livest Prod Sci, 1998, 56(1): 61-70.

［5］SPOOLDER H A M, EDWARDS S A, CORNING S. Aggression among finishing pigs following mixing in kennelled and unkennelled accommodation［J］. Livest Prod Sci, 2000, 68(2): 107-120.

［6］殷宗俊，汪春乾．饲养密度对断奶仔猪生长和行为的影响［J］．安徽农业大学学报，2000，27(1)：79-81.

［7］DINAND E, BART S, WILLEM G P, et al. The effects of mixing on behavior and circadian parameters of salivary cortisol in pigs［J］. Physiol Behav, 1997, 62(1):181-184.

［8］ESTER P, BERT D, CHRISTEL P H, et al. Effect of temporary straw bedding on pigs’ behavior, performance, cortisol and meat quality［J］. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2006, 98(3-4): 234-248.

［9］GODELIEVE K, HANS H, MAAIKE F, et al. Cortisol administration to pregnant sows affects novelty-induced locomotion, aggressive behavior, and blunts gender differences in their offspring［J］. Horm Behav, 2006, 49(5): 663-672.

［10］KOBELT A J, HEMSWORTH P H, BARNETT J L, et al. Sources of sampling variation in saliva cortisol in dogs［J］. Res Vet Sci, 2003, 75(2):157-161.

［11］卢庆萍，张宏福，林海, 等．动物应激生物学—动物福利的本质和基本原理［M］．北京：中国农业出版社，2005： 1-2.

［12］DORTHE K R, ROLAND W, BEAT W. Effects of animal/feeding-place ratio on the behaviour and performance of fattening pigs fed via sensor-controlled liquid feeding［J］. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2006, 98(1-2):45-53.

［13］LAURENCE C, CECILE A, ALAIN B. Pig’s responses to repeated social regrouping and relocation during the growing-finishing period［J］. Anim Behav Sci, 2007, 105(1-3):102-114.

［14］NIELSEN B L, LAWRENCE A B, WHITTEMORE C T, et al. Feeding behavior of growing pigs using single or multi-space feeders［J］ .Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1996, 47(3-4):235-246.

［15］洪奇华，陈安国．猪采食行为与饲喂设备的研究进展［J］．养猪，2003，(2)：36-39.

［16］CONNELA N E, BEATTIE V E, WEATHERUP R N. Influence of group size during the post-weaning period on the performance and behaviour of pigs［J］. Livest Prod Sci, 2004, 86(1-3):225-232.

［17］楼平儿，廖东，严卫明．运用美国奥斯本自动饲喂系统对不同性别金华猪进行生长及胴体性能测定［J］．养猪，2011，(5)：62-63.

［18］朱良，罗凤珍，田增．大约克生长猪采食行为观测与研究［J］．湖南饲料，2010，(3)：27-28.

［19］STEFFEN H, SONJA S, CARMEN W. Investigations on feed intake and social behavior of fattening pigs fed at an electronic feeding station［J］. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2012, 139(1-2): 58-64.

［20］谭溪清，罗凤珍，朱良. 大约克生长猪采食行为研究［J］．畜牧兽医，2011，43(3)：45-47.

［21］卢纪和，于天政，赵海军. 利用ACEMA48系统对猪采食行为的观测［J］. 养猪，2000，(2)：18.

[1]	牛乃琪, 赵润泽, 宗文成, 刘先策, 刘海, 石国华, 井西涛, 张龙超. 北京黑猪GREB1L和MIB1基因多态性与肋骨数及胴体性状的关联分析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2024, 55(1): 79-86.
[2]	祝雪丽, 张龙超, 王立贤, 蒲蕾, 刘欣. 北京黑猪AQP9和RPS10基因多态性及其与背膘厚的关联分析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2024, 55(1): 87-98.
[3]	时胜洁, 王立光, 高磊, 蔡传江, 何伟先, 褚瑰燕. miR-24-3p对猪颗粒细胞雌二醇合成的作用[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2024, 55(1): 169-178.
[4]	杨凯, 卢倬达, 何健, 张瑞琪, 王素青, 李克标, 赵云翔, 朱晓萍, 郭金彪. 商品猪群体效应对纯种猪胴体性状基因组选择准确性的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(12): 4943-4951.
[5]	李超, 赵雪艳, 王永军, 王彦平, 任一帆, 李菁璇, 王怀中, 王继英, 宋勤叶. 莱芜猪和杜长大猪盲肠和结肠微生物菌群结构组成和功能分析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(12): 5033-5045.
[6]	徐婷婷, 齐芬芳, 黄世会, 牛熙, 李升, 冉雪琴, 王嘉福, 谢健. 香猪MAP3K4基因结构变异多态性和基因表达研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(12): 5046-5055.
[7]	薛鸿雁, 杨孟雨, 杨欢, 董丽君, 蔡霞清, 赵泽民, 王鲜忠. ALOX15B-JNK在热应激诱导支持细胞氧化应激和凋亡中的作用[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(12): 5056-5065.
[8]	胡紫平, 王立刚, 宗文成, 侯任达, 苏艳芳, 牛乃琪, 王立贤, 王源, 张龙超. 基于基因组SNP和ROH的剑白香猪群体遗传结构解析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(10): 4117-4125.
[9]	季铮渝, 倪梦茹, 张兆博, 赵赶, 黄赞, 李平华, 黄瑞华, 侯黎明. 苏淮猪背最长肌FAPs细胞体外成脂能力及其基因表达模式的研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(10): 4126-4142.
[10]	毕欢, 覃海, 袁巍, 张雨丹, 张依裕, 陈伟. 敲降TYRP1基因对香猪表皮黑素细胞黑色素生成的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(10): 4143-4153.
[11]	刘攀, 李瑞琦, 谭占坤, 王逸飞, 陈晓晨, 何伟先, 杜忍让, 马健, 褚瑰燕, 蔡传江. 高纤维日粮对生长育肥猪生长性能、肉品质及肠道微生物的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(10): 4247-4259.
[12]	李平会, 蒲广, 王中宇, 周五朵, 牛培培, 吴承武, 侯黎明, 黄瑞华, 李平华. 日粮纤维水平对梅山猪血液和肠道免疫指标的影响及其机理初步解析[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(10): 4260-4277.
[13]	王慧, 冯保亮, 吴丹, 向光明, 王楠, 牟玉莲, 李奎, 刘志国. CD163基因在猪繁殖与呼吸综合征抗病育种中的研究进展[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(8): 3127-3138.
[14]	张万锋, 赵天枝, 李娇, 尤紫薇, 杨阳, 蔡春波, 高鹏飞, 曹果清, 郭晓红, 李步高. NR2F2基因调控猪PK15细胞增殖和凋亡的研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(8): 3242-3251.
[15]	连玉举, 张致远, 廖晓波, 魏红江, 印遇龙, 刘梅. 医用小型猪选育方法和应用进展[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2023, 54(7): 2667-2682.

生产性能测定站对生长猪应激水平和采食行为的影响

Effects of Electronic Feeding Station on Stress Level and Feeding Behavior of Growing Pigs

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价