Welfare and Performance of Finishing Pigs Kept at Two Group Sizes on Ad Libitum vs. Restricted Feeding

This 2 × 2 factorial study examined the welfare and performance of finishing pigs at two group sizes (9 or 18 pigs) over 12 weeks. For each set of groups of either 9 or 18 pigs, half of the pigs in each group size were fed ad libitum, while the others received a mildly restricted ration. Treatments were assigned to 16 partially slatted floor pens in a randomized block design, with a floor space of 1.15 m2/pig. Except in Week 1, there were proportionally fewer pigs with ear (p = 0.020) and tail (p < 0.0001) bite marks in groups of 18 than in groups of 9. Ear bite marks declined over time in both group sizes (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant interaction between group size and week regarding severe bite marks on the ears (p < 0.0002). Tail bite mark prevalence increased over time in the smaller groups but decreased in the larger groups (interaction: p < 0.001). A higher proportion of pigs in smaller groups sought human contact in Weeks 1 and 6, but this measurement equalized by Week 10 (interaction: p = 0.008). There were proportionally more pigs with tucked tails in the smaller groups in Week 1 but not in later weeks (interaction: p < 0.0001). Group size did not influence pig cleanliness or locomotion disorders. Ad libitum (vs. restricted) feeding increased average daily gain (p < 0.001), feed intake (p = 0.002), and slaughter weight (p = 0.030). Results suggest better welfare in the larger than in the smaller groups.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Animals
Published
2026-04-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16091342
Primary Topic
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Welfare and Performance of Finishing Pigs Kept at Two Group Sizes on Ad Libitum vs. Restricted Feeding

Anne Stine Ekker, Ruth Catriona Newberry, Marko Ocepek, Signe Lovise Thingnes et al.
Animals
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
article

Welfare and Performance of Finishing Pigs Kept at Two Group Sizes on Ad Libitum vs. Restricted Feeding

Anne Stine Ekker, Ruth Catriona Newberry, Marko Ocepek, Signe Lovise Thingnes, Kristine Hov Martinsen, Oda Braar Wæge, Inger Lise Andersen
article en

Abstract

This 2 × 2 factorial study examined the welfare and performance of finishing pigs at two group sizes (9 or 18 pigs) over 12 weeks. For each set of groups of either 9 or 18 pigs, half of the pigs in each group size were fed ad libitum, while the others received a mildly restricted ration. Treatments were assigned to 16 partially slatted floor pens in a randomized block design, with a floor space of 1.15 m2/pig. Except in Week 1, there were proportionally fewer pigs with ear (p = 0.020) and tail (p < 0.0001) bite marks in groups of 18 than in groups of 9. Ear bite marks declined over time in both group sizes (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant interaction between group size and week regarding severe bite marks on the ears (p < 0.0002). Tail bite mark prevalence increased over time in the smaller groups but decreased in the larger groups (interaction: p < 0.001). A higher proportion of pigs in smaller groups sought human contact in Weeks 1 and 6, but this measurement equalized by Week 10 (interaction: p = 0.008). There were proportionally more pigs with tucked tails in the smaller groups in Week 1 but not in later weeks (interaction: p < 0.0001). Group size did not influence pig cleanliness or locomotion disorders. Ad libitum (vs. restricted) feeding increased average daily gain (p < 0.001), feed intake (p = 0.002), and slaughter weight (p = 0.030). Results suggest better welfare in the larger than in the smaller groups.

AnimalsVol. 16(9)
Felleskjøpet (Norway) (NO), Norsvin (Norway) (NO), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
Nortura, Norges Forskningsråd
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.