Degree of competition at feeding differentially affects behavior and
performance of group-housed growing-finishing pigs
of different relative weights1
L. Georgsson2 and J. Svendsen
Department of Agricultural Biosystems and Technology,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
ABSTRACT: The effect of competition at feeding on
specific categories of growing-finishing pigs was studied
in order to provide an explanation for the increased
variation in performance within pens previously seen
in highly competitive feeding environments. Individual
feed intake and feeding behavior, performance, and
health were compared for relatively small, medium, and
large pigs in pens of 16. Pens contained either one or
two dry feeders during a period of ad libitum eating
followed by a period of restricted feeding. Computerized
feeders that registered the time and amount of feed
consumed by each individual were used. Seven replicate
groups on each of the two treatments (a total of 224
pigs) were studied. In the pens with only one feeder,
the small pigs ate less (P < 0.05) and tended to have a
lower daily weight gain (P < 0.10) than the small pigs
in pens with two feeders. However, they had a better
feed conversion efficiency (P < 0.05). The small pigs also
had a different eating pattern. A considerably larger
Key Words: Competitive Ability, Feed Conversion Efficiency, Feed Intake, Feeding Behavior, Pigs
2002 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In 1992 the Danish National Committee for Pig Pro-
duction published a report (Nielsen, 1992) in which they
found that there were no negative effects on perfor-
mance of having only one feeder, compared to three,
for 14 growing-finishing pigs. It was speculated that
even a slightly higher number of pigs per feeding place
1
This work was supported by the Swedish Council for Forestry
and Agricultural Research and the South of Sweden Agricultural
Research Programme. The authors would like to thank Torbjorn Hell-
strom and Mats Olsson for technical assistance and excellent care of
the pigs. The authors would also like to thank the staff at INSENTEC
(Marknesse, The Netherlands) for technical support whenever
needed.
2
Correspondence: P.O. Box 59 (phone: +46 40 415113; fax: +46 40
464241; E-mail: lotta.georgsson@jbt.slu.se).
Received April 19, 2001.
Accepted September 14, 2001.
376
part of their daily feed intake was consumed during
the nighttime hours (P < 0.001) when only one feeder
was available rather than two feeders. The large pigs
ate more during the restricted period (P < 0.01) and
had a lower carcass meat percentage (P < 0.05) in the
pens with one feeder. Some differences in feeding be-
havior between the two levels of competition were seen
for all categories of pigs. No difference in health was
observed between pigs in the one- and two-feeder pens
for any size category of pigs. In conclusion, the inability
of the small pigs to get access to feed in combination
with overeating by the largest individuals caused the
variation in performance seen within pens with a high
level of competition at feeding (one feeder for 16 pigs).
From a welfare point of view, feeding systems causing
a high level of competition may be detrimental when
considering all individual pigs in pens, even when it is
possible to achieve acceptable production results on
average.
J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:376383
would be acceptable. Other studies of the number of
pigs per feeder space have also failed to demonstrate
any effects on the performance of the pigs (Hansen et
al., 1982; Nielsen et al., 1995). However, recent studies
(Botermans and Svendsen, 2000; Georgsson and Svend-
sen, 2001) have demonstrated that a highly competitive
feeding environment (one feeder for a group of 16 pigs)
causes a large variation in daily weight gain and carcass
meat percentage within growing-finishing pigs. These
effects can, without considering the difference in the
average daily weight gain, make it difficult for efficient
pig production due to the resulting prolonged emptying
time of the units. Animal welfare may also be a concern;
the results of Botermans et al. (2000a) indicated more
skin injuries and more forced withdrawals from the
feeder in the highly competitive environment.
In the present study, the effect of competition on
specific individual group-housed growing-finishing pigs
was studied to determine the reason for the increased
 Competition affects pigs differentially
variation previously observed (Botermans and Svend-
sen, 2000; Georgsson and Svendsen, 2001). The perfor-
mance, feed intake, feeding behavior, and health of
small, medium, and large pigs were compared between
pens with one or two feeding places for 16 growing-
finishing pigs. Individual feed intake and feeding be-
havior were recorded using computerized feeding sta-
tions (IVOG system, Insentec, Marknesse, The Neth-
erlands).
Materials and Methods
Animals and Management
The investigation was carried out at Odarslov re-
search farm (Department of Agricultural Biosystems
and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences) in a closed herd of about 50 sows. All pigs
were reared at the facility and were of mixed breeding
([Yorkshire Swedish Landrace] Hampshire). All pigs
had an individual identity assigned from birth. Piglets
with undocked tails were reared as intact litters and
weaned at 5 wk of age. The male piglets were castrated
before 2 wk of age. At 12 wk of age (approximately
25 kg live weight), they were moved into the growing-
finishing unit and mixed to form groups of 16 with
a maximum within-pen variation in weight, sex, and
genetic background (SD in body weight at introduction
was approximately 5 kg). The sex distribution was the
same in both systems and for all weight categories. The
pens consisted of a solid lying area with an adjustable
area between 0.33 m2 and 0.57 m2 per pig and a slatted
dunging area of 0.45 m2 per pig, resulting in a total
area per pig between 0.78 m2 and 1.02 m2. The size of
the pen was adjusted to the size of the pigs in two steps
during the growing-finishing period. The adjustments
were made approximately 2 wk after introduction and
at the onset of restricted feeding around d 40 after
introduction and were made at the same time for all
pens. The lying area was cleaned daily, if necessary,
and about 2 kg of chopped straw was provided daily on
the lying area of the pen. The building had windows
allowing natural daylight. Artificial light was used dur-
ing maintenance hours, weighing, and other handling
of the pigs. For further details regarding housing see
Georgsson and Svendsen (2001).
The growing-finishing pigs were fed dry, crushed pel-
lets (crumbs) of a standard commercial diet (Slaktsvins-
foder, Singel pelletskross, Lantmannen, Sweden; con-
tent per kg: metabolizable energy, 12.4 MJ; crude pro-
tein, 146 g; and lysine, 8.4 g). They were given ad
libitum access to feed until the pigs had reached an
average live weight of 65 kg. After that the pigs were
fed restrictedly, on a pen basis, 2.65 kg/d per pig until
slaughter. The pigs had constant access to four drinking
valves per pen, all located in the dunging area.
Experimental Design
A total of 224 pigs were used in this experiment,
which consisted of two treatments, one or two single-
377
space feeders per pen for a group of 16 pigs. Seven
replicates were carried out in sequence, each with one
pen equipped with a single computerized feeder and
one pen with two computerized feeders (IVOG stations,
Insentec). The feeders automatically registered time
and weight of the feed trough when a pig with an ear
transponder entered and exited the feeder. The gates
of the feeders provided the eating pig with protection
for the head and neck. For a more detailed description
of the feeders see de Haer et al. (1992) and Georgsson
and Svendsen (2001). In a previous paper we have re-
ported that using an IVOG station gave the same pro-
duction results, measured as daily weight gain and vari-
ation within pens, as conventional feeders did but with
a slightly poorer feed conversion efficiency (Georgsson
and Svendsen, 2001). In the present study, data were
collected every day from introduction until 3 to 6 d
before delivery to slaughter. The investigation was car-
ried out over a 3-yr period and pigs were introduced
during all seasons. The feeders were placed in a corner
of the pen such that the eating pig and the activity
around the feeders did not disturb the pigs in the resting
area of the pen. In the pen with two feeders the feeders
were placed side by side, resulting in a distance of about
70 cm between the feed troughs. This distance was
enough to prevent one pig from occupying both feeders
at the same time.
At introduction, the 16 pigs in each pen were assigned
a category for statistical purposes according to relative
initial weight so that the five lightest pigs in a pen
formed the group of small pigs, the five heaviest formed
the group of large pigs, and the six remaining pigs
consequently formed the group of medium-sized pigs.
They did not change groups during the study under
any circumstances.
Observations
The computerized feeders automatically registered
the feed intake of each individual pig (de Haer et al.,
1992). Obviously false data were corrected manually.
When false registrations were made (e.g., when the pigs
put a foot in the trough or hit the trough too hard in
attempts to get access to the feed), the feed intake for
that particular visit was corrected by subtracting the
weight of the feed trough at the beginning of the suc-
ceeding visit from the weight of the feed trough at the
end of the preceding visit. In cases in which it was
impossible to calculate the correct feed intake for a visit
(due to a number of consecutive false recordings), the
average of the feed intake for the 2 d prior to the day
in question was used to make a reasonable estimation
of the feed intake. The feeders provided information
that enabled calculation of the following variables for
each individual pig: number of visits per day (24 h),
daily feed intake (ADFI), amount of feed consumed per
visit, daily eating time, length of time per visit, number
of visits during the night (12 h, 2000 to 0800), feed
intake during the night, eating time per night, percent-
378 Georgsson and Svendsen
age of feed consumed during the night, daily nonfeeding
time in the feeder (time with the head in the feeder
without feed consumption), number of nonfeeding visits
(visits to the feeder without feed consumption), and
eating rate (calculated from [total feed per day]/[total
daily eating time]). All the above variables were calcu-
lated for each week for the individual pigs. These data
were then used to calculate the results for the ad libitum
(growing) period and the period of restricted feeding
(finishing) separately.
All pigs were weighed once a week and 3 to 6 d before
delivery to slaughter. The final weight for the pigs in
all pens was calculated from the carcass weight at
slaughter, using a dressing percentage of 74%. These
figures were used to calculate daily weight gain (ADG).
For feed conversion efficiency (G/F)(g live weight gain/
kg feed), the observed live weight at the last weighing
before slaughter was used because there were no obser-
vations of individual feed intake after that because the
transponders were removed. The individual commer-
cial carcass meat percentage was measured using a
Hennessy grading probe and recorded at slaughter.
For each pen, performance was calculated for the
small, medium, and large pigs as a group based on the
data from the individual pigs for the growing period, the
finishing period, and for the entire growing-finishing
period. As for all animals in the research herd, any
health problem or other treatment was noted for each
individual (Svendsen et al., 1988). Any remark from
the body and organ inspection at slaughter was also
noted for each individual pig (later called slaughter
notations). For each pen the percentage of animals in
each of the weight groups with health problems or
slaughter notations was calculated.
Statistics
All performance and behavioral results were calcu-
lated as means for the respective weight groups in the
pens. Interaction effects between weight group (small,
medium, or large) and treatment (one or two feeders)
for the variables measured in the study were tested
using a split-plot model (with treatment as main plot
and weight group as subplot) (Proc GLM of SAS; SAS
Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Because significant interaction
effects were found for most variables (Table 1), only
comparisons within each weight category were made
in the further analysis. Analysis of variance was used
to detect treatment differences between pigs of the same
weight category, where replicate was always used as a
block-effect in the model. For diseases and slaughter
notations, the data were nonnormal and Wilcoxons
nonparametric test (SAS Inst. Inc.) was used to test
differences between the two levels of competition for
each weight group. Differences were considered signifi-
cant when P < 0.05.
Results
There were eight pigs removed from the study (from
a total of 224 pigs), three from the one-feeder pens
and five from the two-feeder pens, all in the first two
replicates. At most, three pigs from the same pen were
removed. In seven cases the reason for removal was
tail-biting; four of these were the tail-biters (these were
physically healthy pigs) and three were tail-bitten. The
tail-biters and tail-bitten pigs were removed promptly
to prevent the behavior from spreading within the pen
and to other pens. One pig in a two-feeder pen was
excluded due to lack of data about initial weight.
There were significant interaction effects between
initial weight group and treatment for most variables
of the study. For ADG, ADFI, feed per visit, and percent-
age of feed consumed at night the interaction was sig-
nificant during both the ad libitum and the restricted
feeding periods. For other variables, G/F, time per day,
feed at night, and visits at night, the interaction was
significant for only one of the periods (see Table 1).
The performance of the small pigs in the pens was
impaired when only one feeder was used for 16 pigs.
The ADG of the small pigs in the one-feeder pens was
90 g less than that of the small pigs in the two-feeder
pens (Figure 1). The difference was seen for both the
ad libitum and the restricted feeding periods (P <
0.10)(Table 2). The medium-sized pigs showed no differ-
ence in ADG, but there was a tendency for the large
pigs to have a higher ADG in the one-feeder pens than
in the two-feeder pens.
The small pigs in pens with one feeder also had a
significantly lower ADFI than the small pigs in the pens
with two feeders. During the ad libitum period, the
ADFI differed significantly between the animals in one-
and two-feeder pens for the small pigs, whereas during
the restricted period the small pigs in the one-feeder
pens only tended to have a lower ADFI. No differences
in feed intake could be detected for the medium-sized
pigs at the two levels of competition. The large pigs had
a significantly higher ADFI of 35 g/d more in the one-
feeder pens during restricted feeding, which resulted
in a 20-g higher ADFI for the entire growing-finishing
period even though there was no difference during the
ad libitum period.
The G/F was significantly better for the small pigs
with only one feeder for the whole period and during
the ad libitum period, whereas there was no difference
during the period of restricted feeding between small
pigs in pens with one or two feeders. No significant
differences in G/F were detected for the medium and
large pigs.
The carcass meat percentage for the large pigs was
a whole percentage unit lower for the animals in the
one-feeder pens, whereas the small pigs in the one
feeder pens tended to have a higher meat percentage
than those in the two-feeder pens (Figure 2).
The feeding behavior of the individual pigs in the size
categories was registered and is shown in Table 3 and
Figure 3. With two feeders, the number of feeding visits
increased significantly for all pigs except for the me-
dium-sized pigs during the ad libitum period. The
amount of feed consumed per visit was generally higher
 Competition affects pigs differentially 379
Table 1. The P-values for the interaction effect of number of feeders (one or two) and
relative weight group in the pen (small, medium, or large)
on the variables of the present study
P-value for the interaction (no. of feeders weight group)a

Variable Ad libitum period Restricted period Total period

Initial weight 0.15 0.0012

Daily weight gain 0.0067 0.046 0.0049
Daily feed intake 0.0008 0.0031 0.0002
Feed conversion efficiency 0.016 0.60 0.055
Visits/day 0.47 0.68 0.47
Feed/visit 0.0005 0.0002 0.0001
Time/day 0.045 0.099 0.027
Time/visit 0.0002 0.0027 0.0001
Feed at night 0.58 0.0072 0.11
Percentage of feed intake at night 0.0001 0.0009 0.0002
Time at night 0.018 0.0002 0.0039
Visits at night 0.31 0.0006 0.046
Eating rate 0.28 0.20 0.36
Meat percentage 0.025
a
The interaction was tested in a split-plot design.

when only one feeder was available for the large pigs,
whereas the small and medium-sized pigs only in-
creased the amount of feed eaten per visit when they
were fed restrictedly. The amount of time spent eating
per 24 h was greater for the small and medium-sized
pigs when they had access to two feeders. Conversely,
the large pigs did not show any tendency to spend more
time eating when there were two feeders available in
the pen. During the ad libitum period, the duration of
each visit was longer only for the large pigs in the one-
feeder pens; the small and medium-sized pigs had the
same visit duration in both treatments. During the re-
stricted period, all categories of pigs had longer visits
where there was only one feeder.
When allowed to eat ad libitum, pigs in all categories
consumed more feed during the night (2000 to 0800)
when only one feeder was available. The difference ap-
peared to be greatest for the small pigs (Figure 3). Obvi-
ously, the pigs were able to eat more during the night-
time in the one-feeder pens than in the two-feeder pens
when fed restrictedly because the troughs were emptied
earlier in the two-feeder pens. The same pattern as for
nightly feed intake was observed for the time spent
eating during the night.
The rate at which the pigs consumed feed (eating
rate) did not increase at all for the small or large pigs
with increased competition. There was a tendency for
the medium-sized pigs to have a higher eating rate with
only one feeder. The nonfeeding time in the feeder,
during which the pig occupied the feeder without
eating, and the number of nonfeeding visits per day
were the same at the two levels of competition for all
categories of pigs when they were allowed to eat ad
libitum. Nonfeeding time in the feeder did not differ
between the treatments during restricted feeding. The
medium and large pigs did have a higher number of
nonfeeding visits per day during restricted feeding
when there were two feeders (12.7 vs 7.3 visits/d and
10.5 vs 4.6 visits/d for the medium and large pigs, re-
spectively).
No differences in the total number of health problems
or any category of health problem (diarrhea, tail-biting,
lameness, muscle disease, or other disease) were ob-
served between the one- and two-feeder pens for any
of the size categories of pigs.
In general, the number of slaughter notations was
low compared to the average for the whole slaughter-
house (about 8 vs 17 to 18%). No differences between
the two levels of competition were detected for any of
the weight categories. The most common notation was
for arthritis or periarthritis, which was noted for about
2.4% of the pigs.
Discussion
In the present study, the feeding behavior and perfor-
mance of individual group-housed pigs was studied. An
interaction effect between the weight group at introduc-
tion and number of feeders was found for most variables
in the study. This showed that competition affects the
small and the large pigs differently, and it would there-
fore not be suitable to study the effects of competition
on pen means. Because of this interaction, the results
for pigs of the same size category in two levels of feeding
competition were compared. It was shown that the rela-
tively small pigs in pens with a high level of competition
consumed less feed than the relatively small pigs in
pens with a lower level of competition. This appeared
to be the primary explanation for the greater variation
in performance seen among pigs subjected to a high
level of competition for feed (Hansen et al., 1982; Boter-
mans and Svendsen, 2000; Georgsson and Svendsen,
2001). In addition, the relatively large pigs in pens with
a high level of competition (access to one feeder) con-
380 Georgsson and Svendsen
Figure 1. The daily weight gain, daily feed intake, and
feed conversion efficiency for the three size categories of
pigs in pens with one or two feeders for 16 pigs. Values
are averages over the whole growing-finishing period.
Error bars represent the SE. The P-values are for the com-
parison between the same size category at the two differ-
ent levels of competition.
sumed more feed than those experiencing a lower level
of competition (access to two feeders). The large pigs
in the present study probably had access to as much
feed as they pleased in both systems, because the feed
was restricted on pen basis and not individually.
The assertion that the large pigs were free to eat as
they preferred in pens with one feeder was supported
by the fact that they did not spend more time eating
when provided with two feeders, in contrast to the small
and medium-sized pigs. The large pigs were apparently
stimulated by the competition to eat more at the ex-
pense of the smaller pigs in the pens (for a review on
social facilitation see Hansen et al., 1982). This resulted
in a numerically higher ADG for the large pigs in the
one-feeder pens but also a considerably poorer meat
percentage and numerically poorer feed conversion ef-
ficiency. One reason for overeating might be a desire
to show superior rank in the group (Hansen and Ha-
gels, 1980; Hansen et al., 1982). This phenomenon
should not be possible in pens with multiple feeding
places, in which one pig cannot guard all the available
feed. Ten pigs with one feeder should therefore not be
regarded to be the same situation as 20 pigs with two
feeders where one pig cannot occupy all the feeders.
In a study of group-housed sows (Brouns and Ed-
wards, 1994) it was found for sows eating ad libitum
that the low-ranking animals could achieve feed intake
comparable to that of higher-ranking sows by changing
their feeding strategy to eating smaller but more fre-
quent meals and spending a lot of time waiting for
access to the feed. However, with restricted feeding,
the low-ranking sows did not manage to get access to
the feed and thus gained less weight than the high-
ranking animals. In the present study, it was clear
that competition affected the feeding behavior of the
growing-finishing pigs in general, with the most evident
change seen among the smallest pigs in the pens. In
pens with two feeders all pigs ate a little less than
one-third of the ADFI during the 12 nighttime hours.
Furthermore, in the pens with only one feeder the large
pigs also ate about one-third of their feed at night. Thus,
it may be assumed that one-third can be considered as
a normal or a preferred level of nightly feed intake
under the circumstances of the present trial. This is in
good agreement with the diurnal pattern of feed intake
that has been demonstrated in group-housed pigs in
several investigations (de Haer and Merks, 1992; Young
and Lawrence, 1994; Botermans et al., 2000a) and in
individually housed pigs (de Haer and Merks, 1992;
Nielsen et al. 1996a). The much higher level of feed
consumed during the night by the small pigs (more than
half of their ADFI) must therefore be considered to be a
result of a forced change in their eating pattern. Despite
this change, the small pigs were unable to compensate
for the high level of competition. The small pigs reached
a point at which they could not cope with the situation
by altering their behavior, which is a criterion for a
state of stress in the motivational theory of stress as
given by Jensen and Toates (1997).
Increased eating rate has been considered to be a
sign of social constraint (Nielsen, 1999). In a study such
as ours, when the competition for feed increases a
higher rate of eating would be expected. Interestingly,
neither the large nor the small pigs showed any ten-
dency to have different eating rates in the two treat-
ments. This would not be so surprising for the large
pigs because they were expected to have high positions
in the hierarchy and thereby had the privilege of eating
in their preferred manner. For the small pigs, the result
was a little more intriguing. One theory could be that
 Competition affects pigs differentially 381
Table 2. Performance of growing-finishing pigs, categorized according to relative initial weight, during the periods
of eating ad libitum and restricted feeding in pens with one or two feeders for 16 pigs (means)
Ad libitum period (2868 kg) Restricted period (68110 kg)

Item 1 Feeder 2 Feeders SE P-value 1 Feeder 2 Feeders SE P-value

Small pigs
No. of pigs 34 32 34 32
No. of groups 7 7 7 7
Initial weight, kg 21.5 22.4 0.31 0.096 55.0 60.9 2.03 0.082
Daily weight gain, g/d 680 779 31 0.067 761 830 22 0.064
Daily feed intake, kg/d 1.55 1.98 0.10 0.025 2.29 2.62 0.10 0.066
Feed conversion efficiency, g/kg 439 392 7.8 0.0056 341 338 5.6 0.77
Medium-sized pigs
No. of pigs 41 42 41 42
No. of groups 7 7 7 7
Initial weight, kg 27.6 27.3 0.33 0.46 68.7 68.1 1.24 0.74
Daily weight gain, g/d 834 831 20 0.93 883 861 29 0.62
Daily feed intake, kg/d 2.12 2.14 0.067 0.85 2.77 2.80 0.077 0.84
Feed conversion efficiency, g/kg 394 390 6.1 0.65 306 323 6.5 0.12
Large pigs
No. of pigs 34 33 34 33
No. of groups 7 7 7 7
Initial weight, kg 34.3 33.6 0.53 0.38 78.7 75.4 1.29 0.12
Daily weight gain, g/d 899 862 23 0.30 940 872 34 0.21
Daily feed intake, kg/d 2.40 2.31 0.067 0.38 3.15 2.79 0.067 0.0086
Feed conversion efficiency, g/kg 370 373 9.9 0.81 303 318 10 0.36

small pigs in the treatment with two feeders ate at
their maximal capacity and therefore were unable to
increase this rate when subjected to an even higher
level of competition. The tendency observed for the me-
dium-sized pigs to increase their eating rate when only
one feeder was present supported this theory. These
animals were put under a higher social pressure and
were able to respond to a certain extent.
As in the study by Nielsen et al. (1996b), a higher
number of visits to the feeder was seen with less compe-
tition. This could be expected to lead to an effect on
digestion; Botermans et al. (2000b) have demonstrated
that many small meals instead of one large meal per day
Figure 2. The carcass meat percentage of the three size
categories of pigs in pens with one or two feeders for 16
pigs. Error bars represent the SE. The P-values are for
the comparison between the same size category at the
two different levels of competition.
result in a higher output of enzymes from the exocrine
pancreas. Frequent small meals have also been ob-
served to lead to a higher lean tissue content of the
carcass (de Haer et al., 1993; Ramaekers et al., 1999).
In the present study only the large pigs had a higher
meat percentage when the group had access to two
feeders instead of one. To some extent, pigs changing
feeders within the same meal could explain the higher
number of visits to the feeders observed in the two-
feeder pens.
A common husbandry practice used by stockpersons
to cope with production systems that provide a highly
competitive environment for the pigs is to sort them at
introduction to form groups that are as homogenous as
possible. This is done to reduce the diverging effect of
the competition by avoiding the presence of a group of
small pigs in the pens. However, this procedure can
add another strain on the pigs. According to Rushen
(1987) a large variation in body size in a pen is prefera-
ble to a homogenous group in order to reduce fighting by
facilitating a stable, easily distinguishable hierarchy.
When dealing with conditions leading to high competi-
tion by making homogenous groups, we might be adding
another strain and creating an even more stressful en-
vironment for the pigs. Environmental stressors can
have additive negative effects on the animals (Hyun et
al., 1998), and thus, sorting pigs into homogenous
groups may not be a good management practice when
there is competition to feed. It probably is better to
provide more feeding places.
In conclusion, previous reports have shown that a
highly competitive environment results in a large varia-
tion in daily weight gain among the pigs in the pens.
382 Georgsson and Svendsen

Table 3. Feeding behavior of the three size categories of pigs in pens with 16 pigs and one or two dry feeders;
data (means and SE) are presented for the ad libitum and restricted periods separately
Ad libitum period (2868 kg) Restricted period (68110 kg)

Item 1 Feeder 2 Feeders SE P-value 1 Feeder 2 Feeders SE P-value

Small pigs
Visits/d, no. 38.7 52.6 2.32 0.0054 25.4 40.9 2.43 0.0041
Feed/visit, g 55.7 46.0 5.04 0.22 112 75.9 8.90 0.028
Time/d, min.s 71.4 92.3 4.51 0.023 57.4 64.2 1.46 0.038
Time/visit, s 134 113 12.0 0.25 153 104 11.3 0.022
Feed at night, g 784 581 34.1 0.0057 654 116 71.6 0.0018
Time at night, min.s 41.1 28.6 1.18 0.0006 24.1 5.26 2.27 0.0016
Visits at night, no. 12.3 12.8 0.583 0.54 7.01 4.30 0.778 0.049
Eating rate, g/min 22.4 22.4 0.978 0.96 41.0 41.6 1.98 0.84
Medium-sized pigs
Visits/d, no. 33.8 40.7 2.24 0.074 20.7 34.1 2.83 0.015
Feed/visit, g 83.1 67.2 5.68 0.096 161 99.2 12.4 0.013
Time/d, min.s 79.1 92.2 13.2 0.029 60.4 66.3 1.54 0.076
Time/visit, s 166 157 11.8 0.59 202 134 16.3 0.025
Feed at night, g 814 632 37.3 0.014 505 145 78.0 0.017
Time at night, min.s 35.1 29.3 1.13 0.016 15.3 5.34 2.19 0.023
Visits at night, no. 9.15 9.98 0.433 0.23 3.88 3.45 0.525 0.58
Eating rate, g/min 27.3 24.2 0.915 0.051 45.8 42.1 1.47 0.13
Large pigs
Visits/d, no. 25.0 34.7 1.98 0.013 15.8 28.6 2.36 0.088
Feed/visit, g 130 80.3 6.32 0.0014 265 118 20.9 0.026
Time/d, min.s 84.2 86.4 2.03 0.46 63.4 61.2 2.56 0.60
Time/visit, s 241 164 14.0 0.0080 305 152 19.0 0.0013
Feed at night, g 816 680 25.4 0.0091 402 150 42.1 0.0055
Time at night, min.s 31.4 26.5 0.52 0.0079 11.0 5.09 1.13 0.015
Visits at night, no. 6.37 9.07 0.520 0.011 2.55 3.50 0.402 0.14
Eating rate, g/min 29.0 27.5 0.744 0.19 48.5 44.4 1.81 0.16

The variation cannot be explained simply by the fact
that the small pigs in the pen eat less and therefore
have a poor growth rate. The higher feed intake of the
large pigs also plays a role. It is also clear that the
small pigs try to compensate for the competition by
altering their feeding behavior but they are still not
able to achieve the feed intake and performance of small
pigs in a less-competitive environment and their wel-
fare is thereby compromised. To maximize performance
and animal welfare, feeding systems must be designed
to facilitate feed consumption for the low-ranking pigs
and prevent the high-ranking ones from excessively
occupying the feeder.

Implications

Because of the negative effects of highly competitive

Figure 3. The relative feed intake during night as a
percentage of the feed intake over the whole 24 h during
the period of eating ad libitum for the three size categories
of pigs in pens with one or two feeders for 16 pigs. Error
bars represent the SE. The P-values are for the comparison
between the same size category at the two different levels
of competition.
feeding systems on the welfare and production of rela-
tively small pigs, these systems should be avoided. Poor
performance of a few pigs in a pen with a good average
production still results in long emptying times of the
buildings or sections and longer intervals between
batches, ultimately affecting production economics.
When pigs are fed restrictedly, a trough with enough
space for all pigs to eat at the same time is recom-
mended. When feeding pigs unrestrictedly, feeders can
be a good alternative provided that there are not too
many pigs per feeding place.
Literature Cited
Botermans, J. A. M., L. Georgsson, B. R. Westrom, A.-C. Olsson, and J.
Svendsen. 2000a. Effect of feeding environment on performance,
 Competition affects pigs differentially
injuries, plasma cortisol and behaviour in growing-finishing
pigs: Studies on individual pigs housed in groups. Acta Agric.
Scand. 50:250262.
Botermans J. A. M., M. S. Hedemann, M. Sorhede-Winzell, C. Erlan-
son-Albertsson, J. Svendsen, L. Evilevitch, and S. G. Pierzynow-
ski. 2000b. The effect of feeding time (day versus night) and
feeding frequency on pancreatic secretion in pigs. J. Anim. Phys-
iol. Anim. Nutr. 83:2435.
Botermans, J. A. M., and J. Svendsen. 2000. Effect of feeding environ-
ment on performance, injuries and behaviour in growing-finish-
ing pigs: Group-based Studies. Acta Agric. Scand. 50:237249.
Brouns, F., and S. A. Edwards. 1994. Social rank and feeding behav-
iour of group-housed sows fed competitively or ad libitum. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 39:225235.
de Haer, L. C. M., and J. W. M. Merks. 1992. Patterns of daily food
intake in growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 54:95104.
de Haer, L. C. M., J. W. M. Merks, H. G. Kooper, G. A. J. Buiting,
and J. A. van Hattum. 1992. A note on the IVOG-stations: A
station to record the individual food intake of group-housed
growing pigs. Anim. Prod. 54:160162.
de Haer, L. C. M., P. Luiting, and H. L. M. Aarts. 1993. Relations
among individual (residual) feed intake, growth performance
and feed intake pattern of growing pigs in group housing. Livest.
Prod. Sci. 36:233253.
Georgsson, L., and J. Svendsen. 2001. One or two feeders for groups
of 16 growing-finishing pigseffects on health and production.
Acta Agric. Scand. (In press).
Hansen, L. L., and A. M. Hagels. 1980. A general survey of environ-
mental influence on the social hierarchy function in pigs. Acta
Agric. Scand. 30:388392.
Hansen, L. L., A. M. Hagels, and A. Madsen. 1982. Behavioural
results and performance of bacon pigs fed ad libitum from one
or several self-feeders. Appl. Anim. Ethology 8:307333.
383
Hyun, Y., M. Ellis, G. Riskowski, and R. W. Johnson. 1998. Growth
performance of pigs subjected to multiple concurrent environ-
mental stressors. J. Anim. Sci. 76:721727.
Jensen, P., and F. M. Toates. 1997. Stress as a state of motivational
systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53:145156.
Nielsen, B. L. 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour mea-
sures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social con-
straint. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63:7991.
Nielsen, B. L., A. B. Lawrence, and C. T. Whittemore. 1995. Effects
of group size on feeding behaviour, social behaviour and perfor-
mance of growing pigs using single-space feeders. Livest. Prod.
Sci. 44:7385.
Nielsen, B. L., A. B. Lawrence, and C. T. Whittemore. 1996a. Effects
of individual housing on the feeding behaviour of previously
group housed growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47:149161.
Nielsen, B. L., A. B. Lawrence, and C. T. Whittemore. 1996b. Feeding
behaviour of growing pigs using single or multi-space feeders.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47:235246.
Nielsen, N-P. 1992. Enkeltdyrsautomater og simple trfoderauto-
mater til slagtesvin. Den rullande afprvning. No. 225. Danske
Slagterier, Copenhagen, Denmark [in Danish].
Ramaekers, P. J. L., J. W. G. M. Swinkels, J. H. Huiskes, and M. W.
A. Verstegen. 1999. Eating traits in relation to performance and
carcass traits of restrictedly fed group-housed finishing pigs.
Anim. Sci. 68:399405.
Rushen, J. 1987. A difference in weight reduces fighting when unac-
quainted newly weaned pigs first meet. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
67:951960.
Svendsen, J., A.-C. Olsson, and D. Rantzer. 1988. Productivity and
the occurrence of disease through to slaughter in pigs with and
without reduced vitality or physical handicap at birth. Rep. 62.
Swed. Univ. Agric. Sci., Dept. Farm Buildings, Lund, Sweden.
Young, R. J., and A. B. Lawrence. 1994. Feeding behaviour of pigs
in groups monitored by a computerized feeding system. Anim.
Prod. 58:145152.