Inclusion of 8% alfalfa silage advances feeding time and improves late-finishing feed efficiency in pigs

Yu Chen; Xiaogang Zhao; Xionggui Hu; Ji Zhu; Huibo Ren; Huali Li; Lihua Cao; Qingming Cui; Yuan Deng; Zhicai Li; Zhongshan Wei; Weimin Jiang; Yingying Liu; Yinglin Peng; Chen Chen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341429

Abstract

Feed is the largest cost in pig production, driving interest in alternative ingredients that maintain performance at lower expense. Alfalfa, a nutrient-rich and widely available forage legume, shows promise as a partial feed substitute. However, it remains unclear how partial replacement with alfalfa affects growth dynamics, feed efficiency, and feeding behavior across fattening stages in pigs. This study investigated the effects of substitution with 8% alfalfa or alfalfa silage on growth performance and feeding behavior in growing-finishing pigs over a 60-day fattening period (60–130 kg). A total of 24 pigs were randomly assigned to three diet treatments: commercial feed, 8% alfalfa substitution, or 8% alfalfa silage substitution. Weight, feed intake, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and feeding hour were measured and analyzed using linear mixed-effects models and generalized additive mixed models. Results showed no significant effects of alfalfa on overall weight, feed intake or FCR. However, Pigs fed commercial feed showed superior FCR during mid-fattening (weeks 2.8–5.2, P < 0.05) but worse FCR than alfalfa-fed groups during late-finishing phase (weeks 6.6–8, P < 0.05). Moreover, alfalfa silage altered animal behavior by shifting feeding hour by roughly three hours earlier (P < 0.05). In summary, substitution with 8% alfalfa or alfalfa silage can be incorporated without compromising overall pig performance. While, integrating alfalfa in later fattening stages could further improve feed efficiency and reduce costs. This supports the use of phase-specific feeding strategies and adoption of such practices could enhance both economic and environmental sustainability in commercial pig farming.

Citation: Chen Y, Zhao X, Hu X, Zhu J, Ren H, Li H, et al. (2026) Inclusion of 8% alfalfa silage advances feeding time and improves late-finishing feed efficiency in pigs. PLoS One 21(1): e0341429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429

Editor: Andrey Nagdalian, North-Caucasus Federal University, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Received: November 12, 2025; Accepted: January 7, 2026; Published: January 30, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data supporting the findings of this study are included in the article and its supplementary materials. The raw datasets are available from Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15875443.

Funding: This work was supported by the Yuelushan Laboratory Breeding Program (YLS-2025-ZY01002, Yinglin Peng; YLS-2025-ZY04051, Chen Chen), the Funding of Hunan Province Swine Industry Technology System (HARS-05, Chen Chen), the Open Research Fund of Hunan Province Key Laboratory (2017TP1030, Chen Chen), and the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Fund Project of Hunan Province (2025CX101, Yingying Liu). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Feed accounts for the largest proportion of production costs in modern pig farming, often exceeding 60% of total inputs [1]. With the rising prices of cereal grains and protein meals, there is a strong incentive to identify alternative feed resources that can reduce costs while maintaining performance and animal welfare. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), a perennial legume, is well known for its high protein content, balanced amino acid profile, vitamins, minerals, and a range of bioactive phytochemicals including flavonoids and saponins [2]. Its abundant biomass and relative affordability make it a potentially valuable partial substitute in swine diets, particularly in regions with high alfalfa production.

Despite its nutritional value, the high structural fiber content of alfalfa may reduce its digestibility and energy availability in pigs, as their monogastric digestive systems are not well adapted to efficiently ferment fibrous substrates in the large intestine [3]. To address this limitation, microbial fermentation of alfalfa has been proposed to break down complex fiber structures, reduce anti-nutritional factors, and enhance the bioavailability of nutrients and bioactive compounds [4–7]. Alfalfa silage products have been shown to improve nutrient digestibility and positively modulate gut microbiota, potentially improving growth performance and gut health in pigs [3,8,9].

Additionally, feeding behavior is a critical component of swine management and is closely linked to nutrient absorption, gut health, and even the social dynamics of pigs [10,11]. Dietary fiber has been shown to affect these behavioral parameters by increasing chewing activity, slowing down ingestion rates, promoting satiety, and altering meal patterns throughout the day [12]. Diets high in fermented fiber can improve palatability and reducing the physical bulk of the feed, thereby enhancing feed intake by stimulating appetite and promoting the production of beneficial gut metabolites [13–15]. Therefore, partial substitution of commercial diets with alfalfa or alfalfa silage may have complex effects on pigs’ feeding behavior that require systematic evaluation. It is important to understand these feeding behavior responses, as abnormal behavior patterns may impair production efficiency.

Despite growing interest in dietary fiber and fermentation strategies, no studies to date have systematically examined how alfalfa and its fermented form affect growth and feeding behavior over time during the fattening phase. This highlights a key gap, particularly at moderate inclusion levels (e.g., 8%), which may provide a practical balance between cost and nutrition in commercial pig production.

Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate whether substitution with 8% alfalfa or alfalfa silage can achieve cost-effective pig production without compromising growth performance in fattening stage. Additionally, the study investigated how such dietary strategies might influence diurnal feeding time patterns, to better understand their acceptability and welfare implications. We hypothesized that substitution with 8% alfalfa or alfalfa silage will not impair overall growth performance in fattening stage, but may have an impact on animal feeding behavior.

Materials and methods

Animal ethics

All animal procedures in this study were conducted in strict accordance with the ethical guidelines for animal experimentation, with full consideration of the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement). The protocol was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Hunan Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine (Approval No. HIAVS21-2509-01).

Animals and experimental design

A total of 24 DLY pigs (Duroc × [Landrace × Yorkshire]) were used in this study. All pigs were approximately 4 months old with an average initial body weight of 63.24 ± 5.14 kg. Equal numbers of castrated males (n = 12) and females (n = 12) were included. Animals were housed in a temperature- and humidity-controlled facility, with each treatment group allocated to a separate pen (8 pigs per pen). Pens were identical in size (2.8 m × 6.6 m), equipped with full slatted floors, automatic drinkers, and electronic feeding stations (Runnong Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China). Environmental temperature was maintained between 20–24 °C, with 12-h light/dark cycles. All pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the 60-day experimental period.

The alfalfa used in this study was harvested at the early flowering stage and sun-dried to a moisture content of approximately 65%. The dried forage was chopped into ~2 cm segments with a forage cutter. For the alfalfa meal treatment, the chopped material was further ground into a fine powder (alfalfa meal) and incorporated directly into the diet. For the alfalfa silage treatment, the alfalfa meal was mixed with a commercial fermentation agent containing lactic acid bacteria powder and cellulase, sealed in airtight plastic bags, and ensiled for 60 days. The silage was subsequently dried at 60 °C and ground into a powder before being mixed with the diet. Feed mixing and processing for all diets were conducted using standard procedures at a commercial feed mill. The Chemical composition of alfalfa and alfalfa silage was shown in Table 1. The ingredient composition and proximate nutritional profiles of the three diets were provided in Table 2.

Download:

Table 1. Chemical composition of alfalfa and alfalfa silage.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.t001

Download:

Table 2. The ingredients and chemical composition of the commercial diet (feed A), alfalfa diet (feed B), and alfalfa silage diet (feed C) formulated for the experiment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.t002

Pigs were randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments (n = 8 per group), with each group comprising 4 castrated males and 4 females: Group A: commercial feed (control); Group B: commercial feed with 8% alfalfa meal substitution; Group C: commercial feed with 8% alfalfa silage substitution (Fig 1). Group B (alfalfa diet) and Group C (alfalfa silage diet) were designed by partially replacing corn, soybean meal, rice bran meal and wheat flour with 8% alfalfa meal or alfalfa silage meal, respectively, while maintaining similar levels of digestible energy and crude protein across treatments.

Download:

Fig 1. Summary of study design.

All DLY pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the 60-day experimental period. Animals were randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments (n = 8 per group), with each group comprising 4 barrows and 4 gilts: Group A – commercial feed; Group B – commercial feed with 8% alfalfa meal substitution; Group C – commercial feed with 8% alfalfa silage meal substitution. Daily measurement of weight, feed intake and feeding time was recorded by the station and further use for FCR analysis and feeding behavior analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g001

Daily individual-level measurements of body weight (kg), feed intake (kg), and feeding time were automatically recorded using electronic feeding stations. Feed intake relative to body weight was calculated daily by dividing feed intake (kg/day) by the corresponding body weight (kg). Biweekly feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated every 14 days as the total feed intake divided by total body weight gain over each interval. Outliers with FCR values below 1 or above 7 were excluded as biologically implausible. The experimental unit was the individual pig for all statistical analyses.

FCR analysis

To assess the effects of different feed treatments on growth performance, we applied linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015). For each response variable (body weight, feed intake, and feed intake relative to body weight), the following linear mixed-effects model was used:

where Y_ij is the response variable (weight, feed intake, or feed intake/body weight) for pig i on day j, β₀ is global intercept, β₁ is fixed effect of feed type (commercial, alfalfa, or alfalfa silage), u_i~ N(0, ) is random intercept for individual pig i, ε_ij ~ N(0, σ²) is the residual error. Model fit was evaluated using Type II Wald chi-square tests via the car package. The significance of fixed effects was determined using likelihood ratio tests, with χ² statistics, degrees of freedom (df), and associated P-values reported.

To observe how FCR was changed over time, temporal trends for each group were analyzed using Generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) via mgcv R package [16] and change rate were estimated via gratia R package to highlight stage-specific patterns over time.

The trait was modeled as:

where Y_ij is the response for pig i on day j, β₀ is the intercept, β₁ is the fixed effect of feed type (commercial, alfalfa, or alfalfa silage), f_j (·) is a smooth function of experimental day stratified by feed type (i.e., interaction smooths), u_i~ N(0, ) is the random intercept for pig i, ε_ij ~ N(0, σ²) is the residual error.

Feeding time analysis

Feeding time was analyzed both as a straight timeline (linear) and as a repeating 24-hour cycle (circular). The linear analysis allowed for the evaluation of overall feeding trends over time, capturing changes in feeding behavior along a continuous temporal scale. In contrast, the circular analysis addressed the periodic nature of feeding patterns, where the 24-hour cycle repeats, enabling the detection of daily rhythms and shifts in behavior that may not be apparent in a linear framework. Timestamp data were processed using the lubridate [17] and dplyr [18] packages and converted to decimal hours and radians.

To assess daily variation in feeding time, LMMs were used:

where Feeding Hour_ij is feeding time (hour of day) for pig_i at observation_j, β₀ is global intercept, β₁ is fixed effect of feed type (categorical: A/B/C), u_i~ N(0, ) is random intercept for individual pig i, ε_ij~ N(0, σ²) is the residual error. Models were fitted using the lme4 [19] package and validated using residual analysis.

Circular statistics were conducted using the circular package [20]. Feeding hours were converted to angular measurements (0–2π radians). For each group, the mean feeding direction and concentration (ρ) were estimated.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.4.2 [21]. The individual pig served as the experimental unit for all analyses. Time-dependent traits were modeled using GAMMs from the mgcv package with random intercepts and feed-type-specific smooth terms. To account for temporal autocorrelation in repeated measures, four candidate correlation structures were tested within the GAMM framework: first-order autoregressive (AR1), compound symmetry, continuous-time autoregressive (CAR1), and autoregressive moving average (ARMA[1,1]). Based on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and likelihood ratio tests, the ARMA(1,1) structure yielded the best model fit and was selected for all final models. Model diagnostics were conducted using residual plots, autocorrelation (described above), and Q–Q plots. Group differences in smooth trends were assessed using: ANOVA to compare nested GAMMs (with vs. without interaction smooths); First derivatives of smooth functions to evaluate rates of change; Difference smooths to visualize localized treatment effects. For circular statistics, Rayleigh’s test was used to assess the uniformity of the distribution, while Watson’s two-sample test compared group means. A higher ρ indicated more clustered feeding behavior. All statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Growth performance and feed intake across the fattening period

Over the 60-day fattening period, DLY pigs exhibited a general increase in body weight and daily feed intake but feed intake relative to body weight showed variable patterns over time (Fig 2). The final mass and weight gain for pigs with feed type A were 131.2 ± 10.8 kg and 66.4 ± 5.7 kg, respectively. Pigs on feed type B exhibited a final mass of 125.3 ± 11.5 kg and a weight gain of 63.9 ± 10.8 kg. Pigs receiving feed type C showed a final mass of 134.2 ± 7.3 kg and a weight gain of 72.0 ± 6.6 kg. LMMs revealed no statistically significant effects of feed type on most measured traits (Table 3). However, trends toward significance were observed for total feed intake (χ²(2) = 5.02, p = 0.081), feed intake relative to body weight (χ²(2) = 5.14, p = 0.076), suggesting possible biological effects of alfalfa on FCR that warrant further exploration (Table 3).

Download:

Table 3. Summary of fixed effects from linear mixed-effects models assessing the impact of feed treatment on pig weight, feed intake and feed intake/body weight.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.t003

Download:

Fig 2. Growth and feed intake trends over time.

During the 60-day fattening period, DLY pigs exhibited a general increase in body weight and daily feed intake. In contrast, feed intake relative to body weight displayed variable patterns over time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g002

FCR patterns and biweekly comparison

Analysis of FCR using GAMMs (Table 4) demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the overall average FCR trajectories between feed types. However, the smooth terms for biweekly periods were highly significant across all diets, indicating substantial biweekly fluctuations in FCR over time (Table 4). The GAMM model for FCR showed moderate explanatory power, with an adjusted R² of 0.577 based on 119 observations (Table 4).

Download:

Table 4. Below table showed how FCR changed across time (every two weeks) for pigs on different diets, based on GAMMs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.t004

Next, we analyzed FCR dynamics (Fig 3) with their change rate (Fig 4), and compared FCR patterns across feed types (Fig 5) to investigate localized differences. The FCR generally increased over time in pigs fed with feed A. In contrast, both alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) decreased FCR between weeks 4 and 6 in DLY pigs (Fig 3). The analysis of FCR change rate showed similar results. The change rate of FCR remained positive in commercial feed group (Feed A), while alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) group showed negative change rate from weeks 4 to 6 (Fig 4). Next, we compared FCR patterns across feed types to find out which time period were significantly different (Fig 5). The average FCR trajectories was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in commercial feed group (Feed A) compared to alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) groups from weeks 2.8 to 5.2 (Fig 5AB), while being significantly higher (P < 0.05) in commercial feed group (Feed A) than in alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) groups from weeks 6.6 to 8 (Fig 5AB). In addition, alfalfa (Feed B) showed significantly lower (P < 0.05) FCR than that in alfalfa silage (Feed C) group from weeks 1.0 to 2.4 (Fig 5C).

Download:

Fig 3. FCR dynamics at biweekly intervals.

FCR generally increased over time in pigs fed commercial feed (Feed A). In contrast, pigs fed alfalfa (Feed B) or alfalfa silage (Feed C) exhibited a temporary decrease in FCR between weeks 4 and 6.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Change rate of FCR by feed type.

The rate of FCR change remained positive in the commercial feed group (Feed A), whereas negative change rates were observed in both the alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) groups between weeks 4 and 6.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g004

Download:

Fig 5. Comparative FCR trajectories across feed types.

Average FCR was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the commercial feed group (Feed A) than in the alfalfa (Feed B) and alfalfa silage (Feed C) groups between weeks 2.8 and 5.2. Conversely, Feed A exhibited significantly higher FCR (P < 0.05) than both alternative diets between weeks 6.6 and 8. Additionally, Feed B showed significantly lower FCR than Feed C between weeks 1.0 and 2.4.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g005

Feeding behavior comparison

Finally, this study analyzed how alfalfa affect feeding behavior (feeding hour) in DLY pigs. The effects of feed treatments on pigs’ feeding hour were evaluated using linear mixed-effects models and circular statistical methods (Table 5). The linear model estimated the average feeding time for pigs on the commercial feed (Feed A) to be around 1:22 PM. Pigs fed with alfalfa (Feed B) showed no significant difference in feeding time. However, pigs on alfalfa silage (Feed C) started feeding significantly earlier, around 10:15 AM (p < 0.001), with this shift becoming apparent within just five days (Fig 6).

Download:

Table 5. Effects of feed treatment on pig feeding hour: linear mixed model and circular statistics results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.t005

Download:

Fig 6. A line chart showing feeding time shifts by diet.

The feeding time of pigs fed commercial feed (Feed A) and alfalfa feed (Feed B) remained around 1:22 PM. In contrast, pigs fed alfalfa silage (Feed C) began feeding earlier, with their feeding time shifting to approximately 10:15 AM within the first five days of the trial.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g006

Circular statistics supported these findings. Pigs on commercial feed (Feed A) had moderately consistent feeding times centered around 2 PM (ρ = 0.422), while pigs on alfalfa silage (Feed C) showed much more scattered feeding patterns (ρ = 0.230), indicating greater variability in when they ate. Pigs on alfalfa (Feed B) were slightly less consistent than those on commercial feed (Feed A) (ρ = 0.366) (Fig 7, Table 3).

Download:

Fig 7. Distribution of feeding hours by feed type.

Circular plots indicated that pigs fed commercial feed (Feed A) and alfalfa feed (Feed B) exhibited clustered feeding around 2 PM, while those fed alfalfa silage (Feed C) showed more dispersed feeding times, reflecting greater variability in feeding behavior.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g007

The Rayleigh test confirmed that feeding times were not random, with pigs tending to eat at specific times of day (p < 0.001). The Watson’s test showed that the distribution of feeding times was significantly different across the three feed treatments (p < 0.001) (Table 4).

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of replacing 8% of commercial feed with alfalfa or alfalfa silage on growth performance, feed intake, and feeding behavior over a 60-day fattening period (60–130 kg) in DLY pigs. Overall, the results indicated that alfalfa did not significantly affect overall performance, supporting the feasibility of partially substituting commercial feed with alfalfa-based products without compromising pig growth. However, FCR varied over time in DLY pigs fed alfalfa-based diets, with worse feed efficiency in the middle fattening phase and better efficiency toward the end. In addition, alfalfa silage feed advanced the pigs’ feeding time by approximately three hours (Fig 8).

Download:

Fig 8. Summary of dietary effects on pig performance.

Partial replacement of commercial feed with 8% alfalfa or alfalfa silage did not significantly alter most growth or feeding behavior parameters. Alfalfa-based diets resulted in poorer FCR during mid-fattening but improved FCR in later stages. Alfalfa silage feed advanced the timing of feed intake by approximately three hours, indicating behavioral changes without compromising overall performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341429.g008

Alfalfa inclusion alters feed efficiency dynamics during fattening

Consistent with previous studies, weight and feed intake are gradually increased over the fattening period, reflecting normal growth patterns in growing-finishing pigs [22,23]. Alfalfa had no significant impact on overall weight and feed intake, suggesting that pigs adapted well to 8% alfalfa and alfalfa silage feed. Previous work has indicated that pigs can tolerate moderate levels of dietary fiber without major adverse impacts on performance [24–26], which aligns with this study.

While no significant overall differences in average FCR were found among alfalfa feed groups, the temporal dynamics of FCR varied substantially across the fattening period. Both alfalfa and alfalfa silage groups exhibited significant biweekly fluctuations in FCR, indicating that feed efficiency changed over time in a feed type–specific manner. For example, in the mid-fattening phase (weeks 2.8 to 5.2), pigs fed the commercial diet showed significantly lower FCRs compared to those receiving either alfalfa or alfalfa silage, suggesting better feed efficiency with commercial feed during this stage. This advantage may be attributed to the nutrient composition of the commercial diet, which is likely optimized for supporting rapid protein accretion and lean tissue growth characteristic of this period.

However, during the late fattening phase (weeks 6.6 to 8), this trend reversed. Pigs on the commercial feed exhibited significantly higher FCRs, while both alfalfa-based diets showed improved efficiency. This shift likely reflects the changing nutritional needs of pigs during the finishing stage, as energy requirements increase for fat deposition and maintenance rather than lean growth. The commercial formulation may be less suited to support this transition, while the fiber-rich alfalfa diets may improve nutrient absorption and satiety regulation [8] and modulate energy metabolism [8,27,28] under late-stage metabolic conditions. Additionally, a transient advantage of raw alfalfa over alfalfa silage was observed early in this study (weeks 1.0–2.4), where raw alfalfa resulted in significantly lower FCRs, potentially due to differences in fermentation byproducts or palatability influencing early intake and efficiency.

These results support the rationale for phase feeding systems, where diet composition should be adjusted in accordance with the animal’s developmental stage to maximize efficiency and carcass quality [29–31]. Given that feed costs account for 65–75% of total production expenses in swine operations, even marginal improvements in FCR can yield economically significant reductions in overall production expenditures [31].

Together, these findings highlight that phase-specific dietary effects should be considered when evaluating alternative feed ingredients. While commercial diets may optimize performance in early and mid-growth phases, incorporating alfalfa during late fattening can improve feed efficiency. These insights support the development of phase-feeding strategies to better align dietary formulation with pigs’ changing physiological needs, potentially reducing feed costs and improving sustainability in commercial pork production.

Alfalfa silage advances feeding time in pigs

Pigs fed alfalfa silage started eating about 3 hours earlier than others. This earlier feeding time shift could be beneficial in some production settings. Earlier feeding may align better with natural circadian rhythms of pigs, which are known to exhibit morning-oriented feeding activity under housed conditions [32,33]. Feeding earlier in the day can help synchronize digestive and metabolic processes with daylight cycles, potentially improving nutrient utilization and promoting more stable energy metabolism throughout the active phase. In hot climates or during periods of heat stress, earlier feeding times may benefit pigs by shifting nutrient intake to cooler parts of the day, thereby reducing the risk of heat-induced declines in feed intake and growth performance [34,35]. Additionally, spreading feeding events earlier in the day may reduce feeder competition during peak hours, improving social stability and feeder access in group-housed pigs. In contrast, pigs fed with 8% alfalfa did not exhibit altered feeding time. This distinction reinforces the idea that feed processing method plays a critical role in shaping animal behavior.

However, it is worth noting that the higher variability in feeding hour (lower circular clustering) seen in pigs receiving alfalfa silage may suggest less predictable feeding patterns, which under restrictive feeding conditions could lead to social instability and inefficient feeder use [36,37]. Thus, while alfalfa silage may offer metabolic and behavioral advantages, future research should explore how to harness its benefits without compromising rhythmic consistency in feeding behavior.

The generalizability of the findings is constrained by the relatively small sample size (24 animals of a single breed) used in this study. Furthermore, the experiment was carried out under controlled conditions with ad libitum feeding, which may not accurately replicate typical field conditions. To enhance the applicability of the results, further research involving larger sample sizes or different breeds would be necessary. While the potential economic implications of incorporating alfalfa were acknowledged, a detailed economic analysis was not performed, as it fell outside the scope of the current investigation.

Conclusions

Replacing 8% of commercial feed with alfalfa or alfalfa silage did not impair overall pig growth, supporting its use as a cost-effective, fiber-rich alternative. Feed efficiency varied by growth stage—poorer mid-phase FCR but improved late-phase efficiency with alfalfa—highlighting the value of using phase-specific diets. Alfalfa silage also shifted feeding time earlier, which may enhance nutrient use and reduce heat stress in certain systems. These findings suggest that incorporating alfalfa into precision feeding strategies may enhance both the sustainability and efficiency of pork production.

References

1. Patience JF, Rossoni-Serão MC, Gutiérrez NA. A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015;6(1):33. pmid:26251721
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Sen S, Makkar H, Becker K. Alfalfa Saponins and Their Implication in Animal Nutrition. J Agric Food Chem. 1998;46(1):131–40. pmid:10554208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Jha R, Berrocoso JD. Review: Dietary fiber utilization and its effects on physiological functions and gut health of swine. Animal. 2015;9(9):1441–52. pmid:25997437
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Gao Y, Zhou H, Wang Y, Nussio LG, Yang F, Ni K. Insights into fermentation with lactic acid bacteria on the flavonoids biotransformation of alfalfa silage. Chem Biol Technol Agric. 2024;11(1):73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Jeyakumar E, Lawrence R. Microbial fermentation for reduction of antinutritional factors. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier; 2022. p. 239–60.
6. Nkhata SG, Ayua E, Kamau EH, Shingiro J-B. Fermentation and germination improve nutritional value of cereals and legumes through activation of endogenous enzymes. Food Sci Nutr. 2018;6(8):2446–58. pmid:30510746
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Lan Q, Liufu S, Chen B, Wang K, Chen W, Xiao L, et al. Gut-resident Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens decreases fat accumulation via MYC-driven epigenetic regulation of arginine biosynthesis. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2025;11(1):150. pmid:40753182
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Luo Y, Liu Y, Shen Y, He J, Li H, Lan C, et al. Fermented Alfalfa Meal Instead of “Grain-Type” Feedstuffs in the Diet Improves Intestinal Health Related Indexes in Weaned Pigs. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:797875. pmid:34966376
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Li H, Yin J, Tan B, Chen J, Zhang H, Li Z, et al. Physiological function and application of dietary fiber in pig nutrition: A review. Anim Nutr. 2021;7(2):259–67. pmid:34258414
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Carcò G, Gallo L, Dalla Bona M, Latorre MA, Fondevila M, Schiavon S. The influence of feeding behaviour on growth performance, carcass and meat characteristics of growing pigs. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205572. pmid:30321211
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Piles M, Tusell L, Mora M, Garcia-Baccino C, Cudrey D, Hassenfratz C, et al. Feeding Behaviour in Group-Housed Growing-Finishing Pigs and Its Relationship with Growth and Feed Efficiency. Vet Sci. 2025;12(2):168. pmid:40005928
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. de Leeuw JA, Bolhuis JE, Bosch G, Gerrits WJJ. Effects of dietary fibre on behaviour and satiety in pigs. Proc Nutr Soc. 2008;67(4):334–42. pmid:18715518
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Liu J, Luo Y, Kong X, Yu B, Zheng P, Huang Z, et al. Effects of Dietary Fiber on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility and Intestinal Health in Different Pig Breeds. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(23):3298. pmid:36496820
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Han X, Ma Y, Ding S, Fang J, Liu G. Regulation of dietary fiber on intestinal microorganisms and its effects on animal health. Anim Nutr. 2023;14:356–69. pmid:37635930
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Huangfu W, Cao S, Li S, Zhang S, Liu M, Liu B, et al. In vitro and in vivo fermentation models to study the function of dietary fiber in pig nutrition. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;108(1):314. pmid:38683435
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Wood SN. Stable and Efficient Multiple Smoothing Parameter Estimation for Generalized Additive Models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2004;99(467):673–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Grolemund G, Wickham H. Dates and Times Made Easy withlubridate. J Stat Soft. 2011;40(3):125.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Rathod S, Kumar AT, Haripriya S. Data Manipulation using R Tidyverse. Statistical Procedures for Analyzing Agricultural Data using R. 2023:17–40. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.tidyverse
19. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67(1):1–48.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Lund U, Agostinelli C, Agostinelli MC. Package ‘circular’. Repository CRAN. 2017;775(5):20–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.
22. Fornós M, Sanz-Fernández S, Jiménez-Moreno E, Carrión D, Gasa J, Rodríguez-Estévez V. The Feeding Behaviour Habits of Growing-Finishing Pigs and Its Effects on Growth Performance and Carcass Quality: A Review. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(9):1128. pmid:35565555
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Maselyne J, Saeys W, Van Nuffel A. Review: Quantifying animal feeding behaviour with a focus on pigs. Physiol Behav. 2015;138:37–51. pmid:25447478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Grześkowiak Ł, Saliu E-M, Martínez-Vallespín B, Aschenbach JR, Brockmann GA, Fulde M, et al. Dietary fiber and its role in performance, welfare, and health of pigs. Anim Health Res Rev. 2022;23(2):165–93. pmid:36688278
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Stahly TS, Cromwell GL. Responses to dietary additions of fiber (alfalfa meal) in growing pigs housed in a cold, warm or hot thermal environment. J Anim Sci. 1986;63(6):1870–6. pmid:3029008
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Li J, Zhang S, Gu X, Xie J, Zhu X, Wang Y, et al. Effects of alfalfa levels on carcass traits, meat quality, fatty acid composition, amino acid profile, and gut microflora composition of Heigai pigs. Front Nutr. 2022;9:975455. pmid:36245526
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Adams S, Xiangjie K, Hailong J, Guixin Q, Sossah FL, Dongsheng C. Prebiotic effects of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) fiber on cecal bacterial composition, short-chain fatty acids, and diarrhea incidence in weaning piglets. RSC Adv. 2019;9(24):13586–99. pmid:35519545
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Wang J, Qin C, He T, Qiu K, Sun W, Zhang X, et al. Alfalfa-containing diets alter luminal microbiota structure and short chain fatty acid sensing in the caecal mucosa of pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2018;9:11. pmid:29372054
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Menegat MB, Dritz SS, Tokach MD, Woodworth JC, DeRouchey JM, Goodband RD. Phase-feeding strategies based on lysine specifications for grow-finish pigs1. J Anim Sci. 2020;98(1):skz366. pmid:31790553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Lee J, Kim J, Kim J, Jin J, Han IK. Effect of phase feeding on the growth performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2000;13(8):1137–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Joy F, Górka P, McKinnon JJ, Hendrick S, Burciaga-Robles LO, Penner GB. Evaluation of a phase-feeding strategy utilizing high-lipid high-fibre byproduct pellets in diets for feedlot steers. Can J Anim Sci. 2016;96(2):232–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Kinoshita Y, Takahashi H, Katsumata M. Circadian rhythms of the mRNA abundances of clock genes and glucose transporters in the jejunum of weanling-growing pigs. Vet Med Sci. 2022;8(3):1113–8. pmid:35137560
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Boumans IJMM, de Boer IJM, Hofstede GJ, la Fleur SE, Bokkers EAM. The importance of hormonal circadian rhythms in daily feeding patterns: An illustration with simulated pigs. Horm Behav. 2017;93:82–93. pmid:28514644
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Serviento AM, Labussière E, Castex M, Renaudeau D. Effect of heat stress and feeding management on growth performance and physiological responses of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2020;98(12):skaa387. pmid:33277651
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Santos LSD, Pomar C, Campos PHRF, da Silva WC, Gobi J de P, Veira AM, et al. Precision feeding strategy for growing pigs under heat stress conditions. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(11):4789–801. pmid:30137332
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Bornett HLI, Morgan CA, Lawrence AB, Mann J. The flexibility of feeding patterns in individually housed pigs. Anim Sci. 2000;70(3):457–69.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Vargas JV, Craig JV, Hines RH. Effects of feeding systems on social and feeding behavior and performance of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 1987;65(2):463–74. pmid:3624096
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Patience JF, Rossoni-Serão MC, Gutiérrez NA. A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015;6(1):33. pmid:26251721
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Sen S, Makkar H, Becker K. Alfalfa Saponins and Their Implication in Animal Nutrition. J Agric Food Chem. 1998;46(1):131–40. pmid:10554208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Jha R, Berrocoso JD. Review: Dietary fiber utilization and its effects on physiological functions and gut health of swine. Animal. 2015;9(9):1441–52. pmid:25997437
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Gao Y, Zhou H, Wang Y, Nussio LG, Yang F, Ni K. Insights into fermentation with lactic acid bacteria on the flavonoids biotransformation of alfalfa silage. Chem Biol Technol Agric. 2024;11(1):73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Jeyakumar E, Lawrence R. Microbial fermentation for reduction of antinutritional factors. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier; 2022. p. 239–60.

[ref6] 6. Nkhata SG, Ayua E, Kamau EH, Shingiro J-B. Fermentation and germination improve nutritional value of cereals and legumes through activation of endogenous enzymes. Food Sci Nutr. 2018;6(8):2446–58. pmid:30510746
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Lan Q, Liufu S, Chen B, Wang K, Chen W, Xiao L, et al. Gut-resident Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens decreases fat accumulation via MYC-driven epigenetic regulation of arginine biosynthesis. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2025;11(1):150. pmid:40753182
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Luo Y, Liu Y, Shen Y, He J, Li H, Lan C, et al. Fermented Alfalfa Meal Instead of “Grain-Type” Feedstuffs in the Diet Improves Intestinal Health Related Indexes in Weaned Pigs. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:797875. pmid:34966376
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Li H, Yin J, Tan B, Chen J, Zhang H, Li Z, et al. Physiological function and application of dietary fiber in pig nutrition: A review. Anim Nutr. 2021;7(2):259–67. pmid:34258414
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Carcò G, Gallo L, Dalla Bona M, Latorre MA, Fondevila M, Schiavon S. The influence of feeding behaviour on growth performance, carcass and meat characteristics of growing pigs. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205572. pmid:30321211
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Piles M, Tusell L, Mora M, Garcia-Baccino C, Cudrey D, Hassenfratz C, et al. Feeding Behaviour in Group-Housed Growing-Finishing Pigs and Its Relationship with Growth and Feed Efficiency. Vet Sci. 2025;12(2):168. pmid:40005928
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. de Leeuw JA, Bolhuis JE, Bosch G, Gerrits WJJ. Effects of dietary fibre on behaviour and satiety in pigs. Proc Nutr Soc. 2008;67(4):334–42. pmid:18715518
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Liu J, Luo Y, Kong X, Yu B, Zheng P, Huang Z, et al. Effects of Dietary Fiber on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility and Intestinal Health in Different Pig Breeds. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(23):3298. pmid:36496820
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Han X, Ma Y, Ding S, Fang J, Liu G. Regulation of dietary fiber on intestinal microorganisms and its effects on animal health. Anim Nutr. 2023;14:356–69. pmid:37635930
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Huangfu W, Cao S, Li S, Zhang S, Liu M, Liu B, et al. In vitro and in vivo fermentation models to study the function of dietary fiber in pig nutrition. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;108(1):314. pmid:38683435
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Wood SN. Stable and Efficient Multiple Smoothing Parameter Estimation for Generalized Additive Models. J Am Stat Assoc. 2004;99(467):673–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Grolemund G, Wickham H. Dates and Times Made Easy withlubridate. J Stat Soft. 2011;40(3):125.
View Article
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Rathod S, Kumar AT, Haripriya S. Data Manipulation using R Tidyverse. Statistical Procedures for Analyzing Agricultural Data using R. 2023:17–40. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.tidyverse

[ref19] 19. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67(1):1–48.
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Lund U, Agostinelli C, Agostinelli MC. Package ‘circular’. Repository CRAN. 2017;775(5):20–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024.

[ref22] 22. Fornós M, Sanz-Fernández S, Jiménez-Moreno E, Carrión D, Gasa J, Rodríguez-Estévez V. The Feeding Behaviour Habits of Growing-Finishing Pigs and Its Effects on Growth Performance and Carcass Quality: A Review. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(9):1128. pmid:35565555
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Maselyne J, Saeys W, Van Nuffel A. Review: Quantifying animal feeding behaviour with a focus on pigs. Physiol Behav. 2015;138:37–51. pmid:25447478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Grześkowiak Ł, Saliu E-M, Martínez-Vallespín B, Aschenbach JR, Brockmann GA, Fulde M, et al. Dietary fiber and its role in performance, welfare, and health of pigs. Anim Health Res Rev. 2022;23(2):165–93. pmid:36688278
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Stahly TS, Cromwell GL. Responses to dietary additions of fiber (alfalfa meal) in growing pigs housed in a cold, warm or hot thermal environment. J Anim Sci. 1986;63(6):1870–6. pmid:3029008
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Li J, Zhang S, Gu X, Xie J, Zhu X, Wang Y, et al. Effects of alfalfa levels on carcass traits, meat quality, fatty acid composition, amino acid profile, and gut microflora composition of Heigai pigs. Front Nutr. 2022;9:975455. pmid:36245526
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Adams S, Xiangjie K, Hailong J, Guixin Q, Sossah FL, Dongsheng C. Prebiotic effects of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) fiber on cecal bacterial composition, short-chain fatty acids, and diarrhea incidence in weaning piglets. RSC Adv. 2019;9(24):13586–99. pmid:35519545
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Wang J, Qin C, He T, Qiu K, Sun W, Zhang X, et al. Alfalfa-containing diets alter luminal microbiota structure and short chain fatty acid sensing in the caecal mucosa of pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2018;9:11. pmid:29372054
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Menegat MB, Dritz SS, Tokach MD, Woodworth JC, DeRouchey JM, Goodband RD. Phase-feeding strategies based on lysine specifications for grow-finish pigs1. J Anim Sci. 2020;98(1):skz366. pmid:31790553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Lee J, Kim J, Kim J, Jin J, Han IK. Effect of phase feeding on the growth performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2000;13(8):1137–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Joy F, Górka P, McKinnon JJ, Hendrick S, Burciaga-Robles LO, Penner GB. Evaluation of a phase-feeding strategy utilizing high-lipid high-fibre byproduct pellets in diets for feedlot steers. Can J Anim Sci. 2016;96(2):232–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Kinoshita Y, Takahashi H, Katsumata M. Circadian rhythms of the mRNA abundances of clock genes and glucose transporters in the jejunum of weanling-growing pigs. Vet Med Sci. 2022;8(3):1113–8. pmid:35137560
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Boumans IJMM, de Boer IJM, Hofstede GJ, la Fleur SE, Bokkers EAM. The importance of hormonal circadian rhythms in daily feeding patterns: An illustration with simulated pigs. Horm Behav. 2017;93:82–93. pmid:28514644
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Serviento AM, Labussière E, Castex M, Renaudeau D. Effect of heat stress and feeding management on growth performance and physiological responses of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2020;98(12):skaa387. pmid:33277651
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Santos LSD, Pomar C, Campos PHRF, da Silva WC, Gobi J de P, Veira AM, et al. Precision feeding strategy for growing pigs under heat stress conditions. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(11):4789–801. pmid:30137332
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Bornett HLI, Morgan CA, Lawrence AB, Mann J. The flexibility of feeding patterns in individually housed pigs. Anim Sci. 2000;70(3):457–69.
View Article
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Vargas JV, Craig JV, Hines RH. Effects of feeding systems on social and feeding behavior and performance of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 1987;65(2):463–74. pmid:3624096
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Animal ethics

Animals and experimental design

FCR analysis

Feeding time analysis

Statistical analysis

Results

Growth performance and feed intake across the fattening period

FCR patterns and biweekly comparison

Feeding behavior comparison

Discussion

Alfalfa inclusion alters feed efficiency dynamics during fattening

Alfalfa silage advances feeding time in pigs

Conclusions

References