18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of wet/dry feeder and pen stocking density on grow-finish pig performance

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Three thousand one hundred and eighty-two terminal cross pigs (barrows and gilts) PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams were used from three consecutive grow-finish groups (initial BW of 21.51 ± 0.42 kg, 31.61 ± 1.18 kg, 29.41 ± 0.28 kg for replicates 1–3). Pigs were randomly assigned to each pen at the start of the trial and the research period continued for 106, 94, and 100 d for the first, second, and third replicates, respectively. The experimental treatments were designed as a two by three factorial (pen space of 0.65 or 0.78 m 2/pig with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space), each pen had an equal number of barrows and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each pen was equipped with one double-sided wet/dry feeder, 37.5 cm wide, with one nipple drinker. All pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water supply during the trial period. Pigs for all the three replicates were fed with the same series of diets. Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial and at the end of the trial to calculate ADG. Feed was removed from the feeders and weighed to determine ADFI and G:F. To express floor space allowance, the k value was estimated by the equation: space per pig   ( m 2 ) = k × BW  ( kg ) 0.67 . No interactions ( P > 0.05) of floor space allowance with pigs per feeder were observed. Pigs with less floor space allowance had reduced BW (128.8 vs. 129.5 kg, P = 0.026), ADG (1.00 vs. 1.02 kg/d, P = 0.002), and ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61 kg/d, P < 0.001). However, G:F was improved (0.402 vs. 0.397, P = 0.039) with less floor space allowance per pig. Increased pigs per feeder space reduced final BW (129.7, 129.4, 128.4 kg, linear; P = 0.001). However, ADG had a quadratic relationship ( P = 0.005) with pigs per feeder space with means of 1.03, 1.01, and 1.01 kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Overall, ADFI had a quadratic relationship ( P < 0.0001) with number of pigs per feeder space with means of 2.62, 2.52, and 2.55 kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic relationship ( P = 0.005) with number of pigs per feeder space with means of 0.395, 0.404, and 0.400 for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. In conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m 2/pig in the grow-finish period reduced ADFI and ADG compared with 0.78 m 2/pig. Overall, with the type of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 pigs per feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, compared with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. However, G:F improved as the number of pigs per feeder space increased.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis.

          Few issues in swine production are as complex as floor space allowances. One method for pork producers to calculate floor space allowance (A) is to convert BW into a 2-dimensional concept yielding an expression of A = k * BW(0.667). Data on ADG, ADFI, and G:F were obtained from published peer-reviewed studies. Five data sets were created: A = grower-finisher pigs, fully slatted floors, and consistent group size; B = grower-finisher pigs and fully slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); C = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors, and consistent group size; D = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); and E = nursery pigs, fully slatted or woven wire floors (group size did not need to be consistent). Each data set was analyzed using a broken-line analysis and a linear regression. For the broken-line analyses, the critical k value, below which a decrease in ADG occurred, varied from 0.0317 to 0.0348. In all cases the effect of space allowance on ADG was significant (P 0.10); however, none of the linear regressions explained a significant proportion of the variation in ADG. The slopes for the nonplateau portion of the broken-line analyses based on percent values varied among data sets. For every 0.001 decrease in k (approximately 3% of the critical k value), ADG decreased by 0.56 to 1.41%, with an average value of 0.98% for the 5%-based analyses. The use of an allometric approach to express space allowance and broken-line analysis to establish space requirements seem to be useful tools for pig production. The critical k value at which crowding becomes detrimental to the growth of the pig is similar in full- and partial-slat systems and in nursery and grower-finisher stages. The critical point for crowding determined in these analyses approximated current recommendations to ensure the welfare of pigs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of Group Size and Space Allowance on Performance and Behavior of Swine

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of eating space and availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating behavior of grower/finisher pigs.

              H Gonyou, Z Lou (2000)
              Three experiments were conducted to determine the effects of eating space and availability of water within feeders on the productivity and behavior of growing/finishing pigs. In Exp. 1, 12 commercial feeders were classified as being either single-space (SS) or multiple-space (MS), and either as dry (D) or wet/dry (WD), resulting in two SS-D, four MS-D, three SS-WD and three MS-WD models. Each model was evaluated using four pens of 12 pigs, which were fed a mash diet throughout the growing/finishing period (25 to 106 kg). Pigs were videotaped when they were approximately 40 and 80 kg in weight to determine eating behavior. The number of feeding spaces did not affect the productivity of the pigs, but the presence of water within the feeder resulted in increases in ADFI (P < .05) and ADG (P < .05) and a reduction in carcass lean (P < .05). Pigs eating from SS feeders spent 15% less time eating than those fed from two-space feeders (P < .05), and occupancy rate for feeding spaces was increased by 75% (P < .05). The WD feeders also resulted in a reduction (17%) in eatingtime compared to D models (P < .01), and occupancy rate for WD feeders was similarly reduced (P < .05). Pigs spent 16% less time eating when they weighed approximately 80 kg than when they weighed 40 kg (P < .01). In Exp. 2, rate of eating was determined during a short test on the same 12 feeder models for both small (48 kg) and large (90 kg) pigs. Large pigs ate faster than small pigs, but eating rate was not affected by feeding space or presence of water in the feeder. In Exp. 3, eating rate was determined for small amounts of dry or wet feed. Premixing water with the feed (1:1 ratio by weight) increased eating speed (P < .01). We concluded that 12 pigs can be fed from a single-space feeder without affecting productivity. The inclusion of water within a feeder decreases time spent eating, but it increases ADFI and ADG. When pigs are small, they spend more time eating, and feeder occupancy rates are higher than when they are large.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transl Anim Sci
                Transl Anim Sci
                tas
                Translational Animal Science
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2573-2102
                October 2018
                22 June 2018
                22 June 2018
                : 2
                : 4
                : 358-364
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Gro Master, Inc., Omaha, NE
                [2 ]Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ]Animal Science Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: mwastell@ 123456gromaster.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3244-7184
                Article
                txy073
                10.1093/tas/txy073
                7200493
                32704718
                fe6e1b9d-facf-4369-be2f-6bd489a0eb6f
                © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 23 April 2018
                : 21 June 2018
                Page count
                Pages: 7
                Categories
                Housing and Management

                feeder space,floor space,k value,space allocation,swine
                feeder space, floor space, k value, space allocation, swine

                Comments

                Comment on this article