Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Effects of wet/dry feeder and pen stocking density on grow-finish pig performance Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 ,1 † ‡ Marvin E. Wastell,* Cesar A. P. Garbossa, and Allan P. Schinckel *Gro Master, Inc., Omaha, NE 68127; Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga, São Paulo 13635-900, Brazil; and Animal Science Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054 ABSTRACT: Three thousand one hundred and with pigs per feeder were observed. Pigs with less eighty-two terminal cross pigs (barrows and gilts) oor space allo fl wance had reduced BW (128.8 vs. PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams were used from 129.5  kg, P  =  0.026), ADG (1.00 vs. 1.02  kg/d, three consecutive grow-finish groups (initial BW P  =  0.002), and ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61  kg/d, of 21.51 ± 0.42 kg, 31.61 ± 1.18 kg, 29.41 ± 0.28 kg P  <  0.001). However, G:F was improved (0.402 for replicates 1–3). Pigs were randomly assigned vs. 0.397, P = 0.039) with less floor space allow - to each pen at the start of the trial and the ance per pig. Increased pigs per feeder space research period continued for 106, 94, and 100 d reduced final BW (129.7, 129.4, 128.4 kg, linear; for the first, second, and third replicates, respec - P = 0.001). However, ADG had a quadratic rela- tively. The experimental treatments were designed tionship (P  =  0.005) with pigs per feeder space as a two by three factorial (pen space of 0.65 with means of 1.03, 1.01, and 1.01  kg/d for 10, or 0.78 m /pig with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Overall, ADFI space), each pen had an equal number of barrows had a quadratic relationship (P  <  0.0001) with and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the number of pigs per feeder space with means of 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each 2.62, 2.52, and 2.55  kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs pen was equipped with one double-sided wet/dry per feeder space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic feeder, 37.5 cm wide, with one nipple drinker. All relationship (P = 0.005) with number of pigs per pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water sup- feeder space with means of 0.395, 0.404, and ply during the trial period. Pigs for all the three 0.400 for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. In replicates were fed with the same series of diets. conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m / Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial and pig in the grow-finish period reduced ADFI and at the end of the trial to calculate ADG. Feed ADG compared with 0.78 m /pig. Overall, with was removed from the feeders and weighed to the type of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 determine ADFI and G:F. To express floor space pigs per feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, allowance, the k value was estimated by the equa- compared with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. 20.67 tion: spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . No However, G:F improved as the number of pigs interactions (P > 0.05) of floor space allowance per feeder space increased. Key words: feeder space, floor space, k value, space allocation, swine © 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 Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018.2:358–364 doi: 10.1093/tas/txy073 Corresponding author: mwastell@gromaster.com Received April 23, 2018. Accepted June 21, 2018. 358 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 359 INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS The economic return of a pig production sys- Animal procedures were consistent with tem is related to the housing capacity of the pro- the Guide for the Care and Use of Animals in duction sites as well as the technologies employed Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS, 2010). to increase pig growth performance and gain effi - ciency, considering it is important to diminish General facility cost per pig (Thomas et  al., 2017). Gain The trial was conducted at a commercial efficiency is very important, as approximately research finishing barn located in Southwest 60%–75% of the total postweaning pig production Minnesota from October 2015 to September 2016. costs are associated with feed costs (Honeyman, The facility was double curtain sided with totally 1991; Wade and Barkley, 1992). In modern swine slatted floors and environmentally controlled with production, the pork processing plants have tar- sprinklers to reduce summertime heat stress and geted heavier market weights (Wu et  al., 2017). heaters for winter time temperature control. Each With increased market weights, the pen space building contained 44 pens. The pens had adjustable required for modern pigs and the feeder space per gating to provide the different floor space allow - pig should be evaluated to balance building utili- ances, so each floor space allowance was arranged zation and production efficiency. by moving the gates after measurement of the floor A number of researchers have found that space. The experimental treatments were designed increased group sizes do not affect the pig perfor- as a two by three factorial arrangement (pen space mance when the pigs are given equal pen space of 0.65 or 0.78 m /pig × 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder and ad libitum access to feed (McConnell et  al., space). Each pen had an equal number of barrows 1987; Walker, 1991; Turner et al., 2003; Turner and and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the Edwards, 2004). The majority of the production 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each pen systems for pigs use fully or partially slatted floors, was equipped with one Crystal Spring Wet/Dry sin- a liquid effluent system, with group sizes from 5 gle-space double-sided feeder model F1-115 (Ste. to 50 pigs and approximately 0.7 m of floor space Agathe, MB), space of 37.5 cm of length, with one allowance per pig (Morrison et al., 2007). nipple drinker. The drinker of the feeder was the However, when less pen floor space allowance only provided in each pen. The feed was delivered is provided per pig, pig growth rate is reduced, by a robotic feeding system (FeedPro; Feedlogic more markedly with pens for smaller groups as Corp., Wilmar, MN), which recorded the daily indi- demonstrated by Thomas et al. (2017), which had vidual pen feed additions. nine pigs per pen. Besides the reduced growth performance, restricted pen floor space allowance can cause behavioral problems, increase plasma Animals and Performance glucocorticoid levels, and reduce animal welfare (Randolph et al., 1981; Kornegay, 1986; Meunier- Three thousand one hundred and eighty-two Salaun et al., 1987). terminal cross pigs (PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams, Feeder design and management can affect barrows, and gilts) from three consecutive grow-fin - pig growth and the pigs’ capacity to eat, so it is ish groups (initial BW of 21.5 ± 0.42, 31.6 ± 1.18, extremely important to evaluate the impact of the and 29.4 ± 0.28 kg for replicate 1, 2, and 3, respec- number of pigs per feeder space with each model tively) were used. Pigs were randomly assigned to of the commercial feeder. Past research has been each pen at the start of the trial, and the trial con- done with dry feeders on the impact of the number tinued for 106, 94, and 100 d for the first, second, of pigs per feeder space and has produced variable and third replicates, respectively, for each replicate results, possibly due to different models of feeders pen group remained intact until the end of the and different levels of feeder adjustment. experiment. No pigs were removed for marketing Considering that feeder space per pig and until after the experiment ended. pen floor space allowance per pig can affect pig Initial BW was equalized for each pen, and growth performance, the objective of the trial was the pens were randomly distributed to one of the to evaluate the effects of different feeder stocking six treatments with seven pens per treatment for density and pen stocking density on the growth each trial group. All pigs had ad libitum access to performance of grow-finish pigs fed with wet/dry feed and water supply during the trial period. Pigs feeders. for all the three replicates were fed with the same Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 360 Wastell et al. feeding program with a seven-phase corn-soybean Statistical Analysis meal base feed in mash form (Table  1). The diets All variables measured were tested for normal- were formulated to achieve or exceed NRC (2012) ity by the Shapiro–Wilk test before analysis with requirements for grow-finish pigs. P  <  0.05, and any variable that failed to follow a Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial, at normal distribution was transformed through approximately every 21 d of the trial, and at the end the RANK procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., of the trial to calculate ADG, all the feed placed in Cary, NC). The PROC RANK statement with the the feeders was weighed and at the end of the trial NORMAL option was used to produce a normal- the remaining feed in the feeders was weighed to ized transformed variable. All data were analyzed determine ADFI and G:F. using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) as a randomized complete block Evaluation of k Value design (replicate) in a factorial scheme with floor To express floor space allowance, k value was used, space allowance (0.65 or 0.78 m /pig) and pigs per as it describes pen space as a function of effective pig feeder space (10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space). 0.67 space requirements (BW ). The k values were calcu- Pen was considered as the experimental unit. Initial lated using a formula reported by Whittemore (1998): analyses found no significant interactions and thus 20.67 spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . According to were deleted from the model. The pigs per feeder Gonyou et al. (2006), a k value of 0.0336 is required space treatments were analyzed as linear and quad- for maximal feed intake and ADG for grow-finish ratic orthogonal contrasts. The effects of floor pigs with fully slatted flooring, as k value lower than space allowance per pig were compared by F test. 0.0336 reduces feed intake and consequently ADG. All data are reported as least squares means, and Table 1. Composition of the trial feeds (as-fed basis) Phase Ingredient, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Corn 42.62 42.55 45.02 48.06 52.77 61.12 66.76 Soybean meal, 46.5% CP 10.44 5.63 3.15 0.12 0.49 2.28 1.72 DDGS 40.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 40.00 30.00 25.00 Tallow 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Salt 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Calcium carbonate, 38% Ca 1.27 1.30 1.28 1.27 1.19 1.05 0.97 Mono dicalcium P, 21% P 0.22 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Potassium chloride 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Premix 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated analysis Crude protein, % 19.4 18.5 17.5 16.3 15.4 14 12.7 ME, kcal/kg 2970 2964 2953 2968 2984 2991 3003 Fat, % 8.11 8.11 7.98 8.15 8.09 7.49 7.29 Crude fiber, % 3.55 3.69 3.65 3.60 3.39 2.99 2.76 Calcium, % 0.58 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.48 0.43 0.4 Phosphorus, % 0.52 0.5 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.4 0.37 Lys (total), % 1.31 1.22 1.12 1.02 0.95 0.87 0.79 Met (total), % 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.27 0.25 Thr (total), % 0.82 0.77 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.58 0.53 Trp (total), % 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 Phase 1–7 diets were fed from 25 to 34 kg, 34 to 43 kg, 43 to 61 kg, 61 to 75 kg, 75 to 86 kg, 86 to 98 kg, and 98 to slaughter, respectively. DDGS = dried distillers grains with solubles. Mineral and vitamin premix provided per kilogram of diet: 4,412,200 IU vitamin A, 551,200 IU vitamin D, 17,700 IU vitamin E, 1,782 mg vitamin K, 15.5 mg vitamin B12, 19,876 mg niacin, 11,065 mg pantothenic acid, 3,318 mg riboflavin, 1,106 mg Zn, 1,100 mg Fe, 313 mg Mn, 107 mg Cu, 2 mg I, and 2 mg Se. Amino acid premix provided per kilogram of diet: Phase 1: 11.74 g lysine, 0.43 g methionine, 2.83 g threonine, and 1.29 g tryptophan; Phase 2: 11.91 g lysine, 2.47 g threonine, and 1.39 g tryptophan; Phase 3: 11.23 g lysine, 2.42 g threonine, and 1.34 g tryptophan; Phase 4: 10.86 g lysine, 2.08 g threonine, and 1.33 g tryptophan; Phase 5: 9.84 g lysine, 2.12 g threonine, and 1.19 g tryptophan; Phase 6: 8.57 g lysine, 1.98 g threonine, and 1.01 g tryptophan; Phase 7: 7.77 g lysine, 1.88 g threonine, and 0.92 g tryptophan. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 361 the greatest standard errors (SEM) were reported. The number of pigs per feeder space did not Results are considered significant if P < 0.05. affect ADG (Table  4, P > 0.14) during the grow- ing phase. Average daily gain during the finishing RESULTS phase had a quadratic (P  =  0.010) relationship with the number of the pigs per feeder. In the same No interactions (P > 0.05) of floor space allow - way, the overall ADG had a quadratic relationship ance with pigs per feeder space were observed. Pigs (P = 0.005) with the number of pigs per feeder space allocated in pens with 0.65 m /pig had reduced with the maximal ADG at 10 pigs per feeder space. ADG during the growing phase (Table  2, 1.00 vs. Final BW was reduced with increased number of 1.02  kg/d, P  <  0.001), finishing phase (1.03 vs. pigs per feeder space (linear P = 0.001). 1.05 kg/d, P = 0.033), and the overall period (1.00 Daily feed intake had a quadratic relationship vs. 1.02 kg/d, P = 0.002). (P  <  0.001) with the number of pigs per feeder As suggested by previous studies with dry space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic relationship feeders, these pigs had lower BW at 70 d (97.7 vs. (P  =  0.005) with the number of pigs per feeder 99.4 kg, P < 0.001) and final BW (128.8 vs. 129.5 kg, space. The number of pigs per feeder space had no P = 0.026) and reduced ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61 kg/d, effect for the percentage of dead or removed pigs. P  <  0.001) than pigs with 0.78 m /pig floor space allowance. However, the overall G:F was improved DISCUSSION (0.402 vs. 0.397, P  =  0.039) for pigs with less pen space. Floor space allowance had no effect for the Reduction of the floor space allowance by percentage of dead or removed pigs. increasing the number of pigs per space unit reduces It was estimated that the BW in which pen the housing cost per pig (Brumm and Gonyou, space became limiting (k  =  0.0336) for the floor 2001); however, with reduction of floor space allow - space allowance of 0.65 m /pig was 85.0 kg and at ance, pigs have reduced ADFI, ADG, and conse- 111.7 kg BW for the floor space allowance of 0.78 quently reduced BW (Brumm and Miller, 1996; m /pig (Table 3). At 70 d, the BWs for pigs allocated Gonyou and Stricklin, 1998; Jensen et  al., 2012; in pens with 0.65 and 0.78 m /pig were 97.7 and Thomas et  al., 2017). It is common for crowded 99.4 with estimated k values of 0.0306 and 0.0363, pigs to eat fewer meals; however, pigs spend more respectively. The final BWs were 128.8 and 129.5 kg time eating each meal (Meunier-Salaun et al., 1987; with estimated k values of 0.0255 and 0.0304 for Hyun et al., 1998). pigs assigned to 0.65 and 0.78 m /pig. Johnston et  al. (2017) conducted a series of trials and established the ideal floor space allow - ance for pigs weighing 130 kg is 0.89 m /pig as they did not observe any improvement in final BW and Table  2. Effects of floor space allocation on ADG beyond this oor fl space allowance, the group growing-finishing pig performance Space alloca- tion per pig, m Table  3. Determination of k values for different Item 0.65 0.78 SEM P value space allocations and pig weights Growing phase Space alloca- Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 3.060 0.566 2 2,3 tion per pig, m k value ADG, kg 1.00 1.02 0.016 <0.001 2 2 Item 0.65 0.78 0.65 m 0.78 m Dead/removed, % 1.7 1.7 0.943 0.704 Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 0.0724 0.0869 Finishing phase Day 70 weight, kg 97.7 99.4 0.0306 0.0363 Day 70 weight, kg 97.7 99.4 2.154 <0.001 Day 100 final weight, kg 128.8 129.5 0.0255 0.0304 ADG, kg 1.03 1.05 0.035 0.033 BW when k = 0.0336, kg 85.0 111.7 Day 100 final weight, kg 128.8 129.5 0.242 0.026 Dead/removed, % 1.2 1.2 0.921 0.758 Average pig weight reported for each space allocation and weigh Overall day. ADG, kg 1.01 1.03 0.009 0.002 k values were calculated using a formula reported by Whittemore 20.67 (1998): ADFI, kg 2.52 2.61 0.155 <0.001 spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . Shaded background indicates k values below 0.0336, critical k value G:F 0.402 0.397 0.029 0.039 for adequate feed intake as defined by Gonyou et al. (2006). Dead/removed, % 2.9 2.9 0.913 0.743 Estimated body weight for space allocation when k  =  0.0336, the Sixty-three replicates per treatment with 1,591 pigs per treatment critical k value for adequate feed intake for grow-finish, fully slatted was used. ooring and equal gr fl oup sizes ( Gonyou et al., 2006). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 362 Wastell et al. Table 4. Effects of pigs per feeder space on growing-finishing pig performance Pigs per feeder space P value Item 10 13 16 SEM Linear Quadratic Growing phase Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 27.5 3.061 0.877 0.829 ADG, kg 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.016 0.156 0.142 Dead/removed, % 1.6 1.9 1.6 0.987 0.848 0.793 Finishing phase Day 70 weight, kg 99.0 98.5 98.1 2.041 0.244 0.158 ADG, kg 1.07 1.02 1.03 0.035 0.488 0.010 Day 100 final weight, kg 129.7 129.4 128.4 0.326 0.001 0.028 Dead/removed, % 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.865 0.799 0.575 Overall ADG, kg/d 1.03 1.01 1.01 0.010 0.152 0.005 ADFI, kg/d 2.62 2.52 2.55 0.156 0.385 <0.0001 G:F 0.395 0.404 0.400 0.029 0.877 0.005 Dead/removed, % 2.6 3.2 2.9 1.000 0.950 0.568 Forty-two replicates per treatment with 816, 1,062, and 1,304 pigs, respectively, for the treatments with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space was used. size was constant across treatments however varied 4.44% (Metafarms Analytics Team, 2017) observed across trials, varying from 6 to 19 pigs per pen. in commercial US pig farms. This suggests sug- Increased pen density could cause welfare gested that problems associated with welfare were problems because crowded pigs tend to have more not present in this trial. aggressive behavior and higher lesion scores (Fu Floor space allowance was expressed using the et  al., 2016). Also, increased stocking density allometric approach suggested by Gonyou et  al. reduces the area available for lying so pigs tend to (2006); the minimum k value of 0.0336 represents disturb each other more often (Bulens et al., 2017). the best value for pigs to have an ideal ADFI and However, the results of this trial contradict ADG, associated with floor space allowance. For some past research that found G:F was unchanged this study, both floor space allowance treatments (Brumm and Miller, 1996; Gonyou and Stricklin, exceeded the minimum value of 0.0336 for k value 1998; Jensen et  al., 2012; Thomas et  al., 2017) or for maximal ADFI and ADG for most of the finish decreased (Street and Gonyou, 2008; Flohr et  al., period. Most likely, pigs that were allocated with 2016) with decreased oor fl space allowance per pig. 0.65 m /pig had restricted ADFI after they reached In this trial, G:F was greater for pigs with less floor 85.0 kg BW and resulted in the lower DFI for this space allowance. This observation is in agreement group of pigs. with a meta-analysis (Averós et al., 2012) that sug- It has been suggested that values proposed gested that the pig floor space required for maxi - by Gonyou et  al. (2006) may underestimate the mal G:F is reduced if the pigs are housed on fully requirement of floor space allowance for heavy pigs slatted floors compared with pens with nonslatted (over 120  kg of BW), and it should be revaluated oor fl . Despite the small lower ADG (20  g/d) and for heavy pigs (Potter et al., 2010; Flohr et al., 2016; ADFI (90  g/d) of pigs with the floor space allow - Johnston et  al., 2017). If the density increases in ance of 0.65 m , the pigs had a small improvement a reasonable manner, the total BW produced per of G:F for overall grow-finish period. unit of fixed building assets increase, generating a These findings are important considering the greater net revenue over facility costs (Powell and final BW difference of 0.7 kg represents less than 1 Brumm, 1993; Flohr et al., 2016). d of ADG for the overall period; however, the dif- According to NRC (2012), when the pigs ference on ADFI represents 9.00 kg of feed for the are crowded with k values lower than 0.0336, the overall period of 100 d, being economically more ADFI is reduced and consequently growth rate is representative. worsened. If adequate floor space allowance is not The percentage of dead or removed pigs were provided, the impact of reduce floor space allow - the same for the both floor space allowances treat - ance on pig performance depends on the magnitude ments during the grower, finishing phase and con - of the restriction. Flohr et  al. (2015) conducted a sequently the overall period and it was lower than meta-analysis and established equations to predict Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 363 ADG, ADFI, and G:F based on the BW of pigs. ingestion rates compared with dry feeders (Averós From this meta-analysis, for each 0.001 below, et al., 2012), although pigs fed wet/dry feeders eat the critical value of k (0.0336), ADG, ADFI, and more feed and gain more weight than those fed con- G:F should decrease by 0.88%, 0.58%, and 0.31%, ventional feeders, feed conversion does not change respectively, for pigs with more than 125  kg of (Gonyou and Lou, 2000). Wet/dry feeders have the BW, contradictory for the present trial G:F was ability to accommodate more pigs per feeder space, improved with lower floor space allocation. without harming the performance of the pigs, as Another factor that could impair the real evalu- wet feed is eaten faster than dry feed (Gonyou and ation of the ideal value proposed by Gonyou et al. Lou, 2000). (2006) is that his trials were made with dry feeders According to Bates et al. (1995), the traditional and it can impact the speed of which the animals recommendation of pigs per feeder space with dry eat, so these values must be re-established to ensure feeders was five; however, the same researcher con - which would be the ideal k value that does not harm ducted a trial and found that 10 pigs per feeder the ADFI. space do not have any detrimental effect on pig The group size of the pigs was adjusted with 20, performance. The results in our study showed that 26, and 32 pigs per pen to achieve the 10, 13, and there was not a detrimental effect on pig perfor- 16 pigs per feeder space. When pigs were housed mance with 13 pigs per wet/dry feeder space. In in groups of 18 or 108 pigs, the size of the group conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m /pig did not affect ADG (Street and Gonyou, 2008). marginally reduced the ADFI and ADG during the Schmolke et al. (2003) evaluated groups of 10, 20, finisher phase and overall. Overall, with the type 40, and 80 pigs and verified that housing grow - of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 pigs per ing-finishing pigs in groups of up to 80 pigs was feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, compared not detrimental to productivity and health. These with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. However, G:F findings are important to ensure that the group size improved as the number of pigs per feeder space did not have effect over the performance variables increased. of the present trial. Restricted feeder space in grow-finish pigs LITERATURE CITED increases ingestion rate, reduces the duration of Averós, X., L.  Brossard, J. Y.  Dourmad, K. H.  de Greef, visits to the feeder as well as the time spent eat- S. A.  Edwards, and M. C.  Meunier-Salaün. 2012. Meta- ing (Hsia and Wood-Gush, 1984; Brumm and analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal Gonyou, 2001). In this trial, pigs with the greatest traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behav- ior and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal feeder space had a greater ADFI, in agreement with 8:275–1289. doi:10.1017/S1751731112000328 Averós et  al. (2012) that reported when the feeder Bates, R. O., J. L.  Morrow-Tesch, and S. M.  Neal. 1995. places per pig are increased, the pigs spend more The effect of feeder space allocation on pig perfor- time eating. mance. Prof. Anim. Sci. 11:135–138. doi:10.15232/ However, with more feeder places per pig, S1080-7446(15)32577–8 ADFI can be associated with an increase in feed Brumm, M. C., and H. W.  Gonyou. 2001. Effects of facility design on behavior and feed and water intake. In: A. J. wastage. With more restricted feeder space pigs Lewis and L. L. Southern, editors. Swine nutrition. 2nd tend to reduce feed wastage, something that may ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press LLC; p. 499–517. have occurred in this trial, as the pigs with the least Brumm, M. C., and P. S.  Miller. 1996. Response of pigs to number of pigs per feeder space had a poorer G:F, space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. J. in disagreement with previous research (Spoolder Anim. Sci. 74:2730–2737. doi:10.2527/1996.74112730x Bulens, A., S.  Van Beirendonck, J.  Van Thielen, N.  Buys, and et  al., 1999; Gonyou and Lou, 2000) both treat- B. Driessen. 2017. A two-level pen for fattening pigs: effects ments 13 and 16 pigs per feeder space had a better on behavior, performance, and postslaughter measure- feed conversion than 10 pigs per feeder space in the ments. J. Anim. Sci. 95:616–625. doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0831 present trial. Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). 2010. Guide Gonyou and Lou (2000) demonstrated that for the care and use of agricultural animals in research pigs fed with wet/dry feeders usually have greater and teaching. 3rd ed. Champaign (IL): FASS. [accessed January 15, 2018]. http://www.fass.org. ADFI and ADG than dry feeders; similarly, Walker Flohr, J. R., M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, J. C. Woodworth, (1990) verified pigs fed from wet/dry feeders tend to R. D.  Goodband, and S. S.  Dritz. 2016. Evaluating the have a greater feed intake. The increase in weight removal of pigs from a group and subsequent floor space gain would be a consequence of greater feed intake allowance on the growth performance of heavy-weight (Maton and Daelemans, 1992). Pigs fed from wet/ finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:4388–4400. doi:10.2527/ jas2016-0407 dry feeders have shorter feeder visits and have higher Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 364 Wastell et al. Flohr, J. R., M. D.  Tokach, S. S.  Dritz, J. C.  Woodworth, growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1371–1377. J. M.  DeRouchey, and R. D.  Goodband. 2015. Using doi:10.2527/jas1987.6451371x meta-analyses to generate alternative prediction equations Morrison, R. S., L. J.  Johnston, and A. M.  Hilbrands. 2007. for the space requirements of finishing pigs. Kansas Agric. A note on the effects of two versus one feeder loca- Exp. Station Res. Rep. 1:1–20. doi:10.4148/2378–5977.1144 tions on the feeding behaviour and growth performance Fu, L., H.  Li, T.  Liang, B.  Zhou, Q.  Chou, A. P.  Schinckel, of pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system. X.  Yang, R.  Zhao, P.  Li, and R.  Huang. 2016. Stocking Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107:157–161. doi:10.1016/j. density affects welfare indicators of growing pigs of differ- applanim.2006.09.009 ent group sizes after regrouping. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed. 174:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.002 Washington (DC): The National Academies Press. Gonyou, H. W., M. C. Brumm, E. Bush, J. Deen, S. A. Edwards, Potter, M. L., S. S.  Dritz, M. D.  Tokach, J. M.  DeRouchey, T.  Fangman, J. J.  McGlone, M.  Meunier-Salaun, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 2010. Effects of increasing R. B. Morrison, H. Spoolder, et al. 2006. Application of stocking density on finishing pig performance. Kansas Swine broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of Ind. Day Rep. Prog. No. 1038. Manhattan (KS): Kansas State nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric University Agricultural Experiment Station; p. 216–222. basis. J. Anim. Sci. 84:229–235. doi:10.2527/2006.841229x Powell, T. A., M. C.  Brumm, and R. E.  Massey. 1993. Gonyou, H. W., and Z. Lou. 2000. Effects of eating space and Economics of space allocation for grower-finisher hogs: availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating a simulation approach. Rev. Agric. Econ. 15:133–141. behavior of grower/finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 78:865–870. doi:10.2307/1349717 doi:10.2527/2000.784865x Randolph, J. H., G. L.  Cromwell, T. S.  Stahly, and D. Gonyou, H. W., and W. R.  Stricklin. 1998. Effects of floor D.  Kratzer. 1981. Effects of group size and space allow- area allowance and group size on the productivity of ance on performance and behaviour of swine. J. Anim. growing/finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1326–1330. Sci. 53:922–927. doi:10.2527/jas1981.534922x doi:10.2527/1998.7651326x Schmolke, S. A., Y. Z. Li, and H. W. Gonyou. 2003. Effect of Honeyman, M. S. 1991. Sustainable swine production in group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. J. the U.S. Corn Beit. Am. J.  Alternative Agr. 6:63–70. Anim. Sci. 81:874–878. doi:10.2527/2003.814874x doi:10.1017/S0889189300003878 Spoolder, H. A.  M., S. A.  Edwards, and S.  Corning. 1999. Hsia, L. C., and D. G.  M.  Wood-Gush. 1984. Social Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on wel- facilitation in the feeding behaviour of pigs and fare in finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. 69:481–489. doi:10.1017/ the effect of rank. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11:265–270. S135772980005133X doi:10.1016/0304-3762(84)90033–6 Street, B. R., and H. W. Gonyou. 2008. Effects of housing finish - Hyun, Y., M. Ellis, and R. W. Johnson. 1998. Effects of feeder ing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations type, space allowance, and mixing on the growth perfor- on production, health, behavior, and physiological varia- mance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs. J. Anim. bles. J. Anim. Sci. 86:982–991. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0449 Sci. 76:2771–2778. doi:10.2527/1998.76112771x Thomas, L. L., R. D.  Goodband, J. C.  Woodworth, Jensen, T., C. K.  Nielsen, J.  Vinther, and R. B.  D’Eath. M. D.  Tokach, J. M.  DeRouchey, and S. S.  Dritz. 2017. 2012. The effect of space allowance for finishing pigs Effects of space allocation on finishing pig growth per - on productivity and pen hygiene. Livest. Sci. 149:33–40. formance and carcass characteristics. Transl. Anim. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.06.018 1:351–357. doi:10.2527/tas2017.0042 Johnston, L. J., D. W.  Rozeboom, R. D.  Goodband, Turner, S. P., D. J. Allcroft, and S. A. Edwards. 2003. Housing S. J.  Moeller, M. C.  Shannon, and S. J.  Schieck. 2017. pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for Effect of floor space allowances on growth performance performance and other economic traits. Liv. Prod. Sci. of finishing pigs marketed at 138 kilograms. J. Anim. Sci. 82:39–51. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(03)00008-3 11:4917–4925. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1870 Turner, S. P., and S. A.  Edwards. 2004. Housing immature Kornegay, E. T. 1986. Stocking density for growing-finishing domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social swine. Proc. Ann. Meet. Am. Assoc. Swine Pract. 1:16–18. organisation in a hierarchical society. Appl. Anim. Behav. Maton, A., and J. Daelemans. 1992. Third comparative study Sci. 87:239–253. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.01.010 viz. the circular wet-feeder versus the dry-feed hopper for Wade, M. A., and A. P.  Barkley.1992. The economic impacts ad libitum feeding and general conclusions concerning of a ban on subtherapeutic antibiotics in swine pro- wet feeding versus dry feeding of finishing pigs. Rev. Agr. duction. Agribusiness 8:93–107. doi:10.1002/1520– (Brussels) 45:531–539. 6297(199203)8:2<93::AID-AGR2720080202>3.0.CO;2–9 McConnell, J. C., J. C. Eargle, and R. C. Waldorf. 1987. Effects Walker, N. 1990. The influence of hopper-type feeders on per - of weaning weight, co-mingling, group size and room tem- formance of pigs. Pig News Inf. 11:31–33. perature on pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 65:1201–1206. Walker, N. 1991. The effects on performance and behaviour of doi:10.2527/jas1987.6551201x number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Anim. Feed Metafarms Analytics Team. 2017. Pork production mortal- Sci. Technol. 35:3–13. doi:10.1016/0377-8401(91)90094–9 ity higher across board in Q2. Feedstuffs 89. [accessed Whittemore, C. T. 1998. The science and practice of pig pro- November 26, 2016] http://www.metafarms.com/ duction. 2nd ed. Malden (MA): Blackwell Science Ltd. uploads/2/4/0/4/24044637/feedstuffsreprint_novem- Wu, F., K. R.  Vierck, J. M.  DeRouchey, T. G.  O’Quinn, ber_2017_pg_22.indd.pdf. M. D.  Tokach, R. D.  Goodband, S. S.  Dritz, and J. Meunier-Salaun, M. C., M. N.  Vantrimponte, A.  Raab, C.  Woodworth. 2017. A review of heavy weight market and R.  Dantzer. 1987. Effect of floor area restric - pigs: status of knowledge and future needs assessment. tion upon performance, behavior and physiology of Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:1–15. doi:10.2527/tas2016.0004 Translate basic science to industry innovation http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

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

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/effects-of-wet-dry-feeder-and-pen-stocking-density-on-grow-finish-pig-lgBcdPluy6

References (79)

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.1093/tas/txy073
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 ,1 † ‡ Marvin E. Wastell,* Cesar A. P. Garbossa, and Allan P. Schinckel *Gro Master, Inc., Omaha, NE 68127; Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga, São Paulo 13635-900, Brazil; and Animal Science Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054 ABSTRACT: Three thousand one hundred and with pigs per feeder were observed. Pigs with less eighty-two terminal cross pigs (barrows and gilts) oor space allo fl wance had reduced BW (128.8 vs. PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams were used from 129.5  kg, P  =  0.026), ADG (1.00 vs. 1.02  kg/d, three consecutive grow-finish groups (initial BW P  =  0.002), and ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61  kg/d, of 21.51 ± 0.42 kg, 31.61 ± 1.18 kg, 29.41 ± 0.28 kg P  <  0.001). However, G:F was improved (0.402 for replicates 1–3). Pigs were randomly assigned vs. 0.397, P = 0.039) with less floor space allow - to each pen at the start of the trial and the ance per pig. Increased pigs per feeder space research period continued for 106, 94, and 100 d reduced final BW (129.7, 129.4, 128.4 kg, linear; for the first, second, and third replicates, respec - P = 0.001). However, ADG had a quadratic rela- tively. The experimental treatments were designed tionship (P  =  0.005) with pigs per feeder space as a two by three factorial (pen space of 0.65 with means of 1.03, 1.01, and 1.01  kg/d for 10, or 0.78 m /pig with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. Overall, ADFI space), each pen had an equal number of barrows had a quadratic relationship (P  <  0.0001) with and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the number of pigs per feeder space with means of 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each 2.62, 2.52, and 2.55  kg/d for 10, 13, and 16 pigs pen was equipped with one double-sided wet/dry per feeder space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic feeder, 37.5 cm wide, with one nipple drinker. All relationship (P = 0.005) with number of pigs per pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water sup- feeder space with means of 0.395, 0.404, and ply during the trial period. Pigs for all the three 0.400 for 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space. In replicates were fed with the same series of diets. conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m / Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial and pig in the grow-finish period reduced ADFI and at the end of the trial to calculate ADG. Feed ADG compared with 0.78 m /pig. Overall, with was removed from the feeders and weighed to the type of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 determine ADFI and G:F. To express floor space pigs per feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, allowance, the k value was estimated by the equa- compared with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. 20.67 tion: spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . No However, G:F improved as the number of pigs interactions (P > 0.05) of floor space allowance per feeder space increased. Key words: feeder space, floor space, k value, space allocation, swine © 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 Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018.2:358–364 doi: 10.1093/tas/txy073 Corresponding author: mwastell@gromaster.com Received April 23, 2018. Accepted June 21, 2018. 358 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 359 INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS The economic return of a pig production sys- Animal procedures were consistent with tem is related to the housing capacity of the pro- the Guide for the Care and Use of Animals in duction sites as well as the technologies employed Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS, 2010). to increase pig growth performance and gain effi - ciency, considering it is important to diminish General facility cost per pig (Thomas et  al., 2017). Gain The trial was conducted at a commercial efficiency is very important, as approximately research finishing barn located in Southwest 60%–75% of the total postweaning pig production Minnesota from October 2015 to September 2016. costs are associated with feed costs (Honeyman, The facility was double curtain sided with totally 1991; Wade and Barkley, 1992). In modern swine slatted floors and environmentally controlled with production, the pork processing plants have tar- sprinklers to reduce summertime heat stress and geted heavier market weights (Wu et  al., 2017). heaters for winter time temperature control. Each With increased market weights, the pen space building contained 44 pens. The pens had adjustable required for modern pigs and the feeder space per gating to provide the different floor space allow - pig should be evaluated to balance building utili- ances, so each floor space allowance was arranged zation and production efficiency. by moving the gates after measurement of the floor A number of researchers have found that space. The experimental treatments were designed increased group sizes do not affect the pig perfor- as a two by three factorial arrangement (pen space mance when the pigs are given equal pen space of 0.65 or 0.78 m /pig × 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder and ad libitum access to feed (McConnell et  al., space). Each pen had an equal number of barrows 1987; Walker, 1991; Turner et al., 2003; Turner and and gilts with 20, 26, and 32 pigs per pen for the Edwards, 2004). The majority of the production 10, 13, and 16 pigs per feeder space pens. Each pen systems for pigs use fully or partially slatted floors, was equipped with one Crystal Spring Wet/Dry sin- a liquid effluent system, with group sizes from 5 gle-space double-sided feeder model F1-115 (Ste. to 50 pigs and approximately 0.7 m of floor space Agathe, MB), space of 37.5 cm of length, with one allowance per pig (Morrison et al., 2007). nipple drinker. The drinker of the feeder was the However, when less pen floor space allowance only provided in each pen. The feed was delivered is provided per pig, pig growth rate is reduced, by a robotic feeding system (FeedPro; Feedlogic more markedly with pens for smaller groups as Corp., Wilmar, MN), which recorded the daily indi- demonstrated by Thomas et al. (2017), which had vidual pen feed additions. nine pigs per pen. Besides the reduced growth performance, restricted pen floor space allowance can cause behavioral problems, increase plasma Animals and Performance glucocorticoid levels, and reduce animal welfare (Randolph et al., 1981; Kornegay, 1986; Meunier- Three thousand one hundred and eighty-two Salaun et al., 1987). terminal cross pigs (PIC line 359 sires × 1,050 dams, Feeder design and management can affect barrows, and gilts) from three consecutive grow-fin - pig growth and the pigs’ capacity to eat, so it is ish groups (initial BW of 21.5 ± 0.42, 31.6 ± 1.18, extremely important to evaluate the impact of the and 29.4 ± 0.28 kg for replicate 1, 2, and 3, respec- number of pigs per feeder space with each model tively) were used. Pigs were randomly assigned to of the commercial feeder. Past research has been each pen at the start of the trial, and the trial con- done with dry feeders on the impact of the number tinued for 106, 94, and 100 d for the first, second, of pigs per feeder space and has produced variable and third replicates, respectively, for each replicate results, possibly due to different models of feeders pen group remained intact until the end of the and different levels of feeder adjustment. experiment. No pigs were removed for marketing Considering that feeder space per pig and until after the experiment ended. pen floor space allowance per pig can affect pig Initial BW was equalized for each pen, and growth performance, the objective of the trial was the pens were randomly distributed to one of the to evaluate the effects of different feeder stocking six treatments with seven pens per treatment for density and pen stocking density on the growth each trial group. All pigs had ad libitum access to performance of grow-finish pigs fed with wet/dry feed and water supply during the trial period. Pigs feeders. for all the three replicates were fed with the same Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 360 Wastell et al. feeding program with a seven-phase corn-soybean Statistical Analysis meal base feed in mash form (Table  1). The diets All variables measured were tested for normal- were formulated to achieve or exceed NRC (2012) ity by the Shapiro–Wilk test before analysis with requirements for grow-finish pigs. P  <  0.05, and any variable that failed to follow a Pigs were weighed by pen at the start of trial, at normal distribution was transformed through approximately every 21 d of the trial, and at the end the RANK procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., of the trial to calculate ADG, all the feed placed in Cary, NC). The PROC RANK statement with the the feeders was weighed and at the end of the trial NORMAL option was used to produce a normal- the remaining feed in the feeders was weighed to ized transformed variable. All data were analyzed determine ADFI and G:F. using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) as a randomized complete block Evaluation of k Value design (replicate) in a factorial scheme with floor To express floor space allowance, k value was used, space allowance (0.65 or 0.78 m /pig) and pigs per as it describes pen space as a function of effective pig feeder space (10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space). 0.67 space requirements (BW ). The k values were calcu- Pen was considered as the experimental unit. Initial lated using a formula reported by Whittemore (1998): analyses found no significant interactions and thus 20.67 spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . According to were deleted from the model. The pigs per feeder Gonyou et al. (2006), a k value of 0.0336 is required space treatments were analyzed as linear and quad- for maximal feed intake and ADG for grow-finish ratic orthogonal contrasts. The effects of floor pigs with fully slatted flooring, as k value lower than space allowance per pig were compared by F test. 0.0336 reduces feed intake and consequently ADG. All data are reported as least squares means, and Table 1. Composition of the trial feeds (as-fed basis) Phase Ingredient, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Corn 42.62 42.55 45.02 48.06 52.77 61.12 66.76 Soybean meal, 46.5% CP 10.44 5.63 3.15 0.12 0.49 2.28 1.72 DDGS 40.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 40.00 30.00 25.00 Tallow 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Salt 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Calcium carbonate, 38% Ca 1.27 1.30 1.28 1.27 1.19 1.05 0.97 Mono dicalcium P, 21% P 0.22 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Potassium chloride 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Premix 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Calculated analysis Crude protein, % 19.4 18.5 17.5 16.3 15.4 14 12.7 ME, kcal/kg 2970 2964 2953 2968 2984 2991 3003 Fat, % 8.11 8.11 7.98 8.15 8.09 7.49 7.29 Crude fiber, % 3.55 3.69 3.65 3.60 3.39 2.99 2.76 Calcium, % 0.58 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.48 0.43 0.4 Phosphorus, % 0.52 0.5 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.4 0.37 Lys (total), % 1.31 1.22 1.12 1.02 0.95 0.87 0.79 Met (total), % 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.27 0.25 Thr (total), % 0.82 0.77 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.58 0.53 Trp (total), % 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 Phase 1–7 diets were fed from 25 to 34 kg, 34 to 43 kg, 43 to 61 kg, 61 to 75 kg, 75 to 86 kg, 86 to 98 kg, and 98 to slaughter, respectively. DDGS = dried distillers grains with solubles. Mineral and vitamin premix provided per kilogram of diet: 4,412,200 IU vitamin A, 551,200 IU vitamin D, 17,700 IU vitamin E, 1,782 mg vitamin K, 15.5 mg vitamin B12, 19,876 mg niacin, 11,065 mg pantothenic acid, 3,318 mg riboflavin, 1,106 mg Zn, 1,100 mg Fe, 313 mg Mn, 107 mg Cu, 2 mg I, and 2 mg Se. Amino acid premix provided per kilogram of diet: Phase 1: 11.74 g lysine, 0.43 g methionine, 2.83 g threonine, and 1.29 g tryptophan; Phase 2: 11.91 g lysine, 2.47 g threonine, and 1.39 g tryptophan; Phase 3: 11.23 g lysine, 2.42 g threonine, and 1.34 g tryptophan; Phase 4: 10.86 g lysine, 2.08 g threonine, and 1.33 g tryptophan; Phase 5: 9.84 g lysine, 2.12 g threonine, and 1.19 g tryptophan; Phase 6: 8.57 g lysine, 1.98 g threonine, and 1.01 g tryptophan; Phase 7: 7.77 g lysine, 1.88 g threonine, and 0.92 g tryptophan. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 361 the greatest standard errors (SEM) were reported. The number of pigs per feeder space did not Results are considered significant if P < 0.05. affect ADG (Table  4, P > 0.14) during the grow- ing phase. Average daily gain during the finishing RESULTS phase had a quadratic (P  =  0.010) relationship with the number of the pigs per feeder. In the same No interactions (P > 0.05) of floor space allow - way, the overall ADG had a quadratic relationship ance with pigs per feeder space were observed. Pigs (P = 0.005) with the number of pigs per feeder space allocated in pens with 0.65 m /pig had reduced with the maximal ADG at 10 pigs per feeder space. ADG during the growing phase (Table  2, 1.00 vs. Final BW was reduced with increased number of 1.02  kg/d, P  <  0.001), finishing phase (1.03 vs. pigs per feeder space (linear P = 0.001). 1.05 kg/d, P = 0.033), and the overall period (1.00 Daily feed intake had a quadratic relationship vs. 1.02 kg/d, P = 0.002). (P  <  0.001) with the number of pigs per feeder As suggested by previous studies with dry space. Gain efficiency had a quadratic relationship feeders, these pigs had lower BW at 70 d (97.7 vs. (P  =  0.005) with the number of pigs per feeder 99.4 kg, P < 0.001) and final BW (128.8 vs. 129.5 kg, space. The number of pigs per feeder space had no P = 0.026) and reduced ADFI (2.52 vs. 2.61 kg/d, effect for the percentage of dead or removed pigs. P  <  0.001) than pigs with 0.78 m /pig floor space allowance. However, the overall G:F was improved DISCUSSION (0.402 vs. 0.397, P  =  0.039) for pigs with less pen space. Floor space allowance had no effect for the Reduction of the floor space allowance by percentage of dead or removed pigs. increasing the number of pigs per space unit reduces It was estimated that the BW in which pen the housing cost per pig (Brumm and Gonyou, space became limiting (k  =  0.0336) for the floor 2001); however, with reduction of floor space allow - space allowance of 0.65 m /pig was 85.0 kg and at ance, pigs have reduced ADFI, ADG, and conse- 111.7 kg BW for the floor space allowance of 0.78 quently reduced BW (Brumm and Miller, 1996; m /pig (Table 3). At 70 d, the BWs for pigs allocated Gonyou and Stricklin, 1998; Jensen et  al., 2012; in pens with 0.65 and 0.78 m /pig were 97.7 and Thomas et  al., 2017). It is common for crowded 99.4 with estimated k values of 0.0306 and 0.0363, pigs to eat fewer meals; however, pigs spend more respectively. The final BWs were 128.8 and 129.5 kg time eating each meal (Meunier-Salaun et al., 1987; with estimated k values of 0.0255 and 0.0304 for Hyun et al., 1998). pigs assigned to 0.65 and 0.78 m /pig. Johnston et  al. (2017) conducted a series of trials and established the ideal floor space allow - ance for pigs weighing 130 kg is 0.89 m /pig as they did not observe any improvement in final BW and Table  2. Effects of floor space allocation on ADG beyond this oor fl space allowance, the group growing-finishing pig performance Space alloca- tion per pig, m Table  3. Determination of k values for different Item 0.65 0.78 SEM P value space allocations and pig weights Growing phase Space alloca- Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 3.060 0.566 2 2,3 tion per pig, m k value ADG, kg 1.00 1.02 0.016 <0.001 2 2 Item 0.65 0.78 0.65 m 0.78 m Dead/removed, % 1.7 1.7 0.943 0.704 Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 0.0724 0.0869 Finishing phase Day 70 weight, kg 97.7 99.4 0.0306 0.0363 Day 70 weight, kg 97.7 99.4 2.154 <0.001 Day 100 final weight, kg 128.8 129.5 0.0255 0.0304 ADG, kg 1.03 1.05 0.035 0.033 BW when k = 0.0336, kg 85.0 111.7 Day 100 final weight, kg 128.8 129.5 0.242 0.026 Dead/removed, % 1.2 1.2 0.921 0.758 Average pig weight reported for each space allocation and weigh Overall day. ADG, kg 1.01 1.03 0.009 0.002 k values were calculated using a formula reported by Whittemore 20.67 (1998): ADFI, kg 2.52 2.61 0.155 <0.001 spaceper pigm () =× k BW k () g . Shaded background indicates k values below 0.0336, critical k value G:F 0.402 0.397 0.029 0.039 for adequate feed intake as defined by Gonyou et al. (2006). Dead/removed, % 2.9 2.9 0.913 0.743 Estimated body weight for space allocation when k  =  0.0336, the Sixty-three replicates per treatment with 1,591 pigs per treatment critical k value for adequate feed intake for grow-finish, fully slatted was used. ooring and equal gr fl oup sizes ( Gonyou et al., 2006). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 362 Wastell et al. Table 4. Effects of pigs per feeder space on growing-finishing pig performance Pigs per feeder space P value Item 10 13 16 SEM Linear Quadratic Growing phase Day 0 weight, kg 27.5 27.5 27.5 3.061 0.877 0.829 ADG, kg 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.016 0.156 0.142 Dead/removed, % 1.6 1.9 1.6 0.987 0.848 0.793 Finishing phase Day 70 weight, kg 99.0 98.5 98.1 2.041 0.244 0.158 ADG, kg 1.07 1.02 1.03 0.035 0.488 0.010 Day 100 final weight, kg 129.7 129.4 128.4 0.326 0.001 0.028 Dead/removed, % 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.865 0.799 0.575 Overall ADG, kg/d 1.03 1.01 1.01 0.010 0.152 0.005 ADFI, kg/d 2.62 2.52 2.55 0.156 0.385 <0.0001 G:F 0.395 0.404 0.400 0.029 0.877 0.005 Dead/removed, % 2.6 3.2 2.9 1.000 0.950 0.568 Forty-two replicates per treatment with 816, 1,062, and 1,304 pigs, respectively, for the treatments with 10, 13, or 16 pigs per feeder space was used. size was constant across treatments however varied 4.44% (Metafarms Analytics Team, 2017) observed across trials, varying from 6 to 19 pigs per pen. in commercial US pig farms. This suggests sug- Increased pen density could cause welfare gested that problems associated with welfare were problems because crowded pigs tend to have more not present in this trial. aggressive behavior and higher lesion scores (Fu Floor space allowance was expressed using the et  al., 2016). Also, increased stocking density allometric approach suggested by Gonyou et  al. reduces the area available for lying so pigs tend to (2006); the minimum k value of 0.0336 represents disturb each other more often (Bulens et al., 2017). the best value for pigs to have an ideal ADFI and However, the results of this trial contradict ADG, associated with floor space allowance. For some past research that found G:F was unchanged this study, both floor space allowance treatments (Brumm and Miller, 1996; Gonyou and Stricklin, exceeded the minimum value of 0.0336 for k value 1998; Jensen et  al., 2012; Thomas et  al., 2017) or for maximal ADFI and ADG for most of the finish decreased (Street and Gonyou, 2008; Flohr et  al., period. Most likely, pigs that were allocated with 2016) with decreased oor fl space allowance per pig. 0.65 m /pig had restricted ADFI after they reached In this trial, G:F was greater for pigs with less floor 85.0 kg BW and resulted in the lower DFI for this space allowance. This observation is in agreement group of pigs. with a meta-analysis (Averós et al., 2012) that sug- It has been suggested that values proposed gested that the pig floor space required for maxi - by Gonyou et  al. (2006) may underestimate the mal G:F is reduced if the pigs are housed on fully requirement of floor space allowance for heavy pigs slatted floors compared with pens with nonslatted (over 120  kg of BW), and it should be revaluated oor fl . Despite the small lower ADG (20  g/d) and for heavy pigs (Potter et al., 2010; Flohr et al., 2016; ADFI (90  g/d) of pigs with the floor space allow - Johnston et  al., 2017). If the density increases in ance of 0.65 m , the pigs had a small improvement a reasonable manner, the total BW produced per of G:F for overall grow-finish period. unit of fixed building assets increase, generating a These findings are important considering the greater net revenue over facility costs (Powell and final BW difference of 0.7 kg represents less than 1 Brumm, 1993; Flohr et al., 2016). d of ADG for the overall period; however, the dif- According to NRC (2012), when the pigs ference on ADFI represents 9.00 kg of feed for the are crowded with k values lower than 0.0336, the overall period of 100 d, being economically more ADFI is reduced and consequently growth rate is representative. worsened. If adequate floor space allowance is not The percentage of dead or removed pigs were provided, the impact of reduce floor space allow - the same for the both floor space allowances treat - ance on pig performance depends on the magnitude ments during the grower, finishing phase and con - of the restriction. Flohr et  al. (2015) conducted a sequently the overall period and it was lower than meta-analysis and established equations to predict Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 Wet dry feeder and floor space allowance for pigs 363 ADG, ADFI, and G:F based on the BW of pigs. ingestion rates compared with dry feeders (Averós From this meta-analysis, for each 0.001 below, et al., 2012), although pigs fed wet/dry feeders eat the critical value of k (0.0336), ADG, ADFI, and more feed and gain more weight than those fed con- G:F should decrease by 0.88%, 0.58%, and 0.31%, ventional feeders, feed conversion does not change respectively, for pigs with more than 125  kg of (Gonyou and Lou, 2000). Wet/dry feeders have the BW, contradictory for the present trial G:F was ability to accommodate more pigs per feeder space, improved with lower floor space allocation. without harming the performance of the pigs, as Another factor that could impair the real evalu- wet feed is eaten faster than dry feed (Gonyou and ation of the ideal value proposed by Gonyou et al. Lou, 2000). (2006) is that his trials were made with dry feeders According to Bates et al. (1995), the traditional and it can impact the speed of which the animals recommendation of pigs per feeder space with dry eat, so these values must be re-established to ensure feeders was five; however, the same researcher con - which would be the ideal k value that does not harm ducted a trial and found that 10 pigs per feeder the ADFI. space do not have any detrimental effect on pig The group size of the pigs was adjusted with 20, performance. The results in our study showed that 26, and 32 pigs per pen to achieve the 10, 13, and there was not a detrimental effect on pig perfor- 16 pigs per feeder space. When pigs were housed mance with 13 pigs per wet/dry feeder space. In in groups of 18 or 108 pigs, the size of the group conclusion, a floor space allowance of 0.65 m /pig did not affect ADG (Street and Gonyou, 2008). marginally reduced the ADFI and ADG during the Schmolke et al. (2003) evaluated groups of 10, 20, finisher phase and overall. Overall, with the type 40, and 80 pigs and verified that housing grow - of wet/dry feeder used in this study, 10 pigs per ing-finishing pigs in groups of up to 80 pigs was feeder had the greatest ADG and ADFI, compared not detrimental to productivity and health. These with 13 or 16 pigs per feeder space. However, G:F findings are important to ensure that the group size improved as the number of pigs per feeder space did not have effect over the performance variables increased. of the present trial. Restricted feeder space in grow-finish pigs LITERATURE CITED increases ingestion rate, reduces the duration of Averós, X., L.  Brossard, J. Y.  Dourmad, K. H.  de Greef, visits to the feeder as well as the time spent eat- S. A.  Edwards, and M. C.  Meunier-Salaün. 2012. Meta- ing (Hsia and Wood-Gush, 1984; Brumm and analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal Gonyou, 2001). In this trial, pigs with the greatest traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behav- ior and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal feeder space had a greater ADFI, in agreement with 8:275–1289. doi:10.1017/S1751731112000328 Averós et  al. (2012) that reported when the feeder Bates, R. O., J. L.  Morrow-Tesch, and S. M.  Neal. 1995. places per pig are increased, the pigs spend more The effect of feeder space allocation on pig perfor- time eating. mance. Prof. Anim. Sci. 11:135–138. doi:10.15232/ However, with more feeder places per pig, S1080-7446(15)32577–8 ADFI can be associated with an increase in feed Brumm, M. C., and H. W.  Gonyou. 2001. Effects of facility design on behavior and feed and water intake. In: A. J. wastage. With more restricted feeder space pigs Lewis and L. L. Southern, editors. Swine nutrition. 2nd tend to reduce feed wastage, something that may ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press LLC; p. 499–517. have occurred in this trial, as the pigs with the least Brumm, M. C., and P. S.  Miller. 1996. Response of pigs to number of pigs per feeder space had a poorer G:F, space allocation and diets varying in nutrient density. J. in disagreement with previous research (Spoolder Anim. Sci. 74:2730–2737. doi:10.2527/1996.74112730x Bulens, A., S.  Van Beirendonck, J.  Van Thielen, N.  Buys, and et  al., 1999; Gonyou and Lou, 2000) both treat- B. Driessen. 2017. A two-level pen for fattening pigs: effects ments 13 and 16 pigs per feeder space had a better on behavior, performance, and postslaughter measure- feed conversion than 10 pigs per feeder space in the ments. J. Anim. Sci. 95:616–625. doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0831 present trial. Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). 2010. Guide Gonyou and Lou (2000) demonstrated that for the care and use of agricultural animals in research pigs fed with wet/dry feeders usually have greater and teaching. 3rd ed. Champaign (IL): FASS. [accessed January 15, 2018]. http://www.fass.org. ADFI and ADG than dry feeders; similarly, Walker Flohr, J. R., M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, J. C. Woodworth, (1990) verified pigs fed from wet/dry feeders tend to R. D.  Goodband, and S. S.  Dritz. 2016. Evaluating the have a greater feed intake. The increase in weight removal of pigs from a group and subsequent floor space gain would be a consequence of greater feed intake allowance on the growth performance of heavy-weight (Maton and Daelemans, 1992). Pigs fed from wet/ finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:4388–4400. doi:10.2527/ jas2016-0407 dry feeders have shorter feeder visits and have higher Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/4/358/5042940 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2018 364 Wastell et al. Flohr, J. R., M. D.  Tokach, S. S.  Dritz, J. C.  Woodworth, growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1371–1377. J. M.  DeRouchey, and R. D.  Goodband. 2015. Using doi:10.2527/jas1987.6451371x meta-analyses to generate alternative prediction equations Morrison, R. S., L. J.  Johnston, and A. M.  Hilbrands. 2007. for the space requirements of finishing pigs. Kansas Agric. A note on the effects of two versus one feeder loca- Exp. Station Res. Rep. 1:1–20. doi:10.4148/2378–5977.1144 tions on the feeding behaviour and growth performance Fu, L., H.  Li, T.  Liang, B.  Zhou, Q.  Chou, A. P.  Schinckel, of pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system. X.  Yang, R.  Zhao, P.  Li, and R.  Huang. 2016. Stocking Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107:157–161. doi:10.1016/j. density affects welfare indicators of growing pigs of differ- applanim.2006.09.009 ent group sizes after regrouping. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed. 174:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.002 Washington (DC): The National Academies Press. Gonyou, H. W., M. C. Brumm, E. Bush, J. Deen, S. A. Edwards, Potter, M. L., S. S.  Dritz, M. D.  Tokach, J. M.  DeRouchey, T.  Fangman, J. J.  McGlone, M.  Meunier-Salaun, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 2010. Effects of increasing R. B. Morrison, H. Spoolder, et al. 2006. Application of stocking density on finishing pig performance. Kansas Swine broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of Ind. Day Rep. Prog. No. 1038. Manhattan (KS): Kansas State nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric University Agricultural Experiment Station; p. 216–222. basis. J. Anim. Sci. 84:229–235. doi:10.2527/2006.841229x Powell, T. A., M. C.  Brumm, and R. E.  Massey. 1993. Gonyou, H. W., and Z. Lou. 2000. Effects of eating space and Economics of space allocation for grower-finisher hogs: availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating a simulation approach. Rev. Agric. Econ. 15:133–141. behavior of grower/finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 78:865–870. doi:10.2307/1349717 doi:10.2527/2000.784865x Randolph, J. H., G. L.  Cromwell, T. S.  Stahly, and D. Gonyou, H. W., and W. R.  Stricklin. 1998. Effects of floor D.  Kratzer. 1981. Effects of group size and space allow- area allowance and group size on the productivity of ance on performance and behaviour of swine. J. Anim. growing/finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1326–1330. Sci. 53:922–927. doi:10.2527/jas1981.534922x doi:10.2527/1998.7651326x Schmolke, S. A., Y. Z. Li, and H. W. Gonyou. 2003. Effect of Honeyman, M. S. 1991. Sustainable swine production in group size on performance of growing-finishing pigs. J. the U.S. Corn Beit. Am. J.  Alternative Agr. 6:63–70. Anim. Sci. 81:874–878. doi:10.2527/2003.814874x doi:10.1017/S0889189300003878 Spoolder, H. A.  M., S. A.  Edwards, and S.  Corning. 1999. Hsia, L. C., and D. G.  M.  Wood-Gush. 1984. Social Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on wel- facilitation in the feeding behaviour of pigs and fare in finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. 69:481–489. doi:10.1017/ the effect of rank. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11:265–270. S135772980005133X doi:10.1016/0304-3762(84)90033–6 Street, B. R., and H. W. Gonyou. 2008. Effects of housing finish - Hyun, Y., M. Ellis, and R. W. Johnson. 1998. Effects of feeder ing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations type, space allowance, and mixing on the growth perfor- on production, health, behavior, and physiological varia- mance and feed intake pattern of growing pigs. J. Anim. bles. J. Anim. Sci. 86:982–991. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0449 Sci. 76:2771–2778. doi:10.2527/1998.76112771x Thomas, L. L., R. D.  Goodband, J. C.  Woodworth, Jensen, T., C. K.  Nielsen, J.  Vinther, and R. B.  D’Eath. M. D.  Tokach, J. M.  DeRouchey, and S. S.  Dritz. 2017. 2012. The effect of space allowance for finishing pigs Effects of space allocation on finishing pig growth per - on productivity and pen hygiene. Livest. Sci. 149:33–40. formance and carcass characteristics. Transl. Anim. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.06.018 1:351–357. doi:10.2527/tas2017.0042 Johnston, L. J., D. W.  Rozeboom, R. D.  Goodband, Turner, S. P., D. J. Allcroft, and S. A. Edwards. 2003. Housing S. J.  Moeller, M. C.  Shannon, and S. J.  Schieck. 2017. pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for Effect of floor space allowances on growth performance performance and other economic traits. Liv. Prod. Sci. of finishing pigs marketed at 138 kilograms. J. Anim. Sci. 82:39–51. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(03)00008-3 11:4917–4925. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1870 Turner, S. P., and S. A.  Edwards. 2004. Housing immature Kornegay, E. T. 1986. Stocking density for growing-finishing domestic pigs in large social groups: implications for social swine. Proc. Ann. Meet. Am. Assoc. Swine Pract. 1:16–18. organisation in a hierarchical society. Appl. Anim. Behav. Maton, A., and J. Daelemans. 1992. Third comparative study Sci. 87:239–253. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.01.010 viz. the circular wet-feeder versus the dry-feed hopper for Wade, M. A., and A. P.  Barkley.1992. The economic impacts ad libitum feeding and general conclusions concerning of a ban on subtherapeutic antibiotics in swine pro- wet feeding versus dry feeding of finishing pigs. Rev. Agr. duction. Agribusiness 8:93–107. doi:10.1002/1520– (Brussels) 45:531–539. 6297(199203)8:2<93::AID-AGR2720080202>3.0.CO;2–9 McConnell, J. C., J. C. Eargle, and R. C. Waldorf. 1987. Effects Walker, N. 1990. The influence of hopper-type feeders on per - of weaning weight, co-mingling, group size and room tem- formance of pigs. Pig News Inf. 11:31–33. perature on pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 65:1201–1206. Walker, N. 1991. The effects on performance and behaviour of doi:10.2527/jas1987.6551201x number of growing pigs per mono-place feeder. Anim. Feed Metafarms Analytics Team. 2017. Pork production mortal- Sci. Technol. 35:3–13. doi:10.1016/0377-8401(91)90094–9 ity higher across board in Q2. Feedstuffs 89. [accessed Whittemore, C. T. 1998. The science and practice of pig pro- November 26, 2016] http://www.metafarms.com/ duction. 2nd ed. Malden (MA): Blackwell Science Ltd. uploads/2/4/0/4/24044637/feedstuffsreprint_novem- Wu, F., K. R.  Vierck, J. M.  DeRouchey, T. G.  O’Quinn, ber_2017_pg_22.indd.pdf. M. D.  Tokach, R. D.  Goodband, S. S.  Dritz, and J. Meunier-Salaun, M. C., M. N.  Vantrimponte, A.  Raab, C.  Woodworth. 2017. A review of heavy weight market and R.  Dantzer. 1987. Effect of floor area restric - pigs: status of knowledge and future needs assessment. tion upon performance, behavior and physiology of Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:1–15. doi:10.2527/tas2016.0004 Translate basic science to industry innovation

Journal

Translational Animal Science – Oxford University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.