X
XLinkedinWhatsAppTelegramTelegram
0

Effects of mat-feeding duration and different waterer types on nursery pig performance in a wean-to-finish barn

The use of mat-feeding and swinging waterers may improve piglet performance.
9 March 2011
X
XLinkedinWhatsAppTelegramTelegram
0
A total of 3,680 weanling pigs were used in 2 experiments to determine the effects of mat-feeding strategies and different waterer types on pig performance and removal rates. In Exp. 1, a total of 24 pens (58 pigs per pen) were blocked by source farm and allotted to 1 of 4 gender (barrow or gilt) x feeding (control or mat-fed) treatments in a 27-d trial. Pigs were initially 6.98 kg. Control pigs did not receive any pelleted feed placed on mats, while pigs assigned to the mat-fed treatment were given 2.8 kg of pelleted diet on the mats 3 times daily for 6 d. Pigs were weighed and feed intake by pen was recorded on d 0, 11, and 27 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and F/G. In Exp. 2, a total of 44 pens (52 pigs per pen) were allotted to 1 of 8 waterer types (swinging or pan) x gender (barrow or gilt) × mat-feeding duration (0.726 kg of pelleted feed given 3 times daily for either 3 or 7 d) treatments in a 32-d trial. Pigs were initially 6.17 kg. Waterer types evaluated in this study were a dual swinging waterer or an under-the-fence-line 35.6 cm pan waterer. Pigs were weighed and feed intake by pen was recorded on d 0, 7, 20, and 32 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and F/G. Removed and dead pigs were tracked, and for Exp. 2, all removed pigs were individually weighed and included in calculations involving gain.

Results from Exp. 1 indicate a difference (P = 0.04) in overall (d 0 to 27) removal percentage between control and mat-fed pigs. Fewer pigs fed on mats died or were removed from pens (5.9%) than control pigs (9.8%), with most removals between treatments occurring within the first 11 d (control: 8.0% vs. mat-fed: 4.6%; P = 0.03). Because of the difference in removal percentages, overall ADG and F/G tended to be improved (P = 0.06) for mat-fed pigs compared to the controls. Thus, the results of Exp. 1 indicate a benefit by feeding on mats for 6 d in reducing the percentage of removed pigs, but no advantages on growth performance were observed.

For Exp. 2, removal percentages from d 0 to 7 were similar (P ≥ 0.17) regardless of treatment. By d 20 and through the end of the trial (d 32), a 2-way interaction (P = 0.03) was observed between water source and mat-feeding duration on removal percentages. Pigs that were fed on mats for 3 d and provided swinging waterers had the lowest removal rate among treatments. Overall, there was a trend (P ≥ 0.08) for pigs using the swinging waterer to have increased ADG and improved F/G, resulting in pigs having a 0.635 kg numeric advantage in weight at d 32 compared with pigs drinking from the pan waterer. Much of the overall effect was due to pigs using the swinging waterer having improved (P = 0.02) ADG and F/G compared with pigs with pan waterer access in the early stages (d 7 to 20) of the nursery period.

It is concluded that, in periods during these trials, performance and removal rates of pigs post-weaning were able to be improved by feeding on mats and using swinging waterers instead of pan waterers.

ML Potter, SS Dritz, MD Tokach, JM DeRouchey, RD Goodband, and JL Nelssen, 2010. Swine day, Kansas State University, Report progress 1038: 62-71.

Article Comments

This area is not intended to be a place to consult authors about their articles, but rather a place for open discussion among pig333.com users.
Leave a new Comment

Access restricted to 333 users. In order to post a comment you must be logged in.

You are not subscribed to this list Swine News

Swine industry news in your email

Log in and sign up on the list

You are not subscribed to this list Swine News

Swine industry news in your email

Log in and sign up on the list