Effects of mat-feeding duration and differentwaterer types on nursery pig performancein a wean-to-finish barn

摘要

A total of 3,680 weanling pigs were used in 2 experiments to determine the effects ofmat-feeding strategies and different waterer types on pig performance and removalrates. In Exp. 1, a total of 24 pens (58 pigs per pen) were blocked by source farm andallotted to 1 of 4 gender (barrow or gilt) × feeding (control or mat-fed) treatmentsin a 27-d trial. Pigs were initially 15.4 lb. Control pigs did not receive any pelletedfeed placed on mats, while pigs assigned to the mat-fed treatment were given 1.1 lb ofpelleted diet on the mats 3 times daily for 6 d (with the exception of 1 pen, which wasmat-fed for 5 d due to early mat disintegration). Pigs were weighed and feed intake bypen was recorded on d 0, 11, and 27 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and F/G. The numbers ofremoved and dead pigs were recorded, although individual pigs were not weighed. Thus,for Exp. 1, removed pig gain was not accounted for in ADG calculations. In Exp. 2, atotal of 44 pens (52 pigs per pen) were allotted to 1 of 8 waterer types (swinging or pan)× gender (barrow or gilt) × mat-feeding duration (1.6 lb of pelleted feed given 3 timesdaily for either 3 or 7 d) treatments in a 32-d trial. Pigs were initially 13.6 lb. Waterertypes evaluated in this study were a dual swinging waterer (Swinging; Trojan PlasticWaterswing, Trojan Specialty Products, Dodge City, KS) or an under-the-fence-line14-inch pan waterer (Pan; Koca, Des Moines, IA). Pigs were weighed and feed intakeby pen was recorded on d 0, 7, 20, and 32 to calculate ADG, ADFI, and F/G. Removedand dead pigs were tracked, and for Exp. 2, all removed pigs were individually weighedand included in calculations involving gain.Results from Exp. 1 indicate a difference (P = 0.04) in overall (d 0 to 27) removalpercentage between control and mat-fed pigs. Fewer pigs fed on mats died or wereremoved from pens (5.9%) than control pigs (9.8%), with most removals between treatmentsoccurring 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 beimproved (P = 0.06) for mat-fed pigs compared to the controls. However, average pigweights on d 0, 11, and 27 were not different (P ≥ 0.57) between treatments, indicatingthat the ADG advantage was due to the difference in removals rather than increasingweight gain of pigs remaining in the pens. Thus, the results of Exp. 1 indicate a benefitby feeding on mats for 6 d in reducing the percentage of removed pigs, but no advantageson growth performance were observed. For Exp. 2, removal percentages from d 0 to 7 were similar (P ≥ 0.17) regardless oftreatment. 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 removalpercentages. Pigs that were fed on mats for 3 d and provided swinging waterers had thelowest removal rate among treatments. Biologically, it is difficult to understand whyfeeding on mats for 7 d would increase removals compared with 3-d mat-feeding forpigs provided with swinging waterers. Overall, there was a trend (P ≥ 0.08) for pigsusing the swinging waterer to have increased ADG and improved F/G, resulting in pigshaving a 1.4-lb numeric advantage in weight at d 32 compared with pigs drinking fromthe pan waterer. Much of the overall effect was due to pigs using the swinging watererhaving improved (P = 0.02) ADG and F/G compared with pigs with pan waterer accessin the early stages (d 7 to 20) of the nursery period.Overall, pigs fed on mats for 3 d had similar (P ≥ 0.12) ADG and F/G compared withpigs fed on mats for 7 d. There was a trend (P = 0.08) for pigs fed on mats for 7 d toconsume more feed than pigs fed on mats for 3 d, although this increased intake did notresult in significant changes in growth rate. Thus, F/G was poorer (P = 0.01) from d 0to 7 for pigs fed on mats for 7 d vs. those fed on mats for 3 d.Results of these 2 experiments indicate that, in periods during these trials, performanceand removal rates of pigs postweaning were able to be improved by feeding on mats andusing swinging waterers instead of pan waterers.