HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wolter, B. F. Articles by Webel, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wolter, B. F. Articles by Webel, D. M.

Effects of feeder-trough space and variation in body weight within a pen of pigs on performance in a wean-to-finish production system¹

B. F. Wolter^*, M. Ellis^*,2, S. E. Curtis^*, E. N. Parr and D. M. Webel

^* Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801 and and United Feeds, Inc., Sheridan, IN 46069

² Correspondence:
216 Animal Sciences Laboratory, 1207 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801 (phone: (217) 333-6455, fax: (217) 333-7861, E-mail:
m-ellis7{at}uiuc.edu).

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Two studies were carried out with the same group of pigs within a wean-to-finish system. In Study 1 (weaning to wk 8 postweaning), the effect of feeder-trough space in pens that were double-stocked on pig growth was evaluated. In Study 2 (end of wk 8 to 112 ± 1.5 kg BW), the effect of variation in pig BW within a pen on growth was investigated. In Study 1, a randomized block design was used to compare two feeder-trough space treatments (Double [4 cm/pig] vs Control [2 cm/pig]). Pigs (n = 1,728) were randomly allocated at weaning (5.4 ± 0.01 kg BW; 16 d of age) to mixed-sex pens (8 pens/treatment) of 108 pigs/pen on the basis of BW. Floor-space (0.30 m²/pig) and drinker allocation (13 pigs/drinker) were the same for both treatments. Two six-place (35 cm/place) feeders were positioned together in the center of each pen and were accessible from both sides. For the Double treatment, both feeders contained feed, whereas for the Control only one feeder contained feed. In Study 2, a randomized block design was used to compare three BW/variation in BW treatments: 1) Heavy BW/Low variation, 2) Light BW/Low variation, and 3) Mixed BW/Normal variation. The double-stocked pens of pigs from within previous feeder-trough space treatment were split into two groups of 54 pigs (equal sex ratio) having either high or low BW variation within pen. Pigs had free access to feed and water throughout the studies. In Study 1, doubling feeder-trough space did not affect (P > 0.05) pig growth from weaning to the end of wk 6. From wk 6 to 8, pigs on the Double treatment compared to the Control treatment had higher (P < 0.05) ADG and were heavier (P < 0.05), but had similar (P > 0.05) ADFI and gain:feed ratio. In Study 2, pen-BW treatment did not impact (P > 0.05) ADG or gain:feed ratio; however, Heavy/Low had greater (P < 0.01) ADFI than Light/Low with Mixed/Normal being intermediate for ADFI. At 112 kg BW, CV of BW within a pen was similar (P > 0.05) across treatments; however, days to market BW was greater (P < 0.001) for Light/Low than Heavy/Low with Mixed/Normal being intermediate. In summary, increasing feeder-trough space from 2 to 4 cm per pig increased daily gain after wk 6 postweaning in double-stocked pens of pigs; however, sorting pigs on the basis of BW when splitting pens did not impact growth rate or variation in BW within a pen at market BW.

Key Words: Feed Troughs • Pigs • Weaning

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
To increase output from wean-to-finish buildings, pig producers have adopted a practice of initially overstocking pens, with the extra pigs subsequently being moved to another finishing facility. In a previous study, Wolter et al. (2001) found that doubling the stocking rate of a wean-to-finish facility for the first 10 wk postweaning resulted in decreased feed intake and growth rate for that period. The authors hypothesized that feeder-trough space may be one of the limiting factors associated with lowering the postweaning growth performance of the double-stocked pigs. However, research on the impact of feeder-space on pig performance has been limited (Brumm and Gonyou, 2001).

When double-stocked pens of pigs are split at the start of the grow-finish period, producers have the option to sort and pen pigs on the basis of BW. In practice, whole rooms could be filled on the basis of BW in an attempt to reduce variation in BW at market in all-in all-out production systems. However, there is relatively limited research investigating the impact of sorting growing pigs on the basis of BW on the subsequent level of and within-pen variation in growth performance.

First, the objectives of this research were to evaluate the effect of increased feeder-trough space on the postweaning performance of double-stocked pigs in a wean-to-finish facility and, second, to investigate the impact of sorting pigs on the basis of BW when double-stocked pens are split into two groups.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
The research was conducted at United Feeds’ Burton Russell Swine Research Farm (Frankfort, IN) in two studies using the same group of pigs during the period from November through April. The experimental protocol was approved by the University of Illinois Laboratory Animal Care Advisory Committee.

Experimental Design.
In Study 1, the effect of two feeder-trough space treatments (Double [4 cm/pig] vs Control [2 cm/pig]) on pig growth performance from weaning to end of wk 8 postweaning was evaluated in mixed-sex groups of 108 pigs using a randomized complete block design with eight replicates blocked by day of weaning. In Study 2, the same groups of pigs were used, and pig growth performance from end of wk 8 postweaning to market BW was evaluated using a randomized complete block design comprising eight replicates blocked by day started on test with three BW/variation-in-BW treatments: 1) Heavy BW/Low variation (Heavy/Low), 2) Light BW/Low variation (Light/Low), and 3) Mixed BW/Normal variation (Mixed/Normal).

Animals.
At the start of Study 1, a total of 1,728 crossbred pigs (Ausgene Line 5 sires x Ausgene Line 13 dams) were weaned at 16 d of age (mean BW = 5.4 ± 0.01 kg) and allotted to treatments 20 h after weaning. Pigs were held in groups of 200 animals and had ad libitum access to feed and water between weaning and allotment. Pigs were formed into outcome groups of two animals of the same sex and similar weight and randomly allotted from within outcome group to one of two pens that were randomly assigned to feeder-trough space treatments. The ratio of barrows to gilts was kept constant across treatments within replicate.

For Study 2, at the end of wk 8 postweaning, pens of pigs (n = 1,702) within feeder-trough space treatments were split to form the three treatment combinations. Two approaches were used to split the pens on the basis of sex and BW into two equal-size groups of approximately 54 pigs to form the three treatment combinations. Half the pens of pigs were split into a light and heavy group with a consequent decrease in variation in BW within each group (i.e., Heavy/Low and Light/Low treatments). The remaining pens were split into groups with the same BW and similar, normal variation in BW within each group (i.e., Mixed/Normal treatment). This resulted in eight pens for treatments Heavy/Low and Light/Low and 16 pens for treatment Mixed/Normal. The ratio of barrows to gilts was kept constant across groups within a replicate. One group was selected at random to be moved to a new pen in a separate room; the other group remained in the original pen.

Diets and Housing.
Pigs were fed on a ten-phase dietary regimen. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1998) nutrient requirements. Pigs were fed according to a feeding budget such that every pen of pigs was given the same quantity of each dietary phase (Wolter et al., 2001).

The studies were carried out in an insulated, tunnel-ventilated, wean-to-finish house with a center aisle and two rooms. Only one room was used during the first 8 wk postweaning. Pens of pigs assigned to be moved at the end of wk 8 were placed in the second room. The flooring was concrete slats. Pen divisions and gates consisted of horizontal steel rods. Pen dimensions (length x width) were 5.74 x 6.10 m. For the first 8 wk postweaning, floor-space allowance was 0.313 m²/pig, and each pen was equipped with two six-place feeders (Jumbo Wean-to-Finish Feeder, Farmweld, Teutopolis, IL) accessible from both sides, which provided 424.4 cm of total trough space. Feeders were located in the center of each pen. For the Control treatment one feeder did not contain feed; therefore, only half of the trough space offered access to feed.

From the end of wk 8 to market, only one feeder was used in each pen and the floor-space allowance was 0.62 m²/pig. Pens were equipped with hanging water drinkers with two nipples to provide one nipple per 13 pigs throughout the studies.

Air temperature was maintained using thermostatically controlled heaters and fan ventilation. The temperature was set at 24°C for wk 1 and 2 and then lowered by 2°C per week until it reached 18°C, where it remained for the rest of the experiment. During wk 1 postweaning, supplementary heat was provided in each pen by two propane brooders.

On-farm Measurements.
Pigs were weighed individually at the beginning, end of wk 8, and end of study. A pen of pigs finished the study when average pig BW was predicted to reach 112 ± 1.5 kg BW. The coefficient of variation in BW for each pen was calculated to evaluate variation in pig BW. Pigs were weighed in groups of 108 animals every 2 wk during the first 8 wk postweaning and in groups of 54 animals every 4 wk from wk 8 to end of study. Pigs experiencing health problems or injuries that did not respond to therapeutic treatment were removed from the study; date and BW at removal were recorded and used in calculating growth performance.

Feed data were collected using a computerized feed-mixing (L.O.M.A.N. Systemtechovik, Bremerhaven, Germany), delivery (AZA International, Medolago, Italy), and recording (Fancom B.V., Pannigen, The Netherlands) system. The mixer was fitted with a load cell which recorded the weight of the feed dispensed to each feeder. The load cell was calibrated each week. In addition, four different feeder locations were chosen at random every week, and feed was mixed, delivered, and weighed after delivery to validate the feed-recording system. The average difference between the measured amount delivered and the amount recorded by the system was -0.02% (SD = 0.50%). Feed remaining in each feeder was measured on each weigh day to determine ADFI and gain:feed ratio.

Carcass Measurements.
Pigs were ultrasonically scanned on the day the pen was taken off test using an Aloka Model 500V B-mode scanner fitted with an Aloka 5011 probe (Corometrics Medical Systems, Wallingford, CT) with the image being taken longitudinally and anterior to the last rib, 5 cm off the midline. From the ultrasound image, backfat and loin depth were measured automatically using the AUSkey System (Animal Ultrasound Services, Inc., Ithaca, NY), and carcass lean percentage was predicted using the equation published by Liu and Stouffer (1995).

Statistical Analysis.
The pen was considered the experimental unit for all analyses. All data were analyzed using PROC UNIVARIATE procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) to establish normality. Data for percent mortality and morbidity did not conform to the normal distribution; consequently, a chi-square rank-based test (Steel and Torrie, 1980) was carried out using PROC RANKS procedure of SAS. Data meeting criteria for normality (Steel and Torrie, 1980) were analyzed using GLM procedure of SAS. Means were evaluated using LSMEANS and STDERR options of SAS. For the period from weaning to end of wk 8, the model included effects of feeder-trough space treatment, day of weaning (block), replicate nested within block, and the interaction between treatment and block, which was the error term. For the period from end of wk 8 to market BW, the model included effects of feeder-trough space treatment, BW/variation-in-BW treatment, room, day of weaning (block), replicate nested within block, two- and three-way interactions, and the interaction between treatment and block, which was the error term for testing main effects.

	Results and Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
No interactions (P > 0.05) were found between treatments for any of the variables in either study; therefore, only treatment main effects for respective studies are presented.

Effect of Feeder-Trough Space (Study 1).
The effect of feeder-trough space on pig growth performance from weaning to end of wk 8 and from start of wk 9 to market BW are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Pigs on the Double feeder-trough space treatment were heavier (P < 0.05) than Control at the end of wk 8 (Table 1). Doubling feeder-trough space did not affect (P > 0.05) pig growth performance from weaning to end of wk 6 (Table 1). However, from end wk 6 to wk 8, pigs on the Double treatment compared to the Control treatment had higher ADG (5.7%; P < 0.05), but ADFI and gain:feed ratio did not differ (P > 0.05) between the two treatments. Variation in pig BW within a pen, morbidity (pigs removed due to poor health or injury), and mortality were not affected (P > 0.05) by feeder-trough space treatment (Table 1).

In general, only limited scientific data are available from which to evaluate the impact of feeder-trough space on pig performance (Brumm and Gonyou, 2001). In one report, Brumm and Carlson (1985) found that variation in BW within a pen of pigs increased when feeder-trough space was reduced from 5.2 to 1.7 cm per pig from weaning (28 d of age) to the end of wk 5 postweaning. Similarly, Hansen et al. (1982) reported that the rate of growth was specific to the ranked social order within a pen when growing pigs were provided with limited feeding space. More recently, O’Connell et al. (2002) evaluated the influence of five feeder types, which encompassed a combination of wet or dry feeding, as well as multiple or single feeding spaces on pig growth performance from weaning (28 d of age) to the end of wk 11 postweaning. Although feeder-trough space was not directly tested in that study (O’Connell et al., 2002), it is of interest that the feeders provided a range from 2.1 to 4.5 cm/pig of feeder-trough space and that pig growth performance was not influenced by feeder type. Previous research also has shown that pigs will adapt by altering usual patterns of feeding when trough space per pig is decreased; thus, pig growth performance may not be affected (Laitat et al., 1999; Hyun and Ellis, 2002). To that end, inconsistencies among studies in effects of feeder-trough space on pig performance and variation in performance may have been associated with differences in form of the diet fed, design features of the feeder, and BW range of pigs evaluated in each study (Gonyou and Lou, 2000). Therefore, further research is warranted in order to evaluate feeder design features and feeder-trough space allowances that optimize pig performance.

Previous research has found an increase in feeder-related aggression when growing pigs are provided a limited feeder-space allocation (Spoolder et al., 1999). In addition, O’Connell et al. (2002) reported that pigs in pens with feeders that limited feed intake had an increased number of headthrusts and animal displacements at the feeder trough. Although pig behavior was not measured in the current study, observations of each pig at the end of wk 8 revealed no signs of increased injuries resulting from limiting feeder-trough space.

When all pigs were provided similar feeder-trough space in the period from the start of wk 9 to market BW, previous feeder-trough space treatment did not affect (P > 0.05) any growth-performance parameter; moreover, the advantage in BW (2.2%; P < 0.01) for pigs previously on the Double trough-space treatment was not maintained, and days required to reach final BW were similar to the Control treatment (Table 2). Carcass measures at market BW did not differ (P > 0.05) between feeder-trough space treatments (Table 2). In earlier work, Wolter et al. (2001) found that pigs that were 7% lighter at the end of wk 10 as a result of double-stocking did require an additional 2 d to reach market (i.e., 114 kg BW), but had a 4% greater gain:feed ratio in the period from wk 10 to market. Similar to results of the current study, Brumm et al. (2001) reported that increasing number of pigs per pen and thereby decreasing access to pen resources in a nursery accommodation resulted in a 5.8% reduction in pig BW at the end of the nursery period; however, lower BW at the end of the nursery stage did not impact any growth-performance parameter in the grow-finish period.

Effect of BW/Variation-in-BW Within a Pen (Study 2).
Effect of BW/variation-in-BW within pen treatments on growth performance of pigs from the start of wk 9 to the end of study (112 kg BW) is summarized in Table 3. By design, BW and variation in BW within a pen at the start of the study were different (P < 0.001; Table 3). However, variation in BW within a pen was similar (P > 0.05) among treatments at the end of the study. The Light/Low treatment had lower (P < 0.05) ADFI (5%) compared to Heavy/Low with pigs in the Mixed/Normal treatment being intermediate and different (P < 0.05) from the other treatments. However, BW within a pen treatment did not impact (P > 0.05) ADG or gain:feed ratio during the study. The number of days required to reach market BW reflected treatment differences in BW at the start of study, with pigs in the Heavy/Low treatment requiring 8.6 fewer days to reach slaughter than the Light/Low treatment (P < 0.001), and those in the Mixed/Normal treatment being intermediate and different (P < 0.05) from the other treatments. Mortality and morbidity levels and carcass backfat and loin depth measures were not affected (P > 0.05) by treatment (Table 3).

	Implications

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 
Results of this study suggest that pigs that are double-stocked in wean-to-finish pens for longer than 6 wk postweaning require greater than 2 cm per pig feeder-trough space to maintain growth performance. Moreover, sorting pigs into pens on the basis of BW at the end of wk 8 after weaning will not increase pig growth rate or decrease variation in pig BW within a pen at market and, therefore, would do little to increase overall throughput of a production system.

	Footnotes

 
¹ The authors gratefully acknowledge the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research and the College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois for financial support of this research and United Feeds, Inc., Sheridan, IN, for cooperation and use of facilities.

Received for publication October 10, 2001. Accepted for publication May 27, 2002.

	Literature Cited

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Implications Literature Cited

 


Brumm, M. C., and D. Carlson. 1985. Nursery feeder space — how much? Nebraska Swine Report EC85-219, University of Nebraska Coop. Ext., Lincoln, p 17.

Brumm, M. C., and H. W. Gonyou. 2001. Effects of facility design on behavior and feed and water intake. In: A. J. Lewis and L. L. Southern (ed.) Swine Nutrition. 2nd ed. pp 499–518. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Brumm, M. C., M. Ellis, L. J. Johnson, D. W. Rozeboom, D. R. Zimmerman, and the NCR-89 Committee on Swine Management. 2001. Interaction of swine nursery and grow-finish space allocations on performance. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1967–1972.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gonyou, H. W., and Z. Lou. 2000. Effects of eating space and availability of water in feeders on productivity and eating behavior of grower/finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 78:865–870.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hansen, L. L., A. M. Hagels, and A. Madsen. 1982. Behavior results and performance of bacon pigs fed "ad libitum" from one or several hoppers. Appl. Anim. Ethology 8:307–334.

Hyun, Y., and M. Ellis. 2002. Effect of group size and feeder type on growth performance and feeding patterns in finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 80:568–574.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Laitat, M., M. Vandenheede, A. Desiron, B. Canart, and B. Nicks. 1999. Comparison of feeding behavior and performance of weaned pigs given food in two types of dry feeders with integrated drinkers. Anim. Sci. 68:35–42.

Liu, Y., and J. R. Stouffer. 1995. Pork carcass evaluation with an automated and computerized ultrasonic system. J. Anim. Sci. 73:29–38.[Abstract]

NRC. 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 10th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

O’Connell, N. E., V. E. Beattie, and R. N. Weatherup. 2002. Influence of feeder type on the performance and behavior of weaned pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 74:13–17.

O’Quinn, P. R., S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, M. D. Tokach, J. C. Swanson, J. L. Nelssen, and R. E. Musser. 2001. Sorting growing-finishing pigs by weight fails to improve growth performance or reduce variation. J. Anim. Sci. 79(Suppl. 1):46(Abstr.).

Spoolder, H. A. M., S. A. Edwards, and S. Corning. 1999. Effects of group size and feeder space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. 69:481–489.

Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

Tindsley, W. E. C., and I. J. Lean. 1984. Effects of weight range at allocation on production and behaviour in fattening pig groups. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 12:79–92.

Wolter, B. F., M. Ellis, S. E. Curtis, N. R. Augspurger, D. N. Hamilton, E. N. Parr, and D. M. Webel. 2001. Effect of group size on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1067–1073.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. DeDecker, M. Ellis, B. F. Wolter, B. P. Corrigan, S. E. Curtis, E. N. Parr, and D. M. Webel Effects of proportion of pigs removed from a group and subsequent floor space on growth performance of finishing pigs J Anim Sci, February 1, 2005; 83(2): 449 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. F. Wolter, M. Ellis, B. P. Corrigan, J. M. DeDecker, S. E. Curtis, E. N. Parr, and D. M. Webel Effect of restricted postweaning growth resulting from reduced floor and feeder-trough space on pig growth performance to slaughter weight in a wean-to-finish production system J Anim Sci, April 1, 2003; 81(4): 836 - 842. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. F. Wolter, M. Ellis, B. P. Corrigan, J. M. DeDecker, S. E. Curtis, E. N. Parr, and D. M. Webel Impact of early postweaning growth rate as affected by diet complexity and space allocation on subsequent growth performance of pigsin a wean-to-finish production system J Anim Sci, February 1, 2003; 81(2): 353 - 359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wolter, B. F. Articles by Webel, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wolter, B. F. Articles by Webel, D. M.