J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online first on November 3, 2006
J. Anim Sci. 1990. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-474
© 2006 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2006-474v1
85/3/853    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peng, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Rozeboom, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peng, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Rozeboom, D. W.
J. Anim Sci., doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-474
©Copyright, 2006, The American Society of Animal Science


ARTICLE

Effect of system of feeding and watering on performance of lactating sows

J. J. Peng 1, S. A. Somes 1, D. W. Rozeboom 1*

1 Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rozeboom{at}msu.edu.


   Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine effects of ad libitum access to feed and water and the option to mix feed and water, all in the same feeder, on the performance of multiparous lactating sows. Feed and water were made available to sows using either a self-fed wet/dry (SFWD) or a hand-fed (HF) feed-water system. In the SFWD system, both feed and water were dropped into a common trough area of the feeder. The sow determined when and how much of each was dropped. With feed falling onto the flat area of the bottom of the SFWD feeder trough and water falling into the shallow bowl area, and with the 2 areas seamlessly connected, the sow also determined the wetness of the feed consumed. In the HF system, sows were given dry feed twice daily in a J-shaped feeder that was independent of the sow's water source. Sows (n = 114) were assigned to treatments based on parity and genotype. Total feed disappearance per sow during lactation (20 ± 0.2 d) was greater (P < 0.01) with SFWD system than with HF system (120 vs. 110 ± 4.1 kg, respectively). The SFWD sows had greater (P < 0.01) BW gains during lactation than HF sows (6.2 vs. 0.6 kg, respectively). Backfat depth change during lactation did not differ (P = 0.37) between treatments. Likewise, percentage of sows displaying estrus by d 11 postweaning did not differ (P = 0.51). Piglet weaning BW was greater (P < 0.01) with SFWD system than with HF system (6.63 vs. 6.12 ± 0.22 kg, respectively). Sow average daily water intake and total feed wastage during lactation did not differ (P > 0.66) between treatments. However, sows with the SFWD system wasted less water (P < 0.01) than those with the HF system (15 vs. 232 ± 12 L, respectively). From a commercial swine production perspective, the difference in waste water volume would result in significant variation in costs associated with manure storage and distribution. In conclusion, use of a self-fed wet/dry feed-water system in lactation, that provides sows choices of when to eat, how much to eat, and if dry feed should be mixed with water during consumption, enhances sow appetite and improves litter growth performance.

Key Words: sow, lactation, feed intake, water intake







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Animal Science.