Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506-0201, USA.
J Anim Sci. 2012 Dec;90(12):4576-82. doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5389. Epub 2012 Jul 24.
Two studies were conducted to determine the effects of feeder adjustment and trough space on growth performance of finishing pigs. In Exp. 1, 234 pigs (initial BW 41.5 kg) were used in an 89-d trial. Pigs were randomly allotted to 1 of 3 treatments with 9 replications of 8 pigs/pen and 1 replicate with 6 pigs/pen. Treatments consisted of a minimum feeder gap setting of 1.27, 1.91, or 2.54 cm. Feeders were adjusted to a minimum gap setting, but the agitation plate could be moved upward to a maximum opening of 1.91, 2.54, or 3.18 cm, respectively. Feeder adjustments of 1.27, 1.91, and 2.54 cm averaged 28, 58, and 75% pan coverage, respectively. From d 0 to 58, increasing feeder gap improved (linear; P ≤ 0.04) ADG and ADFI, but decreased (linear; P < 0.05) G:F. Although the response was linear for ADG, no increase occurred (quadratic; P = 0.15) beyond the 1.91-cm feeder gap setting. From d 58 to 89, increasing feeder gap setting tended (linear; P = 0.08) to worsen G:F. Overall (d 0 to 89), pigs fed with increasing feeder gap had decreased (linear; P <0.03) G:F due to increased (linear; P <0.02) ADFI. In Exp. 2, 288 pigs (initial BW 41.3 kg) were used in a 91-d study to evaluate the effects of feeder trough space (4.45 vs. 8.9 cm/pig) and minimum feeder gap opening of 1.27 cm (narrow) vs. 2.54 cm (wide). The treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial with 6 replications per treatment. Feeder trough space was altered by having pens of either 8 to 16 pigs per pen with all pigs provided 0.74 m(2) floor space per pig. From d 0 to 56 and 56 to 91, no adjustment × space interactions or effects of trough space were observed. From d 0 to 56, pigs with the wide feeder gap setting had decreased (P < 0.02) G:F compared with those that had the narrow feeder gap setting. From d 56 to 91, pigs with the wider feeder gap setting had increased (P < 0.001) ADFI, but consequently had decreased (P < 0.01) G:F. Overall (d 0 to 91), no trough space × feeder adjustment interactions were observed. However, ADG tended to increase (P = 0.08) as feeder trough space increased from 4.45 to 8.9 cm/pig. Pigs fed with the wide feeder gap setting had increased (P < 0.01) feed disappearance and decreased (P < 0.01) G:F compared with pigs with the narrow feeder gap setting. These data indicate that pigs from 41 to 68 kg need approximately 58% pan coverage, whereas pigs greater than 68 kg should have approximately 28% pan coverage to optimize growth and reduce feed wastage.
两项研究旨在确定给料器调整和料槽空间对育肥猪生长性能的影响。在试验 1 中,234 头猪(初始体重 41.5kg)进行了 89 天的试验。猪随机分为 3 种处理,每个处理有 9 个重复,每个重复有 8 头猪/栏,1 个重复有 6 头猪/栏。处理包括最小给料器间隙设置为 1.27、1.91 或 2.54cm。给料器调整到最小间隙设置,但搅拌板可以向上移动到最大开口 1.91、2.54 或 3.18cm。1.27、1.91 和 2.54cm 的给料器调整分别平均覆盖料槽的 28%、58%和 75%。从第 0 天到第 58 天,增加给料器间隙提高了(线性;P ≤ 0.04)ADG 和 ADFI,但降低了(线性;P < 0.05)G:F。尽管 ADG 的反应是线性的,但在 1.91cm 给料器间隙设置之外没有出现增加(二次;P = 0.15)。从第 58 天到第 89 天,增加给料器间隙设置往往会(线性;P = 0.08)恶化 G:F。总体而言(第 0 天到第 89 天),由于 ADFI 增加(线性;P <0.02),使用增加给料器间隙的猪的 G:F 降低(线性;P <0.03)。在试验 2 中,288 头猪(初始体重 41.3kg)进行了 91 天的研究,以评估给料器料槽空间(4.45 与 8.9cm/头)和最小给料器间隙开口 1.27cm(窄)与 2.54cm(宽)的影响。处理采用 2 × 2 因子设计,每个处理有 6 个重复。通过将每栏猪的数量从 8 头增加到 16 头,来改变料槽空间,每头猪提供 0.74m²的猪舍面积。从第 0 天到第 56 天和第 56 天到第 91 天,没有观察到调整×空间的相互作用或料槽空间的影响。从第 0 天到第 56 天,具有宽给料器间隙设置的猪的 G:F 降低(P < 0.02),与具有窄给料器间隙设置的猪相比。从第 56 天到第 91 天,具有较宽给料器间隙设置的猪的 ADFI 增加(P < 0.001),但因此 G:F 降低(P < 0.01)。总体而言(第 0 天到第 91 天),没有观察到料槽空间×给料器调整的相互作用。然而,随着给料器料槽空间从 4.45 增加到 8.9cm/头,ADG 有增加的趋势(P = 0.08)。与具有窄给料器间隙设置的猪相比,使用宽给料器间隙设置的猪的饲料消失增加(P < 0.01),G:F 降低(P < 0.01)。这些数据表明,41 至 68kg 的猪需要大约 58%的料槽覆盖,而大于 68kg 的猪应该有大约 28%的料槽覆盖,以优化生长和减少饲料浪费。