Teagasc Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Fermoy, Ireland.
Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
J Anim Sci. 2020 Mar 1;98(3). doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa021.
There is no generally accepted optimal feed form and delivery method for feeding finisher pigs. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of feed form (meal and pellet) and delivery method (liquid, dry, and wet/dry) on feed microbiology and growth, gain-to-feed ratio (G:F), and carcass quality of finisher pigs. Two batches of pigs were used, each with six pen replicates per treatment. In each batch 216 pigs (32.7 kg; ± 0.48 SE) housed in same-sex (entire male or female) pens of six pigs per pen were on treatment for ~62 d prior to slaughter. The experiment was a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with two factors for diet form (meal and pellets) and three factors for feed delivery (dry, wet/dry, liquid). The treatments were 1) meal from dry feeder, 2) meal from wet/dry feeder, 3) meal from liquid system, 4) pellet from dry feeder, 5) pellet from wet/dry feeder, and 6) pellet from liquid system. Pig growth performance was determined, blood samples collected at slaughter for hematological analysis and microbiological and proximate analysis of feed performed. A significant feed form × delivery interaction was found for G:F. During the overall period G:F was 0.446, 0.433, 0.423, 0.474, 0.459, and 0.418 g/g (SE = 0.0080; P < 0.01) for treatments 1 through 6, respectively. When feed was pelleted, G:F was improved when feed delivery was dry or wet/dry compared to meal but when the delivery was liquid, pelleting did not affect G:F. There were no interactive effects for overall average daily gain (ADG). Overall ADG was 1,114 and 1,156 g/d (SE = 16.9; P < 0.01) for pigs fed diets in meal and pellet form, respectively and 1,080, 1,114, and 1,210 g/d (SE = 18.4; P < 0.001) for dry-, wet/dry-, and liquid-fed pigs, respectively. Carcass weight was 76.6 and 79.0 kg (SE = 0.55; P < 0.001) for pigs fed in meal and pellet form, respectively, while it was 74.7, 77.3, and 81.5 kg (SE = 0.60; P < 0.001) for pigs delivered dry, wet/dry, and liquid diets, respectively. Lactic acid bacteria (P < 0.05) and yeast (P < 0.01) counts in troughs were greater for the liquid than the dry diet in both meal and pelleted form. There was also evidence of lysine degradation in the liquid diet but this did not impact pig growth. Feeding the diet in pelleted vs. meal form led to lower hemoglobin and greater white blood cell and neutrophil counts (P < 0.05). To conclude, wet/dry feeding of a pelleted diet is recommended to maximize growth rate while optimizing G:F in grow-finisher pigs.
目前,尚无被广泛认可的用于育肥猪的最佳饲料形式和输送方法。本研究的目的是比较饲料形式(颗粒料和粉料)和输送方式(液体、干料和干湿料)对育肥猪饲料微生物和生长、饲料增重比(G:F)以及胴体质量的影响。使用了两批猪,每个处理有六个重复,每个重复饲养 6 头同性别(全部为公猪或母猪)猪。每批猪在屠宰前大约 62 天接受处理。该实验是一个 2×3 的析因设计,有两个因素是饲料形式(颗粒料和粉料),三个因素是饲料输送(干料、干湿料和液体)。处理 1 是从干料料斗中喂给粉料,处理 2 是从干湿料料斗中喂给粉料,处理 3 是从液体系统中喂给粉料,处理 4 是从干料料斗中喂给颗粒料,处理 5 是从干湿料料斗中喂给颗粒料,处理 6 是从液体系统中喂给颗粒料。测定猪的生长性能,屠宰时采集血液样本进行血液学分析和饲料的微生物和常规分析。发现 G:F 存在显著的饲料形式×输送方式的交互作用。整个试验期间,处理 1 到 6 的 G:F 分别为 0.446、0.433、0.423、0.474、0.459 和 0.418(SE = 0.0080;P < 0.01)。当饲料颗粒化时,与粉料相比,干料或干湿料输送方式可提高 G:F,但当输送方式为液体时,颗粒化不会影响 G:F。总的平均日增重(ADG)没有交互作用。总的 ADG 分别为粉料形式下的 1114 和 1156 g/d(SE = 16.9;P < 0.01),颗粒料形式下的 1080、1114 和 1210 g/d(SE = 18.4;P < 0.001),干料、干湿料和液体料输送方式下的 1080、1114 和 1210 g/d(SE = 18.4;P < 0.001)。粉料和颗粒料形式下的猪的胴体重分别为 76.6 和 79.0 kg(SE = 0.55;P < 0.001),而干料、干湿料和液体料输送方式下的猪的胴体重分别为 74.7、77.3 和 81.5 kg(SE = 0.60;P < 0.001)。液体料在粉料和颗粒料形式下的料槽中乳酸细菌(P < 0.05)和酵母(P < 0.01)的数量大于干料。液体料中也有赖氨酸降解的证据,但这并没有影响猪的生长。与粉料相比,颗粒料形式的饲料可降低血红蛋白含量,增加白细胞和中性粒细胞计数(P < 0.05)。总之,建议采用干湿料输送颗粒料的方式来最大限度地提高育肥猪的生长速度,同时优化饲料增重比。