Royall Rafe Q, Coble Kyle F, Stephens Karley R, Tokach Mike D, Woodworth Jason C, DeRouchey Joel M, Goodband Robert D, Gebhardt Jordan T, Karl Jimmy, Corns Paul J, Bradley Tag
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
JBS Live Pork, Greeley, CO 80634, USA.
Transl Anim Sci. 2024 Oct 7;8:txae146. doi: 10.1093/tas/txae146. eCollection 2024.
A total of 557 mixed parity sows (PIC 1050) were used to evaluate the effect of lactation feeder design on sow farrowing performance, litter growth performance, feeder cleaning criteria, and economics. The experiment was conducted during the summer of 2023 at a commercial sow farm located in northwest Texas. The study used two sequential farrowing groups with approximately 279 sows per group. On approximately days 112 to 114 of gestation, sows were moved to the farrowing house and randomly allotted to one of three feeder types based on parity and caliper score. Feeder types consisted of 1) a dry feeder with a nipple drinker located next to the feeder, 2) a wet-dry feeder with a divider to separate feed and water, or 3) a wet-dry feeder without a divider. The three feeder types were used in one of every three stalls with the same sequence from the front to the end of all rooms to balance for environmental effects. Sows were weighed before entering the farrowing house and at weaning. Sows were provided approximately 1.81 kg per day of a common lactation diet prefarrowing, and after farrowing, sows were provided ad libitum access to lactation feed. There was no evidence of a difference in sow weight at entry or weaning, overall BW change, caliper score at entry or weaning, total litter weight or individual pig weight at birth, total pigs born, or percentage of pigs born alive. However, sows fed with the dry lactation feeder had decreased ( < 0.05) total daily feed disappearance and average daily feed disappearance compared to either wet-dry feeder design. There was no evidence of difference for litter or pig weaning weight, or litter average daily gain. As a result, litter feed efficiency was improved ( < 0.05) for sows fed via the dry feeder compared to either wet-dry feeder. For feeder cleaning criteria, dry feeders had increased ( < 0.05) washing time and washing cost compared to either wet-dry feeder design. In addition, sows fed via the dry feeder had decreased ( < 0.05) total lactation feed cost and feed cost per piglet weaned compared to either wet-dry feeder design. In summary, using the wet-dry feeder design in this study with or without a divider separating the feed from the water increased feed disappearance with no effects on sow and litter performance compared to dry feeders, thus worsening litter feed efficiency and increasing feed cost per sow and litter.
总共557头不同胎次的母猪（PIC 1050）被用于评估泌乳期饲喂器设计对母猪产仔性能、仔猪生长性能、饲喂器清洁标准和经济效益的影响。该实验于2023年夏季在德克萨斯州西北部的一个商业母猪场进行。该研究使用了两个连续的产仔组，每组约279头母猪。在妊娠约112至114天时，母猪被转移到产仔舍，并根据胎次和体尺评分随机分配到三种饲喂器类型之一。饲喂器类型包括：1）带有乳头饮水器且位于饲喂器旁边的干料饲喂器；2）带有分隔物以分离饲料和水的干湿两用饲喂器；3）没有分隔物的干湿两用饲喂器。三种饲喂器类型在每三个猪栏中交替使用，在所有猪舍从前往后以相同顺序排列，以平衡环境影响。母猪在进入产仔舍前和断奶时称重。产前母猪每天大约提供1.81千克普通泌乳日粮，产仔后，母猪可自由采食泌乳饲料。在进入时或断奶时母猪体重、总体体重变化、进入时或断奶时体尺评分、出生时总窝重或个体仔猪体重、出生仔猪总数或存活仔猪百分比方面，没有差异的证据。然而，与任何一种干湿两用饲喂器设计相比，使用干料泌乳饲喂器的母猪每日总采食量和平均每日采食量均有所下降（P<0.05）。在仔猪断奶体重或窝重、窝平均日增重方面，没有差异的证据。因此，与任何一种干湿两用饲喂器相比，通过干料饲喂器饲喂的母猪窝饲料效率有所提高（P<0.05）。就饲喂器清洁标准而言，与任何一种干湿两用饲喂器设计相比，干料饲喂器的清洗时间和清洗成本有所增加（P<0.05）。此外，与任何一种干湿两用饲喂器设计相比，通过干料饲喂器饲喂的母猪总泌乳饲料成本和每头断奶仔猪的饲料成本均有所下降（P<0.05）。总之，在本研究中，使用带或不带分隔物来分离饲料和水的干湿两用饲喂器设计，与干料饲喂器相比，采食量增加，但对母猪和仔猪性能没有影响，从而降低了窝饲料效率，并增加了每头母猪和每窝的饲料成本。
