Strategies to manage barn feed supply to prolong and hold late finishing pigs during a supply chain disruption.

Abstract

The U.S. pork production system is sensitive to supply chain disruptions, including those that can create challenges of feed delivery and feed management during the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate feeding strategies during a prolonged feed availability shortage in group-housed finishing pigs and assess the impacts on pig performance. A total of 1,407 mixed-sex pigs (92 ± 11 kg BW) were randomly allocated to one of five treatments across 60 pens (N = 12 pens per treatment, 22 pigs per pen) and were blocked by initial body weight (BW) within the replicate, over a 21-d test period. Treatments were fed for 14 d (P1), and thereafter all pens returned to ad libitum access to a standard commercial diet for 7 d (P2). Treatments included: 1) Pens fed ad libitum (CON); 2) Pens fed at 1.45X ME maintenance requirement daily of CON diet (1.45X); 3) Pens fed 2X ME maintenance requirement daily of CON diet (2X); 4) Tightened feeders to the lowest setting, fed ad libitum of CON diet (CF); and 5) whole corn kernels, fed ad libitum (WC). P1 and P2 BW and feed disappearance were recorded to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F. Data were analyzed with pen as the experimental unit and least-squares means values reported by treatment. Compared to CON, pens fed 1.45X, 2X, CF, and WC treatments had significantly reduced P1 ADG (1.09 vs. 0.02, 0.34, 0.72, 0.41 kg/d, respectively), ADFI (3.21 vs. 1.42, 1.90, 2.49, 2.40 kg/d, respectively) and G:F (P < 0.05). During P2, ADG and G:F were increased (P < 0.05) compared to CON across all treatments. However, ADFI increased only in the 2X, CF, and WC diet from the CON (P < 0.05). Overall (days 0 to 21), all strategies attenuated BW, ADG, and ADFI (P < 0.01) compared to CON. However, G:F was only reduced (P < 0.01) in 1.45X and WC, but not 2X and CF (P > 0.05) compared to CON. In conclusion, all strategies explored could extend feed budgets. Even though these strategies were successful, increased BW variability was reported with more restrictive strategies. Further, adverse pig behaviors and welfare implications needs to be considered in adopting any restrictive feeding strategy.