Abstract
A total of 1,296 pigs (PIC, 337 × 1050) were used to evaluate the effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics of feeder design (conventional dry feeder vs. wet-dry feeder) and changing availability of water from a wet-dry feeder at 4 and 8 wk prior to marketing. There were 27 pigs per pen (14 barrows and 13 gilts) and 24 pens per feeder-type. Pigs were fed identical corn-soybean meal diets with 15% dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS). Pens with a wet-dry feeder had a separate cup waterer, but the feeder provided the sole water source until d 69. The water supply to the wet-dry feeder was shut off in 8 pens on d 69 (WD8) and another 8 pens on d 97 (WD4), and the cup waterer was turned on. For the remaining 8 pens, the wet-dry feeder provided the sole water source for the entire experiment (WD0). From d 0 to 69, pigs using the wet-dry feeder had improved (P < 0.05) ADG, ADFI, F/G, and d 69 BW. Overall (d 0 to 124), pigs using WD0 had greater (P < 0.05) ADG, ADFI, final BW, and HCW than all other treatments. Pigs using WD4 had greater (P < 0.05) ADG than pigs that used a conventional dry feeder, and WD8 was intermediate. Pigs using WD4 had greater (P < 0.05) ADFI than WD8, and conventional dry was intermediate. Pigs using WD0 had poorer (P < 0.05) F/G than WD8 and conventional dry, and pigs using WD4 were intermediate. Backfat depth of pigs using WD8 was reduced (P < 0.05) compared to all other treatments, and loin depth was greater (P < 0.05) than that of pigs using a conventional dry feeder and WD4. Loin depth of pigs using WD0 was also greater (P < 0.05) than that of pigs with the conventional dry feeder. The percentage fat-free lean of pigs using WD8 was greater (P < 0.05) than WD4, and WD0, and pigs that used the conventional dry feeder were intermediate. Incomeover-feed cost was numerically greatest for pigs using WD8. In conclusion, pigs using WD0 had better growth rates than pigs using the conventional dry feeder, WD4, or WD8. Although measures of carcass leanness were improved with WD8, the reduction in growth rate observed for this treatment during the last 8 wk eliminated any net improvement in the overall growth rate from using a wet-dry feeder.
Highlights
Recent research at Kansas State University (Bergstrom et al, 20083 and 20094) has demonstrated that using a wet-dry feeder improves the feed intake and growth rate of finishing pigs, but they may have poorer feed efficiency and greater backfat depth
Measures of carcass leanness were improved with WD8, the reduction in growth rate observed for this treatment during the last 8 wk eliminated any net improvement in the overall growth rate from using a wet-dry feeder
Because the greater growth rate may be responsible for the poorer F/G and greater backfat depth, research may be beneficial to identify methods to sustain the improved growth rate obtained with a wet-dry feeder during the early finisher period and slow the late-finishing growth to a similar level as from a dry feeder
Summary
Recent research at Kansas State University (Bergstrom et al, 20083 and 20094) has demonstrated that using a wet-dry feeder improves the feed intake and growth rate of finishing pigs, but they may have poorer feed efficiency and greater backfat depth. With 12 pigs per pen and an initial BW of 119 pounds, Amornthewaphat et al (20007) demonstrated that the performance of finishing pigs using a single-space, wet-dry feeder design with water provided separately was similar to those using a twohole conventional dry feeder. This indicates that the increased growth observed with a wet-dry feeder may be due to the availability of water with feed, rather than the design of the feeder, and that the wet-dry feeder may provide adequate space when used as a dry feeder in late finishing. The effects of changing the source of water from a wet-dry feeder to a separate source (while maintaining an otherwise adequate supply) on growing-finishing pig performance have not been reported
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
