哺乳期饲喂器设计对母猪和产仔性能、饲喂器清洁标准和经济回报的影响。

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-10-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txae146
Rafe Q Royall, Kyle F Coble, Karley R Stephens, Mike D Tokach, Jason C Woodworth, Joel M DeRouchey, Robert D Goodband, Jordan T Gebhardt, Jimmy Karl, Paul J Corns, Tag Bradley
{"title":"哺乳期饲喂器设计对母猪和产仔性能、饲喂器清洁标准和经济回报的影响。","authors":"Rafe Q Royall, Kyle F Coble, Karley R Stephens, Mike D Tokach, Jason C Woodworth, Joel M DeRouchey, Robert D Goodband, Jordan T Gebhardt, Jimmy Karl, Paul J Corns, Tag Bradley","doi":"10.1093/tas/txae146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>P</i> < 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 (<i>P</i> < 0.05) for sows fed via the dry feeder compared to either wet-dry feeder. For feeder cleaning criteria, dry feeders had increased (<i>P</i> < 0.05) washing time and washing cost compared to either wet-dry feeder design. In addition, sows fed via the dry feeder had decreased (<i>P</i> < 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11521337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of lactation feeder design on sow and litter performance, feeder cleaning criteria, and economic return.\",\"authors\":\"Rafe Q Royall, Kyle F Coble, Karley R Stephens, Mike D Tokach, Jason C Woodworth, Joel M DeRouchey, Robert D Goodband, Jordan T Gebhardt, Jimmy Karl, Paul J Corns, Tag Bradley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txae146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 (<i>P</i> < 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 (<i>P</i> < 0.05) for sows fed via the dry feeder compared to either wet-dry feeder. For feeder cleaning criteria, dry feeders had increased (<i>P</i> < 0.05) washing time and washing cost compared to either wet-dry feeder design. In addition, sows fed via the dry feeder had decreased (<i>P</i> < 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11521337/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本实验共使用了 557 头混合雌性母猪(PIC 1050),以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性的影响。实验于 2023 年夏季在德克萨斯州西北部的一家商业母猪场进行。研究使用了两个连续产仔组,每组约有 279 头母猪。大约在妊娠期的第 112 到 114 天,母猪被转移到产房,并根据胎次和卡尺评分随机分配到三种饲喂器类型中的一种。饲喂器类型包括:1)干式饲喂器,饲喂器旁边装有乳头饮水器;2)干湿式饲喂器,带隔板,可将饲料和水分开;或 3)干湿式饲喂器,不带隔板。为了平衡环境影响,每三个饲喂间中就有一个饲喂间使用这三种类型的饲喂器,所有饲喂间从头到尾的顺序相同。母猪进入产房前和断奶时都要称重。母猪在产仔前每天可摄入约 1.81 千克的普通泌乳日粮,产仔后可自由采食泌乳饲料。没有证据表明母猪初生或断奶时的体重、总体体重变化、初生或断奶时的卡尺评分、窝仔猪总重量或出生时单头猪体重、出生猪总数或出生活猪百分比存在差异。然而,使用干法泌乳喂料器喂养的母猪体重下降(P P P P P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effect of lactation feeder design on sow and litter performance, feeder cleaning criteria, and economic return.

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 (P < 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 (P < 0.05) for sows fed via the dry feeder compared to either wet-dry feeder. For feeder cleaning criteria, dry feeders had increased (P < 0.05) washing time and washing cost compared to either wet-dry feeder design. In addition, sows fed via the dry feeder had decreased (P < 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Animal Science
Translational Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Animal Science (TAS) is the first open access-open review animal science journal, encompassing a broad scope of research topics in animal science. TAS focuses on translating basic science to innovation, and validation of these innovations by various segments of the allied animal industry. Readers of TAS will typically represent education, industry, and government, including research, teaching, administration, extension, management, quality assurance, product development, and technical services. Those interested in TAS typically include animal breeders, economists, embryologists, engineers, food scientists, geneticists, microbiologists, nutritionists, veterinarians, physiologists, processors, public health professionals, and others with an interest in animal production and applied aspects of animal sciences.
期刊最新文献
Effect of various levels of standardized ileal digestible branched-chain amino acids on lactating sow and litter performance. The effect of methionine supplementation on receiving beef steers following a lipopolysaccharide challenge. Effect of lactation feeder design on sow and litter performance, feeder cleaning criteria, and economic return. Carcass cutting yields and meat quality of market gilts managed with immunological suppression of ovarian function and estrus. Responses in weanling pigs fed low protein diets supplemented with dietary nucleotides.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1