 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Bradley Wolter(l)
and Dr. Mike Ellis |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Wean-to-Finish Update: Sorting Out Double-Filling
Does it make sense to overfill wean-to-finish
pens early in the feeding period? The obvious benefits of
extra throughput and lower facility cost are enticing. The
practice may also help smooth out pig flow and lower nursery
phase overhead, according to experienced advisors like Dr.
Tim Loula and his colleagues at the Swine Vet Center in St.
Peter, MN. But double-filling is not without challenges because
more labor is needed and it can be difficult to spot problems
and treat sick animals. Furthermore, two recent research studies
point out that performance may not be equal between double-filled
and single-filled barns.
Research conducted in 2000 at the University
of Nebraska demonstrated that double-stocked pigs in wean-to-finish
pens (3.75 sq. ft./pig (.325 sq. m/pig) were roughly four
pounds lighter at eight weeks than pigs fed in single-stocked
(7.5 sq. ft./pig (.650 sq. m/pig) wean-to-finish pens. See
Chart A.
Recent research at the University of Illinois
also found a significant performance difference. This study
demonstrated that double-filled pigs weighed about 6.5 pounds
(2.9 kg) less at ten weeks and had lower average daily gains,
than their single-filled counterparts. See Charts
B and C.
The Nebraska and the Illinois studies suggest
there are no differences in performance between the groups
after half the pigs are moved. In the Illinois study, pigs
that were double-stocked arrived at a market weight of 250
pounds (114 kg) about two days later (including the half that
stayed in the same pen and the half that moved) than the single-stocked
pigs. “They didn’t grow any faster (after being moved),” says
Dr. Mike Ellis, the lead researcher in the project. “The double-stocked
pigs improved slightly in feed efficiency,” says Dr. Ellis,
but adds further research will be needed to determine whether
the feed efficiency change is due to chance or a real effect.
See Chart D.
Consulting veterinarian Dr. Joe Connor,
who has been advising producers on managing wean-to-finish
systems since the mid-1990s, says he recommends producers
stick with single-filling unless traditional finishers are
available for placing pigs into after the first eight weeks.
Dr. Connor, of the Carthage (IL) Veterinary Service, Ltd.,
indicates that death loss during the first eight weeks past
entry in double-filled, wean-to-finish buildings is twice
what it is in single-filled buildings.
As a compromise, Dr. Connor often advises
overfilling at 150 percent capacity. “If producers are normally
populating at a rate of 25 pigs per pen, increase to 37 pigs,”
says Dr. Connor. He recommends starting pigs by feeding them
multiple times per day on feed mats as well as in the feeder.
Increase the warm zone by placing heat lamps higher than usual
or installing additional lamps. Dr. Connor says producers
should expect a reduction in performance when pigs reach the
size that space is limiting.
Swine veterinary consultants Drs. Tim Loula,
Paul Yeske and Ross Kiehne at the Swine Vet Center have many
clients who double-fill into wean-to-finish facilities. The
consultants say the first ten days following entry are critical
for getting pigs started in over-filled barns. They suggest
using two mats or one oversized mat for hand-feeding.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of double-filling
wean-to-finish barns is that it offers producers more options
for pig flow. The Swine Vet Center consultants say producers
can play a bit with timing of when to move pigs out of the
overfilled pens, which can help in tight flow patterns. In
addition, pens can be filled at various capacities (any increment
between 100 and 200 percent) to match pig source inventories.
But there may be some flow problems that
are exacerbated by overfilling. “It may take longer to fill
the site, or it may require more sources to fill the site
quickly,” offers Drs. Loula, Yeske and Kiehne. Another worry
is that some of the advantage of a wean-to-finish system gets
diminished when some pigs are moved during the feeding period.
They say groups and socialization are usually disrupted because
of the necessary regrouping to even out pig size within the
pens.
Dekalb, IL, producer Bob Johnson has found
a solution to concerns about disrupting group integrity. Two
years ago he and his partner, Dr. Steve Pate, designed a wean-to-finish
barn for double-filling without the need for mixing up or
dividing groups. The design created rooms that hold either
500 weaned pigs or 250 finisher pigs. When the rooms are filled,
weaned pigs are sorted by sex into alternate pens. After 8
to 12 weeks, pigs in every other pen are moved (all the gilts
or all the barrows) into another room. “The remaining groups
are allowed access to neighboring pens by opening a divider
gate,” says Bob. “They have double the space with no mixing
of groups.” The system has worked well, according to Johnson,
who says he and Pate are convinced that mixing of groups is
something to be avoided to maintain health and so not to disturb
the social environment. He says the divider gates also help
when working with pigs after they are single-stocked.
Another recent Illinois study looked at
whether adding feeder space in double-stocked pens increases
pig performance. Dr. Ellis’ graduate student research assistant,
Bradley Wolter, presented those findings along with the stocking
rate findings at this past summer’s annual meeting of the
American Society of Animal Scientists. The researchers set
up the trial with two treatment groups of double-stocked pigs.
The “control” group of pigs had one six-hole Farmweld dry
feeder that provided .79 inches (2 cm) trough space/pig and
the “double” group had two six-hole Farmweld feeders or 1.57
inches (4 cm) trough space/pig. Group size for all pens was
108 pigs with a space allotment of 3.75 sq. feet (.30 sq.
m) /pig.
The Illinois researchers found feeder space
did impact performance of double-filled pigs during the first
eight weeks after weaning. While limited feeder space did
not lower performance during the first six weeks of the trial,
it did during weeks seven and eight. During those weeks, pigs
that had increased feeder space had a five percent increase
in growth. See Chart E.
The practice of double-stocking wean-to-finish
barns is something people will continue to watch closely.
Thanks to researchers such as those at the University of Illinois
and the University of Nebraska, plus the experience of consultants
such as veterinarians and others, producers will be better
able to determine if the practice benefits their particular
system.
|
KEY TO ALL CHARTS
|
|
DS = Double-Stocked
SS = Single-Stocked
DS-S = Double-Stocked, wean-to-finish.
Pigs remaining in same pen
throughout trial.
DS-M = Double-Stocked, wean-to-finish.
Pigs moved to new pen.
CV = Co-efficient of variation of
pig bodyweight within a pen.
|
CHART A
IMPACT OF WEAN-TO-FINISH REGIMEN ON PIG PERFORMANCE
| |
SS
|
DS
|
|
| No.
pens |
12
|
12
|
|
| Weaning
wt. lb. |
11.2
(5.1 kg)
|
11.2
(5.1 kg)
|
|
| 56
day wt. lb. |
63.1
(28.7 kg)
|
59.2
(26.9 kg)
|
|
| Avg.
Daily Gain, lb. |
.92
(.42 kg)
|
.86
(.39 kg)
|
|
| Avg.
Daily Intake, lb. |
1.53
(.70 kg)
|
1.42
(.65 kg)
|
|
| Feed:Gain |
1.66
|
1.66
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
SS
|
DS-S
|
DS-M
|
Avg. weight when first pigs were
sold @250 lbs. (113.6 kg) |
224.8
(102.2 kg)
|
217.3
(98.8 kg)
|
220.5
(100.23 kg)
|
| Ave.
Daily Gain |
1.88
(.85 kg)
|
1.88
(.85 kg)
|
1.85
(.84 kg)
|
| Ave.
Daily Feed |
4.91
(2.23 kg)
|
4.88
(2.22 kg)
|
4.88
(2.22 kg)
|
| Feed:Gain |
2.61
|
2.61
|
2.60
|
| University of Nebraska,
2000 |
|
CHART B
EFFECT OF STOCKING RATE ON BODYWEIGHT
AT START OF TEST AND END OF 10 WEEKS
| |
STOCKING RATE
|
| ITEM |
SS |
DS |
| WEIGHT (lb.) |
|
|
| Start of Test |
12.76
(5.8 kg) |
12.98
(5.9 kg) |
| End of Week
10a |
93.72
(42.6 kg) |
87.34
(39.7 kg) |
| CV % |
|
|
| Start of Test |
13 |
12.9 |
| End of Week
10a |
11.5 |
12.3 |
| aSignificant
difference between stocking rate treatments (p<0.01). |
| University of Illinois,
2001 |
|
CHART C
EFFECT OF STOCKING RATE ON PIG PERFORMANCE
FROM START OF TEST TO END OF 10 WEEKS
| |
STOCKING RATE
|
| ITEM |
SS |
DS |
| GROWTH
PERFORMANCE |
| ADG, lba |
1.20
(545 g) |
1.11
(503 g) |
| ADFI, lba |
2.08
(942 g) |
1.94
(878 g) |
| Feed:gain |
1.75 |
1.72 |
| aSignificant
difference between stocking rate treatments (p<0.01). |
| University of Illinois,
2001 |
|
CHART D
EFFECT OF STOCKING RATE ON PIG PERFORMANCE
FROM WEEK 11 TO END OF TEST
| |
STOCKING RATE/SUBSEQUENT PEN
LOCATION
|
| ITEM |
SS |
DS-S |
DS-M |
| GROWTH PERFORMANCE |
|
|
|
| ADG, lb |
1.75
(792 g) |
1.79
(810 g) |
1.76
(799 g) |
| ADFI, lb |
5.07
(2300 g) |
5.04
(2285 g) |
4.95
(2246 g) |
| Feed:gaina |
2.94 |
2.94 |
2.78 |
| Days on testa |
157 |
159 |
159 |
| aSignificant
difference between stocking rate treatments (p<0.01). |
| University of Illinois,
2001 |
|
CHART E
EFFECT OF FEEDER TROUGH SPACE ON PIG PERFORMANCE
| |
FEEDER
TROUGH SPACE |
| |
CONTROL |
DOUBLE |
| ITEM |
.79 inches (2
cm)/pig) |
1.57 inches (4
cm)/pig |
| WEIGHT (lb.) |
|
|
| Start of Test |
11.9
(5.4 kg) |
11.9
(5.4 kg) |
| End of 8 Weeksa |
68.1
(30.9 kg) |
69.9
(31.7 kg) |
| ADG (lb.) |
|
|
| Start through
6 weeks |
.87
(395 g) |
.88
(398 g) |
| Weeks 7 and
8a |
1.40
(633 g) |
1.48
(669 g) |
| FEED:GAIN |
|
|
| Start through
6 weeks |
1.72 |
1.67 |
| Weeks 7 and
8 |
1.92 |
1.89 |
| aSignificant
difference between feeder space treatments (p<0.01). |
| University of Illinois,
2001 |
|
|