Not only is it wise environmentally to waste less water, there's also a significant economic gain in decreasing the volume of water you source and the slurry you store and dispose. Tube feeders, wet-dry feeders and dry feeders, used in combination with cups, are all options recognized for their desirable water savings. University of Nebraska research suggests that pigs on wet-dry feeders use about 1.2 gal./day and pigs on dry feeders and cups use about 1.0 gal./day Here are some things to consider when deciding which option is best for your system.

With the introduction of wean-to-finish, Larry Dirks and his colleagues at Brauer Pork have pretty much settled on dry feeding at the Oakford, IL, operation though many wet-dry feeders remain in use. Feeder style is one of those decisions that's not clear cut, Dirks says. 'This is not one of those issues like A.I., where things are absolutely clear based on widespread research," he says.

Research results are mixed. Some studies show that average daily gains are a bit better with wet feeding. Other research suggests that growth is similar between wet and dry feeding. The University of Nebraska's Dr. Michael C. Brumm agrees that choosing between tube, wet-dry and dry feeders is often a matter of personal preference. On one hand, certain producers may like the fact that a tube feeder or wet-dry feeder can be cleaned-in-place. But, he says, others like to have separate pieces of equipment for watering and feeding.

Monroe City, MO, producer Tony Hays selected Farmweld dry feeders for the three new wean-to-finish barns he and his brothers, Pat and Nick, recently built. "I was a little leery of tube feeders because there is no reservoir with them," says Tony. "If the power goes out or if a feed line breaks or the feeding system malfunctions, then the hogs would be out of feed within just a few hours."

		Dan Carlisle

Dan Carlisle, Carthage, IL, says it is worth the extra effort to clean a dry feeder because of the better performance and cut out data he's seen with dry feeders. In the early 1990s, he installed wet-dry feeders in several finishing barns mainly as a means to reduce water usage. "Our pigs ate more with wet-dry feeders, but the feed conversions weren't as good," says Dan, who operates with his brother, Mike. "Growth rates were about the same," Dan notes.

But the Carlisles' hogs were leaner with the dry feeders. "With every close-out, you could immediately tell whether the pigs were on the wet-dry or dry feeders just by seeing the carcass values," says Dan.

A few years ago, the Carlisles replaced the wet-dry feeders dry feeders and stainless steel water cups. Dan says the new equipment results in similar slurry volumes as the wet-dry feeders.

		Dr. Dale Rozeboom and Donna Barnes

Dr. Dale Rozeboom, an associate professor of animal science at Michigan State University, was pondering the issue of wet versus dry feeders when the university built a new wean-to-finish facility in 1998.

With the help of then undergraduate researcher Donna Barnes, Rozeboom conducted a trial comparing Gro Master's Crystal Spring™ wet-dry wean-to-finish feeder with Farmweld's (FW) wean-to-finish model, the Farmweld Jumbo Feeder. Rozeboom and Barnes, who is now a student at Michigan State's veterinary school, set out to investigate the differences between the feeders in terms of performance and carcass attributes and also whether either feeder type offered any particular management challenges for weanto-finish. The trial was completed in February of 1999.

Here's what they found:

• Growth performance for wean-to-finish pigs did not differ significantly between the two feeder styles, though feed efficiency was numerically better with the FW feeders than the CS feeders.
• Carcass data suggested that feeder type may influence carcass composition. Pigs on the FW feeder cut out with less backfat and greater percent lean, which translated into a $1.19/cwt. carcass grade premium from the packer. That was more than a $3.00 bonus per pig for pigs on the dry feeders.
• The Michigan State study suggests the CS feeder requires more effort on the manager's part during the nursery phase than the FW feeder. According to the researchers, feed bridging was somewhat of a problem for both feeders when feeding a Phase III nursery diet which contained ten percent dried whey. The problem was encountered less frequently with the FW feeder.

Rozeboom and Barnes estimated that chores took from 5-15 extra minutes per day to clean bridged feeders. After switching the pigs to a corn-soybean diet without whey, this was no longer a problem. However, the CS feeder required closer management throughout the remainder of the nursery phase because the pigs were able to maneuver the feeder insert and waste feed.

Dr. Ian Taylor, a livestock environment consultant based in Bloomingdale, IL, contends that separate feeding and watering systems may lead to more harmonious penmates. He says with separate feeding and watering locations, hungry pigs don't have to compete with thirsty pigs and vice versa. Using a single feed and water source likely affects pen dynamics and competition, according to Taylor.

Regardless of which style of feeders you use, good access to feed and water must be a prime consideration, Taylor says that ideal feeder design, with adequate feed space depth and width so that animals can eat comfortably and naturally, is critical. Provide a wide, deep feeder, plus an adequate, consistent water supply, "and you'll go a long way toward optimizing feed intake," he says.