Cargando…
Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg
A total of 976 pigs (PIC 327 × Camborough; PIC, Hendersonville, TN; initially 22.0 ± 1.53 kg body weight [BW]) were used in a 160-d growth study to evaluate the effects of increasing space allowance and varying marketing strategies on growth performance of pigs raised to market weights of ~165 kg. P...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7277694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32705060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa065 |
_version_ | 1783543177943187456 |
---|---|
author | Lerner, Annie B Rice, Emily A Tokach, Mike D DeRouchey, Joel M Dritz, Steve S Goodband, Robert D Woodworth, Jason C O’Quinn, Travis G Gonzalez, John M Allerson, Matt W Dilger, Anna C Boler, Dustin D Price, Hannah E Lowell, Jessica E Richardson, Elaine Barkley, Kayla E Honegger, Lauren T Harsh, Bailey N Shackelford, Steven D Wheeler, Tommy L King, David A Fields, Brandon |
author_facet | Lerner, Annie B Rice, Emily A Tokach, Mike D DeRouchey, Joel M Dritz, Steve S Goodband, Robert D Woodworth, Jason C O’Quinn, Travis G Gonzalez, John M Allerson, Matt W Dilger, Anna C Boler, Dustin D Price, Hannah E Lowell, Jessica E Richardson, Elaine Barkley, Kayla E Honegger, Lauren T Harsh, Bailey N Shackelford, Steven D Wheeler, Tommy L King, David A Fields, Brandon |
author_sort | Lerner, Annie B |
collection | PubMed |
description | A total of 976 pigs (PIC 327 × Camborough; PIC, Hendersonville, TN; initially 22.0 ± 1.53 kg body weight [BW]) were used in a 160-d growth study to evaluate the effects of increasing space allowance and varying marketing strategies on growth performance of pigs raised to market weights of ~165 kg. Pens of pigs were blocked by location within the barn and allotted to one of six treatments. Pen served as the experimental unit, and there were eight replicate pens per treatment. The first four treatments consisted of increased initial stocking density and did not utilize topping strategies: (1) 14 pigs/pen (1.17 m(2)/pig), (2) 17 pigs/pen (0.97 m(2)/pig), (3) 20 pigs/pen (0.82 m(2)/pig), and (4) 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m(2)/pig). The fifth treatment began with 25 pigs/pen (0.66 m(2)/pig) and had four marketing events with the heaviest 3 pigs/pen removed on day 93, and additional pigs removed to a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 122 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147 with final marketing on day 160. The final treatment began the experiment with 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m(2)/pig) with three marketing events to achieve a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 108 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147. Pens of pigs were weighed and feed disappearance measured on days 0, 55, 93, 108, 122, 135, 147, and 160. As space allowance decreased from 1.17 to 0.71 m(2)/pig via increased initial pen inventory (treatments 1 to 4), overall average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) decreased (linear, P < 0.001), while gain:feed ratio (G:F) did not differ (P > 0.05). The treatments with multiple marketing events were compared with each other and with the treatment that began with 0.71 m(2)/pig and only marketed once at the end of the study. Overall ADG and ADFI were not different (P > 0.05) among these three treatments. Marketing pigs three or four times improved (P < 0.05) G:F compared with the treatment that began the study with 0.71 m(2)/pig and marketed only once. Reducing floor space allowance for heavy weight pigs decreased intake, which resulted in lower growth rate and final BW, with these reductions occurring before the critical k-value was reached. Total weight gain per pen was maximized with the lowest space allowance and the multiple marketing treatments. Thus, strategic use of pig removals prior to final marketing may allow producers to maximize both number of pigs and total weight marketed through a barn when feeding to heavy weights. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7277694 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72776942020-07-22 Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg Lerner, Annie B Rice, Emily A Tokach, Mike D DeRouchey, Joel M Dritz, Steve S Goodband, Robert D Woodworth, Jason C O’Quinn, Travis G Gonzalez, John M Allerson, Matt W Dilger, Anna C Boler, Dustin D Price, Hannah E Lowell, Jessica E Richardson, Elaine Barkley, Kayla E Honegger, Lauren T Harsh, Bailey N Shackelford, Steven D Wheeler, Tommy L King, David A Fields, Brandon Transl Anim Sci Housing and Management A total of 976 pigs (PIC 327 × Camborough; PIC, Hendersonville, TN; initially 22.0 ± 1.53 kg body weight [BW]) were used in a 160-d growth study to evaluate the effects of increasing space allowance and varying marketing strategies on growth performance of pigs raised to market weights of ~165 kg. Pens of pigs were blocked by location within the barn and allotted to one of six treatments. Pen served as the experimental unit, and there were eight replicate pens per treatment. The first four treatments consisted of increased initial stocking density and did not utilize topping strategies: (1) 14 pigs/pen (1.17 m(2)/pig), (2) 17 pigs/pen (0.97 m(2)/pig), (3) 20 pigs/pen (0.82 m(2)/pig), and (4) 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m(2)/pig). The fifth treatment began with 25 pigs/pen (0.66 m(2)/pig) and had four marketing events with the heaviest 3 pigs/pen removed on day 93, and additional pigs removed to a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 122 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147 with final marketing on day 160. The final treatment began the experiment with 23 pigs/pen (0.71 m(2)/pig) with three marketing events to achieve a common inventory of 20 pigs/pen on day 108 and 17 pigs/pen on day 147. Pens of pigs were weighed and feed disappearance measured on days 0, 55, 93, 108, 122, 135, 147, and 160. As space allowance decreased from 1.17 to 0.71 m(2)/pig via increased initial pen inventory (treatments 1 to 4), overall average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) decreased (linear, P < 0.001), while gain:feed ratio (G:F) did not differ (P > 0.05). The treatments with multiple marketing events were compared with each other and with the treatment that began with 0.71 m(2)/pig and only marketed once at the end of the study. Overall ADG and ADFI were not different (P > 0.05) among these three treatments. Marketing pigs three or four times improved (P < 0.05) G:F compared with the treatment that began the study with 0.71 m(2)/pig and marketed only once. Reducing floor space allowance for heavy weight pigs decreased intake, which resulted in lower growth rate and final BW, with these reductions occurring before the critical k-value was reached. Total weight gain per pen was maximized with the lowest space allowance and the multiple marketing treatments. Thus, strategic use of pig removals prior to final marketing may allow producers to maximize both number of pigs and total weight marketed through a barn when feeding to heavy weights. Oxford University Press 2020-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7277694/ /pubmed/32705060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa065 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Housing and Management Lerner, Annie B Rice, Emily A Tokach, Mike D DeRouchey, Joel M Dritz, Steve S Goodband, Robert D Woodworth, Jason C O’Quinn, Travis G Gonzalez, John M Allerson, Matt W Dilger, Anna C Boler, Dustin D Price, Hannah E Lowell, Jessica E Richardson, Elaine Barkley, Kayla E Honegger, Lauren T Harsh, Bailey N Shackelford, Steven D Wheeler, Tommy L King, David A Fields, Brandon Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title | Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title_full | Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title_fullStr | Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title_full_unstemmed | Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title_short | Effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
title_sort | effects of space allowance and marketing strategy on growth performance of pigs raised to 165 kg |
topic | Housing and Management |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7277694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32705060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa065 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lernerannieb effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT riceemilya effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT tokachmiked effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT deroucheyjoelm effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT dritzsteves effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT goodbandrobertd effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT woodworthjasonc effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT oquinntravisg effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT gonzalezjohnm effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT allersonmattw effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT dilgerannac effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT bolerdustind effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT pricehannahe effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT lowelljessicae effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT richardsonelaine effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT barkleykaylae effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT honeggerlaurent effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT harshbaileyn effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT shackelfordstevend effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT wheelertommyl effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT kingdavida effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg AT fieldsbrandon effectsofspaceallowanceandmarketingstrategyongrowthperformanceofpigsraisedto165kg |