Effects of proportion of pigs removed from a group and subsequent floor space on growth performance of finishing pigs.

The effects of the proportion of pigs removed from an established group and subsequent floor space on growth performance during the final 19 d of the finishing period were evaluated using 28 pens of mixed-sex crossbred pigs (mean initial BW = 113.4 +/- 0.57 kg; n = 1,456; approximately 52 pigs per pen). A randomized block design was used with four pig-removal treatments: 1) 0% of pigs removed [Control], 2) approximately 25% of pigs removed, 3) approximately 50% of pigs removed, and 4) approximately 50% of pigs removed and floor and feeder spaces/pig decreased to equal those of Control. A block consisted of four pens with the same number of pigs and sex ratio per pen and with similar initial BW. Pens within blocks were randomly allocated to treatment, and the heaviest animals were removed from Treatments 2, 3, and 4 at the start of the study. Group size and floor space/pig for Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 52 and 0.65 m(2), 39 and 0.87 m(2), 26 and 1.30 m(2), and 26 and 0.65 m(2), respectively. Each pen contained a six-place feeder that provided 212 cm of total trough space; however, only three-places were accessible to pigs on Treatment 4. Compared with Controls, removing 25 or 50% of pigs resulted in increased (P < 0.001) ADG by 20.6 and 21.0%, ADFI by 10.8 and 7.9%, and G:F by 7.7 and 14.3%, respectively. Average daily gain by pigs on Treatment 4 (50% removal rate and decreased floor and feeder spaces) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of the Controls, but lower (P < 0.05) than that of Treatment 3 pigs (50% removal rate, no adjustment in floor or feeder spaces). No differences were observed among treatments for either morbidity or mortality. These results indicate that removing 25 or 50% of the heaviest pigs from groups of finishing pigs increased growth rate of the remaining pigs, and that the improved performance was only partly due to increased floor and feeder spaces.

Effect of restricted postweaning growth resulting from reduced floor and feeder-trough space on pig growth performance to slaughter weight in a wean-to-finish production system.

The effect of reduced pig growth rate postweaning as a result of restricted floor space and feeder trough space on subsequent growth to slaughter was investigated in a wean-to-finish system. Crossbred pigs (n = 1,728) were used in a randomized block design with a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) floor space (high [0.630 m2/pig] vs. low floor space [0.315 m2/pig]), 2) feeder trough space (unrestricted [4 cm/pig] vs. restricted feeder trough space [2 cm/pig]), and 3) period of imposing floor- and feeder-trough-space treatments (12 vs. 14 wk postweaning). Growth performance was measured from weaning (5.5 +/- 0.01 kg of BW; 17 d of age) to slaughter (the end of wk 25 postweaning). From the end of the treatment period to the end of wk 25, pigs on all treatments had the same floor and feeder trough space. Pigs with low floor space had lower (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and gain:feed ratio than those with high floor space, and were therefore lighter (P < 0.05) at the end of the postweaning treatment period. Pigs given the restricted feeder trough space had lower (P < 0.05) ADFI, similar (P > 0.05) ADG, and higher (P < 0.01) gain:feed ratio than those with unrestricted feeder trough space during the treatment period. Pigs in the 14-wk treatment period had higher (P < 0.01) ADG and ADFI, but lower gain:feed than those in the 12-wk treatment during that period. In the subsequent period, from the end of treatment to wk 25, there was an interaction (P < 0.05) between floor space and treatment period; the difference in ADG and gain:feed for pigs on low vs. high floor space was greater for the 14-wk than the 12-wk treatment period. However, low-floor-space pigs tended (P = 0.06) to be lighter than high-floor-space pigs at the end of wk 25 postweaning. Neither feeder trough space nor treatment period affected pig growth performance during the period from the end of treatment to wk 25. Carcass backfat and longissimus depths at the end of wk 25 were not influenced (P > 0.05) by treatment. In summary, pigs with restricted growth due to low floor space until either 12 or 14 wk postweaning had increased growth and feed efficiency in the subsequent period to wk 25 postweaning, with only a slight effect on BW and no effect on carcass measures.

Impact of early postweaning growth rate as affected by diet complexity and space allocation on subsequent growth performance of pigs in a wean-to-finish production system.

The objective was to evaluate the effect of restricted early postweaning growth rate due to diet complexity, pen space, or both on subsequent growth to market in a wean-to-finish system. Pigs (n = 1,728) were used in a randomized block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) diet complexity (Complex vs Simple) and 2) space allocation (Unrestricted vs Restricted). Treatments were imposed for the first 8 wk after weaning (period 1) and growth was measured from weaning (5.0 +/- 0.01 kg body weight; 15 d of age) to the end of wk 23 postweaning. The Simple diet was based on corn-soybean meal with minimal inclusion of milk products, processed cereals, and animal protein-based ingredients compared to the Complex diet. Floor and feeder-trough spaces were 0.63 m2 and 4 cm and 0.21 m2 and 2 cm per pig for Unrestricted and Restricted space treatments, respectively. From the end of wk 8 to end of wk 23 (period 2), pigs on all treatments had the same floor and feeder spaces and were fed common diets. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between diet and space treatments. In period 1, Simple diets resulted in similar average daily feed intake (ADFI; 639 vs 650 +/- 5.4 g; P > 0.05), but lower average daily gain (ADG; 408 vs 424 +/- 3.8 g; P < 0.01) and gain:feed ratio (0.64 vs 0.65 +/- 0.002; P < 0.001), and lighter body weight (2.8%; P < 0.01) compared to the Complex diets. In period 2, growth was not affected (P > 0.05) by previous diet complexity, and pig body weight was similar (114.4 vs 114.4 +/- 0.37 kg, P > 0.05) at the end of wk 23. In period 1, pigs with Restricted space had lower ADG (398 vs 434 +/- 3.8 g; P < 0.001), ADFI (621 vs 668 +/- 5.4 g; P < 0.001), and gain:feed ratio (0.64 vs 0.65 +/- 0.002; P < 0.01), and were lighter at the end of wk 8 (6.5%; P < 0.001) than those with Unrestricted space. However, in period 2, pigs with Restricted space had higher (P < 0.01) ADG (3%), ADFI (2%), and gain:feed ratio (3%) than those with Unrestricted space, and body weight was similar (114.5 vs 114.3 +/- 0.37 kg; P > 0.05) at end of wk 23. Carcass backfat and loin-eye depth at market body weight were influenced by neither diet nor space treatment. Using a simple diet program and restricted space allowance immediately postweaning resulted in a lower early growth rate, but had no impact on pig body weight or carcass measures at market.

Effects of feeder-trough space and variation in body weight within a pen of pigs on performance in a wean-to-finish production system.

Two studies were carried out with the same group of pigs within a wean-to-finish system. In Study 1 (weaning to wk 8 postweaning), the effect of feeder-trough space in pens that were double-stocked on pig growth was evaluated. In Study 2 (end of wk 8 to 112 +/- 1.5 kg BW), the effect of variation in pig BW within a pen on growth was investigated. In Study 1, a randomized block design was used to compare two feeder-trough space treatments (Double [4 cm/pig] vs Control [2 cm/pig]). Pigs (n = 1,728) were randomly allocated at weaning (5.4 +/- 0.01 kg BW; 16 d of age) to mixed-sex pens (8 pens/treatment) of 108 pigs/pen on the basis of BW. Floor-space (0.30 m2/pig) and drinker allocation (13 pigs/drinker) were the same for both treatments. Two six-place (35 cm/place) feeders were positioned together in the center of each pen and were accessible from both sides. For the Double treatment, both feeders contained feed, whereas for the Control only one feeder contained feed. In Study 2, a randomized block design was used to compare three BW/variation in BW treatments: 1) Heavy BW/Low variation, 2) Light BW/Low variation, and 3) Mixed BW/Normal variation. The double-stocked pens of pigs from within previous feeder-trough space treatment were split into two groups of 54 pigs (equal sex ratio) having either high or low BW variation within pen. Pigs had free access to feed and water throughout the studies. In Study 1, doubling feeder-trough space did not affect (P > 0.05) pig growth from weaning to the end of wk 6. From wk 6 to 8, pigs on the Double treatment compared to the Control treatment had higher (P < 0.05) ADG and were heavier (P < 0.05), but had similar (P > 0.05) ADFI and gain:feed ratio. In Study 2, pen-BW treatment did not impact (P > 0.05) ADG or gain:feed ratio; however, Heavy/Low had greater (P < 0.01) ADFI than Light/Low with Mixed/Normal being intermediate for ADFI. At 112 kg BW, CV of BW within a pen was similar (P > 0.05) across treatments; however, days to market BW was greater (P < 0.001) for Light/Low than Heavy/ Low with Mixed/Normal being intermediate. In summary, increasing feeder-trough space from 2 to 4 cm per pig increased daily gain after wk 6 postweaning in double-stocked pens of pigs; however, sorting pigs on the basis of BW when splitting pens did not impact growth rate or variation in BW within a pen at market BW.

Effects of double stocking and weighing frequency on pig performance in wean-to-finish production systems.

Two studies were carried out in different wean-to-finish barns to determine the effects of double stocking on pig growth performance. In Study 1, pigs (n = 1,560) were used in a randomized complete block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: initial stocking treatment (Single [52 pigs/pen] vs Double [104 pigs/pen] stocked for 10 wk after weaning) and weighing frequency (High [12 times during the study] vs Low [3 times]) on pig performance from weaning (5.9+/-0.01 kg BW; 17 d of age) to harvest (114+/-0.67 kg BW). Floor and feeder space per pig were 0.650 m2 and 4 cm and 0.325 m2 and 2 cm for the single- and double-stocked treatments, respectively. In Study 2, pigs (n = 1,458) were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate two initial stocking treatments (Single [27 pigs] vs Double [54 pigs] stocked for 10 wk after weaning) on pig performance from weaning (4.8+/-0.01 kg BW; 15 d of age) to harvest (24 wk after weaning). Floor and feeder space per pig were 0.640 m2 and 3.4 cm and 0.320 m2 and 1.7 cm for single- and double-stocked pens, respectively. In both studies, double-stocked pigs were split at the end of wk 10 into two equal-sized groups of similar mean BW and CV of BW, and one group was moved to a different pen in the same building. In Study 1, performance was not affected (P > 0.10) by frequency of weighing. For the first 10 wk after weaning, the Double compared to the Single treatment had lower ADG (7.7 and 7.9%, for Studies 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.001) and lighter pigs at wk 10 (6.8 and 7.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). During the first 10 wk in Study 1, Double compared to the Single pigs had lower ADFI (7%; P < 0.001) but similar gain:feed (P > 0.10). From wk 11 to harvest, pigs on Double and Single treatments had similar (P > 0.10) ADG in both studies and, in Study 1, ADFI was unaffected by initial stocking treatment, but double-stocked pigs had greater gain:feed (4%, P < 0.01). Double-stocked pigs required an additional 2 d to reach a fixed harvest BW (P < 0.05) in Study 1 and were lighter (4%; P < 0.05) at 24 wk after weaning in Study 2. Carcass measures were similar (P > 0.10) for double- and single-stocked pigs. Double-stocked pigs that were moved at the end of 10 wk had growth performance similar (P > 0.10) to those that remained in the original pen. In summary, double stocking reduced growth rate to 10 wk after weaning but subsequently had no effect on growth rate and improved feed efficiency.

Effect of group size on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system.

Crossbred pigs (n = 1,400) were used to evaluate the effect of group size (25 vs 50 vs 100 pigs/pen) in a wean-to-finish production system on growth performance and carcass measures. Pigs were weaned at 17 d (range = 15 to 19) of age with a mean initial BW of 5.9 +/- 0.02 kg and taken to a final mean pen weight of 116 +/- 0.9 kg. A 10-phase dietary regimen was used, and pigs had free access to feed and water. Feeder-trough space (4.3 cm/pig) and floor-area allowance (0.68 m2/pig) were the same for all group sizes. Compared to groups of 25, pigs in groups of 50 and 100 animals were lighter (P < 0.001) at the end of wk 8 after weaning and had lower (3%, P < 0.01) ADG and gain:feed (G/F) but similar (P > 0.05) ADFI during the first 8 wk of the study. At the end of the study, pig weight and the coefficient of variation in pig weight within a pen were similar (P > 0.05) across group sizes. During the period from 8 wk after weaning to the end of the study, pigs in groups of 100 compared to 50 animals had greater (3%, P < 0.01) ADG, and pigs in groups of 25 were intermediate for ADG. Average daily feed intake during this period was similar (P > 0.05) for all group sizes; however, G/F was greater (3%, P < 0.01) for groups of 100 compared to 25 or 50 animals. For the overall study period, ADG, ADFI, and G/F from weaning to slaughter weight were similar across group sizes (P > 0.05; 655, 648, and 658 g; 1,759, 1,755, and 1,759 g; and 0.37, 0.37, and 0.37; for ADG, ADFI, and G/F, respectively, for groups of 25, 50, and 100 pigs, respectively). Mortality was similar (P > 0.05) across group sizes; however, morbidity (pigs removed due to poor health or injury) was higher in groups of 25 pigs compared to the other two group sizes (7.0, 3.5, and 3.9% for groups of 25, 50, and 100, respectively; P < 0.05). Group-size treatment did not affect (P > 0.05) carcass dressing percentage, backfat thickness, or loin-eye depth. In summary, growth performance from weaning to market weight was not affected by group size.

Feeder location did not affect performance of weanling pigs in large groups.

Crossbred pigs weaned at 17 d of age (n = 1,760; mean initial BW = 5.6 +/- 0.7 kg) were used in two 4-wk trials (four replicates per trial) to evaluate the effects of three pen designs on pig performance. The designs were 1) large group size (100 pigs/pen) with five two-sided feeders in a single, central location in the pen; 2) large group size (100 pigs/pen) with five two-sided feeders in multiple (five) locations in the pen; and 3) small group size (20 pigs/pen) with a single two-sided feeder in a central location in the pen. Each feeder provided two 20.3-cm-wide feeding places on each side. Pigs had free access to feed and water. Feeder-trough space (4 cm/pig) and floor-area allowance (0.17 m2/pig) were the same for all treatments. Pigs in the large-group treatments were lighter (15.6 and 15.6 vs 16.0 kg; P < 0.01) at the end of wk 4 and had lower ADG (358 and 357 vs 373 g; P < 0.01) and ADFI (510 and 521 vs 544 g; P < 0.01) during wk 2 through 4 than pigs in small groups. Gain:feed ratio was similar (P > 0.05) for all treatment groups throughout the study. For large groups, feed disappearance from each of the five feeders was similar (P > 0.05) for both multiple- and single-location treatments. In summary, large group size reduced pig growth performance, but the approach to providing multiple feeding locations that was employed in this experiment did not increase feed intake or growth performance of pigs in the large groups.

Group size and floor-space allowance can affect weanling-pig performance.

Crossbred weanling piglets (n = 1,920; mean initial BW, 5.3 +/- .7 kg) were used in two 9-wk trials employing a randomized block design in a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments to determine effects of group size (20 [Small = S] or 100 [Large = L] pigs/pen) and floor-space allowance (calculated requirement [CR] or calculated requirement less 50% of estimated "free space" [CR-50]) on growth performance. Free space was estimated for each group size. From wk 1 through 4 after weaning, S and L groups at CR were allowed a floor space of .17 m2/pig, and at CR-50, S and L groups were allowed .15 m2/pig and .13 m2/pig, respectively. From wk 5 through 9 after weaning, all CR treatment pigs were provided a floor space of .38 m2/pig, and for the CR-50 treatment, S and L pigs were allowed .32 m2/pig and .28 m2/pig, respectively. Piglets had free access to feed and water. Feeder-trough space per pig was the same for both group sizes. Feed-intake data were collected for only wk 1 through 4. Group size by floor-space allowance interactions (P < .05) were found for gain/feed ratio (G/F) for wk 1 and wk 2 through 4, but not for wk 1 through 4. Piglets in L groups were lighter (P < .001) at the end of wk 1, 4, and 9 by 2, 4, and 5%, respectively, and had lower ADG (6%; P < .001) throughout the trial than S piglets. During wk 1 through 4, feed intake was lower (7%, P < .001) in L piglets than in S piglets, but G/F was similar (P > .05). Piglets in CR groups had greater ADG (5%; P < .01) throughout the trial, with a greater G/F (P < .05) for wk 1 through 4, and were heavier (P < .01) than those in CR-50 groups at the end of wk 4 (3%) and 9 (4%). Pigs in L groups had a greater within-pen coefficient of variation in BW at the end of wk 9 than pigs in S groups. Large groups and reduced floor-space allowance reduced piglet growth performance in the nursery.