Can lactation feeder design impact sow and litter performance? It is widely known that optimizing feed intake during lactation is crucial for enhancing milk production to support litter growth and reducing body reserve mobilization, leading to improvements in sow longevity and future reproductive performance.
A recent study at Kansas State University led by Rafe Royall took a look at a key factor influencing feed intake – type and design of the lactation feeder – to see if this could help increase intake.
How the Study Worked
The study examined three feeder designs: a dry feeder paired with a nipple drinker, a wet-dry feeder with a divider to separate feed and water, and a wet-dry feeder without a divider.
The experiment was conducted at a commercial sow farm located in northwest Texas. There were 72 stalls per room and a total of four farrowing rooms used for each group. The trial was conducted in two sequential farrowing groups for a total of 576 sows enrolled on the test.
Farrowing crates equipped with the dry feeder were also equipped with one nipple waterer placed at shoulder height approximately 40 cm from the feeder, while farrowing crates equipped with either wet–dry feeder did not have an additional water source for the sow. All crates were equipped with a nipple waterer at the base of the farrowing crate for piglets.
On approximately days 112 to 114 of gestation, sows were moved from the gestation facility into the farrowing house and randomly allotted to one of three lactation feeder types based on parity and caliper score, with sow serving as the experimental unit.
Sows were fed the same sorghum-soybean meal-based commercial lactation feed.
• Prefarrowing, sows were provided approximately 0.905 kg in the morning and afternoon, for a total of 1.81 kg per day, of the lactation diet.
• After farrowing, sows were provided ad libitum access to the lactation diet.
• The hopper of each feeder was filled twice a day, and each feed addition was weighed and electronically recorded.
• Feed addition to each feeder was registered to the stall with the date and weight recorded for calculating feed disappearance.
• Feeder adjustments were made daily to achieve approximately 50% feed coverage on the base of the feeder bowl.
• Feeder bowls were checked twice daily for wet or moldy feed, and this was removed when necessary.
• The spoiled feed was not weighed and, therefore, was counted as a portion of the total feed disappearance.
What Did the Study Uncover?
Researchers found that there was no evidence of a difference in sow weight or caliper score on day 112 of gestation, at farrowing, or weaning, or their changes during lactation. Total litter or pig birth weight, total pigs born, or pigs born alive as a percentage of total born, viable born, nonviable born, stillborn, or mummified pigs were not different amongst sows fed via the three lactation feeder designs. Litter or pig weaning weight or litter average daily gain were also not affected by lactation feeder design.
However, sows fed via the dry lactation feeder had decreased total feed disappearance and average daily feed disappearance compared to those fed with either wet–dry feeder. As a result, litter feed efficiency was improved in sows fed with the dry feeder compared to those fed with the wet–dry feeders. Sows fed with the dry feeder also had decreased total lactation feed cost and feed cost per pig weaned compared to sows fed with either wet–dry feeder.
“Due to labor limitations in this study, we were not able to separate actual feed intake from feed wastage, thus, data are presented as feed disappearance,” researchers noted in the study published in Translational Animal Sciences. “In our study, the increased feed disappearance for sows using wet–dry feeders was not used by the sow because we observed no differences in litter growth rate or change in sow weight or caliper score.”
Is Change Economically Justified?
The researchers point out that actual feed intake was similar between sows using all lactation feeder designs, but the greater disappearance was due to feed wastage for sows fed with wet–dry feeders used in this study.
“The proposed increase in feed waste when sows were fed using the wet–dry feeders led to a significant worsening of litter feed efficiency. The differences in feed wastage may have been due to excess water in the feeder bowl resulting in spilled feed, or due to greater quantities of spoiled feed removed from the wet–dry feeders by employees on a day-to-day basis,” researchers noted.
From an economic perspective, the increased feed disappearance resulted in a 9% increase in total lactation feed cost for the wet–dry feeders compared to the dry feeder. Because there were no improvements in litter growth or preweaning mortality, feed cost per pig weaned was increased for sows using the wet–dry feeders.
“The increased feed disappearance observed when sows were fed with either wet–dry feeder design used in this study appears to be due to increased feed wastage. As a result, sows using the dry feeder had improved litter feed efficiency and economic savings,” researchers wrote. However, there are different dry and wet-dry lactation feeder designs used in the industry, thus all may not give the same comparison results.
Consider Cleaning Difficulty
Another factor that should be considered when implementing a new feeder type into a commercial sow farm is the potential change in cleaning difficulty, the researchers said, as this can affect the time required to clean feeders.
They observed a high amount of variability in cleaning times, largely due to variation from person to person, which reduced their ability to find differences in mean cleaning time between the different lactation feeders.
“We had a much lower degree of variability in our study and thus observed that the wet–dry feeders used in this experiment required significantly less time to clean compared to the dry feeder,” the researchers wrote. “This difference may be due to the differences in the shape of the feed pan between feeder types. As the dry feeder had a curved design to the bottom of the feed pan, a greater amount of time was required to successfully remove residual feed material as opposed to the flat design of the wet–dry feed pans.”
Your Next Read: Converting to Prop 12: What Have We Learned a Year Later?
