The experiment reported herein was conducted to determine if the length of time pigs were in an enclosed confinement building affected growth rate

Libal, George W.

Wahlstrom, Richard C.

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeSouth Dakota Swine Field Day Proceedings andResearch Reports, 1978 Animal Science Reports1978Effect of Type of Confinement Housing onPerformance of Growing-Finishing SwineRichard C. WahlstromSouth Dakota State UniversityGeorge W. LibalFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_swine_1978This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Reports at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Dakota Swine Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports, 1978 byan authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For moreinformation, please contact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationWahlstrom, Richard C. and Libal, George W., "Effect of Type of Confinement Housing on Performance of Growing-Finishing Swine"(1978). South Dakota Swine Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports, 1978. Paper 8.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_swine_1978/8SWI N E  DAY EFFECT OF TYPE OF CONFINEMENT HOUSING ON PERFORMANCE OF GROWING -FINIS HING SWINE Richard C. Wahlstrom and George W. Libal Department of Animal Science Swine Section South Dakota State University A .S. Series 78-15 Confinement hous ing has been increasing in popularity with swine producers during the past several years . The main types of conf inement housing in use include totally enclo sed or modif ied open-front buildings that generally have part ially or completely slatted floors and open-front buildings with outs ide concrete lots . Previous research conducted by the author s has shown that p igs housed in an enclosed conf inement building did not gain as well as pigs that had access to an out side concrete feeding floor . The dif ference in perf ormance was found to occur mainly during the f inishing period . The experiment reported herein was conducted to determine if the length of t ime p igs were in an enclosed confinement building affected their growth rate . Experimental Procedure Six replicate group s  of 24 crossbred pigs averaging about 51 lb . were used in this experiment . The pig s  were allotted from groups of uni form weight within sex to provide six treatment group s of four p igs ( two barrows and two gilts) within replicate.  These groups were then randomly assigned to the following housing treatment s :  Treatment 1 - Enclo sed building Treatment 2 - Enclosed building to 160 lb . ' then open-front Treatment 3 - Enclosed building to 120 lb . ' then open-front Treatment 4 - Open-front building Treatment 5 - Open-front building to 160 lb . ' then enclosed Treatment 6 - Open-front building to 120 lb . ' then enclo sed The open-front buildings were uninsulated wooden houses (8 x 12 feet ) that were divided in the center to make two inside pens 8 x 6 feet . Each pen had an outs ide concrete area (6 x 12 feet ) where f eeders and waterers were located . The enclosed conf inement building was an insulated , vent ilated building with t otally slatted floor s . Pens were 3 . 7  x 7 . 75 feet excluding the area where self-feeders were located .  A 16% protein corn-soybean meal diet was fed from the star t  of the experiment until pigs within pens averaged about 120 lb . and a 13% protein diet was fed from 120 lb . unt il the experiment was terminated when p ig s  within lots averaged about 2 20 pounds . The experiment was conducted f rom early May to late September . The composit ion of the diets is shown in table 1 .  34 - 2 -Results The average daily gain, feed consumpt ion and feed /gain data for the six hous ing treatments are shown in table 2. Average daily gain was 11% faster during the first period ( 51 to 120 lb . ) when p ig s  were housed in the open-front house with out s ide feeding area compared to p igs in the totally enclosed building. Moving p igs from the enclosed to the open-front building at 120 lb . resulted in an improvement in gain compared to those remaining in the enclosed house during this period . However , moving p igs from the open-front facility to the enclosed building resulted in slightly decreased gains compared to tho se p igs remaining in outside lots . Gains were also improved when p igs were moved to outside lots at 160 p ounds . For the entire trial , gains were 1 . 5 0 ,  1 . 52 and 1.6 2 lb . for pigs housed in the enc losed building to 220 , 160 or 120 lb . ,  respectively , and 1.65 ,  1 . 66 and 1 . 61 lb . for pigs in the open-front building to the above respective weights . These data indicate a benefit for moving pigs from the enclosed to the open-front building at 120 lb . and a slight decrease in gains if moved from the open-front to the enclosed building at this weight .  Feed consumpt ion was greater for p igs housed in the open-front building . Feed/gain did not appear to be affected by type of  hous ing . The experiment was conducted during late spring and summer and temperature did not affect feed ef f ic iency as would be expected during the winter season. Table 3 summarizes the growth performance by periods and housing type . In each of the three periods , 51 to 120 lb . ,  120 to 160 lb . and 160 to 220 lb . ,  pigs housed in the open-front building s consumed more feed daily and gained more rapidly than those p igs in the enclosed buildings ,  irre spect ive of the hous ing imposed during the previous periods . Feed/gain was similar in the f irst and third periods but favored the pigs in the open-front building during the 120 to 160 lb . period . The ef fect of moving p igs at 120 or 160 lb . is shown in table 4 .  There appear s to be some improvement in rate of gain during the period from 160 to 220 lb . if p igs were moved at 120 or 160 lb . live weight . The difference observed was due to the fact that p igs moved f rom enclosed to open-front buildings had a greater increase in rate of gain than the decreased gains that occurred when pigs were moved from open-front to enclo sed building s .  However , overall benef it for the ent ire experiment was very small.  Summary One hundred for ty-four p igs averaging 51 lb . were used in a late spr ing and summer trial comparing totally enclosed and open-front housing . Pigs housed in the open-front type building with outs ide feeding floor s consumed more daily feed and gained faster than did p igs housed in an enclo sed building . Moving p igs from the enclo sed building to the open-front building at weights of 120 and 160 lb . re sulted in improved gains . Pig s  housed in open-front buildings to 120 or 160 lb . and then moved to enclosed buildings were less affected by the move . 35 - 3 -Table 1 .  Composit ion of Diets (Percent ) 1 6 %  protein 13%  protein to 120 lb . 1 20-220 lb . Corn 76 . 5  85 . 1  Soybean meal , 44% 20 . 7  1 2 . 2  Dicalcium phosphate 1 .  3 1 .  3 Ground limestone . 8  . 7  Trace mineralized salt . 5  . 5  Premixa . 2  . 2  a Supplied per lb . of  diet : vitamin A,  1500 IU; vitamin D ,  150 IU; vitamin E ,  2 . 5  IU; vitamin K, 1 mg; riboflavin , 1 . 25 mg; pantothenic acid , 5 mg; niacin , 8 mg; choline , 25 mg; vitamin Biz , 5 mcg and aureomycin , 25 milligrams . 3 6  Table 2 .  To 220 lb . 51-120 lb . 1 . 5 3  51-160 lb . 1 .  52 51-220 lb . 1. 50  120-160 lb . 1 . 50 120- 220 lb . 1. 48 160- 220 lb . 1 . 46 5 1-120 lb . 4. 06 5 1-160 lb . 4 . 47 51-220 lb . 4 . 68 120-160 lb . 5 . 20 120- 220 lb . 5 .  11 160-220 lb . 5 . 05 51-120 lb . 2 . 66 51-160 lb . 2 . 95 51-220 lb . 3 . 14 120-160 lb . 3 . 47 120- 220 lb . 3 . 49 160-220 lb . 3 . 51 - 4 -Effect of  Housing on Performance o f  Growing-Finishing Pigsa Enclosed To To 160 lb . b 120 lb . b Avg Daily Gain , 1 . 50 1 .  48 1 . 48 1 . 5 3  1. 52 1 . 6 2  1 . 44 1 . 6 3  1 . 5 7  1 .  7 4  1 . 6 6  1 . 82 Feed Consum.Etion , 4. 03  4. 01 4. 39  4 . 33 5 . 07 5 .  11 5 . 02 4. 88 5 .  7 7  6 . 00 6 . 2 7 6 . 74 Feed/Gain 2 .  71 2 .  71 3 . 00 2 . 82 3 . 33 3 . 15 3 . 5 2 3 . 02 3 .  71 3 . 43 3 . 84 3 . 70 Lb . Lb . To 220 lb . 1 .  70 1 . 68 1 . 65 1 . 65 1 .  61 1 . 59 4. 50 4 . 78 5 . 21 5 . 2 7 5 . 68 5 . 96 2 . 6 6 2 . 85 3 . 17 3 . 19 3 . 5 3 3 . 76 Open-front To 160 lb . b 1 . 64 1 . 66 1 . 6 6  1 .  70 1 . 69 1 . 69 4 . 39 5 . 04 5 . 78 6 . 17 6 . 82 7 . 26 2 . 68 3 . 03 3 . 49 3 . 64 4 . 0 7  4. 35 To 120 lb . b 1 . 6 7  1 .  65 1 . 61 1 .  61 1 . 5 8  1 . 56 4 . 47 4 . 88 5 . 12 5 . 60 5 . 5 3  5 . 49 2 . 68 2 . 99 3 . 20 3 . 54 3 . 54 3 . 54 a Six lots of four pig s  each per treatmen t .  Avg initial wt . , 51 pounds . b Weight when moved to other type of hous e .  37  - 5 -Tab le 3 .  Effect of  Housing on Pig Performance by Periods Irrespective of Housing During Other Periodsa Enclosed Open-front Initial to 120  lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 . 5 0 1 .  6 7  Avg daily feed , lb. 4 . 03 4 . 45 Feed/gain 2 . 6 9 2 . 67 120 to 1 60 lb . Avg daily gain, lb . 1 . 52 1 . 66 Avg daily feed , lb . 5 . 2 7 5 . 44 Feed/gain 3 . 5 1  3 . 28 1 60 to 220 lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 . 5 7 1 .  69  Avg daily feed , lb . 5 . 93  6 . 32 Feed/gain 3 . 80 3 .  7 7  a Each value represents the average of  18 lots of four pigs each . 38 - 6 -Table 4 .  Effect o f  Movement o f  Pigs a t  120  or 1 6 0  Pounds on Growth Performancea Weight when moved to other housing Control 160  lb . 120 lb . Initial to 120 lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 .  62 1 . 5 7  1 . 5 8 Avg daily feed , lb . 4 . 28 4 . 2 1  4 . 24 Feed/ gain 2 . 66 2 . 70 2 . 70 120 to 160 lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 . 58 1 .  5 7  1 .  6 2  Avg daily feed , lb . 5 . 34 5 . 60 5 . 24 Feed/gain 3 . 33 3 . 5 6  3 . 28 160 to 220 lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 . 5 3  1 . 68 1 . 69 Avg daily fee d ,  lb . 5 . 5 1  6 .  7 7  6 . 1 2  Feed/ gain 3 . 64 4 . 1 0  3 . 62 Initial to 220 lb . Avg daily gain , lb . 1 . 58 1 . 5 9  1 . 6 2 Avg daily feed , lb . 4 . 95 5 . 43 5 . 12 Feed/gain 3 . 16 3 . 4 1 3 . 1 8  a Each value is the average of 12  lots of four p igs , six lots housed in an enclo sed building and s ix lots in an open-front building . 39 

Effect of Type of Confinement Housing on Performance of Growing-Finishing Swine

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=sd_swine_1978

Effect of Type of Confinement Housing on Performance of Growing-Finishing Swine

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange