Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:57:24.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of liquid feeding at different water-to-feed ratios on the growth performance of growing-finishing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

D. Hurst ,
L. Clarke  and
I. J. Lean
D. Hurst
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London (Wye Campus) Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK
L. Clarke
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London (Wye Campus) Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK
I. J. Lean*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London (Wye Campus) Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK
*
E-mail: i.lean@imperial.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The study examined the growth performance of pigs offered liquid feed or dry feed on either a restricted or an ad libitum basis, and whether their growth performance was further influenced by the water-to-feed ratio. The study was split into two parts to enable unrestricted (trial 1; n = 64) and restricted (trial 2; n = 48) feeding to be compared. Male pigs were randomly allocated to six dietary treatment groups. A standard dry pellets diet (D) was offered either as: (i) unrestricted ration (UR); (ii) restricted ration (R); or D soaked in water at a feed-to-water ratio of (iii) 1 : 1.5 restricted (1 : 1.5 R); (iv) 1 : 3 unrestricted (1 : 3 UR); (v) 1 : 3 restricted (1 : 3 R); or (vi) 1 : 3 restricted with the addition of lactic acid to adjust the feed to pH 4 (1 : 3(4) R). Liquid feeding improved (P < 0.05) average daily live-weight gain (ADG) and lean tissue growth rate (LTGR) in the 1 : 3 UR compared with DUR but did not alter feed conversion ratio (FCR). Within the R groups, ADG were greater in all of the 1 : 3 diets, whereas feed intake, and hence FCR, was lower (P < 0.001) in these groups when offered the R ration. In conclusion, liquid feeding has a beneficial influence on the performance of modern porcine genotypes during the growth/finishing phase and this is further modulated by the water-to-feed ratio.

Keywords

growth performanceliquid feedingpigs
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 9 , September 2008 , pp. 1297 - 1302
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Barber, RS, Braude, R, Mitchell, KG 1963. Further studies on the water requirements of the growing pig. Animal production 5, 277–282.Google Scholar
Barber, J, Brooks, PH, Carpenter, JL 1991a. The effects of water to food ratio on the digestibility, digestible energy and nitrogen retention of a grower ration. Animal Production 52, 601.Google Scholar
Barber, J, Brooks, PH, Carpenter, JL 1991b. The effect of four levels of food on the water intake and water to food ratio of growing pigs. Animal Production 52, 602.Google Scholar
Braude, R 1967. The effect of changes in feeding patterns on the performance of pigs. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 26, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braude, R 1971. Feeding Methods. In Pig production (ed. DJA Cole and Butterworths), pp. 279–291. University of Nottingham, London. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Easter School in Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Braude, R, Rowell, JG 1967. Comparison of dry and liquid feeding of growing pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 68, 325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, PH 1999a. The Potential of liquid feeding systems. In Concepts in Pig Science (ed. TP Lyons and DJA Cole), Chapter 7. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, PH 1999b. Can Fermented Liquid Feed (FLF) replace antibiotic growth promoters? Feed Compounder 19, 16–19.Google Scholar
Bryant, MJ, Ewbank, R 1972. Some effects of stocking rate and group size upon agonistic behaviour of growing pigs. The British Veterinary Journal 128, 64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canibe, N, Jensen, BB 2003. Fermented and non-fermented liquid feed to growing pigs: effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance. Journal Animal Science 81, 2019–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, EJ, Castle, ME 1957. Further studies of the rate of passage of food through the alimentary tract of pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 49, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, BJ, Han, IK, Kim, JH, Yang, CJ, Ohh, SJ, Rhee, YC 1997. Effects of feed processing and feeding methods on growth and carcass traits for growing-finishing pigs. Asian Australian Journal of Animal Science 10, 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA 2003. Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock. Available online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/pigs/pigcode.pdfGoogle Scholar
Deprez, P, Deroose, P, van den Hende, C, Muyelle, E, Oyaert, W 1987. Liquid versus dry feeding in weaned pigs. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 34, 254–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dung NNX, Manh LH, Ogle B 2005. Effects of fermented liquid feeds on the performance, digestibility, nitrogen retention and plasma urea nitrogen (PUN) of growing–finishing pigs. http://mekarn.org/proctu/xdun.htmGoogle Scholar
Forbes, TJ, Walker, N 1968. The utilization of wet feed by bacon pigs with special reference to pipeline feeding. Journal of Animal Science 71, 145–151.Google Scholar
Geary, TM, Brooks, PH, Beal, JD, Campbell, A 1999. Effect on weaner pig performance and diet microbiology of feeding a liquid diet acidified to pH 4 with either lactic acid or through fermentation with Pediococcus acidilactici. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 633–640.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, BP, Brooks, PH, Carpenter, JL 1987. Voluntary water use by growing pigs offered liquid foods of differing water-to-meal ratios. In Pig housing and the environment (ed. AT Smith and TLJ Lawrence), pp. 1–2. British society of Animal production, Edinburgh, UK. Occasional Publication No. 11.Google Scholar
Holme, DW, Robinson, KL 1965. A study of water allowances for the bacon pig. Animal Production 7, 377–384.Google Scholar
Hsia, LC, Lu, GH 1985. The effect of physical form of feed on eating speed of pigs. Journal of the Chinese Society of Animal Science 14, 43–46.Google Scholar
Jensen, BB, Mikkelsen, LL 1998. Feeding liquid diets to pigs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition, 1998 (ed. PC Garnsworthy and J Wiseman), Chapter 7, pp. 107–123. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Klay, RF, Smith, GC, Weller, MG 1969. Effect of restricted feed intake on performance, carcass measurements, flavor and tenderness of Hampshire and Palouse swine. Journal of Animal Science 29, 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornegay, ET, Vander Noot, GW 1968. Performance, digestibility and N-retention of swine fed diets with added water. Journal of Animal Science 27, 1307–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB, Gardiner, GE, Caffrey, PJ, O’Doherty, JV 2002. Effect of liquid feeding weaned pigs on growth performance to harvest. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1725–1735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longland, AC 1991. Digestive enzyme activities in pigs and poultry. In In vitro digestion for pigs and poultry (ed. MF Fuller), p. 3. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
MAFF 1986. The analysis of agricultural Materials. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
MAFF 1993. Prediction of the energy values of compound feeding stuffs for farm animals.Google Scholar
Meade, RJ, Hanke, HE, Tumbleson, ME, Wass, D, Hanson, LE 1964. Effects of feed restriction and protein intake on performance of market hogs. Journal of Animal Science 23, 1201.Google Scholar
Miyawaki, K, Hoshina, K, Itoh, S 1997. Effects of feed and water mixture for finishing pigs on eating speed and feed intake. Japanese Journal of Swine Science 34, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy J 2002. Liquid diets improve performance of weaned pigs. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/swine/facts/impperf.htmGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DC 1989a. A comparison of various feeding systems for finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DC 1989b. A comparison of offering meal from a self-feed hopper having built-in watering with some conventional systems of offering meal and pellets to finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluske, JR, Hampson, DJ, Williams, IH 1997. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livestock Production Science 51, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner DV and Miller S 1990. Cholecystokinin effects on wet and dry meals in pigs. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 49, 222A.Google Scholar
Rerat, A, Fevrier, C 1965. Influence du taux d’hydraion du regime sur la croissance et la composition corporella du porc. Annuals of Zootechnology 14, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP, Edwards, SA 2007. The welfare of finishing pigs under different housing and feeding systems: liquid versus dry feeding in fully-slatted and straw-based housing. Animal Welfare 16, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P 1976. A comparison of dry, wet and soaked meal for fattening bacon pigs. Experimental Husbandry 30, 87–94.Google Scholar
Stotfold 2005. The British Pig Industry’s Centre of Excellence. 2005 Finishing pigs: Systems of research production trial 1. http://www.stotfoldpigs.co.uk/research/fpsr_pt1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vargas, Vargas, Craig, JV, Hines, RH 1987. Effects of feeding systems on social and feeding behavior and performance of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 65, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittemore, C 1998. Simulation Modelling. In The science and practice of pig production, pp. 569–572, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Yalda, AY, Forbes, JM 1996. Effects of food intake, soaking time, enzyme and cornflour addition on the digestibility of the diet and performance of broilers given wet food. British Poultry Science 37, 797–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed