Effects of temperature on the performance of finishing swine. I. Effects of a hot, diurnal temperature on average daily gain, feed intake, and feed efficiency

Ninety-six crossbred barrows and gilts weighing 90 +/-.67 kg were used during a 21-d study to determine the effects of a hot, diurnal temperature (H; 22.5 to 35 degrees C) compared with a constant, thermoneutral temperature (TN; 20 degrees C) and the effects of sex (barrows vs gilts) on performance....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of animal science Vol. 69; no. 5; p. 1843
Main Authors Lopez, J. (University of Missouri, Columbia), Jesse, G.W, Becker, B.A, Ellersieck, M.R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.05.1991
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Ninety-six crossbred barrows and gilts weighing 90 +/-.67 kg were used during a 21-d study to determine the effects of a hot, diurnal temperature (H; 22.5 to 35 degrees C) compared with a constant, thermoneutral temperature (TN; 20 degrees C) and the effects of sex (barrows vs gilts) on performance. A secondary objective included the determination of weight loss as a result of a 24-h fast immediately after the 21-d feeding study of commingled vs not commingled hogs of both environmental treatments (TN and H). Pigs housed in the hot, diurnal temperature gained 16.3% more slowly (P .001;.77 vs.92 kg/d) than those in the constant, thermoneutral environment. Feed intake (FI) for the H pigs was 10.9% less (P .001; 3.01 vs 3.38 kg/d) than that for the TN pigs. The H pigs gained 17.6 g/d less and consumed 43.5 g/d less feed for every C degrees above 20 degrees C; however, no differences were observed for feed efficiency (F/G; 3.86 vs 4.19 kg for the TN and H pigs, respectively). Average daily gain and feed/gain (F/G) were not affected by sex. Likewise, no significant interactions of temperature X sex were observed for ADG, FI, or F/G. Weight loss (shrinkage) during the 24-h fast was not affected by commingling; however, the H pigs lost 17.5% more weight (P .05) than the TN pigs (3.82 vs 3.25%, respectively)
Bibliography:9139112
L50
ISSN:0021-8812
1525-3163
DOI:10.2527/1991.6951843x