Strategies to manage barn feed supply to prolong and hold late finishing pigs during a supply chain disruption

• Published in: Translational animal science Vol. 7; no. 1; p. txac166
• Main Authors: Miller, Kayla A, Johnson, Erika M, Matchan, Stacie A, Goehring, Devin, Ross, Jason W, Gabler, Nicholas K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 01.01.2023
• Subjects: Non Ruminant Nutrition; finishing pig; growth performance; restrict feeding; aggression; maintenance energy; behavior
• ISSN: 2573-2102; 2573-2102
• DOI: 10.1093/tas/txac166

Abstract The U.S. pork production system is sensitive to supply chain disruptions, including those that can create challenges of feed delivery and feed management during the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate feeding strategies during a prolonged feed availability shortage in group-housed finishing pigs and assess the impacts on pig performance. A total of 1,407 mixed-sex pigs (92 ± 11 kg BW) were randomly allocated to one of five treatments across 60 pens (N = 12 pens per treatment, 22 pigs per pen) and were blocked by initial body weight (BW) within the replicate, over a 21-d test period. Treatments were fed for 14 d (P1), and thereafter all pens returned to ad libitum access to a standard commercial diet for 7 d (P2). Treatments included: 1) Pens fed ad libitum (CON); 2) Pens fed at 1.45X ME maintenance requirement daily of CON diet (1.45X); 3) Pens fed 2X ME maintenance requirement daily of CON diet (2X); 4) Tightened feeders to the lowest setting, fed ad libitum of CON diet (CF); and 5) whole corn kernels, fed ad libitum (WC). P1 and P2 BW and feed disappearance were recorded to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F. Data were analyzed with pen as the experimental unit and least-squares means values reported by treatment. Compared to CON, pens fed 1.45X, 2X, CF, and WC treatments had significantly reduced P1 ADG (1.09 vs. 0.02, 0.34, 0.72, 0.41 kg/d, respectively), ADFI (3.21 vs. 1.42, 1.90, 2.49, 2.40 kg/d, respectively) and G:F (P < 0.05). During P2, ADG and G:F were increased (P < 0.05) compared to CON across all treatments. However, ADFI increased only in the 2X, CF, and WC diet from the CON (P < 0.05). Overall (days 0 to 21), all strategies attenuated BW, ADG, and ADFI (P < 0.01) compared to CON. However, G:F was only reduced (P < 0.01) in 1.45X and WC, but not 2X and CF (P > 0.05) compared to CON. In conclusion, all strategies explored could extend feed budgets. Even though these strategies were successful, increased BW variability was reported with more restrictive strategies. Further, adverse pig behaviors and welfare implications needs to be considered in adopting any restrictive feeding strategy. In the event of a feed supply chain disruption, such as that from a foreign animal disease, the study presented provides pre-emptive data to swine producers when feed supply becomes scarce and the need for limiting intake or offering alternative sources of feed is warranted to extend feed on-hand. These data outline the implications of five feeding strategies on growth performance, carcass composition, and behavioral aggression on group-housed finishing pigs. Lay Summary As the swine industry is highly integrated, it is vulnerable to several supply chain disruptions. In the event of a feed supply chain disruption, the objective of this study was to investigate strategies to extend on-hand feeds to group-housed finishing pigs. Strategies investigated over the first 14-d period (P1) included: 1) ad libitum access to feed (CON), 2) feeding pigs to 1.45X their metabolizable energy for maintenance (MEm) requirement daily (1X), 3) feeding pigs 2X MEm daily (2X), 4) tightening feeders to tightest setting (CF), and 5) feeding unprocessed whole corn kernels (WC). Pig performance, carcass composition, and indicators of behavioral aggression were evaluated. In conclusion, all strategies explored could extend feed budgets. Even though these strategies were successful, increased BW variability was reported with more restrictive strategies. Further, adverse pig behaviors and welfare implications need to be considered in adopting any restrictive feeding strategy.