日粮料型和料槽对保育猪和育肥猪生长性能的影响

　　2015. J. Anim. Sci. 93(8):4172-4180

　　日粮料型和料槽对保育猪和育肥猪生长性能的影响

　　J. E. Nemechek, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, E. D. Fruge, E. L. Hansen, R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, and J. C. Woodworth

　　本论文进行三个试验研究料槽下料口宽度和料型对保育猪（试验一、二）和育肥猪（试验三）生长性能的影响。试验为2×3双因素设计，下料口空隙宽度（窄料口和宽料口最窄时宽度为1.27和2.54厘米），3种料型为粉料、含粉颗粒料（试验一、二含粉率为30%，试验三含粉率为50%）、过筛颗粒料（含粉率3-10%）。试验一选用210头保育猪（平均初始重11.9kg），每个处理5圈，每圈7头，试验期21天。试验未观察到料槽和料型之间的互作关系。料槽口宽度对日增重、采食量和料比没有显著影响。饲喂粉料的猪比其它两种料型采食量和日增重更高（P＜0.05）。饲喂过筛颗粒料的猪只饲料转化率比其它两种料型料肉比更低（P＜0.05）。

　　试验二选用1005头保育猪（初始均重14.1kg），每个处理6圈，每圈26-28头仔猪，试验期28天。结果表明与宽料口组相比，窄料口组猪只采食量和日增重更低（P＜0.05），饲料转化率差异不显著。粉料组猪只日增重较其他两组更低（P＜0.05）。与过筛颗粒料相比，饲喂粉料和含粉颗粒料的猪只料肉比更高。

　　试验三选用了246头育肥猪（初始重56.8kg），每个处理5圈，每圈6-7头，试验期69天。窄料口组猪只采食量更低，但料肉比更好（P＜0.05），对日增重没有影响。与过筛颗粒料相比，粉料组猪只日增重有降低的趋势（P＜0.10），料肉比更高（P＜0.05）。含粉颗粒料猪只日增重和料肉比处于中间水平。饲喂粉料和含粉颗粒料猪只采食量比过筛颗粒料更高（P＜0.05）。总的来说，保育猪料槽下料口更宽可能增加采食量和日增重并不影响料比。对育肥猪来说，窄料槽能减少耗料量，改善料比。在所有试验中，低含粉率的颗粒料能最大化改善饲料转化率。

　　Effects of diet form and feeder adjustment on growth performance of nursery and finishing pigs

　　J. E. Nemechek, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, E. D. Fruge, E. L. Hansen, R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, and J. C. Woodworth

　　ABSTRACT: Three experiments were conducted to determine the effects of feeder adjustment and diet form on growth performance of nursery (Exp. 1 and 2) and finishing (Exp. 3) pigs. Treatments were arranged as a 2 × 3 factorial with the main effects of feeder adjustment and diet form. The 2 feeder adjustments were a narrow and wide feeder adjustment (minimum gap opening of 1.27 and 2.54 cm, respectively). The 3 diet forms were meal, poor-quality pellets (70% pellets and 30% fines for Exp. 1 and 2 and 50% pellets and 50% fines for Exp. 3), and screened pellets with mini -mal fines (3 to 10%). In Exp. 1, 210 pigs (initially 11.9 kg BW) were used in a 21-d trial with 7 pigs per pen and 5 pens per treatment. No feeder adjustment × diet form interactions were observed. There were no differ -ences in ADG, ADFI, or G:F due to feeder adjustment. Pigs fed the meal diet had increased ( P < 0.05) ADG and ADFI compared with pigs fed the poor-quality or screened pellets. Pigs fed meal or poor-quality pellets had decreased (P < 0.05) G:F compared with pigs fed screened pellets. In Exp. 2, 1,005 nursery pigs (initially 14.1 kg BW) were used in a 28-d trial with 26 to 28 pigs per pen and 6 pens per treatment. Pigs fed from the narrow feeder adjustment had decreased ( P <0.05) ADG and ADFI compared with pigs fed from the

　　wide adjustment with no differences in G:F. Pigs fed the meal diet had decreased (P < 0.05) ADG compared with pigs fed poor-quality or screened pellets. Pigs fed meal or poor-quality pellets had decreased (P < 0.05) G:F compared with pigs fed screened pellets. In Exp. 3, 246 pigs (initially 56.8 kg BW) were used in a 69-d trial with 5 pens per treatment and 6 or 7 pigs per pen. Overall, ADFI decreased (P < 0.05) and G:F increased (P < 0.05) for pigs fed from the narrow adjusted feeders compared with the wide adjustment with no differences in ADG. Overall, pigs fed meal diets tended to have decreased ( P < 0.10) ADG and had decreased (P < 0.05) G:F compared with pigs fed screened pellets; ADG and G:F in those fed poor-quality pellets were intermediate. Feeding meal or poor-quality pellets increased (P < 0.05) ADFI compared with pigs fed screened pellets. In conclusion, feeding nursery pigs from a wide feeder gap may increase ADG and ADFI with no negative effects on G:F. For finishing pigs, reducing feeder gap reduced feed disappearance and improved G:F. In all experiments, the greatest G:F improvements from pelleting were observed when the percentage of fines was minimized。