Abstract:Abstract During lactation, maximizing sow feed intake is critical to sustaining sow body weight (BW) and milk production for litter growth. Farrowing stall design can affect sow feed intake because a good feeder should minimize feed wastage and spoilage and improve sow feed intake by enhancing the accessibility of feed and matching the feed intake pattern of the sow. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of feeder design on sow BW, litter performance, and feeder cleaning criteria during the summer. A total of 600 sows (Line 3, PIC, Hendersonville, TN) were conducted in 2 sequential groups with 300 sows per group. Five 60-stall farrowing rooms (15 stalls per row and 4 rows per room) with tunnel ventilation were used for each group. At approximately d 110 to 112 of gestation, sows were blocked by body condition score (BCS), parity, and offspring sire (Line 2 or Line 3 sires), then randomly allotted to 1 of 3 feeder designs: PVC tube feeder; Rotecna ball feeder (Rotecna, Agramunt, Spain); or SowMax rod feeder (Hog Slat, Newton Grove, NC) with 200 sows per feeder design. The 3 feeder designs were placed in one of 3 sequential stalls with the sequence (Rotecna, SowMax, then PVC tube) continued in each row in all rooms to balance for any environmental effects. After farrowing, sows had ad libitum access to lactation feed. For litter performance data, only piglets from sows bred to Line 2 boars were recorded (441 litters). Line 3 piglets were not included in litter performance data, but sows of these piglets were included in sow BW and feed disappearance data. After weaning, the time for cleaning each feeder design was recorded on a subsample of 67 feeders. There was no evidence of difference (P > 0.05) in sow entry BW, exit BW, BW change, or litter performance among the different feeder designs (Table). However, sows using the SowMax feeders had decreased (P < 0.05) total feed disappearance, average daily feed disappearance, and feed cost per kg of litter weight gain than those fed with the PVC tube feeders, with sows using the Rotecna feeders intermediate. There was a marginal difference (P < 0.10) between feeder designs in cleaning time, with PVC tube feeders requiring less time than the Rotecna feeders; however, cleaning time varied greatly between the personnel doing the cleaning. In conclusion, using a SowMax feeder reduced feed disappearance with no effects on sow and litter performance compared with a PVC tube feeder.

217 Effect of Sow Feeder Design on Sow Body Weight, Litter Performance, and Feeder Cleaning Criteria