Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 1:2:7.
doi: 10.1186/s40813-016-0023-4. eCollection 2016.

Factors affecting the daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio of pigs in grow-finishing units: the case of a company

C R Pierozan  1 , P S Agostini  2 , J Gasa  2 , A K Novais  1 , C P Dias  1 , R S K Santos  1 , M Pereira Jr  1 , J G Nagi  1 , J B Alves  1 , C A Silva  1
Affiliations

Factors affecting the daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio of pigs in grow-finishing units: the case of a company

C R Pierozan et al. Porcine Health Manag. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to use mathematical modeling to identify and quantify the main factors that affect daily feed intake (DFI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) in grow-finishing (GF) pig units. We evaluated the production records of 93 GF farms between 2010 and 2013, linked to a company, working in a cooperative system, located in western Paraná State, Brazil. A total of 683 batches, consisting of approximately 495,000 animals, were used. Forty production factors related to the management, health, plant and equipment, nutrition, genetics and environment were considered. The number of pigs per pen, type of feeder, origin and sex (the last two variables were combined in the models) of the animals and initial and final body weights were included in the final models to predict DFI and FCR (dependent variables). Additionally, the duration of the GF phase was included for the parameter FCR. All factors included in the final models had significant effects for both dependent variables.

Results: There was a reduction in DFI (0.04 kg) (P < 0.001) and an improvement in FCR (6.0 points) (P < 0.001) in batches from pens with less than 20 animals compared with batches from pens with more than 20 animals. In barns with "other" feeder types (mostly the linear dump type) different of conical semiautomatic feeder, a reduction of DFI (0.03 kg) (P < 0.05) and improved FCR (3.0 points) (P < 0.05) were observed. Batches of barrows from units specialized for producing piglets (SPU) had higher DFI (approximately 0.02 kg) (P < 0.01) than batches of females and batches of mixed animals from SPU, and batches of mixed animals from farms not specialized for piglet production (farrow-to-finish farms). Batches of females from SPU and mixed batches from SPU had better FCR (5.0 and 3.0 points respectively) (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) than batches of piglets originating from farrow-to-finish farms. The variables selected for the final models explained approximately 50 and 64 % of the total variance in DFI and FCR, respectively.

Conclusions: The models are tools for the interpretation of the factors related to the evaluated parameters, aiding in the identification of critical aspects of production. The main parameters affecting DFI and FCR in this company during the GF period were the number of pigs per pen, the type of feeder used and the combination origin-sex of the animals.

Keywords: Feed conversion ratio; Feed intake; Grow-finishing pigs; Production factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Residual distribution of the effects of the factors studied on daily feed intake in 683 batches from 93 grow-finishing pig farms
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Residual distribution of the effects of the factors studied on feed conversion ratio in 683 batches from 93 grow-finishing pig farms
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. van Heugten E. Growing-finishing swine nutrient recommendations and feeding management. In: Meisinger DJ, editor. National Swine Nutrition Guide. Ames: North Carolina State University Press; 2010. pp. 80–96.
    1. Losinger WC. Feed-conversion ratio of finisher pigs in the USA. Prev Vet Med. 1998;36:287–305. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5877(98)00094-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cline TR, Richert BT. Feeding Growing finishing pigs. In: Lewis AJ, Southern LL, editors. Swine Nutrition. 2. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001. pp. 717–24.
    1. Quiles A, Hervia ML. Factores que influyen en el consumo de piensos en los cerdos. Prod Anim. 2008;248:6–19.
    1. Gispert M, Font I, Furnols GM, Velarde A, Diestre A, Carrión D, et al. Relationships between carcass quality parameters and genetic types. Meat Sci. 2007;77:397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.006. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources