Reduction in feed intake at weaning has been reported to result in a post-weaning ‘growth check’ (Pluske et al., 1997). This reduction in intake and growth rate is likely to be caused by a number of factors including the stress of being transported and mixed (Ekkel et al., 1995; Bilkei et al., 1997; Mardarowicz, 1985) and abrupt changes in both the diet and environment, for example, feed being offered from unfamiliar feeders (Pluske and Williams, 1996). A similar growth check is likely to occur when pigs are transferred to finishing accommodation. Despite the evidence to indicate that ‘wean to finish’ accommodation would be advantageous in terms of production performance (Ekkel et al., 1995; Bilkei et al., 1997; Mardarowicz, 1985), there are few units where pigs could be housed in the same accommodation from weaning to finish. Consequently producers aim to minimize the extent of change of diet and environment, thereby reducing the stress of transportation and re-housing and ultimately the ‘growth check’. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and behaviour of pigs offered feed in the same type of feeder from weaning to finish with those offered feed from two different types of feeder. A total of 640 pigs in 32 pens of 20 pigs per pen were used to investigate the effects of two feeder types and changing or not changing the feeder type at 10 weeks of age on growth performance and behaviour in the periods from 4 to 10, 10 to finish (22) and from 4 to finish (22) weeks of age, respectively. The two feeder types tested were a ‘wet and dry’ single-space (S) feeder and a ‘dry’ multi-space feeder (M). In the period 4–10 weeks of age feeder type had no significant effect on growth performance though pigs on the ‘dry’ multi-space feeder tended to exhibit significantly better feed efficiency from 4 to 7 weeks of age. In the first week after changing accommodation the growth rate of pigs on all treatments was depressed (compared to the last 3 weeks of the grower period) and was reduced a further 60 g/day when the feeder type was changed. However, the “feeder” effect was transitory and had no effect on overall finisher performance except for pigs changed from a ‘dry’ multi-space feeder to ‘wet and dry’ single-spaced feeder. These animals had significantly faster growth rate over the finisher phase.

For more information the full article can be found at http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/anifee/issues