Encouraging creep feeding behaviour can improve nursery performance

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

But studies show that shopping around for the right creep feeder is essential in order to manage creep feeding effectively and maximize the number of eaters in the litter

by JANICE MURPHY

It is not unusual in the swine industry for things to happen in cycles, constantly making what's old new again. Weaning age is one of these areas.

Twenty years ago, most piglets were weaned at 21 to 28 days of age. In the 1990s, in the face of disease challenges, segregated early weaning became the norm as the industry brought weaning age down to 14 to 17 days of age to limit piglet exposure to pathogens. Now, in the face of declining post-weaning performance due to underdeveloped immune systems, the trend is shifting back to 21 to 28 day weaning again.

As weaning age rises, there is more emphasis on creep feeding  to assist these older pigs and larger litters. Providing creep feed prior to weaning creates "eaters" (piglets that positively consume creep feed), starts the transition of the gut from sow's milk to dry feed, allows a gradual exposure to soybean meal and increases the secretion of essential enzymes needed to digest plant proteins. This ultimately reduces post-weaning lag as the key elements are already in place prior to weaning.

By using inert markers added to the creep feed, like chromic oxide, researchers can identify individual pigs within a litter that actually consume creep feed by detecting the marker in the feces.

Recently, a number of creep feeding studies evaluating individual piglets have consistently shown that eaters have significantly higher post-weaning feed intake and better growth performance than non-eaters of creep feed or non-creep-fed pigs. These studies suggest that, if creep feeding behaviour can be encouraged and more eaters can be created within a litter, nursery performance can be improved.

An important part of this puzzle is determining the dietary and non-dietary factors that can stimulate individual piglets to consume creep feed prior to weaning. Identifying these factors may help the industry understand and manage the variability in consumption typically observed with creep feeding.

Researchers at Kansas State University recently set out to determine the effects of creep feeder design and feed accessibility on pre-weaning performance and the proportion of creep feed eaters. In the experiment, 54 sows and their litters were assigned to three treatments: rotary feeder with hopper, rotary feeder without hopper and pan feeder.

A creep diet with one per cent chromic oxide was offered ad libitum from day 18 until weaning at day 21. Fecal samples were used to categorize pigs as eaters or non-eaters, and pig performance and feed disappearance were monitored.

The sows in the experiment had an average parity of 2.1 and lactation length of 21.1 days (see Table 1). There were no significant differences in weight parameters among the treatments. Daily feed intake of sows during lactation also did not differ significantly among treatments.

There were no significant differences in pre-weaning gains and weaning weights of pigs and litters using the different types of creep feeder (Table 2). Litters provided creep feed using the rotary feeder with the hopper had 2.7 times lower total creep feed disappearance than litters using the rotary feeder without the hopper and the pan feeder.

The type of creep feeder significantly influenced the proportion of eaters among piglets provided with creep feed. In litters using the rotary feeder with the hopper, 69 per cent of piglets were categorized as eaters at weaning. Meanwhile, litters using the rotary feeder without the hopper and pan feeder had 22 per cent and 27 per cent fewer eaters, respectively, than litters using the rotary feeder with the hopper.

The lack of differences in pig and litter growth rates among treatments suggests that a large proportion of creep feed offered to litters using the rotary feeder without the hopper and the pan feeder was indeed wasted.

The researchers point out that the design of these two feeders is more open, and creep feed is more accessible to piglets than it is in the feeder with the hopper. This open design allowed piglets to root around or lie in the feeder and push feed out, which eventually reduced the availability and accessibility of creep feed to other piglets.

Having a hopper on the rotary feeder resulted in significantly lower total creep feed disappearance, but did not translate into different growth performance. Experience with this feeder design in previous creep feeding trials has shown that it is capable of measuring very small amounts of feed intake for whole litters and effectively controlling feed wastage.

Based on this, the researchers suggest that total creep feed disappearance measured with the rotary feeder with the hopper in this study is close to the true intake of creep feed by the litter. Certain characteristics of this feeder design may help explain the lower creep feed disappearance – a conical shape, curved rim and wings at the bottom of the hopper prevented piglets from rooting in or standing over the troughs, or pushing creep feed out of them.

The higher rate of eaters created in litters using the rotary feeder with the hopper may be a function of both feeder design and piglet creep feed consumption. Addition of the hopper to the rotary feeder resulted in a significantly higher percentage of eaters, which may be partially related to the continuous supply of feed, with less feed wastage.

In a recent study evaluating chromic oxide as a marker for identifying creep-feed-eating piglets, researchers determined that piglets identified as eaters consumed creep feed containing chromic oxide in appreciable amounts or on multiple days. Therefore, the rotary feeder with the hopper enabled more piglets in the litter to consume significant amounts of creep feed.

The lower rate of eaters generated from litters using the other two feeders supports the notion that more creep feed was wasted than consumed, since greater accessibility and increased feeding spaces only resulted in higher feed disappearance but did not translate into more eaters.

Contrary to the researchers' original assumption, where increased feeding space and accessibility should encourage more piglets to imitate others at the feeder and stimulate initial intake of creep feed, the smaller number of eaters in this study suggests that less creep feed was available in these feeders for piglets to consume in appreciable amounts. Evidently, the rate of feed wastage might have been greater than the rate of consumption.

Since creep diets are extremely expensive, minimizing feed wastage is an important consideration for management of creep feeding.

In the end, this research concluded that shopping around for the right creep feeder is essential in order to manage creep feeding effectively and maximize the number of eaters in the litter. A creep feeder with a hopper may create more eaters with less opportunity for piglets to waste an expensive feed. BP

Janice Murphy is a former OMAFRA swine nutritionist who now lives and works in Prince Edward Island.

Source: Sulabo R.C., Tokach M.D., DeRouchey J.M. et al. Effects of creep feeder design and feed accessibility on preweaning pig performance and the proportion of pigs consuming creep feed. J Swine Health Prod. 2010. 18(4):174–181.