English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Approximately 1,200 pigs (DNA 241×600, Columbus, NE) at approximately 20 kg were randomly allocated into sixty pens (20 pigs/pen) within 3 treatments to evaluate different feeder styles (conventional dry feeder (Dry), PigEasy (PE) wet/dry (PigEasy, Templeton, IA), or Crystal Springs(CS) wet/dry (Crystal Springs, Brandt, SD). Diets for the study were standard, commercial, mash diets that met the growth requirements for the pigs (NRC, 2012). Pigs were allowed 1 week of acclimation to the respective feeder style before the initiation of the study. Pigs were weighed at the beginning of the trial and at each phase change (approximately every 3 to 4 weeks) until market. Feed disappearance was recorded for each phase for the calculation of average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed conversion (G:F). Carcass information was collected by treatment to assess carcass metrics. Data were analyzed by pen, with the fixed effect of feeder type, and using repeated measures (SAS, Cary, NC) for the evaluation of ADG, ADFI, GF. The use of either wet/dry feeder compared with a dry feeder resulted in improved ADFI and body weight and a reduced G:F over time (P &amp;lt; 0.02). At the time of market, pigs on wet/dry feeders were approximately 9 kg heavier compared with a standard dry feeder (121.05, 130.64 and 129.28 kg, respectively; P &amp;lt; 0.01). From d0 until time of first market, both wet/dry feeders had significant differences in ADG, ADFI, and GF compared with the dry feeder (Table 1). The use of a wet/dry feeder resulted in significantly higher backfat (1.54, 1.78 and 1.77 cm, respectively; P &amp;lt; 0.01) compared with the dry feeder. The use of a wet/dry feeder compared with a dry feeder resulted in improved average daily feed intake and daily gain, but reduced G:F and carcass merit compared with the dry feeder. There were no significant differences in performance between the 2 different wet/dry feeders.

106 Evaluation of a Novel Wet/Dry Feeder in Finishing Pigs