The influence of drinker device on water use and fertiliser value of slurry from growing-finishing pigs

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of drinker type on water use and slurry characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. A total of 124 crossbred pigs [20 kg of bodyweight (BW)] were allotted to 16 pens (3–4 pigs/pen) in two time periods during the cool season (length: 97 days each). Drinker devices were: (1) pig teat, (2) bite drinker, (3) nipple square bowl, and (4) nipple bowl. There were limited differences among drinker types concerning the growth pattern of pigs during the fattening period, but target BW (100 kg) was similar in all treatments (P > 0.05). Feed intake did not differ among drinker types (P > 0.05). Nipple bowl drinker showed the lowest water disappearance during the experiment, whereas bite drinker showed the greatest values during the late fattening period (P < 0.05). Slurry production did not differ among drinker devices (P > 0.05), but slurry volume increased linearly during the study (P < 0.05). Pigs raised using nipple square and nipple bowl drinkers produced slurry with greater DM content than teat drinkers (P < 0.05). Most of the slurry fertiliser value elements (N-P-K) were significantly affected by drinker type (P < 0.05). Slurry from pigs using teat and bite drinkers had lower N-NH4, total N and K content than that from nipple square and nipple bowl drinkers (P < 0.05). Total N content of slurry on a wet basis decreased during the fattening period (P < 0.05). Improved efficiency in water use by pigs led to greater slurry N and K content, mainly due to the increase in its DM content. A negative association between water use at pig facilities and its slurry fertiliser value was demonstrated.

Effect of slurry dilution, structural carbohydrates, and exogenous archaea supply on in vitro anaerobe fermentation and methanogens population of swine slurry

“…Slurry as substrate for microbial growth has two main constraints: the low availability of OM together with high concentration of N mostly as ammonium form. NH 3 -N concentrations in the blanks are within the normal values reported in slurries from commercial farms [3,25]. Ammonium nitrogen comes from urea hydrolysis (carried out in ubiquitous microbial urease [40] and it may explain the variations in NH 3 -N concentration regarding to the original slurry (blanks)).…”

“…Livestock emit CH 4 due to anaerobic organic matter (OM) fermentation processes occurring mostly in the rumen, and also in post‐gastric compartments such as colon (horses, pigs) or cecum (rabbit). Moreover, as the anaerobe fermentation goes on, CH 4 synthesis may persist during manure storage (>30 days; ), especially relevant in the pit's slurry located under swine pens . CH 4 emission in pigs is lower than in ruminants , and a significant fraction (around 50% of the enteric synthesis; ) comes from slurry storage.…”

Trade-offs among growth performance, nutrient digestion and carcass traits when feeding low protein and/or high neutral-detergent fiber diets to growing-finishing pigs

“…Phase feeding programs are commonly used in rearing growing-finishing pigs as a means of meeting the animals' nutrient requirements accurately and preventing nutrient waste (Alvarez-Rodriguez et al, 2013). In Spain, the most common feeding protocol for growing-finishing pigs is a three-phase program that reduces dietary crude protein (CP) from 17.1% at 19 kg of body weight (BW) to 15.6% at 108 kg of BW (Agostini et al, 2014).…”

Relationships among slurry characteristics and gaseous emissions at different types of commercial Spanish pig farms

“…Therefore, understanding the factors of variation of slurry composition under commercial conditions is essential to predict and control these emissions. However, it has also been reported that pig slurry composition in commercial farms is very heterogeneous and depends on multiple and interacting factors including the animal itself (breed and physiological status), feed composition and consumption, the housing system, manure management practices or environmental conditions (Sánchez & González, 2005;Conn et al, 2007;Moral et al, 2008;Martínez-Suller et al, 2010;Álvarez-Rodríguez et al, 2013).…”