Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 1;6(3):txac125. doi: 10.1093/tas/txac125

Table 3.

Effect of water flow rate on Study 1 finishing pig performance1.

Water flow rate setting
Low Medium High SEM P-value
Item
Avg water flow rate (mL/min) 508 906 1856
Standard deviation 100 214 188
Initial BW, kg 35.11 34.99 35.04 0.80 0.994
Period 1, d 0–25
BW, kg 54.96 55.37 56.29 1.05 0.614
ADG, kg/d 0.82b 0.85ab 0.87a 0.01 0.040
ADFI, kg/d 1.46b 1.51ab 1.59a 0.04 0.049
G:F 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.02 0.676
Period 2, d 25–53
BW, kg 78.49 78.44 79.98 1.31 0.548
ADG, kg/d 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.01 0.528
ADFI, kg/d 2.21b 2.24ab 2.34a 0.04 0.011
G:F 0.38a 0.38ab 0.37b 0.004 0.037
Period 3, d 53–77
BW d 77, kg 103.18 103.24 105.91 1.35 0.251
ADG, kg/d 1.00 1.01 1.05 0.02 0.120
ADFI, kg/d 2.81 2.79 2.89 0.05 0.206
G:F 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.897
Period 1-3, d 0–77
ADG, kg/d 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.01 0.203
ADFI, kg/d 2.16b 2.18ab 2.27a 0.04 0.024
G:F 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.004 0.278

Pigs were assigned to one of three water settings with 22 pens per treatment and 6 pigs per pen.

Least square means in the same row with different superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).