Alternatives to Gestation Stalls: Experiences at the Prairie Swine Centre

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on January 1, 2005 | No Comments

Sow housing is one of the most controversial topics of animal well-being. As such, animal production must accommodate the five freedoms: 1) Freedom of movement; 2) Freedom from aggression; 3) Control over individual feed intake; 4) Environmental enrichment (manipulative substances such as straw bedding); and 5) Static space. There are four group housing alternatives to stalls that can better meet these requirements:

Floor feeding with proper management provides plenty of freedom of movement and static space. The problem with floor feeding is the availability of food for the dominant sows in the group. This leads to aggression within the group, which can have drastic effects pre-implantation.

Short feeding stalls (or trickle feeders) can be utilized. These are partial stalls where sows can eat while having their head and shoulders protected. The feed is trickled in at such a rate that sows do not overeat and that it is not beneficial for them to move over to their neighbors stall. Animals must be sorted by eating rate.

Sows can also be moved into individual feeder stalls and fed individually. This is great for monitoring how much each sow eats, but is labor intensive.

Electronic sow feeders are the best for monitoring feed intake. Sows are tagged and enter a feeder system where it disperses the correct amount of feed corresponding to that tag.

Aside from these four strategies, there is ongoing research that looks at changes that can be made to conventional gestation stalls that may provide better freedom of movement. Problems with the electronic sow feeder at the Prairie Swine Center include lameness and gilt training.

Net Returns Per Hog More Important than Pushing Improved Production

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

What would an extra $5 to $10 per market hog mean to Alberta pork producers? It’s a huge amount of money that farmers can potentially capture by fine-tuning their feeding and operational management, says Dr. Patience. Although you cannot guarantee those exact extra earnings will be realized for every market animal shipped from every farm, it is the kind of money that gets left on the table far too often.

.“As an industry, there has been too much emphasis on improving productivity as a way to increase profitability. The goal should be to maximize net income and to do that, producers need to pay attention to both revenues and expenses.” Increased productivity is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Patience says there likely isn’t one change that will generate an extra $5 per hog sold, but rather a series of adjustments that are worth $0.50, $1 or even $3 to $5 per hog that collectively add up to significant dollars.
Most critically, these changes are all possible on most farms. These are not expensive or technically difficult actions. Indeed, some farms are already acting on one or more of these items. He points to research that shows, for example, how a new approach to a feed analysis can help reduce feed costs ranging from $2 to $4 per head. “Even if you’re marketing 5,000 hogs a year, which isn’t necessarily a large operation by today’s standards, that’s anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 in increased net income,”says Patience. “And that’s a huge amount of money that producers could have in their pockets.”

Different thinking
“Maximizing productivity won’t automatically maximize net income”. Producers need to look at their returns over feed costs, rather than just growth rate or feed conversion. They can use growth rate and feed conversion as tools to improve income, but the ultimate objective has to be to maximize return over feed costs.e 2, Issue2, Ap 2005

Forget bushel weight
Bushel weight is an unreliable indicator of feed grain quality, says Patience. The long-standing belief that the heavier the grain, the better the quality, just doesn’t pan out in the final feed analysis. The feed quality of the 48 pound and 52 pound barleys, for example in our research, is all over the map,” he says. The amount of DE ranges from about 2,700 kcal/kg up to nearly 3,200 kcal/kg. “This tells us there is no logic in paying a premium for 52 pound barley and there is no logic in accepting a discount for 45 pound barley.”
A five percent error in energy in one of the cereal grains in a diet can easily cost $2 to $3 per pig. Again, over 5,000 market hogs, that can be a return of as much as $15,000, for an assay that costs about $25.”

Profit from poor feed quality
One option is to grind grain finer, which makes it more digestible and the other is to add feed enzymes to improve feed digestibility. However, neither is a perfect solution. Specific enzymes are helpful in specific situations. Enzymes have dropped in price over the years, but they still represent an expense that must be managed properly.“ These options are there, but they should be discussed with your nutritionist to see if it makes sense for your operation,” says Patience.

Finding the energy
Does the highest energy ration make the most sense in the grower/finisher barn? Not necessarily. The high energy ration may not significantly increase average daily gain and might only marginally improve feed conversion, yet it can considerably increase feed costs. Research at the Prairie Swine Centre showed the only difference between a lower energy ration and a high energy ration was nearly $12 per head. Looking at a 5,000 head finisher operation, that’s a $60,000 saving in feed costs. The research compared five rations with DE ranging from 3.09 Mcal/kg to 3.57 Mcal/kg. The lowest energy ration cost was $37.76 per pig, while the highest energy ration cost was $49.52 per head (2004 prices). That’s a difference of $11.76 per head. “This research shows the low energy ration did as much for productivity as the highest energy ration and it was nearly $12 per head cheaper.” says Patience. “These numbers are specific to this research project, but producers should re-evaluate their own feeding costs to see how they stand. The Prairie Swine Centre is currently repeating this experiment on a commercial farm near Saskatoon. “

Consider Net Energy yardstick
Developing a feed ration based on Net Energy (NE) is another technique to fine-tune feeding costs. NE is a relatively new tool for measuring feed value in North America. Many producers are familiar with DE and Metabolizable Energy (ME), but NE is more precise. In Europe, NE is more common. “All three systems evaluate the quantity of energy available to the animal differently,” says Patience. “NE more accurately estimates the amount of energy available to the pig for maintenance and growth. Research shows potential to save a significant amount of money by switching from the digestible energy system to the NE system.” Using long-term or more traditional averages for feed ingredient prices, the Prairie Swine Centre research showed a “conservative” $2 increase in net income for each market hog sold, using the NE system.

Market in “the core”
While the actual amount will vary depending on the packer grid and market prices, one Prairie Swine Centre project showed in a $1.40/kg market, selling hogs that were even two kilograms below the core carcass weight range represented a minimum of $10 per head less compared to hogs marketed within the core. In this project, the core covered a carcass weight range from 85 to100 kg.
The Prairie Swine Centre research showed that on one farm, in a $1.40 kg market, light hogs marketed in 80 to 85 kg carcass range generated a loss of $10.21 per head. As carcass weights moved into the core range, the situation changed dramatically. Compared to pigs in the 85 to 90 kg weight range (minimum core weight), hogs in the 90 to 95 kg carcass range showed a positive return of $3.74 per head, while hogs in the 95 to 100 kg carcass range had a positive return of $6.36 per head. There was still a positive return of $2.17 per head in the 100 to 105 kg carcass range. Carcasses over 105 kg showed a loss. Since new grids are continually being introduced, and since results on individual farms will vary, the Prairie Swine Centre encourages producers to take the results from their own farms and from their packers, and make decisions on optimum marketweights. The interests of the packer must be addressed in this analysis, because they are the market – and producers must produce what they need.

Powerful profits
Even minor adjustments in barn temperature and ventilation rate can add another few, yet important dollars to the profit picture, says Patience. If the barn temperature and ventilation rate are set too high, for example, that can easily add $1 to $2 per hog in energy costs. Again, Prairie Swine Centre research showed an example of where the set-point temperature was two degrees too high, 17°C versus 15°C, and the minimum (winter) ventilation rate was 20 percent higher than needed. The power used to run this situation was compared to proper settings. Research showed a difference of $1.18 per head between the “optimum” settings and the incorrect settings.“Again, on its own it may not seem like a significant amount of money, but if you’re marketing even 2,500 hogs per year, that’s nearly a $3,000 savings,” says Patience.

The Bottom Line
Prairie Swine Centre research presents examples of where savings can be found, says Patience. Even in conservative terms, the work shows how a 2,500 head market hog operation can save $10,000, $20,000 and even as much as $25,000 per year from a series of minor management changes. Producers, however, need to pencil out these options for their own operations to determine the actual savings for their farms.

Barn Efficiency: Your Role in Driving Costs Down

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Managing financial and non-financial variables are essential for increasing revenue and net income. Increasing growth rate is an underestimated tool for increasing revenue. An example analysis demonstrates that increasing gain from 750 to 950 g/day in a 2500 head feeder barn can increase gross margin by about $70,000 a year. It is important to avoid expending too much money to increase productivity, because often it results in insufficient gains from the improvement. Environmental quality is important for pig growth. Drafts cause coughing, sneezing, and increased activity (which will increase energy needs). Keeping pigs warm in winter and cool in the summer is important because for every one degree above the pig’s comfort zone, feed intake will decrease by 1 to 2%. Managing the ventilation system in the winter can significantly reduce utility costs. Keeping ventilation at the minimum in winter will in turn reduce the amount of energy needed to heat the barn. Being hungry, bored, or too hot can cause an increase in water intake. This will cause increased manure hauling costs and increased cost of production. The costs of feed should not be taken lightly. Feeders should be adjusted just right to minimize feed wastage yet maximize feed intake. Strictly following the feed budget will ensure no decrease in performance and will ensure there is no overspending. Weighing pigs before market will ensure the core of the grid is hit more frequently, and increasing the overall growth rate of the barn can reduce tail-enders.

One Less Chore for the Producer

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Pre-sorting pigs by weight at the beginning of the growing and finishing stage offers no major advantage to producers, according to results from trials at PSCI. Ethologist Dr. Harold Gonyou oversaw the trials. He says while the conclusions might come as a surprise in terms of current production practices, they make sense based on what we know about pigs’ social behaviour. For the producer, it means one less chore.

“You don’t have to worry about spending time sorting your pigs,” Gonyou says. “It’s not that critical to the productivity of the animal.” This shift in popular wisdom comes from management changes in the last 20 years. Back then, the practice of sorting by weight had merit, as pigs that were three or four weeks apart in age might be grouped together. In addition, pigs weren’t given all the feed they could eat. Under such a system, smaller animals were at a definite disadvantage. Today, groups of pigs are typically only a few days apart in age, producing a very uniform range of weights. They are also demand-fed, so they get all the feed they want. Under this system, social interaction becomes more important. It’s better to keep together pigs that know each other and have an established hierarchy. This reduces fighting and other problem behaviour. Two trials were conducted to answer the questions of whether pigs should be sorted by weight, and whether continuous flow or all in-all out pig flow management should have a bearing on the decision. Pigs were classified as Heavy, Medium and Light before being put into pens. Barrows and gilts were handled separately, as it has been established that each gender has different protein requirements and growth rates. For the uniform pens, pigs from a single weight class were grouped together. For the variable pens, pigs of two or more weight classes were included. Researchers kept track of how fast the pigs were growing, how much they were eating, how aggressive they were, how much time they spent at various activities, and how long it took to bring them up to finished weight. There were no adverse effects from having variable weight pens. Uniform and variable weight pens emptied at the same rate under the continuous flow system (an average of 105.5 days). There was no significant difference in the way the pigs behaved. Under the all in-all out system, sorting appeared to slow down the rate of turnover in the pens. Rooms of variable weight pens emptied nearly six days faster, on average, than the rooms with uniform weight pens (110.9 days for uniform pens versus 104.1 days for variable pens). Gonyou says the results from the PSCI trials are consistent with previous studies he has conducted, and there is growing confidence that sorting by weight is unnecessary. In fact, when pen-emptying rate is factored in under the all in-all out systems favoured today, it makes more sense to randomly assign pigs to pens, within gender.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE
Sorting pigs requires labour, and results in remixing, a practice known to reduce feed intake and gains in growing pigs. The practice is not adding value to a continuous flow barn and may be detrimental to room turnover in all in-all out barns.

Panel Presentation: Water Management: Tips for Saving Water

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Proper water management is essential for production performance. It is important to do a water audit for determining farm-specific water use, ensure proper placement and height of water nipples, check and adjust flow rates, consider cup/bowl drinkers, use wet/dry feeders in grow-finish, avoid high mineral concentrations, and avoid excessive protein. The adoption of wet/dry feeders, water nipple waste reduction, and drinker height/flow can improve net income by $1.05 per pig.

A Checklist for Water Use

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

John Patience and Ken Engele

Like energy, protein, minerals and vitamins, water is a nutrient that is required in the diet of the pig. Indeed, the pig can survive much longer without these other nutrients than it can without water. This becomes especially true in hot weather.

Pigs obtain water from three sources: water physically contained in the feed, water consumed by drinking, and water produced through chemical reactions as part of normal metabolism in the body. Maintaining water balance is extremely important, as even small changes in water balance can result in serious consequences to the pig. The water requirements of the pig have never really been defined. Research at the Prairie Swine Centre and elsewhere has found that free choice water intake in young growing pigs with free access to feed is about 2.2 to 2.8 times the intake of feed. Thus, a pig eating two kilograms (kg) of feed will normally drink at least 4.5 litres of water per day.

Nursing sows have a somewhat higher intake, approaching four times their feed intake, due to the water needed for milk production. The above estimates do not allow for wastage, which can be quite high (40+%), especially with nipple drinkers. Also, additional water must be added to the above intake levels to compensate for hot weather, excess minerals or protein in the diet, or to help the pig deal with certain health problems such as scours. Pigs do not drink only to satisfy their physiological need for water. Pigs will also drink water to alleviate a feeling of hunger, or out of boredom. The impact of “luxury” intake must not be underestimated, especially in gestating sows since they are limit fed; boredom and hunger can increase water intake many fold over basic requirements. One critical question for pork producers is what are the minimum and maximum flow rates necessary to optimize health and productivity?

While solid research on the subject is limited, reasonable estimates can be provided: weanlings and growers – 750 to 1,000 millilitres per minute (mL/min) and nursing sows – 1,000 to 2,000 mL/min. Water quality is also a common issue on the Prairies. Quality can be evaluated using microbiological, physical and chemical criteria. Within each, individual items relate to safety and/or aesthetics. For pork producers, iron and manganese can be problematic, since they plug screens and cause other delivery problems. For example, iron will cause problems in screens if it is above 0.3 parts per million (ppm); the tolerance for manganese is 0.05 ppm. Filters, chemical treatment or settling tanks can all be used to reduce iron and manganese in the water. However, the most common concerns of pork producers are associated with sulphates, which cause diarrhea and at very high levels, poor performance. A recent study, conducted with the cooperation of Stomp Pork Farms in Leroy, Sask., demonstrated that weanlings can perform quite well with water containing 1,600 ppm sulphates.

Panel Presentation: Water Management: Water Intake and Wastage at Nipple Drinkers by Growing-Finishing Pigs

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Minimizing the waste of water will reduce both water use and slurry volume. Researchers performed an experiment to investigate actual water intake and wastage of pigs at the recommended nipple height/flow rate, how nipple height and flow rate affect water intake and wastage, and the effectiveness of drinker management in reducing water wastage under commercial conditions. Water wastage was decreased when nipple height was adjusted to fit the size of the pig. Water flow rate had a minimal impact on water wastage. With good management, water usage from nipple drinkers can be reduced by 15% compared to unadjusted nipples, and achieve levels obtained using a bowl drinker.

The effects of housing grow-finish pigs in two different group sizes on health status and the presence of injuries.

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Traditionally pigs have been housed in group sizes of approximately 25 pigs per pen. However, the swine industry is beginning to shift towards housing grow-finish pigs in groups as large as 100 to 1000. With increasing group size has come concerns that pigs in these groups will suffer a higher degree of injuries, such as lameness, and reduced health status.
We conducted a series of studies on pigs in groups of 18 and 108 examining a number of factors in relation to the pigs’ health and welfare. Injury scores were carried out on a biweekly basis, at the same time as weighing. The pigs were scored for the presence of flank bites, tail bites, lesions on the legs and lameness. Scores increased as severity increased. Twice daily walk-through health assessments were also conducted, and any illnesses were recorded in detail and treated as necessary.
Overall flank bite and tail bite scores were not affected by group size (Table 1). Group size did, however, have an effect on lameness scores (Table 1, Figure 1a). Overall, pigs housed in the large groups experienced more lameness. This was particularly evident during the second and final scoring periods, when the pigs weighed approximately 50 kg and 95 kg, respectively. One possible explanation may be that pigs in the large groups spent more time inactive than pigs in small groups, which may have increased the occurrence of limb stiffness resulting in lameness. Another possibility is that large group housing allows more space for running. If the pigs’ feet were to get caught in the slats while running, injury to the limb would be more likely. Casual observations of pigs running through a large group indicate that they also run into walls and other pigs more often, likely because they are traveling too fast to stop in time.
Overall leg lesion scores were higher among large group pigs (Table 1, Figure 1b). The difference in lesion scores was most evident during the second scoring period. Large group pigs may have experienced a higher score for these injuries because they spent more time lying down than small group pigs, which would have allowed their legs to rub on the concrete more frequently than the legs of pigs in the small groups.
Although there were significant differences in leg lesion and lameness scores among small and large groups, the severity did not justify antibiotic treatment or a pig’s removal from the trial (Tables 2 and 3). It is possible that the higher overall scores were an artefact of a large number of low lameness or lesion scores that would not justify antibiotic treatment or animal removal, rather than a minimal number of high lameness or lesion scores that would justify treatment or removal. Mortality rates ranged from 0.7 to 0.9 % and did not differ between the group sizes.
Large group housing for grow-finish pigs is not as detrimental to pig vitality as once presumed. When provided with adequate space, large group pigs experience a marginal increase in lameness and leg lesion prevalence. However, the occurrence does not appear severe enough to justify treatment. Overall, large group housed pigs do not seem to suffer reduced welfare as long as regular and thorough health checks are performed.

Effect of Pig Slurry Solids on Aeration Efficiency and Odour Generation

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Two laboratory-scale experiments were carried out in this study to determine the effect of slurry solids content on aeration efficiency and the odour generation potential for the treated slurry during post-aeration storage. Pig slurry with four total solids levels (0
5, 1
0, 2
0, and 4
0%) were used for both experiments. In the first experiment, the slurry was aerated and the oxygen transfer coefficient (OTC) for each solids level was determined. When the solids content increased from 0
5 to 4
0%, a reduction in OTC from about 0
59 to 0
15 min1 was observed. However, no statistically significant differences in OTC were found between slurry with a 0
5% and 1
0% total solids content and between slurry with a 2
0% and 4
0% total solids content, while the difference was significant between these two solids groups. In addition to OTC, the oxygen-holding capacity of the aerated manure decreased significantly with increasing slurry solids content. In the second experiment, slurry with the same four solids categories was contained in Plexiglas columns and aerated at a
dissolved oxygen level of 1mg l1 for 15 days. After aeration, the slurry was left in the columns to simulate long-term storage (180 days). The removal rates of volatile fatty acids (VFA), an odour indicator, by aeration were 98, 96, 67, and 31% for total solids content of 0
5, 1
0, 2
0, and 4
0%, respectively. During the entire storage period, the VFA concentrations for slurry with solids contents of 0
5% and 1
0% were consistently lower than 230 mg l1, indicating that the chance for offensive odour to return was moderate. In contrast, the slurry in the two upper solids categories showed VFA levels consistently higher than 230mg l1 throughout the 180 day storage period. At the end of the storage, the odour detection threshold values were 531, 708, 812, and 1627 for slurry with solids content from 0
5 to 4
0%.

Redefining the Optimal Marketing Core

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Recently there has been a lot of attention paid to marketing within the core. On most grading grids within western Canada is core is approximately 85-100 (dressed) kgs. This range is quite often the weight categories where the highest index, and weight premiums are possible for individual carcasses. While percent in core and sort loss are important factors to monitor, they don’t tell the entire story when it comes to determining where the greatest profit potential is within a particular grading grid.

Figure 1 displays the sort loss across various weight classes using the 85-89.99 kg weight class as the base for the comparison. Based on the information provided, it is quite apparent the 90-99.9 kg weight class continually provided a greater income potential. It is also apparent all weight classes less than 85 kgs or greater than 105 kgs would significantly reduce income potential (as seen by the negative lines for these weight classes). When comparing the 100-104.9 kg weight class to the 85-89.99 kg weight class, we can see that it was out performed throughout the first 19 weeks, provided approximately the same return between weeks 19 to 31, and provided greater return throughout the rest of the year. The relationship between these two weight categories is largely dependent on hog and feed price fluctuations throughout the year.