Research Update: Enrichment Devices for Nursery and Grow-Finisher Pigs

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on January 29, 2014 | No Comments

Enrichment devices are now required in the Canadian Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs, but there is not a clear choice for a durable, safe, and sanitary toy that keeps pig interest. The first part of this study tested pig interest in a teeter-totter or rooting style toy. The teeter-totter was more popular, but pigs showed interest in both toys until the end of the study at four months. The next part compared teeter-totter to a tri-star hanging toy. The tri-star had more pigs playing with it, but was also more destructible – which may be part of the increased interest. The effect of noise was also examined with the attachment of a bell, and the bell resulted in no change in pig interest. The final part of the study will determine if all pigs play with the toy, or if only certain ones play repeatedly.

Considerations for Providing Quality Space for Loose Housed Sows

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

As well as providing sufficient space for sows in group housing, the quality of the space provided should not be overlooked. Quality flooring is important to prevent slipping and provide a comfortable lying areas. The comfort of a lying area can be improved by using rubber flooring, providing bedding such as straw, or providing an area of solid flooring rather than slatted. Including barriers in the pen design can allow sows to avoid aggression from other group members, and promote the formation of subgroups by promoting group lying.Finally, enrichment can help sows express normal behaviour, with straw being a good option.

Sow Lameness: Being Aware and Taking Action

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Sow lameness has been recorded in up to 60% of sows in a herd, and is the second most common reason for culling a sow.  It can be caused by various factors including disease, flooring, or fighting between sows. Currently, the best strategy for managing lameness is to have routine, recorded observations, and to intervene early on. Mild lameness may be treated with NSAIDs, rubber flooring, isolation, and hoof trims. When possible, the cause of lameness should be determined, and sow management re-evaluated if the prevalence is high in young sows.

Rodenticide Ingestion in Swine: A Project to Assist Veterinarians with Detection and Establishing Possible Withdrawal Times

Posted in: Meat Quality, Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Accidental consumption of rat poison such as bromadiolone can happen in pigs, and is concerning for animal welfare, food safety and economic reasons. Blood and feces were sampled after pigs had been given a high or low oral dose of bromadiolone, as well as tissue samples. Blood and feces samples showed bromadiolene, meaning they could potentially be used by veterinarians to determine if pigs have been exposed. Liver samples showed bromadiolone exposure in both doses, and high doses led to muscle tissue also showing exposure. The results can help develop sampling standards after suspected exposure, and to determine withdrawal times.

In-Transit Losses of Pigs: An Investigation of Hog Heart Health

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

The cause of death for pigs in transit is usually not examined, but previous research has found heart lesions are often present. This study’s goal was to characterize the lesions, and determine if any genetic components are associated with them. The results show in-transit deaths were often from heart failure, and the hearts were heavier and visibly enlarged. Lesions were found in ITD hearts and the controls,  were chronic in nature, and associated with 40 genes. Two of the associated genes cause HCM in humans, and the lesions were both visibly and microscopically similar to those found in HCM.

Groups or Stalls: What Does the Science Say?

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on January 20, 2014 | No Comments

Science of Ethology, Volume 1, Issue 7

Several scientific studies and reviews have compared the welfare benefits of stall versus group housing for gestating sows (1, 2, 3).  The conclusions of these studies vary because welfare assessment involves a variety of measures, and the conclusions reached will vary depending on the emphasis placed on different measures. The key measures and results of studies comparing sow welfare in stalls and groups are summarised below under the headings: sow health and performance, stress physiology, sow behaviour, and sow aggression. Evaluation of the welfare of sows must consider all and not just some of these factors, and the results show that there are advantages and disadvantages to both stall and group housing systems.

For example, a 1997 EU report on sow housing (4) indicated that managing sows in stalls has some welfare advantages, “since pigs are not mixed, fighting with associated injuries is prevented, each sow receives the full ration of food available to her, sows can all feed at the same time, caretaking is made easier and signs of morbidity, such as feed refusals or vulval discharge, are easy to detect.” However, the report goes on to list several disadvantages to sow stalls, including high levels of stereotypies, unresolved aggression and inactivity, weaker bones and muscles, and reduced cardiovascular fi tness. The report goes on to state that, “Some serious welfare problems for sows persist even in the best stall-housing system.” On the other hand, the report lists advantages related to group housing, including increased exercise, greater control over the environment, opportunity for normal social interactions and opportunities to root or manipulate materials (4). As a consequence, group-housed sows show less abnormal bone and muscle development, less abnormal behaviour, fewer health problems associated with inactivity, and better cardiovascular fitness.  However, it is widely recognized that the main disadvantage of group housing is that injuries can occur due to fighting and/or slipping on the floor. Fighting or injury can lead to embryo loss in extreme cases, and detection of health problems is more difficult in groups. The report concludes that, “an enhanced emphasis on good stockmanship and good group housing system design is necessary to prevent these adverse affects.”

Dynamic Mixing to Increase Group Size

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Science of Ethology – Volume 1, Issue 6

One of the roles we play in raising livestock is that of social managers of the animals. We decide which animals live
together in a group, and when and how the group is formed. In the case of gestating sows, we decide which sows live with each other during their period of gestation. Our default social group, the one that happens if we disregard our role as managers, would be the breeding cohort. This would include all of the animals that were bred during a set period, which on most farms would be a week.

In previous articles, we have discussed the most common social management decisions, which involve sorting the cohort according to one or more of the following criteria: nutritional needs, competitiveness, or experience with the housing system (particularly ESF). The outcome of this sorting would be multiple groups, each of which is more uniform than the original breeding cohort. Another outcome is that the groups are smaller than the cohort as a whole. These groups are often managed as static groups, that is, no animals are added to a group once it has been formed.

Re-Grouping and Timing of Re-Grouping

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Science of Ethology Volume 1, Issue 5

One of the greatest objections to group housing of sows is the fear of aggression among the animals. The vast majority of aggression in groups of sows occurs either at the time of re-grouping, or during the daily feeding. Re-grouping aggression may be intense, but is generally short-lived and contributes to acute stress. Feeding aggression is repeated daily and can be considered a chronic source of tension and stress within the group. The issue of feeding aggression has previously been addressed in our discussion of feeding systems. In this article we will examine re-grouping aggression and its impact on management and productivity.

National Sow Housing Conversion Project

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Press Releases, Welfare by admin on January 8, 2014 | No Comments

National Sow Housing Conversion Project

As the sow housing conversion debate continues across Canada, the Prairie Swine Centre along with University of Manitoba have launched a project to help producers find the most cost effective and beneficial housing for their sows by utilising a model produced at the University of Manitoba. The model uses the physical attributes of the current barn along with the producer’s plans for the future to develop the best cost barn conversion plan.

Over the past three months the barns taking part in the pilot study were visited by researchers Dr. Jennifer Brown, Dr. Laurie Connor and David Wildeman. During these visits the various group sow housing options were presented, giving the barn staff, managers and research scientists a chance to talk through each systems features and benefits. The sow housing model was also showcased to demonstrate what it will bring to the project.

The selected barns were also visited so physical measurements could be taken to upload into the model. The flooring measurements are critical as this can be the biggest hurdle in any barn conversion. The existing slatted areas, drainage and slurry systems are all set up for sow stalls and as areas are opened up and group loafing and sleeping areas set out, the model will take the current flooring into consideration to reduce the impact of any new flooring costs.

The project aims to provide blueprints and cost estimates for barn conversion that can be used by the producers and construction team to complete the conversion. This information, along with the producers experiences during the planning process will be shared with the industry to give other pork producers insight into the practicalities of converting to group housing.

Claude  Vielfaure from Hylife Ltd, a pork operation based in Manitoba explained why they wanted to be involved in the project, “as a business we are always looking at creating programs that will suit our variety of customers needs, so the idea of working with researchers who have already explored the group sow systems was a great opportunity”.  “The barn visit went well and our staff got a lot out of seeing the different systems available to the industry.”

Look out for more information in the future on this project. Funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In Saskatchewan, this program is delivered by the Agriculture Council of Saskatchewan.

More information on sow housing systems can be found below.

Competitive Feeding – English
Competitive Feeding – French

ESF English
ESF – French

Free Access Stalls – English
Free Access Stalls – French

Other resources that you may find useful include:

• A Comprehensive Approach to Animal Welfare Science
• Competitive Feeding Systems
• Non-Competitive Feeding Systems – Gated Stalls
• Electronic Sow Feeders
• Re-Grouping and Timing of Re-Grouping
• Dynamic Mixing to Increase Group Size
• Groups or Stalls: What Does the Science Say?

Competitive Feeding Systems, National Sow Housing Conversion Project

Posted in: Pork Insight Articles, Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Open stall feeding, floor feeding, and trickle feeding systems are classed as ‘competitive feeding systems’ within group sow housing. Competitive feeding systems allow all sows to access feed at the same time, and there is little or no protection from other sows during feeding.

COMPETITIVE FEEDING SYSTEMS

• Individual feed curves are not possible
• No sow training is required
• Sorting sows into uniform groups is key to success
• High levels of aggression and competition can result in drop out levels of up to 15%.
• Should be managed as static groups, with no new sow introductions after the initial mixing
• Requires lower capital costs at conversion compared to ESF or free access stall systems
• Minimal reduction in herd capacity or minimal increase in barn space requirements

In general these feeding systems are seen as less expensive. There is a lower capital cost at conversion as penning is minimal and existing feeders can be salvaged. However, there is little opportunity for individual sow feeding in these systems because dominant sows can steal feed and interrupt feeding of other sows and gilts in the group, affecting feed intake.

Floor Feeding
Floor feeding is a simple method of providing feed to group housed sows. Some systems use multiple feeding sites and others use just one feeding site. Observations have shown that less aggression occurs when feed is evenly distributed over the floor.
Intake will vary across dominant and submissive sows, as dominant sows push submissive sows away from the feed.
Aggression levels can be high in floor feeding, but options for reducing aggression are available. Ideas such as using partitions
between different feeding sites as well as providing adequate floor space and strategic timing of feed drops to attract dominant sows to feed will reduce aggression and increase opportunities for submissive sows to feed.

Short Stall Feeding
Stall feeding is an economically efficient way to re-use materials from existing gestation stalls in a conversion scenario. The front portion of the gestation stall can be used as a feeding stall. This is achieved by removing the stall gate and shortening the stall to “shoulder length”, or leaving it longer if sufficient space is available. Each sow then has a trough and a barrier from neighbouring sows, giving some degree of undisturbed feeding. However, the stall remains open and can allow faster-eating, dominant sows, to push submissive sows away from their feed. The quantity of feed dispensed to feed troughs will be the same for the entire group.

Trickle Feeding
Trickle feeding is an efficient system of providing feed to sows and gilts if managed correctly. Each feeder has a small hopper above it that is automatically filled to a set volume. At feeding time feed will trickle out of the individual feeders into a trough or on to the floor

The rate at which the feed is dispensed is adjusted to match the consumption rate of the slowest sow or gilt in the group. This timing reduces the probability of a faster sow finishing and leaving her feeding area to bully slower sows away from their feed. Some trickle feeding systems utilize barriers similar to shoulder stalls to provide some protection from dominant sows, however, aggression can still occur. Trickle feeding lends itself to smaller group sizes, on average between 5 and 10, with an 18—22 inch feeding space per sow.

Using smaller group sizes means that feed volumes for each pen can be altered based on average body condition, or a gestation feeding curve.

Grouping sows for optimising competitive feeding
If competition within a feeding system gets too intense, thin sow syndrome will start to occur. Sows that do not get their daily ration because of bullying, will loose weight and may need to be removed from the group to an individual stall or comfort pen. The energy demands of gestation and lactation will be too high and sow longevity and production will be affected if thin sows are not removed.

The key to the success in competitive systems is to have well sorted groups that are matched for age, size, and body condition. This will even out competition and allow the best chance of correct daily feed intakes. The use of stalls during the breeding period should therefore be used to get sows to the optimum body condition which is generally regarded as Body Condition Score of 3.

Competition around feeding time can also cause injury. If dominant sows are causing excessive injury and lameness, or become overweight, then they should be removed from the group and penned individually until farrowing. Good flooring is important in competitive feeding systems to help prevent injury. Mixing sows during gestation must be avoided, so it is vital that sows are grouped correctly to begin with.

This project is a collaboration between Prairie Swine Centre, Manitoba University and Manitoba Pork. Funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In Saskatchewan, this program is delivered by the Agriculture Council of Saskatchewan.