Sow Housing Options
Sow Housing Options Harold W. Gonyou,Ph.D. Applied Ethology Prairie Swine Centre and University of Saskatchewan [email protected]
Stall vs Group Housing Issue
United Kingdom vs European Union
UK requirements in effect
Stalls allowed for less than a week
EU requirements effective next year
Stalls allowed for 28 days Producers not yet in compliance
Plan to retire Plan to change to grow/finish
Other Countries
Australia announced transition period
Moved more quickly when requested by supermarket chain
New Zealand in transition Canada revising Codes of Practice which are expected to become standard
U.S.A.
A number of states in transition
Customers calling for end to stalls
Ballot initiatives Industry/HSUS/government agreements Restaurants, retailers etc.
Some producers have announced or are quietly making transition
Components of Animal Welfare
Understanding Animal Welfare
(2008)
David Fraser, NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Animal Behaviour, University of British Columbia
Affective States
Welfare . . . embraces both the physical and mental well-being of the animal.
Emphasis on practices that cause:
(Brambell Report)
Pain Fear Frustration Discomfort (or comfort)
Balances both positive and negative feelings Practices may not be associated with physical damage- what is important is what the animal feels
Function
Animal welfare relates to an animal’s state of coping with its environment. (Broom, 1991) Emphasis on measures of:
Productivity Health Stress Disruption of behavior
Often an assumption (sometimes incorrect) that if a production system is efficient (biologically and/or financially), then the welfare of the animals is good.
Natural
Natural selection has resulted in animals that are best able to cope with natural conditions. Fit the farm to the animal, not the animal to the farm.
Provide conditions in which the natural responses of the animal facilitate its ability to cope, or at least do not impede it from coping
Towards a Collective Approach Affective states
Function
Natural Animal functions well, feels well and can rely on its natural abilities to adjust.
Within an efficient and profitable production system.
Arguments for Stalls
Control aggression
At grouping During feeding
Controlling feed intake
Possible at individual sow level
Argument for Groups
The Brambell Report states:
In principle we disapprove of a degree of confinement of an animal which necessarily frustrates most of the major activities which make up its natural behaviour. An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty, to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.
Stall Length and Width Anil et al. 2002:
High injury scores were associated with low ratios of stall length to sow length, and stall width to sow height.
Smaller stalls result in more injuries. Marchant and Broom, 1996:
The length of time taken to lie down was greater in short stalls (low length/weight ratio). Sows in groups took less time to lie down than those in stalls.
Sows in stalls had difficulty changing posture, particularly the larger sows.
Bone Breaking Strength Breaking strength (kg)
1200 1000 800 ESF Group Stall
600 400 200 0
Humerus
Femur
Sows housed in respective systems through 8-9 pregnancies. (Marchant and Broom, 1996)
Stall Width: Basis for the Decision National Pork Board: Easily lie down in full lateral recumbency. Canadian Code of Practice: Able to lie fully recumbent without the body touching both sides of the stall. FMI-NCCR: Able to lie down on her side without her teats extending into the adjacent stall.
Udder Extends into Adjacent Stall
% of time
(% of Time While Lying Laterally; 14th week) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
gilts small medium large 70
65
60
Stall width (cm)
55
Productivity
Most recent studies have reported that reproductive performance is equal or superior in group-housed sows in terms of back fat and weight gain, farrowing rate, litter size, piglet birth and weaning weights and weaning to estrus interval. See report of AVMA Task Force (Rhodes et al. 2005)
What are our group housing options? Feeding
Floor
Grouping
Timing
Total
Floor Slat Short stall
Static
X
Partial X
Gated-stall
X Pre-Impl. = Dynamic
Bedded ESF
Wean
Post-Impl.
72
Floor Feeding
A competitive feeding system is one in which a dominant animal can obtain more feed than a subordinate. This often involves a fight or threatening behaviour. Floor feeding systems are among the most competitive of all feeding systems for group housed sows.
Competitive Feeding
Results in differential weight gain and productivity (Brouns and Edwards, 1994) Thin sow/fat sow syndrome Do not confuse with general stressors which affect all sows similarly eg. temperature, flooring, space
Dealing with Competitive Feeding
Social management
Which sows are together When do they come together Which sows are removed
Physical management
Internal pen dividers Feed distribution Diet formulation
Social Management
House equally competitive sows together
Keep in stalls until body condition is uniform
Same size, age and body condition Typically 3 or more groups per breeding cohort Use breeding/implantation period to even out animals
Be prepared to remove non-competitive animals
Injured or timid
Physical Management
Dividers to separate pen into multiple feeding zones Distribute feed widely in the pen Multiple feed drops each day? Bulkier diets slow eating and increase aggression Provide ad lib (low nutrient) diets
Keys to Floor Feeding
Sort sows by parity, size and body condition Use time in breeding/implantation stalls to even out body condition Spread feed as evenly as possible Use dividers within the pen Remove sows that fall behind
Floor Feeding
Least expensive Relies on good social management Will result in uneven feed intake Will require more frequent removal of animals
Short or Non-gated Stalls
Shifting from social management to use of physical management
Continue to use social management, but it becomes less important
Provide some degree of protection to subordinate sows as they eat Dominant sows may still be able to displace subordinate sows, encouraging competition
Stall Length
The longer the stalls, the greater protection to the sows. Aggression is decreased and injuries reduced. Andersson et al., 1999
Why Use Shorter Stalls?
Should provide a minimum amount of space outside the stalls to allow exercise and social interaction (key benefits of group housing). Full length stalls require additional space compared to short stalls.
Stall Length and Space
1.5 ft stall 15 ft alley 18 sqft/sow
4 ft stall 10 ft alley 18 sqft/sow
5.5 ft stall 10 ft alley 21 sqft/sow
7 ft stall 10 ft alley 24 sqft/sow
Eating Speed and Aggression
If pigs eat more quickly, there is less aggression Can speed up eating by adding water to feed
Water in trough or as feed slurry
Controlling Aggression with Trickle Feeding
‘Trickle’ feed into trough so that sows eat the feed as fast as it is delivered No accumulation of feed means that there is no advantage of forcing a sow out of her stall Feed at the rate of the slowest eating sow
Keys to Short Stalls
Longer stalls reduce aggression Wet feed takes less time to consume and reduces aggression Trickle feeding prevents the accumulation of feed in front of slow eating sows
Choosing Between Floor Feeding and Short Stalls
Do you prefer social management or physical management? Are your staff conscientious when it comes to sorting sows? Do you have space for longer stalls?
Non-Competitive Feeding
An animal cannot obtain extra food by winning a fight The feeding stall is enclosed and protects the sow while she is eating Competition has shifted from food to feeding space. Provide adequate feeding space and competition is virtually eliminated
Gated Stalls
Sows are locked into their feeding stall while they are eating Three types
Lock-in (for feeding only) Walk-in/Lock-in (controlled by sows) Cafeteria: sequential lock-in
Feeding Stalls: Walk in-Lock in
Social Management
Even greater emphasis on physical management of the animals Less important to sort sows and few animals have to be removed Even during group formation, aggression is reduced due to the availability of the stalls
Feeding Management with Gated Stalls
Feed drops can be set at the average sow requirement.
Some over and under feeding will occur, but intake is controlled. Can sort by feed requirement
Can feed at minimum and top up by hand to meet each sows requirement.
Loafing Space
Loafing space outside the stall allows sows to exercise and interact socially Failure to use the loafing space eliminates the benefits of group housing But why should sows choose to leave the stall?
Loafing areas are often undesirable space Slatted floors, spindle walls, barren space
Time Spent Outside Stalls 25
% Time Out
20 15 10 5 0
9-12pm
12-4pm
4-8pm
8-12am
12-4am
4-7am
Period
On average- sows spend 20% of the day out of stalls
Sows in the Loafing Area over 24 hrs 30
Number of Sows
25
20
15
10
5
0 0
0-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90 90-100
% of time in free access area
Approx. 14% of sows do not exit stalls Approx. 28% spend less than 2% of time out
Parity of Sows in Loafing Area % Total Time Out
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Parity
Older sows spend more time in free access space
Size of Sows in Loafing Area 120
% Time Out
100 80 60 40 20 0 0
50
100
150
200 250 Weight (kg)
300
350
400
Why do Older, Larger Sows Use the Loafing Area?
Three hypotheses:
It’s a preferred area, and they are the dominant sows The stalls are only 65 cm (26 in), and they are too small and uncomfortable for larger animals Smaller sows have difficulty opening the self-locking gates
Pen Designs
‘I’ pen 2 rows of stalls with alley between
‘T’ pen Similar to ‘I’ pen but with additional loafing area at one end
Getting Sows to use the Loafing Area
Water
Provide water in loafing area May be sole source or restrict stall water to feeding In walk-in/lock-in systems you must be sure that all sows can open gates
Fibre
Straw or other fibre
Rubber mats
Solid penning
Dominance in Gated Stalls
Least competitive of all systems May affect lying patterns in loafing area
Dominant sows lie on solid floor, against walls
May have despotic sow
May have to remove to allow all sows access to loafing area
Key Points for Gated Stalls
Least competitive (in terms of sow) Requires more space May lose advantage of group housing if loafing space not well designed In recent survey of Belgium pig producers, gated stalls were preferred to all other systems (Tuyttens et al., 2011)
Electronic Sow Feeders (ESF)
Basics of the System
Single or multiple stations for a large number of sows Electronic sow ID Sows enter the station sequentially, are identified, and fed according to a preset program Typically fed once per day
Key to Layout
Design the pen to have distinct areas for:
Station entrance
Dunging (station exit)
Include water
Sleeping
Good access to feeder
Minimize disturbance
Create a flow
Importance of Training
Ensure animals are familiar with system before placing them in a large group Longer training periods result in better adaptation Generally a specific training pen with manual gates to help move animals through One week in a small group, then a medium group, then larger groups
Daily Management
Shift from physical management to electronic management Critical to enter all data when sows enter or leave system Check attention list before checking sows Management by ‘exception’
Feeding Management
Each sow can be programmed for a specific amount of feed, and even a specific mixture Feeding level and ration can be set to change over gestation Feed uneaten one day is available the next Most individual control over feed intake of all systems
Additional Potential
Sorting sows for treatment, vaccination, farrowing Identify ‘exceptions’ and add to attention list
Intake, eating order, number of visits
Incorporate electronic heat check using proximity to boar pens
Problems
Competition is not for feed, but for access to the feeding station Most aggression is near entrance to station Subordinate, timid, young sows enter station later in the cycle
Overstocking limits the time they have to access the station before reset
Attempts to decrease cost/sow leads to overstocking. This competition can severely affect subordinate sows.
Managing to Prevent Overstocking
Start with a low number of sows until you are confident of the system, then increase gradually Reduce the time spent in the station by each sow Typically enter 3 times/day, but most consume all of their ration on first visit
Reducing Time in the Station
Add water to feed
Set drop rate for fastest eating sow (5-10 min)
Increases eating speed by 50% Allow sows to remain as long as the slowest sow will take (20 min) Sows must eat all of feed in single entry
Check ID at entrance and lock out recyclers Single pass system
Single Pass System
Calling Sows
A group of German researchers have worked on a system to call individual sows to the feed station (Manteuffet et al., 2011) Sows are only allowed through after they are called Reduces recycling and competition at entrance
Key to Managing ESF
Be system literate and keep all inputs up-todate Use its advantages
Manage by exception Use individual feeding programs Use sorting technology
Avoid overstocking
Train well Speed up movement Reduce recycling
What are our group housing options? Feeding
Floor
Grouping
Timing
Total
Floor Slat Short stall
Static
X
Partial X
Gated-stall
X Pre-Impl. = Dynamic
Bedded ESF
Wean
Post-Impl.
72
Flooring
Feet and leg injuries, including lameness, are more affected by floor type than housing system (Rhodes et al., 2005) Anil et al. (2005) reported more lameness in groups (slatted floor), but Karlen et al. (2007) reported the exact opposite (groups on bedding) In general, slatted floors have resulted in greater lameness. Solid floors, bedded floors or rubber mats will improve leg health.
Grouping Systems
Group systems require mixing of unfamiliar sows Aggression can be intense, but is short lived.
On average, each sow will fight for only a very few minutes Most aggression is over within one day, and virtually none occurs after 3 days unless associated with resources
Grouping Systems
Older sows fight the most, but have the fewest scratches and cuts Younger sows fight least, but have the most scratches and cuts (Strawford et al., 2008) A new group of sows added to an existing group may take a month to integrate completely (Moore et al., 1993)
Static vs Dynamic Groups
In static groups, all sows enter on the same day and remain until removed for farrowing (or rebreeding). There is only one day of aggression. In dynamic groups, small groups are added at different times. Each new addition results in another day of aggression. Aggression is slightly greater in dynamic groups, but productivity effects are variable
Consecutive vs Staggered Dynamic Groups
Consecutive
Staggered
ABCD
AEIM
EFGH
BFJN
IJKL
CGKO
MNOP
DHLP
Consecutive grouping is most common.
We have used staggered grouping with no effect on productivity.
Managing Re-grouping
Keep groups as consistent as possible from gestation to gestation Use static groups when possible Consider staggered system when dynamic grouping is necessary Provide adequate space, good flooring, and opportunities to escape Feed sows before regrouping
Timing of Grouping
Options
At weaning
Pre-implantation
Week after breeding
Post-implantation
Common in UK, but often into small groups
28 days after breeding
All options can yield satisfactory results, but some are more consistent
When to Re-Group
Post-breeding avoids the activity and potential of injury during estrus Post-implantation involves less aggression as sows are more timid Commercial experience in Europe suggests avoiding re-grouping between 7 and 21 days after breeding (Spoolder et al., 2009)
Aggression and reduction in intake
When to mix: Pre vs Post Implantation Farrowing Rate (%, 5 cycles) Pre-implant
Post-implant
Stalls
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
1st parity 84.7 2nd parity 83.8 Mature sows 87.8
81.7 81.4 83.7
85.6 81.7 79.5
87.6 80.0 86.1
86.7 89.2 88.3
Adjusted
82.6
81.6
85.1
88.1
86.0
Live Piglets/100 Sows Bred Pre-implant
Post-implant
Stalls
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
1st parity 2nd parity Mature sows
898 922 948
874 879 898
865 956 890
929 896 982
910 1008 980
Adjusted
928
886
899
947
968
When to Re-Group
Least danger of problems if mixing occurs after implantation (28 days) Use good mixing management With good management, earlier re-grouping is possible Expect continued pressure to move to earlier re-grouping
Group Housing
A large number of group housing systems available Each requires different management skills Choose a system that fits your abilities and resources Become proficient in the technology before pushing the system
How Much Space
Different systems require different amounts of space
ESF and floor feeding the least Short stalls may require a bit more Gated stalls, particularly ‘T’ layouts, require even more space
Research indicates 14 sqft is too little, and 24 sqft is adequate for ‘minimal’ space systems
Too little research at levels between those Gilts less than sows Range of 18-20 sqft
Straw
Straw if necessary, but not necessarily straw
Comfort vs enrichment Comfort can be achieved by rubber mats etc. Enrichment may require source of fibre
Group Housing
A large number of group housing systems available Each requires different management skills Choose a system that fits your abilities and resources Become proficient in the technology before pushing the system
Stall vs Group Housing Issue
United Kingdom vs European Union
UK requirements in effect
Stalls allowed for less than a week
EU requirements effective next year
Stalls allowed for 28 days Producers not yet in compliance
Plan to retire Plan to change to grow/finish
Other Countries
Australia announced transition period
Moved more quickly when requested by supermarket chain
New Zealand in transition Canada revising Codes of Practice which are expected to become standard
U.S.A.
A number of states in transition
Customers calling for end to stalls
Ballot initiatives Industry/HSUS/government agreements Restaurants, retailers etc.
Some producers have announced or are quietly making transition
Components of Animal Welfare
Understanding Animal Welfare
(2008)
David Fraser, NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Animal Behaviour, University of British Columbia
Affective States
Welfare . . . embraces both the physical and mental well-being of the animal.
Emphasis on practices that cause:
(Brambell Report)
Pain Fear Frustration Discomfort (or comfort)
Balances both positive and negative feelings Practices may not be associated with physical damage- what is important is what the animal feels
Function
Animal welfare relates to an animal’s state of coping with its environment. (Broom, 1991) Emphasis on measures of:
Productivity Health Stress Disruption of behavior
Often an assumption (sometimes incorrect) that if a production system is efficient (biologically and/or financially), then the welfare of the animals is good.
Natural
Natural selection has resulted in animals that are best able to cope with natural conditions. Fit the farm to the animal, not the animal to the farm.
Provide conditions in which the natural responses of the animal facilitate its ability to cope, or at least do not impede it from coping
Towards a Collective Approach Affective states
Function
Natural Animal functions well, feels well and can rely on its natural abilities to adjust.
Within an efficient and profitable production system.
Arguments for Stalls
Control aggression
At grouping During feeding
Controlling feed intake
Possible at individual sow level
Argument for Groups
The Brambell Report states:
In principle we disapprove of a degree of confinement of an animal which necessarily frustrates most of the major activities which make up its natural behaviour. An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty, to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.
Stall Length and Width Anil et al. 2002:
High injury scores were associated with low ratios of stall length to sow length, and stall width to sow height.
Smaller stalls result in more injuries. Marchant and Broom, 1996:
The length of time taken to lie down was greater in short stalls (low length/weight ratio). Sows in groups took less time to lie down than those in stalls.
Sows in stalls had difficulty changing posture, particularly the larger sows.
Bone Breaking Strength Breaking strength (kg)
1200 1000 800 ESF Group Stall
600 400 200 0
Humerus
Femur
Sows housed in respective systems through 8-9 pregnancies. (Marchant and Broom, 1996)
Stall Width: Basis for the Decision National Pork Board: Easily lie down in full lateral recumbency. Canadian Code of Practice: Able to lie fully recumbent without the body touching both sides of the stall. FMI-NCCR: Able to lie down on her side without her teats extending into the adjacent stall.
Udder Extends into Adjacent Stall
% of time
(% of Time While Lying Laterally; 14th week) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
gilts small medium large 70
65
60
Stall width (cm)
55
Productivity
Most recent studies have reported that reproductive performance is equal or superior in group-housed sows in terms of back fat and weight gain, farrowing rate, litter size, piglet birth and weaning weights and weaning to estrus interval. See report of AVMA Task Force (Rhodes et al. 2005)
What are our group housing options? Feeding
Floor
Grouping
Timing
Total
Floor Slat Short stall
Static
X
Partial X
Gated-stall
X Pre-Impl. = Dynamic
Bedded ESF
Wean
Post-Impl.
72
Floor Feeding
A competitive feeding system is one in which a dominant animal can obtain more feed than a subordinate. This often involves a fight or threatening behaviour. Floor feeding systems are among the most competitive of all feeding systems for group housed sows.
Competitive Feeding
Results in differential weight gain and productivity (Brouns and Edwards, 1994) Thin sow/fat sow syndrome Do not confuse with general stressors which affect all sows similarly eg. temperature, flooring, space
Dealing with Competitive Feeding
Social management
Which sows are together When do they come together Which sows are removed
Physical management
Internal pen dividers Feed distribution Diet formulation
Social Management
House equally competitive sows together
Keep in stalls until body condition is uniform
Same size, age and body condition Typically 3 or more groups per breeding cohort Use breeding/implantation period to even out animals
Be prepared to remove non-competitive animals
Injured or timid
Physical Management
Dividers to separate pen into multiple feeding zones Distribute feed widely in the pen Multiple feed drops each day? Bulkier diets slow eating and increase aggression Provide ad lib (low nutrient) diets
Keys to Floor Feeding
Sort sows by parity, size and body condition Use time in breeding/implantation stalls to even out body condition Spread feed as evenly as possible Use dividers within the pen Remove sows that fall behind
Floor Feeding
Least expensive Relies on good social management Will result in uneven feed intake Will require more frequent removal of animals
Short or Non-gated Stalls
Shifting from social management to use of physical management
Continue to use social management, but it becomes less important
Provide some degree of protection to subordinate sows as they eat Dominant sows may still be able to displace subordinate sows, encouraging competition
Stall Length
The longer the stalls, the greater protection to the sows. Aggression is decreased and injuries reduced. Andersson et al., 1999
Why Use Shorter Stalls?
Should provide a minimum amount of space outside the stalls to allow exercise and social interaction (key benefits of group housing). Full length stalls require additional space compared to short stalls.
Stall Length and Space
1.5 ft stall 15 ft alley 18 sqft/sow
4 ft stall 10 ft alley 18 sqft/sow
5.5 ft stall 10 ft alley 21 sqft/sow
7 ft stall 10 ft alley 24 sqft/sow
Eating Speed and Aggression
If pigs eat more quickly, there is less aggression Can speed up eating by adding water to feed
Water in trough or as feed slurry
Controlling Aggression with Trickle Feeding
‘Trickle’ feed into trough so that sows eat the feed as fast as it is delivered No accumulation of feed means that there is no advantage of forcing a sow out of her stall Feed at the rate of the slowest eating sow
Keys to Short Stalls
Longer stalls reduce aggression Wet feed takes less time to consume and reduces aggression Trickle feeding prevents the accumulation of feed in front of slow eating sows
Choosing Between Floor Feeding and Short Stalls
Do you prefer social management or physical management? Are your staff conscientious when it comes to sorting sows? Do you have space for longer stalls?
Non-Competitive Feeding
An animal cannot obtain extra food by winning a fight The feeding stall is enclosed and protects the sow while she is eating Competition has shifted from food to feeding space. Provide adequate feeding space and competition is virtually eliminated
Gated Stalls
Sows are locked into their feeding stall while they are eating Three types
Lock-in (for feeding only) Walk-in/Lock-in (controlled by sows) Cafeteria: sequential lock-in
Feeding Stalls: Walk in-Lock in
Social Management
Even greater emphasis on physical management of the animals Less important to sort sows and few animals have to be removed Even during group formation, aggression is reduced due to the availability of the stalls
Feeding Management with Gated Stalls
Feed drops can be set at the average sow requirement.
Some over and under feeding will occur, but intake is controlled. Can sort by feed requirement
Can feed at minimum and top up by hand to meet each sows requirement.
Loafing Space
Loafing space outside the stall allows sows to exercise and interact socially Failure to use the loafing space eliminates the benefits of group housing But why should sows choose to leave the stall?
Loafing areas are often undesirable space Slatted floors, spindle walls, barren space
Time Spent Outside Stalls 25
% Time Out
20 15 10 5 0
9-12pm
12-4pm
4-8pm
8-12am
12-4am
4-7am
Period
On average- sows spend 20% of the day out of stalls
Sows in the Loafing Area over 24 hrs 30
Number of Sows
25
20
15
10
5
0 0
0-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90 90-100
% of time in free access area
Approx. 14% of sows do not exit stalls Approx. 28% spend less than 2% of time out
Parity of Sows in Loafing Area % Total Time Out
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Parity
Older sows spend more time in free access space
Size of Sows in Loafing Area 120
% Time Out
100 80 60 40 20 0 0
50
100
150
200 250 Weight (kg)
300
350
400
Why do Older, Larger Sows Use the Loafing Area?
Three hypotheses:
It’s a preferred area, and they are the dominant sows The stalls are only 65 cm (26 in), and they are too small and uncomfortable for larger animals Smaller sows have difficulty opening the self-locking gates
Pen Designs
‘I’ pen 2 rows of stalls with alley between
‘T’ pen Similar to ‘I’ pen but with additional loafing area at one end
Getting Sows to use the Loafing Area
Water
Provide water in loafing area May be sole source or restrict stall water to feeding In walk-in/lock-in systems you must be sure that all sows can open gates
Fibre
Straw or other fibre
Rubber mats
Solid penning
Dominance in Gated Stalls
Least competitive of all systems May affect lying patterns in loafing area
Dominant sows lie on solid floor, against walls
May have despotic sow
May have to remove to allow all sows access to loafing area
Key Points for Gated Stalls
Least competitive (in terms of sow) Requires more space May lose advantage of group housing if loafing space not well designed In recent survey of Belgium pig producers, gated stalls were preferred to all other systems (Tuyttens et al., 2011)
Electronic Sow Feeders (ESF)
Basics of the System
Single or multiple stations for a large number of sows Electronic sow ID Sows enter the station sequentially, are identified, and fed according to a preset program Typically fed once per day
Key to Layout
Design the pen to have distinct areas for:
Station entrance
Dunging (station exit)
Include water
Sleeping
Good access to feeder
Minimize disturbance
Create a flow
Importance of Training
Ensure animals are familiar with system before placing them in a large group Longer training periods result in better adaptation Generally a specific training pen with manual gates to help move animals through One week in a small group, then a medium group, then larger groups
Daily Management
Shift from physical management to electronic management Critical to enter all data when sows enter or leave system Check attention list before checking sows Management by ‘exception’
Feeding Management
Each sow can be programmed for a specific amount of feed, and even a specific mixture Feeding level and ration can be set to change over gestation Feed uneaten one day is available the next Most individual control over feed intake of all systems
Additional Potential
Sorting sows for treatment, vaccination, farrowing Identify ‘exceptions’ and add to attention list
Intake, eating order, number of visits
Incorporate electronic heat check using proximity to boar pens
Problems
Competition is not for feed, but for access to the feeding station Most aggression is near entrance to station Subordinate, timid, young sows enter station later in the cycle
Overstocking limits the time they have to access the station before reset
Attempts to decrease cost/sow leads to overstocking. This competition can severely affect subordinate sows.
Managing to Prevent Overstocking
Start with a low number of sows until you are confident of the system, then increase gradually Reduce the time spent in the station by each sow Typically enter 3 times/day, but most consume all of their ration on first visit
Reducing Time in the Station
Add water to feed
Set drop rate for fastest eating sow (5-10 min)
Increases eating speed by 50% Allow sows to remain as long as the slowest sow will take (20 min) Sows must eat all of feed in single entry
Check ID at entrance and lock out recyclers Single pass system
Single Pass System
Calling Sows
A group of German researchers have worked on a system to call individual sows to the feed station (Manteuffet et al., 2011) Sows are only allowed through after they are called Reduces recycling and competition at entrance
Key to Managing ESF
Be system literate and keep all inputs up-todate Use its advantages
Manage by exception Use individual feeding programs Use sorting technology
Avoid overstocking
Train well Speed up movement Reduce recycling
What are our group housing options? Feeding
Floor
Grouping
Timing
Total
Floor Slat Short stall
Static
X
Partial X
Gated-stall
X Pre-Impl. = Dynamic
Bedded ESF
Wean
Post-Impl.
72
Flooring
Feet and leg injuries, including lameness, are more affected by floor type than housing system (Rhodes et al., 2005) Anil et al. (2005) reported more lameness in groups (slatted floor), but Karlen et al. (2007) reported the exact opposite (groups on bedding) In general, slatted floors have resulted in greater lameness. Solid floors, bedded floors or rubber mats will improve leg health.
Grouping Systems
Group systems require mixing of unfamiliar sows Aggression can be intense, but is short lived.
On average, each sow will fight for only a very few minutes Most aggression is over within one day, and virtually none occurs after 3 days unless associated with resources
Grouping Systems
Older sows fight the most, but have the fewest scratches and cuts Younger sows fight least, but have the most scratches and cuts (Strawford et al., 2008) A new group of sows added to an existing group may take a month to integrate completely (Moore et al., 1993)
Static vs Dynamic Groups
In static groups, all sows enter on the same day and remain until removed for farrowing (or rebreeding). There is only one day of aggression. In dynamic groups, small groups are added at different times. Each new addition results in another day of aggression. Aggression is slightly greater in dynamic groups, but productivity effects are variable
Consecutive vs Staggered Dynamic Groups
Consecutive
Staggered
ABCD
AEIM
EFGH
BFJN
IJKL
CGKO
MNOP
DHLP
Consecutive grouping is most common.
We have used staggered grouping with no effect on productivity.
Managing Re-grouping
Keep groups as consistent as possible from gestation to gestation Use static groups when possible Consider staggered system when dynamic grouping is necessary Provide adequate space, good flooring, and opportunities to escape Feed sows before regrouping
Timing of Grouping
Options
At weaning
Pre-implantation
Week after breeding
Post-implantation
Common in UK, but often into small groups
28 days after breeding
All options can yield satisfactory results, but some are more consistent
When to Re-Group
Post-breeding avoids the activity and potential of injury during estrus Post-implantation involves less aggression as sows are more timid Commercial experience in Europe suggests avoiding re-grouping between 7 and 21 days after breeding (Spoolder et al., 2009)
Aggression and reduction in intake
When to mix: Pre vs Post Implantation Farrowing Rate (%, 5 cycles) Pre-implant
Post-implant
Stalls
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
1st parity 84.7 2nd parity 83.8 Mature sows 87.8
81.7 81.4 83.7
85.6 81.7 79.5
87.6 80.0 86.1
86.7 89.2 88.3
Adjusted
82.6
81.6
85.1
88.1
86.0
Live Piglets/100 Sows Bred Pre-implant
Post-implant
Stalls
Static
Dynamic
Static
Dynamic
1st parity 2nd parity Mature sows
898 922 948
874 879 898
865 956 890
929 896 982
910 1008 980
Adjusted
928
886
899
947
968
When to Re-Group
Least danger of problems if mixing occurs after implantation (28 days) Use good mixing management With good management, earlier re-grouping is possible Expect continued pressure to move to earlier re-grouping
Group Housing
A large number of group housing systems available Each requires different management skills Choose a system that fits your abilities and resources Become proficient in the technology before pushing the system
How Much Space
Different systems require different amounts of space
ESF and floor feeding the least Short stalls may require a bit more Gated stalls, particularly ‘T’ layouts, require even more space
Research indicates 14 sqft is too little, and 24 sqft is adequate for ‘minimal’ space systems
Too little research at levels between those Gilts less than sows Range of 18-20 sqft
Straw
Straw if necessary, but not necessarily straw
Comfort vs enrichment Comfort can be achieved by rubber mats etc. Enrichment may require source of fibre
Group Housing
A large number of group housing systems available Each requires different management skills Choose a system that fits your abilities and resources Become proficient in the technology before pushing the system
