The PigSAFE Project: Developing an alternative to the farrowing crate Final summary report October 2012

Transcription

1 The PigSAFE Project: Developing an alternative to the farrowing crate Final summary report October 212 Project background The PigSAFE Project (Piglet and Sow Alternative Farrowing Environment) was a three year project which started in April 28 with the objective of developing and testing a practical non-crate system for indoor farrowing accommodation. The project was funded by Defra and was carried out by the University of Newcastle and the Scotland s Rural College (SRUC), in consultation with both welfare (RSPCA) and industry groups (BPEX, QMS). Confinement of the sow during farrowing and lactation is a continuing welfare issue which is a focus for public concern and debate. At the present time, the majority of indoor sows are maintained in farrowing crates, many with partly or fully slatted flooring for manure management as slurry. This places limitations on the freedom of movement of the sow and some practical constraints on the types of enrichment which can be commercially used to allow expression of nest building behaviour. Defra and others have funded research to find suitable alternatives to the farrowing crate but as yet there is no large-scale commercial up-take of a non-crate indoor farrowing system. Constraints on uptake have resulted from farmer concerns over poorer piglet survival, ease of management and cost. There is consequently a need for new approaches to develop an alternative to the farrowing crate that provides for the maximal sow and piglet welfare whilst being commercially acceptable. Such an alternative must reconcile the behavioural needs of the sow with good piglet survival and farm practicality, including acceptable capital and running cost and ease of daily management. Project plan and available information The project progressed through a staged approach involving: (1) Review and synthesis of current scientific knowledge on sow and piglet needs and on practical experience of existing non-crate farrowing systems. The use of economic modelling approaches to characterise the best system prototype(s) based on this information (28); (2) Consultation with international experts and stakeholder groups on the optimal design features for a non-crate system (28/9); (3) Design and construction of a prototype system and testing of structural and management innovations considered likely to improve its performance (29/1); 4) Revision of the system on the basis of preliminary investigations and experience and testing of the revised system under commercial conditions against conventional farrowing crates (21/11); () An economic, environmental and trade analysis of the new system based on its commercial performance and costs (21/11). Further details of this project, including the work carried out in the first year, the prototype designs tested at Newcastle (farrowing crate conversion, slurry system) and SRUC (new build, solid manure system) and built by Quality Equipment over this period and our experience with them can be found in a PigSAFE Interim Briefing Note published in February 21. In order to satisfy repeated requests for information we also produced a document which details our views regarding design and pen dimensions. This Recommended Dimensions and details for Building PigSAFE pens document was published in November 21, but has now been updated. Both are available from us on request. Two further documents accompany this final report Recommended design for PigSAFE loose farrowing pens 212 and Recommendations for standard husbandry procedures in PigSAFE pens 212 and are available on request. For further information please contact: Prof Sandra Edwards Dr Emma Baxter University of Newcastle SRUC Edinburgh sandra.edwards@ncl.ac.uk emma.baxter@sruc.ac.uk 1

2 Results and conclusions This final report document from the project summarises the results after prototype development and evaluation of the PigSAFE pen when run commercially against conventional farrowing crates on the same research farms. For this phase, farm staff at each site were responsible for operating both PigSAFE and farrowing crates, given minimal experimental constraints. a) Figure 1. PigSAFE pens at Newcastle University (a and b). Built four pens to one room with part slatted flooring on top of slurry pits. Compared against Newcastle conventional farrowing crates with part-slatted flooring built on slurry pits. The Newcastle dimensions (c) are different to the recommended design (see Recommended PigSAFE Design 212 document) as a result of the constraints of converting an existing farrowing house. The dunging passage is smaller (.9m x 2.36m) and the dividing wall cannot swing back, so a pophole is incorporated. The nest size and remaining features are the same. b) c) At Newcastle (Figure 1), both systems could be operated simultaneously, with sows within each 3-weekly farrowing batch divided between the PigSAFE and crate systems. a) b) c) Figure 2. PigSAFE pens at SRUC (a and b). Built 12 pens to one room with part slatted flooring and underfloor scraper system. Compared against SRUC conventional farrowing crates with solid flooring and 6 crates to a room. PigSAFE SRUC was closer to the recommended design criteria dimensions (see Recommended PigSAFE Design 212 document). However floors were solid concrete, with a slatted dunging passage (triband metal) and access door via the nest (c). 2

3 At SRUC (Figure 2) the all-in-all-out nature of having PigSAFE farrowings in one room meant that farrowing batches had to run alternately in each system, separated by 3 weeks. Data were collected at both sites on pig performance, labour, feed, water and straw use. Performance: Combined data from the two sites (34 sows, n=164 in Crates n=14 in PigSAFE, approximately 1% gilts) are shown in Table 1 against the BPEX 21 indoor average and top third data. They indicate promising results, with no significant performance differences between the crate and PigSAFE systems. Table 1: Performance of PigSAFE pens and farrowing crates for the period to August 211, with BPEX average and top third farrowing crate data for comparison. Total born (BA+BD) Total weaned %Total mortality %Live-born mortality %Stillborn mortality* PigSAFE a 13.3 b 9.6 c 4.1 b Farrowing crates a 12. b 9. c 3.4 b BPEX indoor average BPEX indoor top third a Adjusted for net fostering; b This figure include both stillborn piglets and those dying before weaning and is adjusted for litter size; c Adjusted for litter size post fostering. BA = Born alive, BD = Born dead/stillborn. *Stillborn% = percentage of total litter size that were born dead. There were site differences: At Newcastle, the PigSAFE system performed very well, with no significant difference compared to crates (Figure 3) and both systems performing better than the BPEX top third farms. 2 Performance of Newcastle University PigSAFE pens vs. Newcastle University Farrowing crates 1 1 Pigsafe Crates Total born Total weaned Total mortality% Liveborn mortality% Stillborn mortality% Figure 3: Comparison of pig performance at Newcastle University in PigSAFE pens (n=83 litters) or farrowing crates (n=78). Mortality data are adjusted for net fostering (similar in both systems) and for litter size. At SRUC there were no significant differences between systems (Figure 4a), although mortality in the PigSAFE pen was closer to the BPEX 21 indoor average of 17.6% total mortality and 12.3% live-born mortality. 3

4 % live-born mortality a) Performance of SRUC PigSAFE pens vs. SAC Farrowing crates PigSAFE Crates Total born Total weaned Total Liveborn Stillborn mortality% mortality% mortality% b) Effect of staff experience on live-born mortality Time - batches Figure 4: a) Comparison of pig performance at SRUC in PigSAFE pens (n=62) or farrowing crates (n=81) and b) effect of staff experience on live-born mortality in PigSAFE system. Data are adjusted for parity and litter size. At SRUC, pig performance in PigSAFE pens has shown a marked improvement with every batch farrowed, highlighting that stock-person training is an important aspect when adopting a new system (Figure 4b). The farm manager at SRUC had previously worked predominantly with sows in crates for over 2 years and thus was more unfamiliar with loose farrowing and lactating sows than the farm manager at Newcastle who had previous experience on an outdoor unit. The learning curve is indicative of potential scenarios when implementing a new system on a commercial farm where staff have previously had little or no experience of animals farrowing and lactating loose. As a result of this project we have developed a document to assist with management of loose farrowing and lactating sows (Recommendations for standard husbandry procedures in PigSAFE pens 212). Sow and piglet condition: Body weight (kg) and back-fat depth were measured on sows pre-farrowing and post-weaning and piglets were weighed at weaning. Table 2 shows that although there were no significant differences between housing systems at Newcastle, at the SRUC site piglets weaned from PigSAFE pens were significantly heavier than those from crates (average individual weight 8.8kg v. 8.kg). 4

5 Total minutes per sow per batch Table 2: Influence of farrowing accommodation on sow body condition and piglet weaning weight (adjusted for litter size, weaned litter size and weaning age). Sow weight loss includes the birth of the litter. For statistical purposes, sites were compared separately. Sow condition Average litter weaned weight (kg) Weight loss Back-fat loss (mm) (kg) SRUC PigSAFE SRUC Farrowing crates Newcastle University PigSAFE Newcastle University Farrowing crates Feed intake: At SRUC there was a tendency for sows housed in PigSAFE pens to eat more than those housed in crates (7.8kg v. 6.4kg per sow per day). At Newcastle there were no significant differences in feed intake between farrowing systems. It is possible that the difference in feed intake is only seen at the SRUC site as a result of potentially beneficial effects of the building in which the PigSAFE pens were built. The new build scenario implemented at SRUC involved a large building shell, with high roof space and thus a more airy environment for the sows. Labour and pen hygiene: Recordings of time taken to perform daily husbandry routines (i.e. number of minutes of labour per sow per batch) showed that significantly less labour was needed in PigSAFE pens compared with crates at SRUC (Figure ) Total amount of labour per sow per batch Newcastle SAC SRUC Figure : Difference in time taken to perform daily husbandry routines in the different systems at SRUC and Newcastle. Data include day to day management, piglet processing (farrowing, vaccinations, weaning) and pressure washing. PigSAFE Crates These data were supported by subjective scores of pen cleanliness; the SRUC PigSAFE pens were scored cleaner than the SRUC crates, whereas the Newcastle crates were cleaner than the PigSAFE pens. It is likely that these results are farm specific. The SRUC farm s conventional crated system is predominantly solid concrete with a metal slat at the rear of the sow, resulting in high daily labour input to clean out. The SRUC PigSAFE system benefitted from an underfloor scraper system and large amounts of slats in the dunging passage, facilitating good hygiene and easy management. In addition the SRUC PigSAFE system has the room to swing back the wall dividing dunging passage and nesting area which was done at day +7. This contrasts with lower labour, part-slatted crates at Newcastle. Although Newcastle introduced pop-holes to better aid hygiene in the PigSAFE system, it is likely that swinging the wall back completely and a larger dunging area resulted in the significantly better effect on pen hygiene at the SRUC site.

6 Economic costs To analyse the effects on production costs of adopting a non-crate farrowing system, a spreadsheet-based costings model was developed. The PigSAFE system and three other systems being considered as alternatives to the farrowing crate were modelled. The models allowed for consideration of different scenarios, including levels of piglet mortality, for each system. The results indicate that, with similar animal performance, as indicated for PigSAFE in our evaluation trial, the costs of pig production using the PigSAFE system would be approximately 3.% higher when compared to using a standard farrowing crate (Table 3). This arises because of the higher capital cost associated with greater space requirements and additional engineering in the PigSAFE design. Any improvement in pig performance (e.g. through improved piglet weaning weight or sow rebreeding) would narrow the cost difference. Table 3: Indicative specification and building (capital) costs of different farrowing and lactation systems (based on July 211 prices). Element Crate Farrowing and lactation system PigSAFE 36 Farrower Danish Outdoor Area per sow & litter (m 2 ) Floor/bedding if any 1 FS PS/ms FS PS/ms E/sh Capital cost ( /place) 3,17 4,388 3,67 3,84 1,196 Lifetime (Years) Annualised capital cost ( per Sow place cost ( /year) Repair factor (% of capital) Repair cost ( /sow place/yr) Total cost ( / sow place/yr) FS fully-slatted floor; PS part-slatted; s straw; ms minimal straw; E/sh earth/straw in hut Cost of weaner production: Data shown in Table 4 show the impact of piglet mortality on the cost of pig production. If live-born mortality were increased from 12 to 1%, then the cost of production per piglet would be increased by between 1.11 and 1.2 depending on the system. The opposite is true for reducing piglet mortality, namely the potential to reduce cost of production from having more piglets to sell. 6

7 Table 4: Cost of producing weaned pigs using different farrowing and lactation systems on both an annual sow basis and per 8kg weaner. The costs of production at three different levels of live-born mortality are shown. (Estimates based on July 211 prices) Crate PigSAFE 36 Farrower Danish Outdoor per sow per weaner (12% mortality) per weaner (1% mortality) per weaner (9% mortality) Total cost per sow includes all the costs in the farrowing stage and also costs in the gestation stage (assumed to be the same housing system across all indoor systems (straw yards or yards with kennels), and an outdoor paddock system for the Outdoor option). What would it cost to produce a kilogram of meat? Compared to conventional production using part-slatted farrowing crates, the price of pork would need to be 2.3 p/kg carcass weight (cwt) higher (1.6% premium) for PigSAFE-produced pork to allow producers to break even. The results also demonstrate the sensitivity of this premium to changes in pig performance. Improvements in management of the PigSAFE system, through better management of the sow and increased exercise and appetite for example, might lead to higher piglet weaning weights (Table ). An increase in piglet weaning weight of.3 kg, as found in the current project (see Table 2), would reduce the premium required in PigSAFE pens to just 1.3 p/kg carcass weight (.9% extra). However, under less skilled standards of stockpersonship, if. fewer piglets were weaned per litter (thus 9.6 instead of 1. piglets) then the premium required would increase to 4.7 p/kg cwt. Table : Effects of variations in pig performance on the cost of finished pig production (based on July 211 prices) Model run PigSAFE cost Difference compared to production cost using a farrowing crate (14. p/kg cwt) p/kg cwt p/kg cwt % difference Base Fewer piglets weaned (-./litter) Higher weaning weight (+.3 kg) Includes all costs to produce a finished pig (i.e. gestation and farrowing stages, rearing of piglets from weaning to sale weight) expressed as UK p per kg carcass weight (p/kg cwt) Labour use and practicality In general the pens have been relatively straightforward to run, although design details for low labour maintenance of hygiene can still be improved at both sites. The ability to lock the sow into the feeding stall allows safe piglet handling, but not all sows will feed on the day after farrowing. Piglets have found and used the creep quickly, but a larger creep area with better space for providing creep feed and facilities for giving supplementary milk if required would be desirable. See Recommendations for standard husbandry procedures in PigSAFE pens 212 document for more details. 7