Gestation Housing. Management Systems To Stall or Not To Stall?

Transcription

1 Gestation Housing Management Systems To Stall or Not To Stall? Lee Whittington BSc (Agr), MBA Prairie Swine Centre Inc. Presented at Saskatchewan Pork Industry Symposium 2007 VSTG Franklin Kains Murray Elliot Tony Nicol Rocky Morrill Dwayne Marling Michelle Martel Jean Tanquay Dr. Shawn Davidson Dr. Volker Gerdts Dr. Kuldip Mirakhur Acknowledging Contributors Dr. Harold Gonyou Darryl Riddoch,Laurie Champ,Brian Andries Big Sky,Stomp Pork Farms, Fast Genetics, Elite Swine, Puratone, Hytek, Unipork,, Alberta Pig Company, Plain Lake Colony, Ritchie Smith, Green belt clinic, Sheridan Hueser Provis, Agviro, CPC, Sask Pork, Alberta Pork, Manitoba Pork Council, Ontario Pork Universities of Manitoba, Guelph,, & Alberta, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-Lacombe Alberta Ag., OMAF, AFAC, OFAC 1

2 Index Part I Motivations for group housing Part II Alternatives, strengths and weaknesses Part III New PSC facilities 2

3 Introduction Motivation to Manage in Groups Enhance animal welfare (or appearance of welfare) Ex. pig chooses comfort zone, able to express the five freedoms Improve sow health/productivity with exercise Serve specialized market housing requirements (Whole Foods) Meet legislation requirements (UK, EU 2013) Controversial 3

4 Exercise Part 1 USDA Animal Research Services - Purdue 2007 (Schenck,, Lay) Day of gestation, crossbred gilts: low, high, no exercise to supplement gestation stall housing. Low exercise walk 402 ft, five days a week High exercise walk 402 ft 2 day/week, 1,409 ft three days a week Observations BW: day 0, 35, 54, 84, 110, at weaning Video of movement at farrowing Body condition scores, lameness score Post 1 st parity major muscle weights Exercise - Results No differences in BW, condition scores, lameness scores, muscle weight or most production parameters Not statistically significant exercised groups had somewhat higher piglets born live and litter birth weights, fewer stillborns, fewer piglets died over lactation period (consistent with UofG 1980). Exercised sows took less time to lie down in farrow crate - may be link to fewer crushed piglets Five parity one sows were retreated and farrowed again. No differences observed versus control on above factors except overall injury and lameness scores were highest in the high exercise treatment 4

5 Exercise Part 2 USDA Animal Research Services - Purdue 2007 (Schenck,, Lay) Effect on bone density, cartilage and hoof lesion scores Cartilage and hoof lesions unchanged Sows in low exercise group had greater bone density in tibia, humerus,, and radius compared to control. Bone-breaking strength (humerus( humerus) ) also greater in the low exercise group (agrees with Marchant and Broom,1996 who saw 40% inc.). Sows are a sedentary lot, 80-85% 85% of group- housed sow movement is at feeding. Separate feed and water to encourage more exercise University of Cambridge Three systems Gestation stalls Small group and feeding stalls Electronic sow feeders Marchant, Broom 5

6 Aggression in Three Systems 1st 4th 1st 4th Frequency /hr Avoidance % G-Stalls F-Stalls ESF 0 G-Stalls F-Stalls ESF Mendl et al., 1993 Aggression in Three Systems 1st 4th 1st 4th Resolved % Escalates % G-Stalls F-Stalls ESF 0 G-Stalls F-Stalls ESF Mendl et al.,

7 Summary - Motivation Pigs choose comfort zone No differences from exercise on: BW, condition scores, lameness scores, muscle weight or most production parameters Exercised sows took less time to lie down in farrow crate - may be link to fewer crushed piglets, increase born alive Sows in low exercise group had greater bone density and bone breaking strength Aggression declines over time in groups compared to stalled sows Part II Alternatives Strengths and Weaknesses PSC producer survey 2007 VSTG system discussions Shared characteristics of systems Feeding system basis for choice: Electronic Sow Feeder Feeding stall (free-access, cafeteria feeding) Trickle Feeding Floor Feeding 7

8 Options Within Gestation Systems Feeding Floor Grouping Timing Total Floor Trickle Feed-stall ESF Slat Wean Static X Partial X X Pre-Impl. = 72 Dynamic Bedded Post-Impl. Shared Characteristics of Group Systems Desired Two penning systems required: one breed to day 35 in stalls, a second system from day in groups Pregnancy checking prior to regrouping To maintain individual sow feed intake control just like in gestation stalls?? To minimize aggression, injury and potential losses of sow or her reproductive performance Skills/competency of manager favours stockperson with sensitivity to individual animal needs 8

9 Shared Characteristics Negatives Reproductive performance if implantation of embryo does not take place prior to re-grouping. Longevity can decline due to floor type (slatted), but note that lameness in stalls is quite variable Farrowing Rates Study Stalls Group Comments Gonyou pre-impl. Anil pre-impl. Hemsworth pre-impl. Bates pre-breeding Gonyou post-impl. Hemsworth post-impl. 9

10 Live Litter Size Study Stalls Group Comments Morris pre-impl. Gonyou pre-impl. Anil pre-impl. Hemsworth pre-impl. Bates pre-breeding Gonyou post-impl. Hemsworth post-impl. Longevity Study Stalls Group Comments Morris ++ Part. + shavings Hemsworth ++ Rice hulls (lameness) Bates Partial slat Anil ++ Full slat 10

11 Summary The group housing systems reported on in these studies all provided good control over individual feed intake with minimal feed-related aggression. Productivity was related to the time of re-grouping relative to breeding. Avoid re-grouping during embryonic implantation. Longevity appeared to be influenced by floor type, but lameness in stall systems was quite variable. Electronic Sow Feeders Strengths Maintain individual sow feed intake control Accommodates slow eaters (feeding times and revisit privileges), safety for sow at feeding Can accommodate new entries weekly, adapted to various group sizes Straw or liquid manure Automation allows spray paint identification and separation from the group Daily management reports, allows management time to be focused on 2 weird sows Several manufacturers to choose from, generally robust construction 11

12 Electronic Sow Feeders Weaknesses Cost of feeding unit encourages high number of sows per feeder (40-70 sows/unit) Equipment and electronics in the barn means maintenance (mice, bridging, feed accumulation in hard to reach places) Observation of individuals can be difficult, frequently ignore individual animal movement Aggression at mixing and cueing up for daily feed Training area and time required (learning period for both sow and stockperson) Reproductive performance Electronic Sow Feeder 12

13 Feeding Stalls Strengths Maintain individual sow feed intake control No competition at feeding time, safety for sow Accommodates slow eaters Learning period for sow and stockperson minimal Maintains individual sow observation once a day Can accommodate new entries weekly, adapted to various group sizes Straw or liquid manure Several manufacturers to choose from, generally robust construction No electronic components to breakdown 13

14 Feeding Stalls Weaknesses Increases space requirements by adding feeding space to pen loafing space. Cost of free-access stall is double gestation stall ($300- $400 vs $ ) 14

15 I Loafing area Free Access stalls using I or T Pen Design T loafing area Trickle Feeding Strengths Maintain individual sow feed intake control through biofixation on feed delivered at 100 g/min Partial protection of sow at feeding Observation of individual sow at feeding possible Economical space by making use of pen space for feeding space 15

16 Trickle Feeding Weaknesses Does not ensure individual feeding levels Does not accommodate slow eaters Minimal protection for each sow at feeding time Problems with mash feed separation along auger system Up to 10% will leave the group unable to compete 16

17 Floor Feeding Strengths Accommodates various group sizes (5 sows and up) Flexible - space allocations vary from farm to farm sqft per sow Can be renovated from existing grow-finish and stall gestation systems easier than most other systems Reuse existing feeding system, simply add and/or move drops. Increase number of feedings per day with timer Typical maintenance needs penning and feed auger Location of drinkers can be over slat to improve dunging patterns Floor Feeding Weaknesses Feed wastage, feeding to the smallest sow is satisfied Feed system may need to have additional lines if feeding space needs to be enlarged ( sqft of solid lying/feeding area required) Reposition feed lines to accommodate people movement Don t get to choose the slat in a renovation (may be too large slot originally behind sow.75 to 2 ) Don t get to choose the direction of slat Floor needs a slope of 5% to run urine off and maintain cleanliness, step down to slatted area of 2 would also help 17

18 18

19 Cafeteria Feeding Strengths Maintain individual sow feed intake control Provides safety for sow during feeding Accommodates slow eaters Allows for daily inspection of individuals at feed and in movement Reuses the most expensive component in system the Free-access stall ($ /unit) Several manufacturers to choose from, generally robust construction Cafeteria Feeding Weaknesses Requires skilled staff to move sows Potential injury during daily movement (people & animal) Staff time for feeding activity is significant 19

20 Space Utilization System SqFt feet req d per activity Stall ESF Feeding Stalls I Feeding Stalls T Trickle Feeding Floor Feeding Cafeteria x7 stall, 2x1 front and back = 4 14 stall + 10 I system T system 15 pen, 2x1.5 feeding area 15 pen 15 pen, 14/share between 2-4 groups the free access stall, 8/2 to 4 groups the dedicated portion of hallway. 20

21 Part III PSC Renovation Current facilities constructed in 1979 Increasing maintenance costs Concerns by Canadian Council of Animal Care Lower operating costs from combining 4 barns into one, energy efficiency, and automate feeding Facility made possible through the cooperation and joint funding provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Province of Saskatchewan Industry Input Discussions with three groups: Producers with direct experience with alternative management systems Pork producers with interest in sow housing Individuals and associations with interest in policy implications of alternative sow management In person and telephone interviews with 89 people from 27 different companies or organizations 61% pork producers Other 39% pork associations, government, suppliers, researchers BC, AB, SK, MB, ON 21

22 Industry Reaction Industry is well aware of changes in attitude taking place in public, media and special interest groups regarding welfare in the barn. Just because they live in groups doesn t make it more animal friendly some housing and management systems provide questionable welfare improvements over the stall. Example cutting off the stalls two feet back from trough and penning the area off so sows now have original space and inches of slatted former walkway. Industry Reaction General acceptance of changing systems but barn footprint still must produce X pigs per week. There is no consensus how this production will be achieved Concern farrowing crates may be targeted Conversions set to start as early as fall 2007 Renovation is largest obstacle due to manure handling and current penning investment. Still most likely response considering financial situation and high asset values (MB went from 2mill to 9 million sows in past 10yr) 22

23 Industry Reaction Alberta has several straw-based systems - manure handling and biosecurity challenges. There is no ideal system since renovation will impact design and animal handling. A lot more than 72 combinations The industry has a keen interest in seeing research in gestation, but even greater gains possible in farrowing with projections of 14+ born alive in next 5 years, combined with older weaning ages Suggested Research Projects Over 100 ideas! Training mature sows previously housed in stalls to use ESF. Find slow learners quickly and return to stalls. What means are available to reduce space allowance per sow? For example, location, size, shape of loafing area. How to minimize space when constructing a cafeteria system. How big does a stall need to be if it is a feeding stall and not a sleeping stall? Management of gilts and 1 st litter sows separately from mature sows? 23

24 Barn Design Based on Research Needs Gestation area has extra space to investigate group size, space per sow, stage when space needed Free-Access stalls can address questions of feeding for stage of gestation, and ingredients. floor type questions. Design consists of 6 large pens, each accommodating two-week week breeding groups. Each pen has two rows free-access stalls separated by a shared slatted area of 10 ft ( I system) Solid floor T This design allows most systems to be tested including free-access, floor fed, cafeteria, traditional stall 24

25 Phase I Phase II Phase I 25

26 26

27 Summary Feeding system and level of control producer is comfortable with tends to be determining factor Space allocation varies greatly no attempt to correlate productivity and space New facility at PSC will allow system evaluation of key factors, group size, space allocation, timing of space allocation in cycle, flooring type. Prairie Swine Centre A Regional Initiative 27