Dr. Ashley DeDecker - The Smithfield Experience: Comparing Electronic Sow Feeding and Trough Feeding for Grouped Housed Sows

The Smithfield Experience: Comparing ESF and Trough

Feeding for Group Housed Sows

Ashley DeDecker, Ph.D.Director of Production Research

Smithfield Hog Production Division

Modernization of The Swine Industry (Sow Housing)

Welfare problems associated with stalls

• Most sows do not “fit” (McGlone et al. 2004)• Doesn’t meet minimum standards (lying full lateral

recumbency)• Limits socialization

• Inhibits natural behavior• Limits movement

• Shoulder Lesions• Stiffness of joints• Cannot turn around

Aggression BCS variation

Mounting behaviorVulva biting

What Does Science Say?

• Measuring animal well-being• Animal performance and productivity• Stress response• Immune response• Behavior

• >20 scientific articles comparing group-pens to individual stalls on sow well-being

• No scientific differences between sows in group-pens and individual stalls

• Change is driven by human perception of animal welfare

Items Producers Need to Consider Before Implementing

• Implementing equipment• What is the existing facility design• What is the reliability and durability of the equipment• flooring• Training and technical support available• Cost of system• Feed management• Safety of personnel• How steep is the learning curve• Sustainable management

Existing Facility Structure

•Understanding what the limitations are• Slatted/solid flooring

• Slat gap width

• Existing Feed system (location and operational)• Feed motor, feed drops, etc.

• Square footage (barn capacity)

Use existing feedlines/drops/stall

Reliability/Durability of Equipment

• Large capital investment• Equipment must be reliable and durable in order to provide

appropriate well-being to animals• Electronic Sow Feeder examples

• Doors to sow feeder not opening/closing properly• Automatic dispensing bowl • RFID reader/sensor• Power supply

• Free-access examples• Moving/locking mechanism• Springs

• Small group pens• Feed motor/lines• Accuracy of feed drops

Reliability/Durability of Equipment

Equipment must work right to ensure proper well-being

Training and Technical Support

• Request on farm training from the manufacturer until you feel comfortable

• When technical issues exist ask if there is local support available

• If not how long until support can be on farm

• Ability to remote access to computer on farm

• Consistent internet connectivity on farm

• Downtime of equipment will impact your animal’s well-being

• Don’t hesitate to ask

Cost of Equipment

• Small group pen with quarter/half stalls ($225-$275/sow)• May be able to use existing stalls which makes price lower• Uses a lot of gates which means more to replace in the future

• ESF system ($265-$295/sow)• Does not need a lot of penning which lowers costs• Electronic equipment and RFID adds cost

• Free-access ($305-$320/sow)• Uses a lot of space which is primary cost• Moving parts

Feed Management• Consider feeding methods that reduce feed wastage

• Feed is 70% of the cost of raising pigs • Trickle feeding in small group pens

• Method to slowly feed to reduce competitive aggression during feeding

• Small group pens with floor feeding increase feed wastage• Manage feed drops carefully

• Calibrate often!!• ESF can provide best feed

management• Feeding fiber to increase gut

fill and reduce competitive aggression

Animal Well-being

• Mixing (Hierarchy) aggression

• Needs to occur• Competitive (feeding)

aggression can be reduced by

• Stalls: quarter, half, full body length

• Free access: locking in stalls during feeding

• ESF: aggression around feeder entrance

• Placement of resources• Water and feed in close proximity

to each other

Animal Well-being

• Maintaining a health body condition• Body condition variation occurs the most in small

group pens• Use some form of body condition scoring to determine if

a sow is maintaining or losing condition over the gestational period

• Calibrate feed drops!• Electronic sow feeding system provides individual

feed ration which reduces this issue• Free-access system allows sows to lock themselves

in a stall during feeding which helps reduce this variation

• Gate checking behavior

Human Safety

• Making sure employees are comfortable and safe to perform their job is critical

• Walk through gates in small group pens• employees have the ability to get out of the pen quickly if

need be• Reduces the risk of climbing gates to access pens

• Vaccinating in any group housing can be the most dangerous time

Learning Curve

• Implementing a new system without proper training can impact animal well-being

• The longer it takes to figure it out, the longer the animals can be impacted

• Do research on proper management techniques• Manufacturer training• State extension support• National Pork Board• Talk to other producers about

their experience• Make sure ALL staff are trained

• A chain is no stronger than its weakest link – proverb

Sustainable Management

• Implement what you and your staff are capable of managing

• Consider you and your staff’s skill level • If you have high employee turn over on your farm

consider a simple system that is easy to train • Determine what are the issues and then develop a

solution• Example: walk through gates to allow easy access to and from

animals (vaccinating)

Implementation Pros and Cons to Group Housing Options:

Producer Perspective

Group Pen – Floor Feeding• Advantages

• Simple pen design for existing facility• Durability/reliability: minimal maintenance required• Easy to learn• No internet or technical support needed• Low cost

• Disadvantages• Significant feed wastage• Animal well-being

• High aggression during feeding• High variation of BCS

• Does meet standards of well-being when managed properly

Group pen – Feeding stalls• Advantages

• Simple pen design for existing facility• Durability/reliability: minimal maintenance

required• Easy to learn• No internet or technical support needed• Low cost• Limited feed wastage• Animal well-being

• Feeding stalls reduce aggression during feeding

• Disadvantages• Animal well-being

• High variation of BCS


Free Access System

• Advantages • Easy to learn• No internet or technical support needed• Limited feed wastage• Animal well-being

• Reduced aggression during feeding• Variation of BCS

• Disadvantages• Durability/reliability of equipment • High cost

• Requires more space for pen design if in existing facility


Electronic Sow Feeder System

• Advantages • Limited feed wastage• Animal well-being

• Variation of BCS• Low-moderate cost• Simple pen design in existing

facility

• Disadvantages• Steep learning curve• Internet/technical support needed• Durability/reliability of equipment • Animal well-being

• Aggression around feeder


All Systems Can Provide Proper Well-being for Sows

• Small group pen• Floor feeding• Quarter stalls• Half stalls• Trickle feeding

• Electronic sow feeder (ESF)• Free-access stall

•How you manage the sow will have a bigger impact on animal well-being than a housing system

Other Welfare Components to Group Housing

• Static vs. Dynamic• How to allot• Group size• Floor-space allowance• Timing of mixing • Feeding strategy

• Times per day• Bump feeding

What Did Smithfield Implement and Why?

• Breeding• Individual stall for 35-42 days

• Gestation• Group-pen for 67 days

• Lactation• Individual farrowing stall for 30

days

What Housing Systems do Smithfield Sows Live in?

Smithfield Sow Housing During Breeding

• Sows are kept in individual stalls for 35-42 days after breeding using artificial insemination

• Sow well-being• Protect the sow from altercations to allow implantation of the

embryo• Maintain her litter• Confident detection of pregnancy via ultrasound after 35 days

Why Does Smithfield Keep Sows in Stalls for 35-42 Days?

•Scientific evidence on sow well-being (Knox et al., 2014; Stevens et al., 2015)

•When placed in group pens at 3-7 days after breeding compared to 35-42 days after breeding• Sows struggled to conceive • Increase aggression• Increase in abortions• Increased leg inflammation and swelling• Increased total body scratches and abrasions• Increased vulva biting

Which Housing System is Used?

• Small group pens and free-access stalls• Implementation of housing system

• Learning curve• Ease of management• Risk management• Geographical location hindrances

• Scientific comparison of small group pens and free-access stalls determined no differences in sow longevity or lifetime productivity

Parity 2 Longevity Free-access stalls

Small-group pens SE P-value

No. P2 sows retainedTurn 1 (P2's only), No. 287.0 283.0 NA NA

Turn 2 (P3 ), No. 263.0 266.0 NA NATurn 3 (P4), No. 214.0 214.0 NA NATurn 4 (P5), No. 74.0 69.0 NA NA

% StayabilityTurn 1 (P2's only), % 100.0 100.0 NA NA

Turn 2 (P3 ), % 91.6 94.0 1.6 0.279Turn 3 (P4), % 74.6 75.6 2.6 0.771Turn 4 (P5), % 25.8 24.4 2.6 0.700

No. piglets born aliveTurn 1 (P2's only), No. 13.0 12.8 0.171 0.428

Turn 2 (P3 ), No. 26.0 25.8 0.281 0.616Turn 3 (P4), No. 38.7 39.1 0.417 0.547Turn 4 (P5), No. 52.0 51.5 0.857 0.640

No. piglets weanedTurn 1 (P2's only), No. 10.0 10.0 0.133 0.954


Table 8. Effect of Gestation Housing System on P2 Sow retention, number born alive, and weaned across 4 parities within the same system

Gestation Housing System

570 P2 sows were allotted to two different housing systems at Seardorf in Yuma CO. These sows remained in there respectice treatment for 4 turns (until Parity 6), or until they were culled, died or euthanized.

Parity 3 Longevity Free-access stalls

Small-group pens SE P-value

No. P3 sows retainedTurn 1 (P3's only), No. 181.0 187.0 NA NA

Turn 2 (P4 ), No. 157.0 162.0 NA NATurn 3 (P5), No. 122.0 131.0 NA NATurn 4 (P6), No. 46.0 57.0 NA NA

% StayabilityTurn 1 (P3's only), % 100.0 100.0 NA NA

Turn 2 (P4 ), % 86.7 86.6 2.5 0.975Turn 3 (P5), % 67.4 70.0 3.5 0.584Turn 4 (P6), % 25.4 30.5 3.4 0.28

No. piglets born aliveTurn 1 (P3's only), No. 12.9 12.9 0.24 0.995


No. piglets weanedTurn 1 (P3's only), No. 9.6 9.9 0.18 0.208


Table 9. Effect of Gestation Housing System on P3 Sow retention, number born alive, and weaned across 4 parities within the same system

Gestation Housing System

368 P3 sows were allotted to two different housing systems at Seardorf in Yuma CO. These sows remained in there respectice treatment for 4 turns (until Parity 7), or until they were culled, died or euthanized.

Conclusion

• No differences in sow lifetime productivity whether allotted to free-access system at 27 ft2/sow or small group-pen system at 24 ft2/sow when allotted at parity 2 or 3

• Costs between two systems• Small group pen ($225-275/sow)• Free-access stalls ($305-320/sow)

• Moving forward all group housing systems will be small group pens

Why doesn’t Smithfield use ESF?

•2005 an internal trial evaluating three housing systems compared to stalls ran for 2 years• Farm 1

• ESF vs individual stalls

• Farm 2• Small group pen with ¼ stalls and trickle feed system vs individual

stalls

• Farm 3• Small group pen with full length stalls and dump feeding system vs

individual stalls

Results of that Sow Housing Trial

• Sow productivity was similar among all housing systems• Lesion scores were higher after mixing in ESF and full

stall/dump compared to stalls or ¼ stall/trickle feed system

• Labor requirements necessary to manage group housed sows was least with the ¼ stall/trickle feed system compared to ESF and full stall/dump feed system

• Vaccination, scraping pens, moving sows

• No differences in employee accidents or near misses in all housing systems

• Cost of maintaining the ESF feed system was significantly greater than all other housing systems

Why Doesn’t Smithfield use ESF?

• More time to conduct routine sow management tasks• More cost to maintain ESF feed system (air compressor)• Using ESF in a retrofit created issues with solid:slatted

flooring layout and cleanliness issues• More time to train gilts • Requires higher skilled employees to operate computer

system and to repair the system• Requires more training for employees beyond animal care

• Lack of confidence for emergency back up plan if system fails

• Learning curve for new employees

What Space Allowance Does Smithfield Keep Group Housed Sows at and Why?

• Sows in group pens are housed at a minimum of 18 ft2/sow

• Majority of group pens are set up to achieve 19 or 24 ft2/sow

• Scientific literature indicates that animal well-being is compromised at 15 ft2/sow in a group pen

• 18 ft2/sow provides sufficient space • DeDecker et al., 2014; Hemsworth et al., 2014; Salak-Johnson

et al., 2007• Proper management of sows will have a larger impact

on well-being than housing components

Consider Worker Safety

• Walk through gates • Allows workers to easily walk through all pens or escape

quickly if needed• Improves safety (reduces climbing over gates)

• Vaccinating in groups can be dangerous

Smithfield Decision Making

• Smithfield decided to implement:• Small group pens with either quarter or half stalls• 6-12 sows per pen• Feed once a day• Allot based on gilt/sows and then size• Provide a minimum of 18 ft2/sow • Use walk through gates

• Decisions are based on• Scientific evidence• Risk management• Ease of sow management• Economics

Summary

•How you manage the sow will have a bigger impact on animal well-being than a housing system

•Implement what you and your staff are capable and comfortable managing

Thank You!

Ashley DeDecker, Ph.D. Di rector of Production Research

(910) 282-4058 tel (910) 289-6442 fax (910) 284-5885 mobi le [email protected]

Hog Production Division 4134 US Hwy 117 S Rose Hill, NC 28458 www.smithfieldfoods.com

Business

Dr. Ashley DeDecker - The Smithfield Experience: Comparing Electronic Sow Feeding and Trough Feeding for Grouped Housed Sows