Blog posts tagged with 'swine'

Totally slatted concrete flooring used in group sow housing.

With the majority of U.S. pigs finished in confinement style facilities, a 12-pound weaned pig will spend at least four months on slatted concrete floors. As the industry moves from gestation stalls to group housing designs, slat quality becomes an important factor. Rather than being confined to a small slatted area, sow movement over an entire slatted pen subjects them potential injury from defective flooring design.

Good concrete slat design, construction, and maintenance can minimize foot and leg problems associated with swine production.

The most critical feature in slat design is producing slats with a flat top surface.  Slats with uneven and inconsistent surface place additional stress on pig’s feet and joints.

Level top provides a surface that is easier on pig’s feet and joints.

Many methods used for producing concrete slats consist of placing wet cast concrete into multiple steel forms and hand troweling to finish.  It is harder to build slats with a consistently flat surface by hand finishing methods.

Rotoscreed “striking off” dry cast concrete from mold to apply a flat surface on slats.

Machined slats are produced with a different process that eliminates the uneven surface found on hand cast slats. Automated Rotoscreeds “strike off” the mold creating a level, uniformly flat top that is easier for pigs to move across.

Hog Slat floor slats provide a flat, even surface for pigs.

Slat longevity is an important consideration as worn or damaged areas create uneven surfaces that can injure pigs. Slats built using concrete with a low water-to-cement ratio are longer lasting and more resistant to wear.

The water-cement ratio refers to the ratio of the water weight to the cement weight used in a concrete mix. A lower ratio leads to higher strength and durability but makes the mix difficult to work with and form. For this reason, most slats are produced with wet cast concrete using a water-cement ratio of 0.5. Machined slats are manufactured from dry cast concrete with a water-cement ratio of less than .39.

A cubic yard of wet cast concrete formulated with 500 pounds of cement contains 250 pounds of water, while a dry cast mix only contains 195 pounds. As the excess water leaves during the curing process, it creates microscopic pores that reduce the final strength of a slat. Compromised slat strength can lead to many problems down the road, including expensive repairs, equipment damage and injury to pigs and farm personnel.

Wet cast slats by feeder showing exposed aggregate damage and repaired surface with Vanberg Specialized Coatings. 

Maintaining surfaces and edges of slats, as they wear over time, is essential in providing pigs with a comfortable flooring surface. Areas around waterers and feeders are the first to show significant damage. When the need arises for concrete slat repair, choose a repair mortar designed for slat repair versus generic concrete repair products. Mortars designed for slat repairs feature cement and epoxy formulations with higher cure strengths and faster cure times. The amount of damage will determine the type of repair product needed. For simple repairs, less than 1/4″ in depth, a cost effective cement mortar can be used. More severe corrosion requires the use of epoxy mortars to hold the repair patch in place. Hog Slat offers a complete range of concrete repair products from Vanberg Specialized Coatings that can be used to repair worn and damaged slats with minimal downtime. For more information on slat repairs see the DIY video at http://www.hogslat.com/con-korite-xtra-mortar-kit.

Choosing concrete slats with a level surface and uniform openings provide growing pigs and group housed sows with secure footing to minimize foot and joint injuries.

To learn more about Hog Slat’s machine produced slats go to http://www.hogslat.com/concrete-slats.

Another successful show is in the books for Hog Slat at the 2015 World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa. This year, Hog Slat displayed several new items, including our AirStorm fiberglass ventilation fans, Grow-Disk™ chain disk feed system and the GrowerSELECT® curtain machine. In addition to these new products, we also featured our concrete slats, TriDek flooring, group pen feed stanchions, GrowerSELECT sow drops and more.

Hog Slat hosted a group of Chinese pig farmers that were visiting the United States and attended the World Pork Expo. On Tuesday, as part of their trip, we visited a brand new 2 barn finishing site Hog Slat just completed, located in Lohrville, IA. The group was able to see a new group of pigs that had just been loaded into one of the barns earlier that afternoon, and also examine the inside of the other barn that had not been loaded with pigs yet.
Both of these deep pit barns were equipped with GrowerSELECT Grow-Flex™ feed systems, Hog Slat wet/dry hog feeders and AquaChief cup waterers as part of their equipment package. The group was very impressed with the fit and finish of Hog Slat’s feed system equipment and building construction. To learn more about new construction or remodeling hog barns in the Midwest or other areas of the United States, please visit the Hog Slat sales representative locator, found here.

While speaking with Perry Hartman, a sales rep for Hog Slat in Minnesota, I was brought up to speed on a topic that is quietly gaining some momentum in the industry…air filtration.   Southern Minnesota is an area that has seen rapid growth in pig numbers in the past several decades.  This high hog density has made herds there very susceptible to PRRS outbreaks.  To combat this, area producers have turned to air filtering to prevent herd infections.  Perry has been involved with 6 different projects and is currently working on the 7th.  These projects have ranged from a boar stud to a complete 5,000 head sow complex. Perry credits a close working relationship with Dr. Darwin Riecks of the Swine Vet Center in St. Peters, MN in making these projects a success.

Some of the leading technical information has come from an U of M test farm in Morris, MN.  There are three different buildings that have been outfitted with three different brands of filters and are tested for effectiveness against the PRRS virus.  From this initial research, it was determined the PRRS virus can be transmitted over 5 miles in distance and the greatest risk comes at temperatures between 40°-60° with a light 3-7 mph wind.

Using this information, a basic strategy has evolved around filtering the minimum air flow coming into the building.  A typical farrowing room has ceiling inlets for winter/transition air flow.   Minimum winter air flow can be effectively filtered by placing filtering boxes in the attic over the inlets.

To permit installation and future service to the attic filtering system, an access is built in the end of the building gable with a stairway and locked door.

A catwalk is built inside to allow access to inlet filter boxes.

Galvanized boxes are installed between the rafters to mount the filters in. A pre-filter is installed to protect the filter from dust. The building structure needs to be examined for cracks that must be sealed and caulked to prevent unfiltered air from short circuiting the ventilation inlets.   By filtering the incoming air during the periods of highest disease threat (40-60°) some producers feel that temperatures above this will kill the virus effectively.

A complete filtration system goes past the basics and includes filtering the maximum air flow coming through the cool cell system.   Every situation requires careful calculation but a rough rule of thumb is to provide twice as much air filtering area as existing air inlets.

Retrofits for farrowing buildings have involved extending the roof line and adding a hallway to mount the filters in.   The filtering pads are installed in the new exterior wall and are protected by an outside curtain.

Pre-filters are installed over the filters to prevent clogging of the system by dust and debris.

A tunnel ventilation system, as used in many gestation and GDU buildings, require adding an extension on the gable end and creating an area that is large enough to mount the filter system. An “accordion” style arrangement of filter mounting is used in many cases to achieve the desired amount of filtering area.

This is brief overview of the basics for air filtering as it has evolved to date.  Again there is no “canned” solution as they are retrofits to existing ventilation systems.  Each must be examined carefully and correctly sized to prevent excessively high static pressures that could damage fan motors and the filters themselves.  Perry has invaluable knowledge of filtration systems gained through field experience over the last couple of years.

As the swine industry searches for alternatives to stall gestation, another option has emerged and is in the process of being refined.  Stanchion Housing refers to short stall-like dividers that are added to open pen gestation to separate and protect the animals as they are fed.  It is a refinement over traditional open pens where sow are fed on the floor and group size must be limited to reduce fighting.

To date all the systems have been designed with standard gestation stalls in which the sows are weaned and remain until they are bred and preg checked.  Typically this would be about a 45 day inventory of the total sow numbers.

Looking at the total number of animals in a breeding group, a decision can be made on total numbers of sows per pen.  Current stanchion systems range from 10 head per pen all the way up to over a hundred.  Many producers choose to break a farrowing group into two or three different pens as this allows for grading and sorting weaned animals by body score.  Placing sows in similar groups reduces fighting and allows for uniform feeding.

After total number of sows per pen is determined, the next design consideration is the amount of square footage per animal.  Current EU welfare regulations require 24 sq ft. and some producers have chosen to follow that guideline, but systems exist that range from this level all the way down to 17 sq ft./sow.

Two critical design elements have proved themselves in the existing layouts.  First, long narrow pens are preferred as this prevents a boss sow from blocking feed stanchions.  The second design feature is placing the stanchions head to head in the center of the pen rather than placing them along the alleys.  Because the stanchions are not in the alleys, the sows can be viewed from the rear during feeding for problems.  It also allows for easier animal movement in and out of the pens as the gates are not part of the stanchions.  In addition, the number of feed lines needed is reduced.

The first stanchion systems featured trickle feed equipment where the feed slowly dribbled in front of the sows at meal time, the idea being a slow placement of feed in front of the sows would hold them in the stalls and prevent boss sows from “wolfing down” their feed and moving up and down the line stealing feed.    In practice, the additional cost and upkeep of a trickle system did not justify its use and has been omitted on new installations.   Current systems use standard feed drops that dump the entire ration into stainless steel troughs or on a solid concrete floor.

Equipment used in a head-to-head layout consists of stanchions that are 40” tall and 19” long.  These dimensions protect the face and ears of the individual sow from aggressive pen mates.  Ideal width has been determined to be 20” as this prevents other sows from crowding in to steal feed.   Early systems used solid dividers; as we gained more experience with head-to-head systems,  the use of open dividers was adopted.   The Hog Slat equipment used to configure this layout is an adaption of our standard gestation stall which has been used throughout the industry for over 30 years.  The stanchions are constructed of solid horizontal rods with angle top and bottom rails, the entire unit bolts together with galvanized floor spacers and double top spacers for added stability. This style of stanchion fits completely with the standard 40” gestation penning used in the rest of the pen layout.   The result is a well-designed system that goes together without a great deal of “field fabrication”. AquaChief cup waterers are added at the rate of one per 11 animals to provide fresh water.

Many of the stanchion systems are remodels, the layout of which has to be adapted to existing slat /solid configurations. If building new projects most producers opt for using total slats as this allows for more flexibility in the event of changes in the welfare regulations.

Stanchion systems require a high degree of stockmanship to operate successfully.  Boss sows must be culled ruthlessly and individual care of animals is more difficult than standard stall systems.  However, for many production systems, stanchions are a better alternative than Electronic Sow Feeding. Stanchions allow group housings of animals without the costs and high maintenance associated with ESF stations.

For more information please contact your local Hog Slat rep or contact us by email at frichards@hogslat.com.

As the food industry responds to animal welfare issues, many producers have started to consider alternative options to stall-based gestation systems. We took a few moments to speak with Hog Slat’s national sales manager, Fritz Richards, about group housing systems.
Can you describe the options available and the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Hog Slat first took a hard look at the Electronic Sow Feeding or ESF systems. Sows are housed as groups and fed in stations that identify sows individually by means of RFID ear tags. This type of equipment seemed to offer slight advantages that would offset some of the management tools which producers would lose going to group housing from stalls. Such as the ability to feed animals as individuals and maintain dynamic farrowing groups. We looked at both domestic and international systems, touring and speaking with experienced growers. There were some differences that came to the forefront.

Like?
This type of system is a major paradigm shift for US producers. The US industry has developed a very straight forward system of handling gestation sows. Sows are weaned into a stall, bred there and sow condition is managed by individual feeding. ESF is a completely different management style. First, the animals must undergo a two to four week training process with up to five percent of them eliminated as untrainable. Second, because computers, scanners, RFID tags and low voltage lines are necessary for ESF equipment a highly trained staff is required to operate the system successfully. With many production systems experiencing high turnover of farm staff, it becomes very difficult to perform the necessary maintenance and training.

Where do you see ESF working best?
Farms where the owner works in the unit every day and is able to maintain and repair the equipment in-house. The U.S. landscape is not like the situation we saw in Europe where as many as six service technicians are available in an area the size of a U.S. county. Getting timely repairs when the equipment is down should be an important consideration when considering ESF systems.

What other options have you looked at?
Free Access Stalls. In this system, the sows are housed in groups but are provided with access to individual feeding stalls. The stalls have a lockout mechanism on the rear gate that allows sow access and prevents other sows from entering. She is able to exit the stall at any time to go back in the pen area. Most designs feature an option for the herdsman to lock the sows in the stalls for treatment. We feel this may be the ultimate sow housing system.

Are Free Access Stalls available from Hog Slat?
We offer this equipment to producers, but, they need to remember that this is the most expensive option they can install. The square footage requirements per sow are high, (as much as 37 sq ft per sow) and the stalls with a locking mechanism are more expensive than a standard gestations stall.

What other options are available?
Floor feeding in pens actually predates stalls. This system is designed with five to eight sows per pen, and the feed is dropped directly on the pen floor. This system is successful if managed correctly. Grouping of the sows by size is critical as the strongest animals tend to get the most feed. It is the lowest cost alternative to gestation stalls.

What seems to be the most popular option?
Stanchions are the most popular system we see for new and remodel projects. This is group housing with short dividers or stanchions to protect the individual sow at feeding time. This design lends itself to a wide range of group sizes with a lot of flexibility in pen and building dimensions, which is important with remodel projects.

Why do you think it is so popular?
Stanchion production methods adapt well to current U.S. production practices. A farm’s current staff can manage a stanchion system because it utilizes the same feed delivery system and penning equipment as they are currently using.

What criteria are used in designing a stanchion system?
The first decision is how many square feet per sow will be allocated. Obliviously, square footage in the building is expensive, and this can range from 17 to 24 square feet per animal. This is a business decision each producer must weigh against projected welfare regulations.
A group sizing of 10 to 20 head per pen is common. Equipment is standard 40-inch high rod panels with 18” long divider stanchions, creating a feed space for each animal in the pen. The stanchions are open rod style set at 18” to 21” width. Experience has shown it is not necessary to use solid dividers on the side or front of the stanchion. The rod style protects the ears and head of the sow from aggressive animals and doesn’t restrict air flow as much as solid panels. In addition, rod style penning is more cost effective and has a longer life span.
We also design a breeding area with stalls equal to 45 days worth of sow holding capacity. Sows are weaned into this area until bred and formed into gestation groups.

How is the stanchion system managed?
Sows are fed using an automated feed system with individual drops. Sows anticipate each feeding and start lining up before the feed drops. You don’t see much shuffling between stanchions as they become conditioned to eating their portion and realize the other feeding slots will not have feed after they finish. The earliest systems utilized a trickle feed system where over a longer time, small amounts of feed were dispensed to hold the sow at their feeding space. Trickle feeding was proven to be unnecessary and just added additional cost to the scheme.
While the sows are eating, a herdsman moves along the alley noting animals that are not at the feed trough. He can mark them for later treatment or movement to a hospital area.

Are there any disadvantages?
Yes, animals cannot be individually fed. Sows that “fall out” of a group because of sickness or injury have to be removed to a hospital pen or stall. Despite the disadvantages, this has been a popular choice for many producers desiring to move into group housing.

How many stanchions have been installed by Hog Slat?
Hog Slat has built and installed over 150,000 spaces of stanchion housing in the U.S., from individual farms up to large production systems. We have gathered a lot of field experience completing those projects and can help any producer considering group housing systems.

In 2005 Dustin Anderson and Paul Anderson came to an agreement on a  venture allowing Dustin to quit his job at the local coop and farm full time. Besides farming 1,500 acres, Paul also serves as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives and wanted to devote more time to his political career.   Part of the agreement included each of them constructing a 2,498 head finishing house with Dustin managing the sites.

original sort barn

Dustin explained “The integrator that we fed with at the time spec’ed a sort barn system and we constructed the facilities according to the standard plan. The sort barn was different from what we were used to managing.  The pigs had to be trained to go through the sorting scale for about three weeks, we had to force them through until they learned where the feed was. Even with that type of training there always seemed to be a handful of pigs that refused to go through the sorting scale. They would literally starve themselves to death.  In addition, anytime the pigs became sick, the whole barn would refuse to go into the food court.  We would then have to open up the gates and give them access to the feeders. After a couple of days of that, we would have to retrain them all again!”

“Our death loss was a little higher than we would have like because it was hard to treat individual pigs. The pigs had a half a barn to run around in and giving a shot or separating a pig from the group was a job. The one thing I will say is that the pigs loaded for market like a dream. I could literally load a semi in 15 minutes. The pigs were accustomed to moving around in large pens, and they would run right up into the truck.”

Dustin continued, “Several years ago we changed companies and quickly found out our feed conversion and rate of gain were not measuring up.  In order to compete, we felt we needed to convert to a more typical pen layout.

“We called our local Hog Slat rep, Wade Finch, when we got serious about doing the retro.  Wade measured up the rooms and met with us several times before we decided on a final layout.  We set up the rooms with a center alley and 18 pens measuring 18’8” wide X 23’9” long holding 65 head each.

In addition, we created four “sick pens” that are 9’4” wide.

We also added extra gating by the feeders so we can shut off the front of the pen and presort for load out.

It took a lot of cutting and welding, but we were able to utilize most of the existing gating, feed system and watering equipment for the retro.”

Justin was just starting to sort pigs out of the first remodeled barn the day of my site visit.  When I asked about the results he replied, “We would typically start to sell out of the old system after 18 weeks and finish up with the last ones going out at 22 weeks. We’ll start selling the first group out of the remodeled barn at 13 weeks, and I’m sure the last pigs will be gone at 15 weeks. Chores are much easier; I can see all the pigs and treat sick ones without having to chase them around.”

“Now that I see the results, I wish I would have done it several years ago!”

Murphy-Brown’s North Division has completed one of the largest stall to group housing conversions in the industry. All the company farms have been converted to group housing over the last four years; 58,000 sows in total.  Keith Allen, General Manager of the North Division, discussed the conversion.

Keith, how did you decide on the type of group system?

“Long before we announced our conversion plans, we toured several types of housing systems abroad; ESF (Electronic Sow Feeding), Free-Access stalls and Pens with feeding stations or Stanchions.  We felt stanchions would require the least amount of cost and would be easiest to manage. The results four years post conversion support that decision.”

Can you explain that a little further?

“Our production records validate improvements for any metric you can compare, pig/born, pigs weaned, etc.  The company farm production records rank better than most contract growers with stall gestation.  Sow mortally is neutral when compared to traditional stall operations in the system.  Fighting is less than we expected. Although we anticipated higher feed consumption in gestation, it also has remained neutral.”

Do you manage any other types of group housing systems to compare stanchions to?

“We have a large 10,500-sow unit with ESF feeding stations.  The repair and maintenance of the feeding stations requires a full time employee on this operation.  There is extra labor involved with the management of the animals.  Every day the computer system prints a list of animals that didn’t record entry into the ESF from the previous day.  An employee must locate those animals and identify why; Is she sick? Did she lose her tag? Is the feeding station in need of repair? Etc.”

“We just don’t have the extra labor costs or the maintenance in our stanchion type barns.”

“Free access stalls don’t have the same issues, but are more expensive to construct and present an increased opportunity of equipment failure with the gate latching mechanism.  There is also a chance an employee inadvertently or purposely could lock the animals in the stalls, and then we really don’t have loose pen housing anymore.”

How did the transition go on the farms?

“The transition was seamless; our employees now prefer stanchions to the stall system we used before.”

What are basic design requirements you used?

“We designed the pens to hold six sows with 24 square feet per animal; there is one feeding stanchion per sow.  The stanchions are 24” wide, and the dividers are 18” long.  The length of the divider is important; this divider should be long enough to extend past the shoulders. By extending past her shoulder, she feels more comfortable and secure when eating.”

“The facility design provides breeding stalls to house sows for 35 to 42 days post insemination.  After preg-checking, sows are grouped by size and moved to the pens.”

“An additional 3-5% of stalls have been added in the Group Housed gestation barns to provide critical care space for any animals that may require extra care or must be removed from the pens.”

Have you made changes to the design over time since beginning the conversion?

“Yes, our original layouts allowed for 7% extra stalls in the group housed gestation barns…..we have since cut that back to only 3-5%.”

“We have also realized it is unnecessary to have an alleyway between rows in group housed gestation. We simply mount the stanchions and sow feed drops head to head. One of the things you lose with group housing is the ability to regulate individual feed intake…..you manage by pens, so there isn’t a lot of adjustment to the drops.”

“We also have added “Access Doors” to the pen dividers to make it easier to walk from pen to pen.  These consist of two posts set far enough apart that a person can squeeze through with a swinging solid divider on top to prevent the animals from attempting to go over the opening.  We no longer have to climb pen dividers to check sows.”

How have the changes been viewed by Smithfield’s customers?

“I have personally toured many representatives from large food companies through our remodeled facilities.  These companies made public commitments to securing pork from “stall-free” producers by a named date….they are listening to the consumer and committed to their long term Sustainability Programs.  In every case, the reps remarked how well cared for the animals seemed to be and remarked how clean the facilities were.   We think we have answered their concerns with this type of group housing.”

The handbook begins by comparing merits of different systems available for group housing. Complete with illustrated pictures of equipment and diagrams of building layouts, this 16 page handbook contains practical details needed to build new sow housing or convert existing stalls to group housing.

Download your FREE Stanchion Handbook

I was scrolling the web for information on sow housing and ran across this piece authored by John J. McGlone, PhD at Texas Tech University.  Here are some highlights:

First mention of sow stalls was in 1807 in Baxter, England.

Lubbock Swine Breeders housed sows in stalls starting in 1964/1965.  These stalls featured a sand area behind them.

To read the full article, click the link below:

The Crate (stall, case,cage, box, etc): Its History and Efficacy – John J. McGlone, PhD

I found it to be interesting reading and hope you do too.

Take a quick video tour of a recently completed swine gestation building located near Hardy, IA. This 41′ X 133′ gestation building houses 260 animals.

The building features a GrowerSELECT® Evap system, GrowerSELECT flag feed system with individual Sow Drops, Hog Slat dry cast slats, Hog Slat gestation stalls and a tunnel ventilation system.