What is a slaughter health check?

A slaughter health check involves evaluating pigs at the slaughter plant for disease lesions, pneumonia mainly due to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, liver scarring due to ascarid (roundworms) larval migration, atrophic rhinitis and sarcoptic mange. Other lesions can be observed such as pericarditis, pleuritis and peritonitis (scarring of the heart, chest and abdomen, respectively; often caused by Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Hemophilus parasuis or Streptococcus suis), tumors, abscesses, foot lesions and arthritis. Evaluating pigs at slaughter enables assessment of disease levels in “normal” pigs, unlike necropsy examinations which focus on evaluating lesions in “sick” pigs.

Why are slaughter health checks used less frequently than in the past?

The primary reason slaughter checks were performed in the past was to validate the disease-free status of specific pathogen free (SPF) herds. The decline in the number of SPF herds, along with labor-related costs and biosecurity constraints have resulted in fewer slaughter health checks. In addition, newer herd health practices including mycoplasma
vaccination, age segregated rearing (multi-site production), improved biosecurity, modern facilities, disease eradication protocols and reduced weaning age have improved the overall health status of pigs. Multi-site production in particular has changed disease patterns such that overall disease levels may be reduced, but disease in a particular group of pigs may be more severe. Accordingly, slaughter checks on a few groups may not adequately characterize the health of a whole system that has multiple flows of pigs raised on multiple sites.

Why consider a slaughter health check now?

There are many reasons for having a slaughter health check done on your pigs with the primary reason to follow up on a well-defined clinical disease problem in a flow or site. A slaughter check will evaluate the scope of the disease in the larger population. On the other hand, the scope of disease may not be captured from the smaller number of pigs typically necropsied during a diagnostic workup. With multi-site produced pigs, it is important to select groups of pigs where disease was observed or suspected. Currently, pneumonia is the most significant concern in commercial swine operations. Recent slaughter checks conducted by Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians have revealed a large degree of variation in the control of pneumonia, most of which appear to be related to the number of mycoplasma vaccine doses (one vs. two) administered to the pigs. The results of these checks are
available in an accompanying technical bulletin.

A second reason to conduct a slaughter health check is to evaluate a change in a herd’s health program or some other production practice by providing information beyond routine production records. Although production records should be the cornerstone of evaluating the relative benefits of different products and practices, slaughter health checks, along with other disease monitoring efforts such as testing blood, oral fluids and feces for antibodies and pathogens, can be used to better understand the underlying reasons for observed performance differences. In order to use a slaughter check in this manner, a “baseline” of slaughter checks should be in place before the production practice is changed.

A third reason is to identify a disease that is not clinically apparent in the herd. Although this may seem far fetched, in fact, our recent slaughter checks have revealed diseases
in herds that were not apparent, and if left unattended, could develop into serious problems. Why? Many herds are now getting older and even though they were populated with relatively clean pigs, a lot of time has passed and new diseases have unknowingly entered these herds. Reduction in antibiotic use due to economics and food safety concerns may enable the clinical revival of bacterial diseases that were previously in check. In some operations, the frequency of necropsies has been insufficient, the disease lesions were not recognized by the person performing the necropsy or the location of the disease in the pig was not examined. For example, failing to saw snouts may result in missing an atrophic rhinitis diagnosis.

How do I get a slaughter health check done?

The first step is to contact a Merck Animal Health salesrepresentative who will in turn forward the request to a Merck Animal Health technical services veterinarian. A plan will then be developed to accomplish the check. Communication between the producer, the buyer for the slaughter plant, the herd’s veterinarian and Merck Animal Health personnel are necessary to coordinate scheduling of the pigs to the plant at the right time and scheduling the personnel who will be doing the slaughter check. Generally, a minimum of one week of lead time is needed to get the check organized.

What are the limitations of a slaughter check?

First of all, it is important to recognize that the lesions at slaughter may be recent in nature. The lack of visible lesions does not mean that the pigs were free
of the disease for the entire growing period. This is especially true with pneumonia lesions and liver scars, which can resolve over time. Likewise, pneumonia lesions are not specific to mycoplasma. Lesions due to swine influenza virus can look the same. To differentiate the two diseases, lung samples may be collected at slaughter and evaluated in the laboratory to determine the causative agent in groups that exhibit a high level of pneumonia.

How are slaughter checks scored?

Pneumonia lesions are scored based on the percentage of the lung surface that exhibits visible lesions. Both the group’s average score and the percentage of lungs with greater than 5 percent and 20 percent involvement are calculated. Reference values for comparison are provided by Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians. The reference values are based on previous evaluations by Merck Animal Health and published papers.

Atrophic rhinitis is scored based on the degree of turbinate atrophy and septal deviation. An average score is calculated and a relative herd severity level is assigned by the Merck Animal Health veterinarian who conducted the check. Mange is scored based on the presence of small, red papules on the skin surface after the hair has been removed from the carcass. Livers are scored based on the number of scars present on the surface. For both liver scars and mange a negative status is desired in most herds, so the data is evaluated more on a yes/no basis.

How does slaughter health check information fit in with other diagnostic testing, production records and observations?

The interpretation and value of the slaughter health check information will vary between herds and over time. The information needs to be evaluated and interpreted in light of previous diagnostic test results, production records and observations made by the herd’s staff, the attending veterinarian and other advisors. In some cases, the slaughter check information will provide a definitive answer to a question such as a product comparison or verification of a clinically obvious problem. Often times, the information leads to additional testing, especially when the results are unexpected such as the situation where a disease new to the herd, such as atrophic rhinitis is diagnosed or the extent= of a disease, such as ascarid infestation, needs to be determined.

How much does it cost to have a slaughter health check done?

Merck Animal Health technical service veterinarians will perform the checks at no cost to the producer where appropriate. If a private practitioner performs the check, Merck Animal Health will work with the practitioner and may assist with the cost where appropriate, providing that the data collected will be made available to Merck Animal Health for inclusion in a slaughter health check database.

Summary:

This article looks at the impact of water delivery equipment on overall water use and wastage. Nipple drinkers, wet/dry feeders and total manure volume are linked with regards to water usage and waste. Drugs added to water should not be altered if water use is reduced compared to expectations due to equipment selection. Pigs consume the same amount of water regardless of delivery device.

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, United States.

In order to achieve a successful transition from milk to solid feed, AHMED AUFY and TOBIAS STEINER* recommend the enrichment of diets with phytogenics feed additives to support growth performance in newly weaned pigs.

It has always been true that weaning is one of the most stressful moments in pigs’ life due to the sudden shift from high protein, high fat and high lactose milk to low protein, low fat, low lactose and high carbohydrate solid feed. Shortly after weaning, the gastrointestinal tract appears to be susceptible to this feed shift. Diet shift is just another factor which can be added to other sources for stress like immunological and environmental stresses. Weaning induces many unwanted changes that can be summarised as follows:

• A decrease in the immune response of the small intestine due to the damage that occurs in the epithelial lining which contains the mucin-secreting cells.
• A substantial increase in E.coliand Clostridium perfringens populations concomitant with a sharp decrease in Lactobacillus species.
• Villous atrophy due to the shifting to the solid diet (just after weaning, the digestive tract of the pigs is almost empty for 3-6 hours which is considered as a golden opportunity for microbes to attack the epithelial lining of the small intestine and cause the previously mentioned morphological damage). Also it is very common to observe a significant decrease in villous height followed by an increase in the cryptal depth.

These changes count for the vast majority of health and performance problems that occur at this critical time. As consequences to these changes, digestive disorders appear to cause improper growth performance through poor nutrients digestibility which is followed by an increase in the feed conversion ratio.
The improper nutrients digestibility and the enteritis caused by pathogens are the most important factors leading to diarrhea incidence and mortality in newly weaned pigs. Just after weaning there are some facts that most producers believe in like the growth performance of pigs is normally decreased, health also is adversely affected by weaning and mortality is a common incidence during that time.
On the other hand, there is another fact in the mind of all producers: the performance of pigs during the nursery phase is the key limiting factor in the pigs’ future productivity until the marketing step.

In the light of all mentioned above, it seems that we can achieve a successful post-weaning performance mainly though supporting and stabilising the gastrointestinal tract. Regardless of the different weaning programs, pigs still need powerful, safe and sometimes uncommon solutions to overcome the weaning-related problems and hence change these old facts regarding animals’ health and growth performances after weaning.
Different natural feed additives and growth promoters were studied for their possible effects on improving pig performance. Phytogenics are a potent group within the family of natural growth promoters which have been shown to exert many positive effects within the gastrointestinal tract.
A 28-day experiment on 23 days old pigs was conducted to investigate the potential of a phytogenic product (Biomin^® P.E.P.) in comparison to an antibiotic growth promoter on the productive performance of newly weaned pigs under the conditions in Korea. A total of 360 weaned pigs equally distributed into three groups with four replicates as follows:

• Group 1: Negative control (commercial diet)
• Group 2: Positive control(commercial diet + 100 ppm apramycin/ton)
• Group 3: Treatment (commercial diet + 125 ppm P.E.P./ton).

Phytogenics vs antibiotics and their effects on live body weight

For a very long time, antibiotics have been used in animal feed as medical treatments and as growth promoters, but since 2006 Europe has banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal rations. This decision created major problems for producers since they observed a pronounced  decrease in live body weight, high mortality rate and a significant increase in the incidences of diarrhea in their herds. This response was expected because of the weak nature of young pigs during the early stages of their lives. Furthermore, in our current case (Korea) the producers will not be free to use antibiotics as feed additives. The Korea food and drug administration will ban the use of the antibiotics in animal rations by July 2011. In the present study the phytogenic product was shown to exert a positive effect on the live body weight at 50 days of age (Figure 1a) where pigs fed on P.E.P. had significantly higher body weights than those fed on the antibiotic growth promoter (1530g difference) and numerically higher weights than the negative control group (230g difference).

Phytogenics and FCR

Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is affected by different parameters including mainly gastrointestinal health and feed quality. For producers, feed conversion ratio represents an important parameter in the production process. Figure 1b shows that the phytogenic improved feed conversion ratio by about 6% than the negative control group and to a greater extent (11.5%) than the antibiotic fed group. This finding confirms the efficiency of phytogenics on improving nutrient utilisation and stabilising the gastrointestinal tract.

Figure 1a & 1b: Live weight (left) and feed conversion ratio (right) of commercial pigs at 50 days of age. a,b – significant differences with experiment (p<0.05)

No mortality with phytogenics

Piglets are born weak and for a considerable amount of time they are observed to be susceptible to different diseases and stressors. It is known that mortality appears especially at the early life stage. This is why mortality always peaked at birth and at weaning. Furthermore, considering the complexity of reasons that lead to death at the end, it seems that mortality control at the weaning phase is a distant dream. Data regarding live body weight and feed conversion ratio revealed that the negative control group has a performance quite similar to the phytogenics group but and as shown in Figure 2 the difference became clear where the negative control group had a mortality rate of 2.5% and the phytogenic group showed 0%. Also, the phytogenic group performed better than the antibiotic group which had a 1.7% mortality rate.

Figure 2: Mortality rate of commercial pigs at 50 days of age

At the end money talks: profits behind phytogenics

The cost-benefit analysis (Table 1) shows the differences between different treatments regarding to total feed cost in a quite short period (23 to 50 days of age). Diet supplementation with Biomin^® P.E.P. resulted in reducing total feed cost by 4% and 15% in comparison to negative and positive control groups, respectively.

Table 1: Cost-benefit analysis per total pigs from 23 to 50 days of age.

Conclusion

It is a fact that there is no escape from having improper performance shortly after weaning and it is accompanied with increasing mortality rate. After reviewing the presented data, we can in fact control this very sensitive period through having better live body weight, lower feed conversion ratio, reduced mortality and reduction in the feed cost.
Other data not shown indicate that Biomin^® P.E.P. is modulating the gastrointestinal tract by controlling total microbial count, increasing nutrient digestibility and influencing immune response. In order to achieve a successful transition from milk to solid feed, it is a must to increase feed quality and one of the possible ways is the enrichment through using phytogenics as feed additives to support growth performance in newly weaned pigs.
It is also worth mentioning that phytogenics could be a powerful solution for producers on an early weaning program.

Finally, all facts that we know about post-weaning difficulties, can be controlled if we support our herds by increasing the quality of their rations by adding phytogenics.

During the last thirty years, swine farms changed totally before our eyes; the way of administrating them as well as the way of running them changed. Now, the competition between the different farms is strong and sustained. Today, producers do not any other the choice but to be efficient, productive and competitive.

Thirty years ago, producers could choose their protocols, their employees and the place where they would put their animals, but their production could not surpass their animals’ potential. Therefore, genetics companies selected the breeding animals in order to improve various genetic traits and finally produce a more prolific animal which produce more milk and fatten easier. To satisfy consumers, they also created a leaner animal. If thirty years ago swine’s genetic potential constrained producers, now most farms do not reach their animals’ new potential. Few farms produce 30 piglets per sow per year and sows are culled earlier on average. This situation hurts badly the producers by increasing their operating costs.

Several renowned scientists investigated the situation in farms all around the world. They concluded that various aspects of a farm’s operation such as the alimentation limits the performances of breeding animals specifically the sows’ ones. Indeed, they discovered that underfeeding or overfeeding lactating sows has important consequences on the herd’s performances. In the following pages, we will explain how the breeding animals have changed over the years, how feeding adequately your sows can impact your performances and how automation can help you reach the full potential of you herd.

In order to improve herds’ performances, genetics companies selected breeding animals to get a leaner and more prolific hog with a better food conversion ratio. Indeed, as a study led by Dr. William Close and Dr. Des Cole state it; in 1975, sows had on average 2 litters a year and weaned around 17.5 piglets per sow annually whereas, in 2010, they have the potential of weaning over 30 piglets and to have 2.55 litters a year (Graph 1). This study published by the Doctors Close and Cole showed that sows’ backfat has been reduced by an half in the last 35 years. In fact, between 1975 and 2010, the sows’ backfat decreased from 20 mm to 9 mm (Graph 2). So, they produce twice more piglets while with less body reserves. Consequently, they cannot use their energy reserves anymore to sustain the important milk production which is necessary to feed their piglets adequately. Breeders should then find another way to provide the sows with that energy. As Michel Vignola (Agron.) wrote in 2009 based on the works of Dr. Frank Aherne, and of Noblet, Étienne and Dourmad from the INRA : “Genetic improvement for both weight gain and lean has resulted in either a reduction in the sow appetite, or intakes have not increased in the same proportion as their energy requirement.”

Graph 1: Piglets weaned per sow per year

Graph 2: Backfat at P2
(Close and Cole, 2004)

(Close and Cole, 2004)

To summarize, modern sows are leaner, have less appetite (Graph 3) but they should increase their milk production to satisfy larger and heavier litters (Close and Cole, 2004, and Schinckel, Einstein, Schwab, Duttlinger, 2009). In 2004, the Doctors Close and Cole added that: “[the changes that occurred in the modern sows] not only changed the metabolic needs of the sow, but has also made modern genotypes more sensitive to nutrition than their predecessors, which had ample body reserves at the start of their breeding life.” Therefore, their nutriment ingestion during lactation should increase by far; it is creating inevitably an additional challenge for the producers: maximizing the potential of their sows and their piglets while keeping the sows in good body condition during the whole reproductive cycle. These metabolic changes put an additional pressure on the sows; thus, herds’ average culling rate increased up to 50% in accordance to the Drs Close and Cole’s studies as well as a study published by the Doctors Stalder, Engblom and Mabry from Iowa State University in 2009 (Graph 4). So, such as Doctors Rommel Sulabo and Steve Dritz from the Kansas State University’s swine research unit said it: “The major goal for managing nutritional programs for sows in lactation is to maximize milk production without incurring substantial losses in body condition that impair subsequent reproductive performance.” Then, we do not have the choice anymore, we should feed them!

Graph 3: Feed Conversion ratio

(Close and Cole, 2004)

Graph 4: Culling rate

(Close and Cole, 2004)

In a study published in 2006, the specialis in swine nutrition Dr. Robert Goodband, Dr. Mike Tokach, Dr. Steve Dritz, Dr. Joel DeRouchey and Dr. Jim Nelssen from Kansas State University stated that “To take up succesfully the challenge of keeping a sow in good condition, everything must be done to maximize lactation feed intake for lactation length.” The researchers Jean-Yves Dourmad, Michel Étienne and Jean Noblet from the French National Institute of Agronomical Research also established the importance of maintaining sows’ body condition during the lactation to limit reproductive problems later on and to maximize sows’ longevity (1998). They also specified that the best way of doing so is “to follow a feeding strategy customized to each sow that take into account its production, its behaviour and the environment.” (Dourmad et al., 1998). If breeders fail to maximize their sows’ feed intake, the sows will suffer an important weight loss caused by the use of their own energy reserves, which are nearly nonexistent in today’s hyper-prolific sows, to fulfill their energetic needs and to produce sufficiently milk to satisfy their piglets’ growing needs. In fact, the use of body reserves generates the reduction of litters’ weight, smaller subsequent litters, a longer weaning-to-oestrus interval and a lower farrowing rate (Aherne, 2001; Goodband et al., KSU, 2006; Andries, Prairie Swine Center, 2003). These effects would force breeders to cull their sows earlier. Thanks to the database PigCHAMP, the Doctors Stalder, Engblom and Mabry discovered that sows are culled on average at 4.5 parities (2009). In addition, herds’ culling rate reaches nearly 50% (Close and Cole, 2004). The Dr. Stalder from Iowa State University added in 2011 that sows are sometimes culled before they can get profitable for the organization. Many specialists agreed to establish the break-even point of a sow after its 3^rd parity, and many sows are culled before that. In addition, the hogs’ performances in finishing units are also affected by the sows’ feed intake because their weight at weaning is lower according to the results of a study made at Kansas State University by the Professors Tokach, Goodband, Nelssen and Kats in 1992 (Table 2).

According to another study published by the researchers from Kansas State University in 2006, increasing the sows’ feed intake by only 1 kg per lactation day has important consequences on several elements of its reproductive cycle (Goodband et al.). In fact, the herd’s farrowing rate can increase by 8%. (Appendix A; Goodband et al., 2006) and the weaning-to-oestrus interval can decrease by 1.8 days (Appendix B; Goodband et al., 2006). In addition, a sow can deliver an additional 1.5 piglet alive by eating the same additional kilogram of feed per day (Appendix C; Goodband et al., 2006). The swine specialist, F.X. Aherne, claim, in 1998, that each additional kilogram of feed intake increases the next litter size by 0.65 piglet. Also, sows do not have to restore their body reserves during gestation because they did not use them during lactation. Therefore, the feed distributed during gestation to the sows decreases which also diminish the cost of feeding sows in gestation. Indeed, keeping a sow in good body condition can cost only a third of the cost of restoring its body reserves during gestation. (Quiniou, Courboulay, Salaün, Chevillion, 2010) Moreover, if sows do not use their nutrients and minerals’ reserves during lactation, they have a smaller risk to be culled early because of injuries or infertility. Indeed,  in the September 2000 Compendium magazine, the Professors Dritz, Tokach, Goodband and Nelssen, affiliated to the Kansas State University’s swine research unit, stated that “To maximize the longevity of these sows, management must use a feeding strategy that maximizes feed intake during lactation and minimizes the loss of body stores of energy and protein.” All these production advantages have their economic equivalent. In addition to all these advantages for the sows, piglets also benefit from the sows’ feed intake increase. Indeed, several studies published all around the world showed that on average the litter weight increases by 0.3 kg per day when the sows eat an additional kilogram per day of lactation (Table 1); the increase in weaning weight will then have a positive influence on pigs later on in finishing units (Table 2).

We will be present at the World Pork Expo. Visit us on our Booth #355 in the Varied Industries Building or on our website at the www.jygatech.com.We will be pleased to see you.Jyga Technologies develop lactating sows feeding system since 1994!

Potential economic impact of properly feeding lactating sows

Work Cited

Aherne, F.X. (1998). Expo-congrès du Porc du Québec, (p. 53). St-Hyacinthe

Aherne, F.X. (2001). Feeding the lactating sow: a blend of science and practice. International Pigletter, September, Vol.21, No.7

Aherne, F.X. (2001). Feeding the lactating sow: a blend of science and practice. International Pigletter, October, Vol.21, No.8

Andries, B. [Prairie Swine Center]. (Janvier 2003). “The Importance of Feed and Feeding the Lactating Sow.” Centred on Swine, vol.10 no.4. Available on Prairie Swine Center website: «http://www.prairieswine.com/the-importance-of-feed-and-feeding-the-lactating-sow/»

Close, W.H., (Close Consultancy) and Cole D.J.A., (Notthingham Nutrition International). (January 2004). “Nutrition and management strategies to optimise performance of the modern sow and boar” Manitoba Swine Seminar 2004. Available on the web : http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/pdf/bab18s01.pdf

DeRouchey, J.M., Dritz, S.S., Goodband, R.D, Nelssen, J.L., Tokach, M.D. (October 2007) “Breeding Herd Recommendations for Swine, KSU Swine Nutrition Guide” Kansas State University p.7-8. Available on web: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/mf2302.pdf

Dourmad, J.Y., Étienne, M., Noblet, J. (Juin 1998). “Alimentation et gestion des réserves corporelles de la truie : conséquences sur sa longévité » INRA Productions Animales. Available on the web: «http://www.inra.fr/productions-animales/spip.php?article825»

Dritz S.S., Sulabo R.C., DVM, Kansas State University applied swine nutrition team. (October 2008). “Modern Sows Have Higher Nutrient Requirements” National Hog Farmer. Available on the web: «http://nationalhogfarmer.com/nutrition/feed-additives/1015-sows-higher-nutrient-requirements/»

Dritz, S.S., Tokach, M.D., Goodband, R.D., Nelssen, J.L. (Septembre 2000). “Feeding Management During Sow Lactation” Compendium vol.22 No.9.

Goodband, B., DeRouchey, J., Tokach, M., Dritz, S., & Nelssen, J. (2006). Nutritional Considerations for Optimizing Reproductive Efficiency. In K-State Research and Extention, Kansas State University, Department of Animal Sciences and Industry. Manhattan, KS, USA. Stalder, K., Engblom, L., Mabry, J. (2009) “Benchmarking Sow Lifetime Productivity” Benchmark p.10-12.  Available on the web: http://www.benchmark.farms.com/Benchmarking_Sow_Lifetime_Productivity.html

Noblet, J., Étienne, M, and J.Y. Dourmad. 1998. Energetic efficiency of milk production. In The

Lactating sows; M.W.A. Vestegen, P.J. Moughan and J.W. Schrama, editors,

Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, Netherlands; pp.113-130.

Quiniou, N., Courboulay, V., Salaün, Y., Chevillon, P. [IFIP] (2010). “Impact of the non castration of male pigs on growth performance and behaviour- comparison with barrows and gilts” Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. Available on the web: http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual_Meetings/2010Crete/Papers/17_Quiniou.pdf

Schinckel, A. and M.E. Einstein [Purdue University], Schwab, C. [National Swine Registry], Duttlinger, V.M. [Tempel Genetics]. (December, 2009). “Higher productivity levels tap sows’ energy reserves” National Hog Farmer December 15, 2009 issue, p.12-13.  Available on the web: http://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduction/1215-productivity-levels-energy/index.html

Stalder, K. (2011). “Reducing sow breakeven costs” Gene Link p.24-25.

Stalder, K., Engblom, L., Mabry, J. (2009) “Benchmarking Sow Lifetime Productivity” Benchmark p.10-12.  Available on the web : http://www.benchmark.farms.com/Benchmarking_Sow_Lifetime_Productivity.html

Tokach, M.D., Goodband, R.D., Nelssen, J.L., Kats, L.J. (1992). “Influence of weaning weight and growth during the first weeek postweaning on subsequent pig performance” Kansas State University Swine Research & Extension, Swine Day 1992. Available on the web: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/srp667.pdf

Vignola, M. (2009). “Sow Feeding Management During Lactation” London Swine Conference 2009 p.107-117.  Available on the web : «http://www.londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2009/LSC2009_MVignola.pdf»

Gilts are the future, and as the gilts go, so goes the rest of the herd,” states Dr. Paul Ruen, a member of the Fairmont Veterinary Clinic located in Fairmont, MN. Genetic progress isn’t slowing down, and gilts have higher genetic potential than older sows. That genetic potential may be lost if longevity is reduced, which is why Dr. Ruen focused on three phases of gilt development at a meeting Hubbard Feeds hosted for its customers this past winter.

The first phase, maturation, is the long phase of pre-pubertal growth in which nutrition care designed for a breeding animal – and not a market animal – is extremely important. Dr. Ruen recommends that this phase be controlled by the sow farm with a goal of acclimating the gilt to the sow herd health status. Housing and environment are also key, especially having adequate lighting and timers with the goal of 14-16 hours of light per day.

Pre-breeding, the second stage of gilt development, involves managing the gilts for puberty. This stage starts with boar exposure, typically between 160 and 175 days of age. Quality boar exposure with recorded heats will bring positive results. Dr. Ruen suggested these guidelines:
• Boars should be 11+ months old
• Exposure should be 1-2 minutes/gilt once a day
(pen of 5-10 gilts needs 10-20 minutes)
• House boars away from the gilts so fresh exposure
makes heats obvious
• Having boars in the pens with the gilts creates better
contact than fenceline
• Bringing the gilts to the boars stimulates better than
bringing the boars to the gilts

The final phase of gilt development, breeding, is when the gilt is eligible to mate with the boar. Housing the boar away from the gilts, making sure there is good ventilation and clean floors are all part of making the interaction a positive experience. Dr. Ruen recommends limited regrouping of gilts at this time and also full feeding.

Simple strategies for gilt development can yield big results. Below is a graph of a case study Dr. Ruen presented that indicates farms that recorded heats had a significantly higher total born on gilts than those that didn’t record heats. Much of this was due to the fact gilts were able to adjust to the environment, people, pen-mates and feed before they were bred.

Finally, Dr. Ruen suggests that producers stick to a routine and don’t get creative. Sows, boars and even people like consistency so having a proven routine during the breeding period will lead to long-term success.

For more information contact Lorior your local Hubbard Feeds representative.

Summary:

C’mon guys, you really must creep feed these days!

In the Winter issue I talked about the ‘Shattered Sow Syndrome’, which is the result of excellent world-wide progress in the breeding barn, with large litters of 13 being seen more and more often. In fact the last three farms I visited over here were averaging a whisker under 13 born-alive. Terrific!

But moving on into their mating units, there were too many sows already well into the body-condition ‘nose-dive’, especially those in the vulnerable 1st and 2nd parities – ‘shattered sows’, which should have had the weight of a prolific and rapidly growing litter taken off them. Feeding a well-designed and carefully made creep feed early on is a primary line of defence, yet two of the breeders were not doing so, and the third unskillfully.

Why no creep feed?

I asked the two defaulters who had recently stopped. “Too much bother and we’ve not enough labour”. “Very expensive”. “Last time we tried it we saw no definite benefit.” “It caused scour”. “The little pigs don’t seem to like it” …. and so on.

The last three reasons were almost certainly due to the creep feed itself. I looked at their specifications, smelled the feed, tasted it* and asked the price. Not impressed!

A really well designed creep feed contains expensive ingredients – even nucleotides, which you probably haven’t even heard about – but you will soon. It is the cheap formulae which cause scour. The new creep formulae do not do so and ensure the vital palatability – they can even produce better performance than sow’s milk alone, some nutritionists are now able to claim. Yes, and this particular choice of raw materials and very careful, specialized manufacture costs dollars – a lot of dollars – per tonne. So let’s look at the cost aspect.

The econometrics (cost-effectiveness) of creep feeding

There are now several statistically-valid trials of well-designed creep feeds providing another whole kilogram at 28 day weaning (for example Varley,  Pig World 2006, p. 39).  This gave 8.4 kg vs 7.4 kg – and 7.4kg is not bad, is it!  There are dozens that show at least a 500g advantage.

An half- kilogramme advantage at weaning can provide 50 to 60 g/day better growth to slaughter, worth another CDN$8 – $12 per pig at our current European finished pig prices. And what is the cost per finished pig of feeding a really sophisticated creep feed? With 700g consumed by weaning, this cost about CDN$3.50/pig, and with the extra labour needed, another 50 cents. These are pessimistic assumptions but they still give an REO  (Return on Extra Outlay) ratio of 2 to 4:1.

* Don’t do the latter, it could be dangerous. But I’m a risk-taker and on-farm I am tempted to be a bit of an idiot in my enthusiasm to get a message across. So far I’ve got away with it!

This payback doesn’t include the value of a better immune response later in life

(helped by things like nucleotides), a well-primed enzyme system at weaning and fewer ‘shattered sows’, especially in the earlier parities when the big litters now  being achieved as routine shorten the sow’s productive life.  Sow longevity is a major problem worldwide and I will address this “scandal in our midst” in the next issue.

Do it properly guys!

The experts tell us that the piglet needs to eat at least 400g of solid food so as to precondition the absorptive area of the gut wall so that solid food can be safely digested once the sow is removed.

Start early:  Sure, they will waste a lot but reduce this by offering a light scattering of creep on a small shallow plastic tray with a 1 cm – high flange. You will need two of these to be removed at least once or twice a day or when soiled.

Feed fresh:  Along with a water supply nearby, this is easily the most significant benefit to rapid, trouble-free uptake of a good creep feed. Freshness in the creep receptacle is materially helped by adopting my “Three-Threes” approach.

The Three-Threes:  This means for the first three days, ie from day 3 to 4 from birth until day 6 to 7, the creep must be offered three times a day and only enough should be offered to last three hours. Any creep starter feed not consumed should be given to sows in the least-good condition, being heavily milked, one suspected of a low milk yield, or to smaller gilts. This way it will not be wasted.  Now I know this is a chore – a darned nuisance. But a survey I published a while ago showed that skilled pig technicians must spend more “quality-time” with the pigs and less on heavy-duty tasks which can be done adequately enough by less-skilled or contract labour.

During these intensive “care days” the small, first-stage creep receptacles must be taken up and cleaned once a day. Indeed as staff are busy enough at that time, spares are a boon so that a daily bulk cleaning and drying period can be accommodated with the minimum of work and disturbance to routine.

Creep feeders

Fortunately these creep feeders are small and inexpensive. I illustrate three of them.

Another not shown is a heavy, cast-iron circular bowl with metal rod dividers falling from a central carrying handle. But they are heavy things to cart around and keep clean. A concrete/resin heavy bowl is more convenient. Plastic or steel designs are cheaper and lighter  but need to be anchored to the farrowing pen perforated floor, in which case a central, spring-loaded handle is depressed and twisted to lock a small ‘T-piece’ under the slat and keep it from being overturned. Preferably do not use those with solid dividers as piglets like to see others eating and the more timid will start eating that bit sooner.

Another more costly but intelligent design, which does not need such frequent replenishment, is one I’ve seen used and made by Osborne, Kansas. This has a mini tray under a small dispensing hopper which itself keeps the creep away from flies and odours. The larger tray underneath the fixed mini tray can be taken off and washed, but ask for an extra number of these so that the device can be kept as clean as possible by cleaning and replacing with the spares. I hope they are still available, as we always got good results with them.  Many creep feeders are what I call “permanent” – heavy, well made, the trough partitioned and with a generous feed hopper. Fine! But they tend to be overfilled and thus the feeding space is not cleaned frequently enough during those first vital 4 to 7 days of use.

Spotless cleanliness is the keystone of successful early-starting creep feeding – once you have summoned up courage to buy a really good creep feed, of course.

Plenty of spare small creep receptacles, frequently sanitized, enables this to be done.

Because the larger conventional creep hoppers are so permanent, they are not placed in the farrowing pen until too late, in other words when the technician thinks the piglets will eat the creep feed willingly, which is at about 10-12 days. Use them later by all means  – providing the trough is kept clean.

For the ‘Three-Threes’ it is better to have a smaller dedicated dispenser and change to a conventional feeder later on – if kept clean and sweet.

Placing of the creep dispenser

This is a big subject, too complex to be described here as it involves “best locations” in the four main farrowing pen designs – central crate/side creep (preferred), central crate/forward creep, central crate/corner creep and diagonal crate/corner creep. In the limited space left to me here, suffice it to say that you should, in all cases, keep the creep dispenser away from a heat source, place it as near as possible to a water source (but not that of the sows), never overfill and keep it away from the sow’s urine splashings.

A tip to finish with

Can you get potato starch in Canada?  If so, mix a little in with the creep pellets or sprinkle a little over the shallow pre-starter tray on the first day of weaning – you will be surprised how quickly they take to it.

Ed Barrie, Sow Weaner Pig Specialist in the Pork News & Views newsletter from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

As management skills of pork producers have improved, and science has learned more about new born pigs needs, we are seeing changes in how we manage farrowing processes.
Sanitation

Sanitation is recognised as an absolute necessity in farrowing room management. We have learned how to collect samples to determine negative bacteria present in facilities.

With this knowledge we have been able to develop cleaning protocols using high pressure water (hot and cold) de–greasers, detergents, post wash rinses, disinfectants and drying to achieve sanitation levels that are quite suitable for newborn animals and their dam.
Farrowing Management

We have learned to move sows/gilts into facilities earlier rather than later. In doing this the benefits include being able to get them onto a feeding and watering schedule, as well as allowing them time to settle into the new crates.

We can adjust the crates to suit the sows and ensure we have all supplies and services necessary to deal with any early arrivals.

Around delivery day, record cards can be placed, floor matting put in place and heat mats, as well as heat lamps, can be placed in preparation for farrowing.

Covers (hovers) over the resting area for small pigs have come back into use for two reasons. Firstly, they reduce the heat loss to the air in the room and thus reduce energy costs. Secondly, they reduce drafts and restrict air movement which results in a more comfortable environment for the young pig. There is also the added advantage in restricted air movement of keeping the sow cool.
Farrowing Day

Assistance at the time of farrowing is an area that has a proven pay–off. Ideally, assistance should be available 24 hours a day for the duration of farrowing. One person will not be able to achieve the results of two, and two are best used on a split shift basis which could give coverage for 12 or 14 hours a day. This allows some time for overlap for tasks requiring two people (such as moving sows experiencing farrowing difficulties, or milking and feeding colostrum).

What we have learned about the newborn animal and the suckling process has also helped us significantly. We have known for some time that newborn pigs have very low energy reserves. What we are currently seeing is that genetic selection for leaner animals has resulted in newborns with the possibility of even lower energy reserves available. The second point we have established is that newborns often take 20 minutes to find a teat and begin to nurse. In this time period they are wet, in a significantly colder environment than before being born.

Also they are often attached to their dam by an umbilical cord which may well take significant time to stretch long enough to either break or allow nursing. In addition to these challenges, some smaller animals can be suffocated either within or under afterbirth material. The solution is to get the piglets separated from the sow, dried off either by hand or heat sources, and installed on a lactating nipple to nurse colostrum.

Larger litters can be separated into smaller and larger animals by weight, and larger animals are placed in a container or ring under a heat source while smaller ones are allowed to nurse first. They should be switched every hour, and all piglets should be given a chance to nurse within an hour of birth.

Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. jiqin@purdue.edu

Abstract

Animal manure is a significant source of environmental pollution and manure dilution in barn cleaning and slurry storage is a common practice in animal agriculture. The effect of swine manure dilution on releases of four pollutant gases was studied in a 30-day experiment using eight manure reactors divided into two groups. One group was treated with swine manure of 6.71% dry matter and another with manure diluted with water to 3.73% dry matter. Ammonia release from the diluted manure was 3.32 mg min(-1)m(-2) and was 71.0% of the 4.67 mg min(-1)m(-2) from the undiluted manure (P<0.01). Because the ammonia release reduction ratio was lower than the manure dilution ratio, dilution could increase the total ammonia emissions from swine manure, especially in lagoons with large liquid surface areas. Carbon dioxide release of 87.3 mg min(-1)m(-2) from the diluted manure was 56.4% of the 154.8 mg min(-1)m(-2) from the undiluted manure (P<0.01). Manure dry matter was an important factor for carbon dioxide release from manure. No differences were observed between the treatments (P>0.05) for both hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide releases. Therefore, dilution could also significantly increase the total releases of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide to the environment because dilution adds to the total manure volume and usually also increases the total gas release surface area.

Glen Almond

Department of Farm Animal Health & Resource Management

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 27606

Introduction

Due to the relative abundance of water and its “low price”, there previously was little demand for research on the role of water and water delivery systems in US pork production, and specifically with applications to North Carolina. In contrast, several European countries consider water as a critical nutrient and a valuable resource, and their researchers aggressively conducted studies on water delivery systems and factors affecting water consumption and waste (Mroz et al., 1995). Water is important in pork production for two general reasons: its role in pig performance and its contribution to waste.

On swine farms, the three primary categories of water use include drinking, sanitation, and cooling. Water consumption by animals is typically based on published requirements for a particular age group or weight of pig; it is assumed that the population of pigs consumes a specific quantity of water each day. Some reports indicated that 40% of water use is attributable to sanitation and washing procedures. In general, this percentage appears to be an overestimate and presumably the quantity will vary between farms and type of facility. High-pressure sprayers and free water hoses are commonly used for washing and disinfection. The high-pressure sprayers use between 4 and 8 gallons/min. For 8 hours of use, the sprayers use less than 4000 gallons of water. One report indicated that the high-pressure sprayers use 20% less water the free water hoses. The quantity of water used for soaking rooms, prior to pressure washing, has not bee quantitated, but may be extrapolated from values provided for sprinkler nozzles.

Cooling devices, such as misters, cool cells and drippers use water on a seasonal basis. Their contribution to wastewater and specifics of operation of cooling devices are well described in the Pork Industry Handbook (Article PIH-87).  Our studies have failed to consistently reveal seasonal trends in water use by sow farms. Either the sprinkler systems and evaporative coolers are very efficient, or conversely, their contribution to a farm’s overall water use is negligible.

Water Requirements

            Water is the single nutrient required in the greatest quantity by animals. Pigs require water for a variety of reasons, including most metabolic functions, adjustment of body temperature, movement of nutrients into the body tissues, removal of metabolic waste, production of milk, and for growth and reproduction. In fact, 80% of the empty body weight of the newborn pig and about 50% of a market hog is water. An animal can lose practically all its fat and over half of its protein and yet live, while a loss of one-tenth of its water results in death.

            Pigs consume the majority of their water by drinking. However, some water is ingested in feed and metabolism also generates water. The pig loses body water via urine, feces, respiration and from the skin. The balance between water intake and water loss is affected by numerous factors including health status, nutrition and the environment.   There is not a simple answer to the question “How much water do pigs need?” Surprisingly, few studies have directly addressed the question and many investigations erroneously equate water use or water consumption with water requirements.

            Daily water intake by lactating sows ranges from 8 to 25 liters (2-6.6 gals; Phillips et al., 1990; Fraser et al., 1990). It was recommended that 3.5 to 6 gals of water be provided daily to nonlactating sows (Midwest Plan Service, 1983; Madec, 1984; Gardner et al., 1990).  Several studies indicated that gestating/breeding sows actually consume between 2 to 4 gals of fresh water/day (Madec et al., 1986; Phillips et al., 1990; Klopfenstein et al., 1994) while gilts consume 1.5-3 gals/day (Madec et al., 1986; Jourquin et al., 1992).

            It is necessary to recognize that there is no single water requirement for a species or an individual; the amount of water consumed depends upon factors such as temperature, diet, frequency with which water is provided, housing and stresses in the environment. In general, the water requirements of grow-finish pigs typically is related to feed intake and expressed as a ration of water:feed. This ratio may range from 2:1 to 3.5:1, depending on the study. In regard to the optimal ratio for performance, several factors may be important and most studies fail to report similar results.

            A summary of reported water requirements of the pig are provided in Table 1.These values are based on the requirements of pigs in a thermoneutral environment and under ideal conditions. It is difficult to maintain pigs in such favorable conditions in commercial farms.

Table 1.  Water requirements of pigs. Values (liters/day or gallons/day) indicate the range of

requirements as presented in the literature. 

Factors Affecting Water Requirements and Intake

            Pigs affected with diseases require more water than healthy pigs of the same age and body weight. For example, water loss associated with diarrhea or increased water demands of an animal with a fever change the water requirements of a sick pig. Increased water intake is difficult for a pig to achieve in large pens with numerous pigs or when water supply is intentionally restricted by certain water delivery systems.

            Water demand will increase in proportion to the crude protein of the diet. Thus, 3.9 and 5.3 liters of water were consumed daily by nursery pigs fed 12 or 16% crude protein diets, respectively. The influence of added artificial lysine to the diet on water intake has not been addressed and unpublished studies indicate that pigs consuming a pellet ration have greater water demands than pigs eating a diet fed as meal. Higher salt or potassium intake increases the demand for water. “Salt poisoning” is not generally a result of a toxic level of salt intake per se, but a disruption of the pig’s water balance (ie, a disruption of water supply). Water starvation is more appropriate to describe this condition.

             High ambient temperatures will increase water requirements, particularly in sows and finishing pigs. The increased consumption coupled with increased urinary water loss is an effective mechanism by which pigs lose body heat. A change in ambient temperature from 54-60⁰F to 86-95⁰F gives an increase of >50% in water consumption. When pigs are fed ad libitum, a reduction in feed intake is a typical response to high temperatures. The decreased feed intake lowers the animals’ need to eliminate metabolic heat. Fortunately, the diurnal pattern of high ambient temperatures allows pigs to consume feed during the cooler parts of the day. One interesting observation is that at high ambient temperatures, pigs will consume almost double the quantity of cool (50⁰F) water than the amount of warm (80⁰F) water.

            It is an accepted industry procedure to provide 4-6 lbs of feed to gestating sows. This restricted feed intake is usually matched by increased water intake (assuming sufficient water is available). The extra water intake is presumed to occur by the animals’ attempts to gain abdominal fill (Yang et al., 1984). For most sows, 60-75% of water is consumed within 3-4 hours after feeding; however, many sows consume water throughout the day (Klopfenstein et al., 1994; Mroz et al., 1995). Therefore, a constant source of water is required in breeding and gestation barns.

Sow Health

            Some of the most common health problems in commercial sow farms are urinary tract infections. Urinary tract infections include cystitis (inflammation of the urinary bladder) and pyelonephritis (inflammation of the kidney). Reports indicated that urinary tract infections affected 22 to 40% of sows in confinement operations (Madec, 1984; Wendt and Vesper, 1992). The negative impact of these infections on sow herds is illustrated by the observation that the proportion of sow deaths attributable to cystitis-pyelonephritis varies from 15% to greater than 40% (Smith, 1984; D’Allaire et al., 1991).

            Various bacterial agents were isolated from cases of cystitis-pyelonephritis, including Escherichia coli, Proteus spp., Streptococusi sp., Staphylococcus spp. and Eubacterium suis. It is common to note mixed infections with the aforementioned bacteria. Several contributory factors have been associated with cystitis-pyelonephritis in sows. Age, lack of exercise (Madec and David, 1983) and the use of stalls or tethers increase the likelihood of cystitis and pyelonephritis. Water intake presumably is the most important risk factor in cystitis-pyelonephritis (Madec et al., 1986; Bollwhan and Arnhofer, 1989).

            Various water delivery systems are used in sow facilities, but the impact of these systems on sow health and performance received little attention. This shortcoming was due to the lack of a practical, diagnostic technique that could be used to evaluate sow health without conducting necropsies on dead sows. Therefore, we established practical urinalysis procedures for evaluation of urinary tract infections in sows (Almond and Stevens, 1995; John Carr – personal communication). The collection of urine samples is usually non-invasive and easily performed on farms. Urinalysis results provide important information regarding hydration status (water intake) of animals, the severity of inflammation in the urinary bladder and/or kidneys, and with the appropriate microbial cultures, the likely pathogen(s).

Field Investigation

            The first study was conducted to evaluate the effect of water delivery system on urinalysis values for gestating sows during the summer months. The results showed that the prevalence of urinary tract infections in sows was dependent on the type of water delivery system (Table 2).

            Specific gravity and urine abnormalities (presence of protein, nitrite, white blood cells) were less in samples collected from sows using nipple drinkers in the gestation crates than sows using the other delivery systems.  The results revealed that urine specific gravity was greater than 1.020 in 30% of sows using an intermittent water delivery in gestation stalls. In contrast, less than 3% of sows had a urine specific gravity greater than 1.020 when the sows had access to a water nipple in each gestation stall. Overall, the results indicated that many gestating sows are at risk of urinary tract infections, particularly when housed in stalls with intermittent delivery of water in a trough. Further, the high specific gravity of these sows is a clear indication that many of the sows had restricted access to water.

Table 2.  Effect of water delivery system on urine abnormalities in gestating sows.  Type 1system has water nipples in individual gestation crates; Type 2 had two nipples in gestation pens (5-6 animals/pen); Type 3 is crate gestation with a common water trough, filled three times/day; Type 4 is crate gestation with a common sloped water trough with water supplied for 15 min at 2-h intervals.

	Delivery System (n = 4-5 farms/system)
Parameter	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
No. Samples Collected	201	135	200	230
Specific Gravitya	1.006+.0016c	1.014+.002e	1.009+.001d	1.015+.002e
pH	6.93 + .2	6.76 + .2	6.91 + .2	7.3 + .2
Proteinb	.085 + .12 c	.35 + .16 d	.22 + .12 cd	.9 + .12 e
%  Samples with Abnormalities	15.4	60.7	53.5	63.9
% Samples with > 105 colonies bacteria/ml	12.4	41.5	41	43.5
a Urine specific gravity is a measurement of urine concentration. Specific gravity of water is 1.000. As specific gravity increases, the urine “concentration” also is increasing. b Using urine reagent strips, scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were assigned to correspond to urine samples that tested negative for protein, or tested positive for trace amounts of protein, 30 mg protein/dl and 100 mg protein/dl respectively. c,d,e Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P<.01).

Field Investigation – Water Use in Each Stage of Production:

            To further evaluate water use, we conducted a 12-month study on two commercial farms. Weekly water use (intended for consumption) was recorded for each phase of production. The results provide useful indicators of anticipated water use for new farms or farms in the process of remodeling. Water used for cleaning or for evaporative cooling was not assessed.

Breeding/Gestation:  Table 3 illustrates the daily water use (gallons/sow/day) by gestating sows. Three water delivery systems were included. During the first 40 weeks, there was a clear pattern of water use. In contrast, water use during the summer months (Weeks 41-52) was erratic.  Additional information is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.  Water use by three water delivery systems in a gestation facility. The 52-week study was conducted for one year (September 1997-September 1998). Water use and animal inventory were recorded weekly. The study was divided into three periods of time, based on distinct water use patterns. Overall represents the entire 52-week study. 

Time Period	System	No. of Sows		Gallons/Sow/Day		Gallons/Crate/Day
		Mean	STD	Mean	STD	Mean	STD
Week 1-22	Arato	198.9	6.4	2.24	0.5	2.18	0.5
	Nipple	187.5	4.3	3.09	0.4	3.01	0.4
	Trough	262.8	7.8	8.03	1.0	7.9	1.0
Week 23-40	Arato	199.9	4.8	2.87	0.6	2.8	0.6
	Nipple	185.94	8.5	2.7	0.8	2.6	0.7
	Trough	265.1	4.4	4.37	0.2	4.32	0.2
Week 41-52	Arato	201.4	1.8	4.2	1.6	4.23	1.6
	Nipple	190.25	1.8	5.7	2.5	5.64	2.5
	Trough	262	5.9	6.74	3.1	6.61	3.1
Overall	Arato	199.83	5.1	2.93	1.2	2.87	1.2
	Nipple	187.6	5.9	3.54	1.74	3.5	1.7
	Trough	263.4	6.4	6.46	2.25	6.35	2.2

In the last 12 weeks of the study, irregular peaks in water use were noted with each system. The primary reason for the erratic patterns was the discharging of fresh water into the troughs in the rows of crates with nipple and Arato drinkers. Because the increased water use was irregular during this time, it is assumed that timers were not used for the trough delivery. The justification for the use of troughs, despite the nipple and Arato drinkers, was not provided. Unfortunately, the erratic use of troughs in both barns interfered with statistical analyses and subsequent interpretation.

Flow rates of randomly selected Arato drinkers and nipple drinkers were determined at 3-4 week intervals from December 1997 to August 1998. Figure 1 illustrates the flow rates of Arato and nipple drinkers in the breeding/gestation facilities. The mean flow rate for the nipple drinkers was approximately 1500 ml/min. The flow rate was 600 ml/min by Arato drinkers. It should be noted that there was minimal variation in flow rates by the Arato drinkers. In contrast, flow rates varied between the different nipple drinkers and the flow rate of each nipple drinker was inconsistent.

Figure 1.  Flow rates (ml/min, mean + STD) of drinkers in a gestation facility. Flow rates were assessed for 10 Arato drinkers (Drinker Type A) and 10 nipple drinkers (Drinker Type B) at 3-4 week intervals for 8 months (December – August). The top figure shows the rates for each type over time. The second figure illustrates the flow rates for each drinker.

Midstream urine samples were collected from sows using the water delivery systems. The samples were analyzed using established techniques. Some of the urine parameters, such as pH, did not differ between systems or between sampling dates. In contrast, urine specific gravity (SG) did differ between systems (Figure 2). Based on our previous findings, urine SG should be less than 1.010 in sows consuming sufficient water. The urinalysis results indicated that the urine SG of sows using Arato and nipple drinkers was consistently less than 1.010. Based on urine SG, the supplemental provision of water by troughs (weeks 41-52) did not improve/increase water intake by sows using the drinkers.

            The presence of white blood cells (WBC), bacteria and protein in urine is indicative of urine abnormalities and presumably cystitis and/or pyelonephritis. The frequency distributions of percent negative samples for these parameters are shown in Figure 2. Collectively, these results demonstrated that fewer urine abnormalities were evident in urine collected from sows using the Arato drinkers. However, it should be noted that the overall frequency of negative samples was lower than expected on this particular farm.

Figure 2.  Urine specific gravity for sows using three types of water delivery systems (top figure). The bottom figure provides the percent of negative samples for white blood cells (WBC) and bacteria in urine collected from sows. ^ab Within month or dependent variable, columns with different superscripts differ (P<.05).

Farrowing:      Five farrowing rooms were used in this phase of the study. In each room, one row of 12 crates were equipped with Arato drinkers and one row (12 crates) had the original nipple drinkers. Two water meters were installed to record water use in each room. Water meter readings were recording weekly. The original piglet drinkers were not removed and thus, water use by piglets was included in the weekly water use by the lactating sows. It was anticipated that water use by nursing piglets would be negligible and would not be affected by sow drinker type.

            Weekly water use by a farrowing room is illustrated in Figure 3. A 3-4 week cycle of increasing water use, followed by a precipitous decease, was evident for each room over the 52-week study. This pattern of water use presumably is due to increasing water requirements of sows during lactation. The sudden decrease in water use reflects the movement of all sows from the farrowing house at the time of weaning. With few notable exceptions, weekly water use failed to return to baseline (i.e. no use for one week out of four). Total water for each room over the 52 weeks is given in Table 4.

Figure 3.  Weekly water use (liters) in a representative farrowing room. Within the room, 12 crates were fitted with Arato drinkers and 12 crates equipped with nipple drinkers. The water meters were placed near the entrance to the room. Water use was recorded for 52 weeks.

Table 4.  Total water use (gallons) in farrowing facilities for the 52-week study. Each farrowing room had 24 crates. For each room, twelve crates (one side of the room) were equipped with Arato drinkers. Twelve crates were equipped with nipple drinkers. Water use was recording weekly.

            It was suggested that the “conservative” water use by lactating sows using Arato drinkers may predispose the sows to problems with performance, specifically, fewer pigs weaned per sow and decreased feed intake. As shown in Figure 4, there were no differences in pigs weaned/sow. An accurate assessment of feed allowance could not be determined from the sow data cards. However, feed intake by a lactating sow has a major influence on the weaning-to-service interval (WSI). Using PigChamp records (database applications), the weaning-to-service intervals were obtained for approximately 600 sows (300 for each drinker type). The WSI’s were 5.76 + 4.3 days and 5.41 + 2.8 days for sows, which used nipple drinkers and Arato drinkers, respectively, during lactation (Figure 4).  This failure to detect differences in WSI demonstrates that feed intake presumably was similar for sows using the different types of drinkers. A recent investigation (Leibbrandt et al., 2001) indicated that sow performance was affected by drinker flow rates during the summer (Table 5). Our results indicate that despite the lower flow rate of Arato drinkers, sow performance was not compromised. Based on previous reports, it is evident that 600-700 ml/min is the minimum flow rate for drinkers in farrowing crates.

Figure 4.  Basic assessment of sow performance during and after lactation. The top figure illustrates the number of pigs weaned per sow (mean+STD). The numbers in the X-axis represent farrowing room number. The open bars are results for sows using Arato drinkers during lactation. The dark bars are results for sows using nipple drinkers. Lactation length was 21 days.  The figure on the right shows the weaning to service intervals (percent of weaned sows) for sows using Arato or nipple drinkers.

Table 5.  Effects of drinker flow rate and season on sow and litter performance (Leibbrandt et al., 2001).

Nursery Rooms: Six nursery rooms with 24 pens/room and 20-22 pigs/pen were used in the investigation. Twelve pens in each room were equipped with two Arato drinkers. The other pens continued to use nipple drinkers, which were previously in use. Each room was equipped with two water meters to measure water use by the drinker systems. Weekly water by the 6 nursery rooms is illustrated in Figure 5. For each room, pigs used less water with access to the Arato drinkers than the nipple drinkers.

Figure 5. Weekly water use (liters; mean + SEM) by drinkers in six nursery rooms. The * and ** indicate that water use differed between Arato (open bars) and nipple drinkers (dark bars) at P<.05 and P<.01, respectively. Water use was recorded for 52 weeks

            Total water use for the 52 weeks differed by 78,713 gallons between the two drinker types for the 6 rooms (Table 6). Thus, water use by Arato drinkers was 71.9% of the water use by nipple drinkers. On an individual pig basis (assuming 22 pigs/pen), a pig used between 1.86 liters/day (0.49 gallons/pig/day) and 2.41 liters/day (0.63 gallons/pig/day).

Table 6.   Total water use (gallons) in the nursery rooms for the 52-week study. Each nursery room had twelve pens equipped with 2 Arato drinkers and 12 pens equipped with nipple drinkers. There were 20-22 pigs/pen. Water use was recorded weekly.

Finishing:        Total water use in four finishing barns is given in Table 7. Each barn had 36 pens with 22-25 pigs placed/pen. One side of each barn was equipped with Arato drinkers and the other side had nipple drinkers. Each pen had 2 drinkers. Water meters were installed to record water use for each side of each barn. Weekly water use was recorded for 52 weeks. For 3 of the 4 barns, weekly water use was less by pens with Arato than nipple drinkers. Weekly water use by the finishing barns is illustrated in Figure 6.

Table 7.  Total water use by Arato and nipple systems in four commercial finishing barns. For each type of drinker, eighteen pens (22-25 pigs/pen) in each barn were equipped with 2 drinkers/pen. The values represent the total water use for the 52-week study period.

Figure 6.  Weekly water use in two commercial finishing barns. (FIN-1-A = finishing barn 1, Arato drinkers: FIN-1-N = finishing barn 1, nipple drinkers).

On at least 5 production cycles (or turns of a barn), water use reached a plateau at approximately 8-9 weeks after pigs were placed in the barn (Figure 6).  This observation is somewhat unexpected. It was anticipated that water use would gradually increase during the grow/finish phase until the initial sorting for slaughter. Evidently, the pigs reached an “upper limit” in water use for both types of drinkers. Our initial concern was whether the systems were restricting water intake when the pigs reach a certain size. However, in retrospect, these results are not surprising. Several European investigators developed regression equations to estimate the relationship between water intake, metabolic body weight and feeding level (see Mroz et al, 1995). Using any of these equations, water intake does level off during finishing.

According to Mroz et al. (1995), a 60 kg pig has a daily “water income” of 1.9-3.3 liters/day. In addition, many researchers recommend that growing-finishing pigs should consume a minimal water:feed ration (vol/wt) of 2:1. If these recommendations are valid, it is evident that the pigs in the present study were consuming sufficient water (2.2 – 4.4 liters/day) to meet their daily requirements.

One of the important considerations regarding water use in grow-finish facilities is effective administration of water medications. Figures 7 and 8 provide the relation between water use and antibiotic costs in finishing facilities. Water use varies between drinker types and thus, the cost of antibiotics (on a $/pig basis) also will vary.

Figure 7.  Relationship between water use and water medication costs. The X-axis provides daily water use and the Y-axis gives the cost/pig/day. Each line represents the cost (cents) of medication per gallon of water. Obviously, an increase in antibiotic cost and/or water use have dramatic effects on the cost of medicating pigs through the water.     

Figure 8.  Differences in medication costs as related to water use by different water delivery devices. The numbers (1.2, 1.5 etc) on the X-axis refer to the water use/pig on a daily basis. The A-80 is the Arato drinker. Nipple, bowl and swing drinkers are self-explanatory. The last set of bars refers to a wet-dry system. The initials following the drinker name refer to the initials of the investigator. The costs of the tetracycline, oxytetracycline (OTC) and tiamulin were set at 6, 9 and 14 cents/gallon of medicated water, respectively.

Summary

The primary goal of this paper is to challenge producers to consider the value of water in commercial pig production. Most of the results were derived from one study on commercial farms and the information may not be applicable to all units or all conditions. Several other studies have been conducted and published; however, the vast majority of previous research was conducted under controlled conditions with small groups of pigs.

            One factor, which was superficially reviewed, is the role of diet and feed intake on water consumption and requirements of pigs. The interaction between feed and water intake is important and should be discussed in greater detail in subsequent papers or presentations.  As the NC pork industry modifies waste management programs to meet regulations, it is not surprising that water use and the generation of wastewater is a concern. Like all phases and aspects of production, effective management of existing equipment, careful consideration of new equipment acquisitions and attention to the pigs’ needs are necessary for the long-term success of production.

References

Almond, G.W. and Stevens, J.B. 1995. Urinalysis techniques for swine practitioners. Comp. Cont.

            Ed. Pract. Vet. 17:121-129.

Bollwahn, W. and Arnhofer, G. 1989. The importance of exogenous factors on the composition of

            the urine of breeding sows. Tierarztl Prax 17:43-46.

D’Allaire, S., Drolet, R. and Chagnon, M. 1991. The causes of sow mortality: A retrospective study.

            Can. Vet. J. 32:241-243.

Fraser D., Patience J.F., Phillips P.A. and McLeese, J.M. 1990. Water for piglets and lactating sows:

Quantity, quality and quandaries. In: Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. Ed. Haresign W. and DJA Cole. Butterworths; Boston. pp. 137-160.

Gardner, J.A.A., Dunkin, A.C. and Lloyd, L.C. 1990. Pig Production in Australia.

            Butterworths;London, pp 318-319.

Jones, J.E.T. 1992. Urinary System. In Diseases of Swine. 7th Edition. Ed. A.D. Leman, B.E. Straw,

            et al. Iowa State University Press: Ames. pp. 217-222.

Jourquin, J., Seynaeve, M. and De Wilde, R.O. 1992. The influence of the spontaneous water intake

on the urine composition and urological parmeters in gestating and lactating gilts and sows. 12 th Int. Pig. Soc. Cong. pg 605.

Klopfenstein, C., D’Allaire, S. and Martineau, G-P. 1994. What sows have to say about water

            intake. Proc. A.D. Leman Swine Conf. pp. 71-77.

Leibbrandt, F.D., Johnston, L.J., Shurson, G.C., et al. 2001. Effect of nipple drinker water flow rate

            and season on performance of lactating swine. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2770-2775.

Madec, F. 1984. Urinary disorders in intensive pig herds. Pig News and Information. 5:89-93.

Madec, F. and David, F. 1983. Les troubles urinaires des troupeaux de truies: Diagnostic, incidence

            et circonstances d’apparition. J. Rech Porcine F. 15:431-446.

Madec, F., Cariolet R. and Dantzer, R. 1986. Relevance of some behavioural criteria concerning the

            sow in intensive pig farming and veterinary practice. Ann. Rech. Vet. 17:177-184.

Midwest Plan Service. 1983. Swine housing and equipment handbook. pg 3.

Mroz, Z., Jongbloed, A.W., Van Diepen, J.T.M. et al. 1995. Excretory and

physiologicaconsequences of reducing water supply to nonpregnant sows. J. Anim. Sci. (Suppl 1). 73:213.

Phillips, P.A., Fraser, D. and Thompson, B.K. 1990. The influence of water nipple flow rate and

            position and room temperature on sow water intake and spillage. Appl. Eng. Agric. 6:75-78.

Smith, W.J. 1984. Sow mortality – limited survey. Proc. Int. Pig Vet. Soc. 8:368.

Straub, G., Weniger, J.H., Tawfik, E.S. and Steinhauf, G. 1976. The effect of high envrionmental

            temperatures on fattening performance and growth of boars. Livestock Prod. Sci. 3:65-74.

Wendt, M. and Vesper, C. 1992. Occurrence of Eubacterium suis in breeding herds. 12th Proc. Int.

            Pig. Vet. Cong., The Hague, p. 334.

Yang, T.S., Price, M.A. and Aherne, F.X. 1984. The effect of level of feeding on water turnover in

growing pigs. App. Anim. Behavior Sci. 12:103-109.

]]> http://swineweb.com/water-optimizing-performance-while-reducing-waste/feed/ 0