Harold Gonyou predicts hog producers will gradually shift away from gestation stalls in favour of group housing for gestating sows.
A research scientist at the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatoon, Gonyou said opposition to gestation stalls remains strong in Manitoba, due to the efforts of groups such as the Winnipeg Humane Society.
He said the design of gestation stalls will change to alleviate the criticisms, but increasing the size of stalls will also increase the costs, prompting producers to look more closely at the merits of group housing.
Read Also
Stacking Canada up on gene editing livestock
Canada may want to gauge how Argentina and other countries have approached gene editing in livestock and what that has meant for local innovation.
A main criticism of gestation stalls is that they do not allow enough movement. However, they help manage sows’ individual feed intake and minimize aggression.
During Hog Days in Brandon earlier this month, Gonyou told producers that not all group housing is created equally. There are at least four kinds, and while some may be an improvement over gestation stalls, there are others he would not recommend.
In the conventional design, sows share a pen and feed is spread on the floor. The more aggressive sows get more feed, while the weaker ones may not get enough. The weaker ones may also get hurt and Gonyou said15 percent of gestating sows in the group will usually need be pulled out for periods of relief.
“Of the group housing systems, this is one that I don’t feel a great deal of support for.”
He said the design might provide good but not outstanding production. It will be used where inexpensive housing is needed for additional space, such as when a transition is made from one type of housing system to another and capital is limited.
“The lack of control of feed intake will limit its place in high production,” said Gonyou.
An alternative is to group sows in pens that include short feeding stalls. Trickle feeding is used so that the feed does not accumulate quickly in front of each sow, alleviating the risk that weaker sows will get shouldered out.
“It is critical that the feed is coming in slow enough that the slowest sow can keep up with it,” Gonyou said.
This system is more popular on small to mid-sized hog farms where managers are content to work with 10 or fewer animals, he said. There’s an emphasis on stockmanship and a need to sort the sows into pens according to their nutritional needs.
Its applications are limited, Gonyou said, because it tends to be more expensive than some alternatives.
Another type of group housing attaches feeding stalls to the pens and allows sows into the stalls only at feeding time.
Gonyou said this system allows excellent control of feed intake. The sows are sorted according to nutritional needs and sows that need extra rations are hand fed.
This design also provides an opportunity for health inspections, treatments and pregnancy checks while the sows are in the feeding stalls.
“It’s a system that allows for the individual care of animals at the time of feeding.”
Another design uses electronic sow feeders, which have been improved considerably since first introduced. Each sow wears an ear tag bearing a transponder and the information is conveyed to a computer that regulates how often the sow will be allowed into the pen’s feed station. The system can be programmed so a sow’s feed ration is tailored to its needs.
“These animals essentially cycle through this one feeding station during the day,” Gonyou said.
“It provides control over individual feed intake in terms of both quantity and quality.”
Because only one sow can enter the station at a time, the electronic sow feeder helps alleviate competition.
Transponder costs have dropped to $10 each from $60.
