Utfodringsmetodik för avvanda grisar: effekter på produktion, hälsa och ätbeteende

In summary, the results of the study indicated that a division of the feed ration to newly weaned pigs into several small portions could have a positive effect on animal health and production. Pigs fed 8 small meals per day had the fewest health problems and were faster to start eating dry feed directly after weaning. An additional division into 16 small rations per day did not have any further positive effects. As expected, the strategic feed reduction led to fewer E. coli-associated diarrhoea problems after weaning. As expected, feed consumption and growth was reduced; however, feed conversion was better, in comparison to that of the animals allowed ad lib access to the feed. The results of the studies under conventional conditions indicated that the division of the feed ration which the pig via its natural eating behaviour does when obtaining feed from an automatic dispenser with 2-3 eating places, appears to be just as positive for the animal as a controlled manual division of the ration via free feeding into a long trough. If it is necessary to use a strategic feed reduction in the herd, it can only be carried out in systems where all pigs can eat together

Mjuka golv i grisningsboxar

Problem med hälta, klövskador och klövinfektioner är mycket vanligt förekommande inom grisproduktionen både hos unga och äldre djur. I samband med att besättningarna blir större och kraven på att arbetseffektiviteten ökar blir också mängden halm som används i grisproduktionen mer begränsad. Detta ställer ännu större krav på utformningen hos boxarnas betong- och spaltytor så att dessa inte orsakar skador hos smågrisar och suggor. Ofta är betonggolven i grisningsboxarna för hårda och har en alltför stor avrivande effekt. Detta resulterar i klöv- och benskador hos smågrisarna samt bl.a. skuldersår och spenskador hos suggorna. Skadorna på smågrisarna i form av hårlösa partier, avnötningar och sår eller inflammationer i huden bedöms huvudsakligen vara en effekt av grisarnas aktivitet i samband med digivningen. Denna typ av skador anses också till övervägande delen bero på det fasta betonggolvet i grisningsboxen och inte så mycket av grisningsboxens spaltyta. Förutom att klöv- och benskador är ett välfärdsproblem medför skadorna ofta också ett behov av användning av antibiotika. Antibiotikabehandling innebär kostnader både i form av preparat och arbetstid samt är negativt ur resistenssynpunkt

Arbetseffektiva grisningsboxar

The production level in Swedish pig production is high, but their ability to compete in comparison with other countries is weak, because the Swedish production costs are high. Particularly poor is the competitiveness of Swedish piglet production, whereas growing-finishing pig production generally manages better. Those production costs which are especially high in Sweden are for buildings and labour. In this report, the results of work studies carried out in piglet producing herds with farrowing pens constructed after 2000, are reported. The herds were chosen in consultation with Swedish Meats/Scan AB. The aim of the studies was to focus on the farrowing pen, and how its’ design affected the time necessary for manure removal and management of the piglets. The work studies were thus divided into two separate work operations: work operation 1) the removal of manure and checking/monitoring the piglets, and work operation 2) managing/handling the piglets. In each herd, the work operations have been carried out continually within a number of farrowing pens per farrowing unit. The time for the different activities (transport outside the pen, transport inside the pen, work with gates, work with boards, work with doors/hatches, dunging out and the monitoring and management of the piglets) has been noted using a hand-held computer (PSION). All the practical work with manure removal and animal management has been done by the same individual in all the herds (Person 1). Similarly, all the notations with the computer have been carried out by the same observer in all the herds (Person 2). A total of 16 herds have been visited 1-2 times each. At the visit, besides the work studies, the owner/stock person has been interviewed with respect to herd management, farrowing pen design and cleaning, routines and management of the piglets, etc. In addition, the farrowing pens in every herd have been measured and photo-documented in detail. The farrowing pens in the 16 herds have been divided into two different types: pens without a protective bar system (Pen A) and pens with a protective bar system which can be used to limit the sow’s movements, if necessary (Pen B). In Figures 1-7, the plans and photographs of all the Pen A farrowing pens are shown, whereas similar documentation for Pen B is given in Figures 8-16. All the pens without a protective bar system (Pen A) were also used for rearing the pigs during the first weeks after weaning (the so-called not-moved system), while the piglets in the farrowing pens with a protective bar system (Pen B) were moved at weaning (the so-called moved system). The pens in the moved system were somewhat smaller, had a higher proportion of slatted floors, and had the dung removed more often using vacuum manure removal than did the pens in the not moved system (Table 1). The hygiene scores for the solid floors were, however, on average, the same for both pen systems (0.44 and 0.43, respectively)(Table 1): Besides having two pen types A or B, the pens were also classified according to the proportion of slatted flooring ( 45 % of the total pen area having slatted floors). They were also classified according to the orientation of the pen to the inspection alley (front, back or side oriented). The results of the time studies of work operation 1 (manure removal and piglet monitoring) are shown in in diagram form per herd Figure 17.. It can be seen from the Figure that there is a large variation between the herds and that the time spent for dunging out sometimes was nearly half of the entire work operation. On average, it was observed that the work operation for dunging out in total required 0.84 min per pen and occasion, while just scraping out the dung required on average circa 0.44 min per pen. The remainder of the time was spent opening gates, hatches, transport between pens, etc. In general, there was a significant correlation between the hygiene score for the solid areas of the pen and the time spent on manure removal and the entire work operation, respectively (Table 2). Irrespective of pen type, it was also clear that having a good pen hygiene reduced the work related to manure removal. The total time for work operation 1 was also significantly affected by the proportion of slatted floors in the pen, being faster if the proportion was greater. Since Pen A on average had somewhat less slatted areas, a rather longer time for this work operation was noted for this pen type in comparison with that for Pen B. In the statistical analyses, where consideration was also given to the proportion of slatted floors in the model, it was found, however, that this difference was not significant. Within pen type A, the variation in time spent in work operation 1 was also especially great between the different herds (Figure 17), and it should be noted that the shortest time for the activity “manure removal” was noted for a type A farrowing pen. A statistically significant difference between Pens A and B, to the detriment of Pen A, was, however, noted for the activity “management of gates”. This was mainly due to the necessity of entering the pen for manure removal, because Pen A had about 35% greater solid floor area than pen B. In Pen B, at least in some pen design variations, it was possible to reach the whole solid area from the inspection path outside the pen. This greatly reduced the time spent handling gates. For the forward oriented pen, a significantly shorter time for monitoring the piglets as well as a tendency for spending a shorter amount of time for gate management was noted (Table 4). The shorter time for gate management was due to the routine for dunging out the forward oriented pens completely from outside the pens (Figure 18), which was used in many herds. With respect to work operation 2 (piglet management) a tendency towards a negative relationship between the time required for this work operation and work operation 1 could be shown. That is, in the pens where the manure removal was quickly and efficiently performed, it took, instead, somewhat longer time to manage/handle the piglets (Table 5). On average, the work operation “handling piglets” took 2.47 min per pen (when standardised to 11 pigs per pen). That is, nearly 3 times as long as time required for manure removal. Collecting and management the piglet in this way, however, was carried out significantly less often than the manure operation; often only on 1-2 occasions per litter in connection with castration, iron treatment and teeth filing. The entire work operation 2, management of animals, was carried out significantly faster in Pen A (without a protective bar system). This could possibly be explained by the tendency to use more time for managing gates, because sometimes the protective bar system had to be opened or moved in order to get the piglets (Table 6), as noted for the pens with the protective bar system. The proportion of slatted floors in the pens had no significant influence on how quickly the management of the piglets was carried out (Table 6). Nor did the factor “orientation of pen in relation to the inspection alley” appear to have any significant influence on the time required to manage the pigs (work operation 2) (Table 7). On the other hand, there was a tendency that the piglet management was carried out somewhat faster in the side oriented pens (Table 7). How then can we summarise what we have learned in the present study about the optimal design of a farrowing pen? As in many other situations it can be concluded that there are many conflicts between the different aims which one wants to achieve! It is clear that an increase in the proportion of slatted flooring in the pen will reduce the time for removing the dung. However, a increase in slatted floor area, leads to a corresponding reduction in the amount of bedding material used. On the other hand, no significant difference in the time required for manure removal between the pens where the sow was always free to move around (not moved system, Pen A), and where the pens had a protective bar system to be used at farrowing (moved system, Type B) can be determined. The piglets are, however, managed significantly faster in Pen A due to a better gate system for locking the piglets in their creep area. The orientation of the pen also appears to have some influence on the dung removal activity (work operation 1). In the side oriented pens, this activity appears to be somewhat more difficult in comparison with the front or the back oriented pens. The significantly higher hygiene score in the side oriented pens may explain this observation. The interpretation is unclear, but it may be that it is more difficult to have optimal ventilation in the side oriented pens. The length of the alleys in a farrowing unit with side oriented pens is also longer, since it is necessary to go past the long side of the pen and not the short side when transporting past the pens, as for the other orientations. In some of the newer front oriented pens, shorter times for the removal of dung (work operation 1) have been observed. This depends on, among other things, being able to scrape the solid area from outside the pen, which greatly reduced the time required for managing the gates. It should, however, be noted that even if the pen normally can be scraped from outside, sometimes it is necessary to enter the pen to do it more carefully, or in order to manage the piglets. Where there was no flexibility in the form of having gates in the dung alley was considered to be irritating, “cheap” and clearly a working environment shortcoming by many of the stockpersons in the study. The greater proportion of slatted floors in the farrowing pen permitted according to the Animal Welfare Regulations of 2006 (DFS 2006:4), clearly appeared to reduce the amount of work in connection with manure removal in these piglet herds. A good pen hygiene also reduced the time for dung removal work. A general effort to maintain good hygiene in the pen, irrespective of pen type, could therefore be another important measure of importance for dung removal work. In some of the visited herds they had distinct management instructions for how to keep a good pen hygiene. Such instructions could be, for example, to always clean up wet solid areas in the pen and and to help this areas to dry by putting on materials such as wood shavings or Stalosan. It should also be considered that the manure removal itself only constitutes about half of the time required for the entire work operation. Therefore, reducing the time for handling gates and hatches in the dung alley, etc. would be other important measures for reducing the work effort in connection with pen cleaning. This did not mean, however, that the pens should be designed without gates! A lack of gates when the stockperson really needs to come into the pen to treat ill animals, etc., is experienced by the stockperson as being a great disadvantage. The consequences could therefore be instead that the stockperson avoided entering the pen when necessary to maintain a good animal care. This could, besides being poor husbandry, lead to undesirable negative effects on production. The study presented here indicates a number of details in the farrowing pen which are of importance for manure removal work and for work with the management of the piglets. In the discussion, several factors have been taken up which must be considered when deciding which farrowing pen-/not moved pen should be chosen (see Discussion). The final choice is made by the piglet producer. Our hope is, however, that the presented study can help the individual piglet producer to make this decision

Besättningsstudier av system med elektronisk utfodring (ESF) till dräktiga suggor

Jämförs investeringskostnaderna mellan olika inhysningssystem till dräktiga suggor visar sig tranponder- eller det s.k ESF-systemet (electronic sow feeding) vara mycket konkurrenskraftigt. Detta är troligen en av orsakerna till den stora utbredning systemet numera har bl. a. i Danmark och Storbritannien. Att systemet är relativt flexibelt vad gäller suggantal och gruppstorlekar samt att det påstås ombesörja en individuell utfodring av varje sugga även då suggorna är lösgående är andra fördelar. I Sverige var första generationens ESF- stationer populära redan för snart 20 år sedan. Då konstaterades att systemet vara förknippat med en del problem och brister. I den utvärdering av andra generationens ESF-system, som utförts i denna undersökning, har två fabrikat av ESF-stationer (Typ A och Typ B) studerats i tre besättningar: två i Sverige och en i Danmark. I samtliga besättningar har utförts manuella funktionsstudier i samband med utfodringen i foderstationerna samt registreringar av skador och hälsostörningar. I besättning 1 har dessutom samlats in och bearbetats uppgifter om suggornas besök i foderstationerna (antal besök, tider för besök, utmatade fodermängder m.m.) under en hel dräktighetsperiod. Utvärderingen visar att foderstationernas tekniska funktion förbättrats avsevärt. De är kraftiga och robusta och styrningen av ingångsgrindarna, som utsätts för störst påfrestningar, sker nu m.h.a. tryckluft vilket tillgodoser en tillförlitlig funktion. Resultaten från studierna av köbildning och konflikter vid automaterna samt från skaderegistreringarna visar dock att den biologiska funktionen inte är optimal. Bl.a. registrerades en förhöjd förekomst av vulva-bitningar jämfört med i system med synkroniserad utfodring i ätbås. Förekomst av särpräglade bitskador vid svansroten relateras också till utfodringssystemet. Avslutningsvis slås fast att om man väljer ESF som system för inhysning av sina dräktiga suggor måste man vara medveten om de inneboende biologiska problem man samtidigt väljer. Då det gäller ESF-systemet är val av skötsel-rutiner, tillgång till halm eller grovfoder för sysselsättning, inställningar av foderstationerna, djurflöden och planlösningar kanske viktigare än val av utfodringsstation för att få en lyckad investering. Att ha väl fungerande inlärningsrutiner för nya djur samt tillräckligt med sjukboxar, för sådana djur som p.g.a. benproblem eller liknande inte klarar att äta i foderstationerna, är andra detaljer som är väsentliga för att få en bra helhetslösning

Arbetsbelastning och tidsåtgång i moderna svenska grisningsboxar

Productivity in Swedish pig production is high, but unfortunately so are production costs, especially those of labour and of buildings. The piglet producing herds allocate about a quarter of their total working time for the work operation scraping manure (including supervision). In addition to being labour consuming, the workers also consider that manure scraping is heavy and hard work. Problems with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), especially in the upper extremities, are also a reality for today's workers in animal production, especially for women. Since women mainly work in the farrowing and lactation units in Swedish pig herds, farrowing pen design deserves special attention. In this study, working time and workload for two different work operations in the farrowing unit, was studied in 16 herds. The purpose was to obtain more knowledge about the workload of workers in modern farrowing pens and to use this knowledge to develop recommendations to prevent injuries among the workers. The herds were visited on 1-2 occasions per herd. One of the herd selection criteria was that the herds had farrowing pens which were built after year 2000. There were 7 herds with pens for farrowing, lactation and nursery (until 25 kg) periods (pen type A, without a protective gate system) and 9 herds with pens for farrowing and lactation (pen type B, with protective gate system). In the present study, previously conducted observations were supplemented with details about the gate structures, closures, piglet corners, gaps to remove manure etc. Two working operations, "Removal of manure and monitoring the animals “(WO1), where manure scraping and control of the piglets were combined, and "Handling of piglets” (WO2), where the time required to capture and mark all piglets in the pen with a colour marker on zthe back, were studied. The working operations were carried out continuously in a number of farrowing pens per unit. The time spent on the various work elements within the work operation was registered using a portable handheld computer (PSION). Both work operations were performed by the same person in all herds (person 1). Similarly, all the work time registrations using the hand computer were carried out by the same individual (person 2) in all the herds. The following work elements were recorded: transport outside the pen, transport inside the pen, work with pen gates, manure scraping from inside the pen, manure scraping from outside the pen, work with boards, work with creep area, work with handling of the pigs (catching each pig, lifting them up, marking them on the back with a colour marker). Using a digital camera, the different work elements in the two working procedures were videotaped. Observation studies of the video recordings were used to carry out detailed analyses of the workload and to visualize and identify the movements and postures used in the studied work procedures. To analyze the work postures in the different work lements, the program WinOWAS was used. WinOWAS is based on 84 so-called “basic type work positions” after evaluations of the positions of the back (4 positions), the arms (3 positions)and the legs (7 positions). The various “basic type work positions” are, depending on the degree of work load, classified in one of four action categories (higher score corresponding to higher load). For the various work elements, the program calculated the percentage of time in each action category. Classification of load was also made for the weight of the burden that was handled ( 20 kg) (Figure 1). To calculate the load on the different body parts, the program 2DSSPP (2D Static Strength Prediction Program) was used. The study estimated the torque (Nm) as a measure of the mechanical stress on the shoulder and lumbar spine (Figures 2 and 3) for the work elements: “Manure Scraping (keeper inside the pen)" and "Manure Scraping (keeper outside the pen)". The load of the work element "Manure Scraping (keeper outside the pen)" was calculated when reaching with the scraper either 150 cm or 200 cm. The study showed that there was a wide variation in the farrowing pen designs. In addition to variation in size, many different solutions for equipment details were found. How well the solutions functioned would have significant impact on the work time and work load for the different work elements. For example, the design of the gate locking system (Figure 4) affected how quickly the opening and closing of the gates could be done. In some of the farrowing pens, retractable wooden boards were used instead of gates (Figure 5). In these pens, the keeper normally stepped over the wall when entering the pens during the daily manure scraping routine. From a work load perspective, it would be a disadvantage to have to climb over a wall instead of being able to walk through a gate. In some pens, the gates in the dung alley between the pens were designed with a low "threshold", so that the keepers had to deal with both a gate and climbing over a low wall (Figure 6). The time spent manure scraping was not only affected by the pen hygiene but also how the manure was scraped into the manure channel (Figure 7). Having flaps in the slatted floor often were perceived as a problem because they often were not sufficiently durable. Openings in the slats under the gate between the pens in the manure channel appeared to be the most valued solution. In many of the herds manure scraping was not done in the whole pen every day. On certain week days, only the concrete area in the pen was cleaned and the manure moved out onto the slatted area. The actual manure scraping work was most often carried out from inside the pen but sometimes it was done from the inspection alley (Figure 8). In order to be able to scrape from the inspection alley, the pen had to be “facing forward” i.e., the solid floor had to be placed adjacent to the inspection alley and the slatted floor had to be relatively large so that the solid area did not become too wide. For the work operation “Handling of piglets” the capturing of the piglets was facilitated if the pigs could be gathered in a piglet corner. Most of the type A pens were equipped with a permanent board which could be closed to lock in the piglets. In pen type B such permanent “closing in” devices for the piglets were missing. Instead, loose boards, which were moved from pen to pen, were hooked onto metal profiles on the pen wall. The average time for the work operation WO1 "Removal of manure and monitoring the animals“, was a little longer (0.95 min) in the type A-pens (no protective gate system and 64% solid floor), than in the type B-pens (0.76 min) (with a protective gate system and 52% solid floor). However, the difference between the pen types was not statistically significant (Table 1). Type A-pens were scraped predominantly from inside the pen (98% of the cases), while type B-pens more often were scraped from the inspection alley (55% of the cases). The mean time for “Handling of piglets” (WO2) was slightly shorter in type A-pens (1.38 min) without protection devices, compared with the type B-pens (1.50 min) with a protective gate system. The difference was not significant (Table 1). Work with pen manure scraping from inside resulted in a work load score of 1.50, as compared to that of 1.83 when the pen scraping was done from the inspection alley, because particularly the spine is subjected to greater stress when the pen manure is scraped from outside. Capturing and colour marking the pigs involved both bending and twisting the back, and this work element was therefore the most stressful one in the work operation WO2, with a work load score of 2.65 (Table 3). In Figure 10 it is shown that, for WO1, a shorter working time often has to be "paid for" by a higher work load. Despite a numerically longer working time (although not significant) for WO1 in pen type A, a significantly lower work load for this work operation (WO1) and pen type was registered, as compared to that for the type B-pen (Table 3). The relationship between working time and work load for WO2 was reversed. A tendency towards a shorter working time for WO2 in the type A-pens resulted in there being a tendency to a higher work load in this pen type (Table 4, Figure 11). The mechanical load on the shoulders and back was alculated for the work element "manure scraping" when the keeper either carried out the work from inside the pen or from the outside (Figure 12). When scraping pen manure from outside, the work load according to two different depths (150 and 200 cm) of how far the keeper had to reach as a maximum, was compared. Maximum work load on both the shoulders and the back was obtained when the keeper had to scrape pen manure from outside, extending to a maximum of 200 cm (Table 5). Farrowing pens with partly solid floors will always require a certain work time for manure scraping. As expected, the study showed that the work time for “removal of manure and monitoring the animals” (WO1) was longer (0.95 min per pen) in type A-pens, with a higher proportion (64%) of solid pen flooring compared with the type B pens (0.76 min per pen), with a smaller proportion (52%) of solid flooring. However, the variation between the different herds was large, and the difference was not significant. The results suggested that it was not only the relationship between the solid and the slatted areas in the pen that affected the pen manure scraping working time. In type B-pens, it was possible to reach and scrape the solid floor from the inspection alley outside the pen. This was because the solid floor was not as wide/deep as in pen type A. Thus, no working time for opening gates was needed. However, in the studies of work load, it was concluded that it was more stressful to scrape pen manure from outside (score 1.83), compared with inside the pen (score 1.50). To scrape pen manure from outside meant more bending and more twisting of the back, compared to carrying out this work element inside the pen. The biomechanical calculations showed that it could be up to four times more burdensome, especially for the back, to scrape pen manure from outside than inside. The work load depended on how far into the pen the keeper needed to reach with the scraper. The height of the pen wall and the location of the solid pen area in relation to the inspection alley were other factors affecting this work load. The results were interesting and should provide ground for reflection among the people in managerial positions in our pig producing herds. Together with an achievable positive and wanted rationalization of the work with manure scraping in the newer farrowing pens, the work with scraping has actually become more of a burden for the keepers. Given that reports of MSDs problems already are many, the result was somewhat alarming. In conclusion, the "new" Swedish farrowing pens appear to be more competitive in terms of working time for the work element “manure scraping”, but the work with manure scraping that remains becomes more of a burden. For the employees, this does not directly mean something positive. Instead, the overall work load increases at the same time as an employee manages to clean a larger number of farrowing pens. This condition means that the requirements for a good and well planned work organization in future pig-producing herds, so that the staff do not risk injuries in the future, will be even higher. It is suggested that the modern, large-scale agriculture make use of the experience gained in other industries. Job rotation and alternation between work tasks is recommended as being important components of future organization on pig farms to reduce occupational injuries among the pig keepers

PorcoFer till smågrisar i stället för järninjektion

I detta faktablad redovisas resultaten från ett försök där järntillskott till smågrisar i form av PorcoFer (Svenska Foder), som är ett pulver berikat med järn i en lätt tillgänglig form som grisarna tar upp via munnen (oralt), jämfördes med järninjektioner. Dag 9 hade Porcofer-grisarna signifikant lägre hemoglobinvärden (91 vs. 97 g/l, ej onaturligt lågt) och större spridning i värdena jämfört med Järninjektion-grisarna; dag 20 hade Porcofer-grisarna och järninjektion-grisarna samma hemoglobinvärden och samma spridning i värdena. Tillväxten från dag 2 till avvänjningen, sjuklighet och förekomst av ledinfektioner var inte signifikant olika även om de var nominellt lägre för Porcofergrisarna. Vår generella uppfattning är att i många besättningar kan PorcoFer vara ett bra alternativ till en järninjektion under förutsättning att utfodringsrekommendationerna följs