Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:09:47.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

M.S. Honeyman  and
D. Kent
M.S. Honeyman*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Animal Science, and Coordinator of Research and Demonstration Farms, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011;
D. Kent
Affiliation:
Superintendent, Lauren Christian Swine Research and Demonstration Farm, Iowa State University, Atlantic, IA 50022.
*
Corresponding author is M.S. Honeyman (honeyman@iastate.edu).
Get access

Abstract

At the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm in southwestern Iowa, a Swedish feeder pig production system was studied and demonstrated for 2-1/2 years. The system is based mainly on straw bedding, simple buildings, and intensive management. The system was designed to minimize pig stress and use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in the feed. Gestating and breeding sows were group-housed in a hooped structure with individual feeding stalls. Large round bales of cornstalks were used for bedding. Farrowing, lactation, and nursery phases were housed in a remodeled hog house. Cubicles with rollers and oat straw bedding were used for farrowing. Two groups of Yorkshire × Landrace sows bred to Hampshire boars produced feeder pigs in the system. Conception rates averaged 95%, and litter size averaged 11.3 live pigs/litter. Sows were allowed to select their own bedded farrowing cubicle. Prewean pig mortality, mostly from crushing, was high (29%), occurring primarily in the first 3 days. At 2 weeks of age the cubicles were removed and group lactation occurred. After group lactation the average pig weaning weight was 10.4 kg at 33.9 days of age. At weaning the sows were removed, and the pigs remained in the bedded farrowing/lactation room for 24 additional days. The pigs weighed 24.8 kg at 60 days of age, and overall nursery phase average daily weight gain was 549 g/day. Overall pig health was excellent with no major clinical diseases confirmed. The demonstration exceeded reproductive performance measures of typical small- and mid-sized Iowa farms.

Keywords

alternative swine productionlivestock beddinghoop structuresstraw beddingsustainable livestock systemsswine housing
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 50 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Algers, B. 1991. Group housing of farrowing sows, health aspects of a new system. Proc. Seventh International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Leipzig, Germany, p. 851–857.Google Scholar
2.Baas, T.J. 1999. 1997 ISU Swine Enterprise Record Program. ASL-R1579. 1998 Swine Research Report AS-640. Iowa State University Extension, Ames. Web site http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/swinereports/asl-1579.pdf (verified 12 January 2001).Google Scholar
3.Connor, M.L., Fulawka, D.L., and Onischuk, L.. 1997. Alternative low-cost group housing for pregnant sows. In R.W. Bottcher and S.J. Hoff (eds.). Livestock Environment V: Proc. Fifth International Symposium, Bloomington, Minnesota, May 29–31, 1997. Vol. 1. ASAE 01–97. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. p. 393–400.Google Scholar
4.Cutler, R.S., Fahy, V.A., and Spicer, E.M.. 1992. Preweaning mortality. In Leman, A.D., Straw, B.E., Mengeling, W.L., D'Allaire, S., and Taylor, D.J. (eds.). Diseases of Swine. 7th ed.Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 842–860.Google Scholar
5.Halverson, M. 1991a. Farm animal welfare: Crisis or opportunity for agriculture? Staff Paper P 91–1. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, St. Paul. Web site http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/p91-01.html (verified 12 January 2001).Google Scholar
6.Halverson, M.K. 1991b. Using nature as both mentor and model: Animal welfare research and development in sustainable swine production. Staff Paper P 91–26. University of Minnesota, Institute of Agriculture, Forestry and Home Economics, St. Paul.Google Scholar
7.Halverson, M. 1994. Whole-hog housing: Swedish system lowers stress, disease. The New Farm 16(2):51–54, 62.Google Scholar
8.Halverson, M.K., and Honeyman, M.S.. 1997a. Humane, sustainable feeder pig production: Transferring a technology developed in Sweden to midwestern hog farms. In R.W. Bottcher, and S.J. Hoff (eds.). Livestock Environment V: Proc. Fifth International Symposium, Bloomington, Minnesota, May 29–31, 1997. Vol. 1. ASAE 01–97. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. p. 401–408.Google Scholar
9.Halverson, M.K., and Honeyman, M.S., 1997b. Swedish deep-bedded group nursing system for feeder pig production. Swine Systems Options for Iowa No. SA-12. Iowa State University Extension, Ames.Google Scholar
10.Holden, P., Ewan, R., Jurgens, M., Stahly, T., and Zimmerman, D.. 1996. ISU life cycle swine nutrition. 17th rev. PM-489. Iowa State University Extension, Ames. Web site http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/ai pic/LCSN/LCSNutrition.pdf (verified 13 January 2001).Google Scholar
11.Honeyman, M.S. 1995. Västgötmodellen: Sweden's sustainable alternative for pig production. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 10:129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Jensen, P. 1988. Maternal behavior of free-ranging domestic pigs, I: Results of a three-year study. Report 22. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Dept. of Animal Hygiene, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
13.Sharp, J.T., and Hinrichs, C.C.. 2001. Farmer support for publicly funded sustainable agriculture research: The case of hoop structures for swine. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 16:81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar