The Smithfield Experience: Comparing Electronic Sow Feeding and Trough Feeding for Grouped Housed Sows - Dr. Ashley DeDecker, from the 2016 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 17-20, 2016, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2016-leman-swine-conference-material

1. The Smithfield Experience:
Comparing ESF and Trough
Feeding for Group Housed Sows
Ashley DeDecker, Ph.D.
Director of Production Research
Smithfield Hog Production Division

2. Modernization of The Swine Industry
(Sow Housing)

3. Welfare problems associated with stalls
•Most sows do not “fit” (McGlone et al. 2004)
• Doesn’t meet minimum standards (lying full lateral
recumbency)
•Limits socialization
• Inhibits natural behavior
•Limits movement
• Shoulder Lesions
• Stiffness of joints
• Cannot turn around

4. Aggression BCS variation
Mounting behavior
Vulva biting

5. What Does Science Say?
•Measuring animal well-being
• Animal performance and productivity
• Stress response
• Immune response
• Behavior
•>20 scientific articles comparing group-pens to
individual stalls on sow well-being
• No scientific differences between sows in group-pens and
individual stalls
•Change is driven by human perception of animal
welfare

6. Items Producers Need to Consider
Before Implementing
•Implementing equipment
• What is the existing facility design
• What is the reliability and durability of the equipment
• flooring
• Training and technical support available
• Cost of system
• Feed management
• Safety of personnel
• How steep is the learning curve
• Sustainable management

7. Existing Facility Structure
•Understanding what the limitations are
•Slatted/solid flooring
• Slat gap width
•Existing Feed system (location and operational)
• Feed motor, feed drops, etc.
•Square footage (barn capacity)

8. Use existing
feedlines/drops/stall

9. Reliability/Durability of Equipment
• Large capital investment
• Equipment must be reliable and durable in order to provide
appropriate well-being to animals
• Electronic Sow Feeder examples
• Doors to sow feeder not opening/closing properly
• Automatic dispensing bowl
• RFID reader/sensor
• Power supply
• Free-access examples
• Moving/locking mechanism
• Springs
• Small group pens
• Feed motor/lines
• Accuracy of feed drops

10. Reliability/Durability of Equipment
Equipment must work right to ensure proper well-being

11. Training and Technical Support
• Request on farm training from the
manufacturer until you feel
comfortable
• When technical issues exist ask if
there is local support available
• If not how long until support can be
on farm
• Ability to remote access to
computer on farm
• Consistent internet connectivity
on farm
• Downtime of equipment will
impact your animal’s well-being
• Don’t hesitate to ask

12. Cost of Equipment
•Small group pen with quarter/half stalls ($225-$275/sow)
• May be able to use existing stalls which makes price lower
• Uses a lot of gates which means more to replace in the future
•ESF system ($265-$295/sow)
• Does not need a lot of penning which lowers costs
• Electronic equipment and RFID adds cost
•Free-access ($305-$320/sow)
• Uses a lot of space which is primary cost
• Moving parts

13. Feed Management
• Consider feeding methods that reduce feed wastage
• Feed is 70% of the cost of raising pigs
• Trickle feeding in small group pens
• Method to slowly feed to reduce competitive aggression during
feeding
• Small group pens with floor feeding increase feed wastage
• Manage feed drops carefully
• Calibrate often!!
• ESF can provide best feed
management
• Feeding fiber to increase gut
fill and reduce competitive
aggression

14. Animal Well-being
•Mixing (Hierarchy)
aggression
• Needs to occur
•Competitive (feeding)
aggression can be reduced
by
• Stalls: quarter, half, full body
length
• Free access: locking in stalls
during feeding
• ESF: aggression around
feeder entrance
• Placement of resources
• Water and feed in close proximity
to each other

15. Animal Well-being
•Maintaining a health body condition
•Body condition variation occurs the most in small
group pens
• Use some form of body condition scoring to determine if
a sow is maintaining or losing condition over the
gestational period
• Calibrate feed drops!
•Electronic sow feeding system provides individual
feed ration which reduces this issue
•Free-access system allows sows to lock themselves
in a stall during feeding which helps reduce this
variation
• Gate checking behavior

16. Human Safety
•Making sure employees are comfortable and safe to
perform their job is critical
•Walk through gates in small group pens
• employees have the ability to get out of the pen quickly if
need be
• Reduces the risk of climbing gates to access pens
•Vaccinating in any group housing can be the most
dangerous time

17. Learning Curve
• Implementing a new system without proper training can
impact animal well-being
• The longer it takes to figure it out, the longer the
animals can be impacted
• Do research on proper management techniques
• Manufacturer training
• State extension support
• National Pork Board
• Talk to other producers about
their experience
• Make sure ALL staff are trained
• A chain is no stronger than
its weakest link – proverb

18. Sustainable Management
•Implement what you and your staff are capable of
managing
• Consider you and your staff’s skill level
•If you have high employee turn over on your farm
consider a simple system that is easy to train
•Determine what are the issues and then develop a
solution
• Example: walk through gates to allow easy access to and from
animals (vaccinating)

19. Implementation Pros and Cons to
Group Housing Options:
Producer Perspective

20. Group Pen – Floor Feeding
• Advantages
• Simple pen design for existing facility
• Durability/reliability: minimal maintenance required
• Easy to learn
• No internet or technical support needed
• Low cost
• Disadvantages
• Significant feed wastage
• Animal well-being
• High aggression during feeding
• High variation of BCS
• Does meet standards of well-being when
managed properly

21. Group pen – Feeding stalls
• Advantages
• Simple pen design for existing facility
• Durability/reliability: minimal maintenance
required
• Easy to learn
• No internet or technical support needed
• Low cost
• Limited feed wastage
• Animal well-being
• Feeding stalls reduce aggression during feeding
• Disadvantages
• Animal well-being
• High variation of BCS
• Does meet standards of well-being when
managed properly

22. Free Access System
•Advantages
• Easy to learn
• No internet or technical support needed
• Limited feed wastage
• Animal well-being
• Reduced aggression during feeding
• Variation of BCS
•Disadvantages
• Durability/reliability of equipment
• High cost
• Requires more space for pen design if in existing
facility
•Does meet standards of well-being
when managed properly

23. Electronic Sow Feeder System
• Advantages
• Limited feed wastage
• Animal well-being
• Variation of BCS
• Low-moderate cost
• Simple pen design in existing
facility
• Disadvantages
• Steep learning curve
• Internet/technical support needed
• Durability/reliability of equipment
• Animal well-being
• Aggression around feeder
• Does meet standards of well-
being when managed properly

24. All Systems Can Provide Proper Well-
being for Sows
• Small group pen
• Floor feeding
• Quarter stalls
• Half stalls
• Trickle feeding
• Electronic sow feeder (ESF)
• Free-access stall
•How you manage the sow will have
a bigger impact on animal well-
being than a housing system

25. Other Welfare Components to Group
Housing
•Static vs. Dynamic
•How to allot
•Group size
•Floor-space allowance
•Timing of mixing
•Feeding strategy
• Times per day
• Bump feeding

26. What Did Smithfield Implement and
Why?

27. • Breeding
• Individual stall for 35-42 days
• Gestation
• Group-pen for 67 days
• Lactation
• Individual farrowing stall for 30
days
What Housing Systems do Smithfield Sows Live in?

28. Smithfield Sow Housing During
Breeding
•Sows are kept in individual stalls for 35-42 days after
breeding using artificial insemination
• Sow well-being
• Protect the sow from altercations to allow implantation of the
embryo
• Maintain her litter
• Confident detection of pregnancy via ultrasound after 35 days

29. Why Does Smithfield Keep Sows in Stalls for 35-
42 Days?
•Scientific evidence on sow well-being (Knox et al.,
2014; Stevens et al., 2015)
•When placed in group pens at 3-7 days after
breeding compared to 35-42 days after breeding
• Sows struggled to conceive
• Increase aggression
• Increase in abortions
• Increased leg inflammation and swelling
• Increased total body scratches and abrasions
• Increased vulva biting

30. Which Housing System is Used?
•Small group pens and free-access stalls
• Implementation of housing system
• Learning curve
• Ease of management
• Risk management
• Geographical location hindrances
•Scientific comparison of small group pens and free-
access stalls determined no differences in sow
longevity or lifetime productivity

31. Parity 2 Longevity Free-access
stalls
Small-group
pens SE P-value
No. P2 sows retained
Turn 1 (P2's only), No. 287.0 283.0 NA NA
Turn 2 (P3 ), No. 263.0 266.0 NA NA
Turn 3 (P4), No. 214.0 214.0 NA NA
Turn 4 (P5), No. 74.0 69.0 NA NA
% Stayability
Turn 1 (P2's only), % 100.0 100.0 NA NA
Turn 2 (P3 ), % 91.6 94.0 1.6 0.279
Turn 3 (P4), % 74.6 75.6 2.6 0.771
Turn 4 (P5), % 25.8 24.4 2.6 0.700
No. piglets born alive
Turn 1 (P2's only), No. 13.0 12.8 0.171 0.428
Turn 2 (P3 ), No. 26.0 25.8 0.281 0.616
Turn 3 (P4), No. 38.7 39.1 0.417 0.547
Turn 4 (P5), No. 52.0 51.5 0.857 0.640
No. piglets weaned
Turn 1 (P2's only), No. 10.0 10.0 0.133 0.954
Turn 2 (P3 ), No. 19.8 19.4 0.188 0.151
Turn 3 (P4), No. 29.7 29.3 0.272 0.296
Turn 4 (P5), No. 39.7 39.1 0.543 0.482
Table 8. Effect of Gestation Housing System on P2 Sow retention, number
born alive, and weaned across 4 parities within the same system
Gestation Housing System
570 P2 sows were allotted to two different housing systems at Seardorf in Yuma CO. These sows
remained in there respectice treatment for 4 turns (until Parity 6), or until they were culled, died
or euthanized.

32. Parity 3 Longevity Free-access
stalls
Small-group
pens SE P-value
No. P3 sows retained
Turn 1 (P3's only), No. 181.0 187.0 NA NA
Turn 2 (P4 ), No. 157.0 162.0 NA NA
Turn 3 (P5), No. 122.0 131.0 NA NA
Turn 4 (P6), No. 46.0 57.0 NA NA
% Stayability
Turn 1 (P3's only), % 100.0 100.0 NA NA
Turn 2 (P4 ), % 86.7 86.6 2.5 0.975
Turn 3 (P5), % 67.4 70.0 3.5 0.584
Turn 4 (P6), % 25.4 30.5 3.4 0.28
No. piglets born alive
Turn 1 (P3's only), No. 12.9 12.9 0.24 0.995
Turn 2 (P4 ), No. 26.0 26.1 0.38 0.806
Turn 3 (P5), No. 38.9 39.5 0.52 0.455
Turn 4 (P6), No. 48.8 50.5 1.2 0.295
No. piglets weaned
Turn 1 (P3's only), No. 9.6 9.9 0.18 0.208
Turn 2 (P4 ), No. 19.3 20.4 0.3 0.009
Turn 3 (P5), No. 29.6 30.2 0.47 0.398
Turn 4 (P6), No. 40.0 40.4 0.87 0.765
Table 9. Effect of Gestation Housing System on P3 Sow retention, number
born alive, and weaned across 4 parities within the same system
Gestation Housing System
368 P3 sows were allotted to two different housing systems at Seardorf in Yuma CO. These sows
remained in there respectice treatment for 4 turns (until Parity 7), or until they were culled, died
or euthanized.

33. Conclusion
•No differences in sow lifetime productivity whether
allotted to free-access system at 27 ft2/sow or small
group-pen system at 24 ft2/sow when allotted at
parity 2 or 3
•Costs between two systems
• Small group pen ($225-275/sow)
• Free-access stalls ($305-320/sow)
•Moving forward all group housing systems will be
small group pens

34. Why doesn’t Smithfield use ESF?
•2005 an internal trial evaluating three
housing systems compared to stalls ran for 2
years
•Farm 1
• ESF vs individual stalls
•Farm 2
• Small group pen with ¼ stalls and trickle feed system vs individual
stalls
•Farm 3
• Small group pen with full length stalls and dump feeding system vs
individual stalls

35. Results of that Sow Housing Trial
• Sow productivity was similar among all housing systems
• Lesion scores were higher after mixing in ESF and full
stall/dump compared to stalls or ¼ stall/trickle feed system
• Labor requirements necessary to manage group housed
sows was least with the ¼ stall/trickle feed system
compared to ESF and full stall/dump feed system
• Vaccination, scraping pens, moving sows
• No differences in employee accidents or near misses in
all housing systems
• Cost of maintaining the ESF feed system was
significantly greater than all other housing systems

36. Why Doesn’t Smithfield use ESF?
• More time to conduct routine sow management tasks
• More cost to maintain ESF feed system (air compressor)
• Using ESF in a retrofit created issues with solid:slatted
flooring layout and cleanliness issues
• More time to train gilts
• Requires higher skilled employees to operate computer
system and to repair the system
• Requires more training for employees beyond animal care
• Lack of confidence for emergency back up plan if system
fails
• Learning curve for new employees

37. What Space Allowance Does Smithfield
Keep Group Housed Sows at and Why?
•Sows in group pens are housed at a minimum of 18
ft2/sow
•Majority of group pens are set up to achieve 19 or 24
ft2/sow
•Scientific literature indicates that animal well-being is
compromised at 15 ft2/sow in a group pen
• 18 ft2/sow provides sufficient space
• DeDecker et al., 2014; Hemsworth et al., 2014; Salak-Johnson
et al., 2007
•Proper management of sows will have a larger impact
on well-being than housing components

38. Consider Worker Safety
•Walk through gates
• Allows workers to easily walk through all pens or escape
quickly if needed
• Improves safety (reduces climbing over gates)
• Vaccinating in groups can be dangerous

39. Smithfield Decision Making
• Smithfield decided to implement:
• Small group pens with either quarter or half stalls
• 6-12 sows per pen
• Feed once a day
• Allot based on gilt/sows and then size
• Provide a minimum of 18 ft2/sow
• Use walk through gates
• Decisions are based on
• Scientific evidence
• Risk management
• Ease of sow management
• Economics

40. Summary
•How you manage the sow will have a
bigger impact on animal well-being than
a housing system
•Implement what you and your staff are
capable and comfortable managing

41. Thank You!
AshleyDeDecker, Ph.D.
Director of ProductionResearch
(910) 282-4058 tel
(910) 289-6442 fax
(910) 284-5885 mobile
adedecker@smithfield.com
Hog ProductionDivision
4134 US Hwy117 S
Rose Hill, NC28458
www.smithfieldfoods.com