Alternative swine housing:

Alternative swine housing: A brief review of tarp-covered hooped structures with deep bedding for grow-finish pigs

M.S. Honeyman, animal science department, Iowa State University

An alternative housing system is available for grow-finish swine which consists of a hooped-pipe. Quonset-shaped structure covered with fabric tarp. The ends are open most of the year. A concrete pad is at one end with feeder and waterer. The remaining area is deep bedded and cleaned after each group of pigs is marketed. Over 400 shelters are used for pig finishing in Manitoba.

Several trials were conducted during 1992 and 1993 in Canada by University of Manitoba animal scientists and agricultural engineers. Groups of 175-178 grow-finish pigs were raised in a 30’ x 72’ shelter and their performance compared to pigs fed in a conventional, partially slatted finishing barn at the same location. Starting weight ranged from 50-75 lb. Market weight was 220 lb.

General observations, results and conclusions from these trials are as follows:

No health problems were observed in either system. All-in/all-out management was used.
Pigs in the alternative housing system—the shelter—experienced a transitional lag in growth or average daily gain (ADG) after moving to the shelter, but later compensated.
Feed efficiency (FE) was poorer in the shelter during winter months (10-20%).
Days to market were similar for both systems.
Barley-based diets were fed which probably have a higher fiber content and heat of digestion than corn-based diets.
Pig mortality was generally lower for the shelter (1.5% vs. 2.4% for three trials).
Tail-biting was not reported for the shelter but was 2.3% for the conventional system (two trials).
Similar diets were fed in each housing system. Different rations may have made the shelter pigs perform better.
Flies were an annoyance in the shelter during warm months.
Occasional fighting occurred for a longer period in the shelter. This is not unexpected for a group of 175 pigs (shelter) compared to a pen of 15 pigs (conventional).
Plentiful bedding, in this case barley straw, was critical for the shelter system.
Straw usage was 194 lb per pig for the summer trial, 242 lb per pig for the fall trial, and 363 lb per pig for the winter trial.
A slaughter check in Nov. 1993 showed 94% normal lungs from the shelter and 70% normal lungs from the conventional system.
Humidity in the shelter during the winter was over 90%. Large openings at each end of the shelter and dry bedding in the evening prevented problems from developing. Some dripping of condensation occurred.
Maintaining a dry bedded sleeping area for the shelter pigs was considered very important.
Labor requirements were about the same or less for the shelter as for the conventional system.
During the winter, the temperature inside the shelter was 20ø F above the outside temperature. During the summer inside and outside temperatures were similar. Temperatures were uniformly distributed inside the shelter.
Temperature of the straw bedding during the winter was relatively stable and was above freezing even when the outside temperature was -17ø F. The manure pack generated this heat.
Over three trials, using 1993 Manitoba feed and bedding prices, feed and bedding costs were $7.00 (Canadian) higher for the shelter pigs.
Fixed costs for the shelter were low enough to more than offset the bedding and higher feed costs. In fact, a $4.59 (Canadian) advantage per pig was shown for the shelter system.
Management of the shelter—ventilation, bedding and pigs—is essential for successful operation.

Iowa State University has a total of four hooped-pipe Quonset-shaped, tarp-covered structures located on two research farms. One structure has housed a small number of gestating swine from a demonstration project. Our preliminary observations follow:

The structures were quick and easy to erect.
The number of sources for these shelters has increased over the past few years. A partial list is attached.
After 2-4 years the structures show no visible deterioration.
Erecting an end wall and using the end flap proved somewhat difficult because the end pipe truss cannot be used for support.
The shelters create a natural "wind tunnel" affect to keep them relatively cool in summer months.
The shelters have served well for machinery and big bale storage.

More detailed trials for housing swine in these structures are planned for the future. It appears that these shelters may provide a versatile alternative to conventional swine confinement housing systems.

Alternative bedding sources could include baled cornstalks, grass hay, CRP hay, ground corn cobs, or baled newsprint.
The heat from the decomposing manure pack may cause problems in Iowa’s hot humid summers. Additional bedding may be needed to insulate the pigs from the pack.
These shelters may be useful for loose gestating sow housing.

References

Connor, M.L. 1993. BioTech shelters. Alternative housing for feeder pigs. Manitoba Swine Seminar Proceedings 7:81.

Connor, M.L. 1993. Evaluation of biotech housing for feeder pigs. Manitoba Swine Update July 1993 5(3):1.

Connor, M.L. 1994. Update on alternative housing for pigs. Manitoba Swine Seminar Proceedings 8:93-96.

Connor, M.L., L. Onischuk, Q. Zhang, R.J. Parker and J.I. Elliot. 1994. Alternative Housing with Canadian Biotech shelters and a review of some European concepts. Canadian Society of Agr. Engineering 1994 proceedings.

Zhang, Q., M.G. Britton, M.L. Connor, R.J. Parker and J.I. Elliot. 1993. Environmental evaluation of an outdoor shelter for swine. American Society of Agricultural Engineers-International Winter Meeting paper no. 93-4520.

Back One

Questions or comments about this page? Send to Mike Heup:
mheup@ttu.edu