"The Quest for the Perfect Wean-to-finish Building"

Reprinted from from the 1998 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference Proceedings with permission.

Frank Brummer,
President, Farmweld, Inc.

In 19 years in the swine equipment industry, I can't remember a shift in facility design that attracted producers so quickly or so widely as wean-to-finish. We've received call after call from producers understandably enticed by the claims of less labor, improved growth and better barn utilization. These calls are from producers throughout the world, from small and large operations, from independent farms and those linked together via cooperatives, contracts and corporations -- all with the desire for current information as they consider incorporating wean-to-finish.

Labor is the name of the game

I've often compared wean-to-finish facilities to the use of robotics welding in my business. By installing two robotics welding cells, we can perform the work of 24 master welders. Sure, there are higher capital costs to purchase the technology. But, in our small town in south central Illinois, finding and managing 24 additional employees is a big challenge.

The same holds true for the swine industry. Maintaining adequate labor is one of the most important issues facing producers today. Wean-to-finish facilities are appealing because they allow producers to operate, and even expand with less reliance on labor. One Illinois operation figured wean-to-finish could reduce the labor requirement by one employee per year for a 2,400-head sow unit. The operation also estimated wean-to-finish would save significant costs for cleaning and transportation. (See Chart 1 below)

Furthermore, wean-to-finish not only reduces the total number of human hours required, it may help improve employee morale. What jobs are loved less on a hog operation than moving pigs and cleaning barns? If eliminating some of the time spent on those jobs raises job satisfaction for key employees, then wean-to-finish may be a priceless tool.

More throughput

In addition to the labor benefits, wean-to-finish facilities promise to help producers push more pork through their systems. Kansas State University (KSU) researchers Dr. Steve Dritz and others looked at how wean-to-finish affects growth in an evaluation last year at a commercial facility in Illinois. The research suggested that producers can expect average daily gain to increase, trimming five to seven days off the days-to-market. In a fixed schedule system, that could mean sending pigs to market 7 to 20 pounds (3.18 to 9.09 kg) heavier (1). (See Chart 2 below) The KSU team also suggests that wean-to-finish barns are better utilized because there aren't as many down days (because of time for emptying, cleaning and reloading) compared to three-site systems.

I'm not an economist. And I'm happy to leave the discussion of how wean-to-finish looks on a spreadsheet or in an economic formula to the people who specialize in that stuff. But, what I do see is that wean-to-finish makes farms more productive, with less people. And in today's environment, tools to help producers get more product out the door with fewer, happier people are critical.

Barn Design and Equipment Considerations

Like most new technologies, the "look" of wean-to-finish is evolving. Most barns being used today are a traditional finishing barn style with deep or shallow pit and tunnel or natural ventilation. Dr. Joe Connor, Carthage Veterinary Service, Ltd. (CVS), has outlined various heating and cooling options in a previous talk, so I'll focus on the equipment that goes into the barn.

First off, equipment must be selected based on its ability to perform for a wide range of ages and behaviors. Pens and equipment must accommodate pigs from seven to 280 pounds (3.18 to 127.3 kg) , which until recently was unthinkable. But we are finding that small pigs do as well or better on the larger, wean-to-finish equipment versus smaller nursery equipment, providing the wean-to-finish equipment takes into account a few important areas. Here are some things we suggest producers consider when they call to ask what's suitable for wean-to-finish:

• Feeders

  Characteristics of an effective wean-to-finish feeder:

  1. Solid dividers
  2. Low front lip
  3. Large, wide feed troughs
  4. Large hopper for easy hand-feeding

   
  The standard recommendation for a wean-to-finish is a solid divider, dry finishing feeder. Small pigs have no trouble using the large feeder, providing the trough lip height is about 4.5 inches. Pigs often step into the feeder with their front feet to use the agitator and usually group together two or three to a hole during eating. Earlier research by Dritz shows this togetherness promotes good social eating behavior. (2) Large pigs eat most comfortably when a feeder provides ample space. According to Dr. Ian Taylor, optimum feeder width for finishing hogs is 14 inches wide(3).

  Solid dividers are particularly important in wean-to-finish barns because they keep baby pigs from getting their heads caught in the feeder trough. KSU and CVS demonstrated that solid dividers also reduce sort loss and trim loss (4). (See Chart 3 below) Other options for wean-to-finish feeding systems are wet feeders or tube feeders. Wet feeders and tube feeders are not as widely recommended because they are not as easy for small pigs to adapt to. Tube feeders must be adapted for hand-feeding bagged rations (5).

• Waterers

  There are a couple of options for watering systems for wean-to-finish. Danish-designed stainless steel water cups are popular because they are designed to leave a small reservoir of water after each use which attracts small pigs to the source. Cups sized specifically for wean-to-finish are ideal. They must be large enough so that they do not have to be adjusted in height and so that the heaviest finishers have plenty of room to stand in a natural posture while drinking. Nipple waterers are also an option, however, they waste more water than cups and they must be adjusted every two weeks. In addition, they must be dripped to allow young pigs to find the source.

  University of Nebraska's Dr. Michael Brumm has evaluated several drinker designs and how they affect water waste and performance (6). His work shows that the stainless steel, Danish design cups tested reduce water disappearance by 25 percent compared to swinging-type nipple waterers. In a separate Nebraska study, swinging-type nipple waterers were shown to waste significantly less than standard nipples. The stainless cups were also shown to improve feed efficiency. (See Chart 4 below)

• Gating

  The main priority of gating is to keep the Segregated Early Weaning (SEW) pigs contained and also be rugged enough for market hogs. The lowest rod should be no higher than 2 inches from the ground, with a 2.25" maximum space between upper rods. Some producers have added a swinging backgate to contain small pigs in the front half of pen. This makes catching and treating easier, but adds minimal additional cost. More recently, producers have experimented with a movable-gate design, which is outlined below.

• Flooring

  Standard one-inch slot concrete slats are popular. Small pigs learn to run along the length of the slats, which protects their feet and legs. Whether concrete slat surfaces will be suitable for baby pigs over the long run is a common concern among producers and veterinarians. Some producers have elected to install sections of plastic flooring in the feeder and waterer zone of the pen, in combination with concrete slats. This improves comfort around the feeders, and may actually encourage pigs to spend more time eating and drinking.

• Feed mats or boards

  In order to provide a warm laying place for pigs, most managers opt to put a four by four or four by six foot mat or board in the comfort zone for the first two to three weeks after entry. Rubber and plastic mats can be used, but some producers note that plastic tends to slide around in the pen. If plastic flooring is used, mats may not be required.

Some new twists

It is always exciting to see the industry improve on systems and facilities. There are some new ideas being experimented with, and new twists in building design, stocking rates and pen size. Double-filling has been considered and used by several producers in order to maximize return on investment. Large pens are also being used in an attempt to reduce the square footage requirement, and perhaps, improve the social organization of pens.

One of the newest designs that we've been involved with is a design that allows small pigs to take better advantage of the radiated heat from overhead gas tube heaters. This design allows a wean-to-finish building to be set up with two different gating configurations, one for the nursery phase and one for the finishing phase. (See Drawings 1, 2) Advantages of this design include lower utility costs from better use of the infrared heating system and improved pig comfort.

Conclusion

We are very excited about this "quest for the perfect wean-to-finish barn." We've made it a priority to help producers plan, equip and evaluate these facilities and help them answer the many "what if" questions as this new technology evolves.

References

1. Dritz, S.S., et al. 1998, Growth Curve: Wean to Finish Compared to Conventional, presented at American Association of Swine Practitioners 29th Annual Meeting.
2. Dritz S.S., et al. 1996, Nutrition Programs for Segregated Early Pigs: Part 1 Management Procedures and Nutritional Principals, Comp. on Cont. Ed. for the Practicing Veterinarian, 18:S222.
3. Taylor, I., 1997, Pen Design: Addressing Feeder Requirements, Pork '97 September 1997.
4. Connor, J. F., and Dritz, S.S., 1996 Study published in Progressive Pork, Volume 2, Number 2.
5. Connor, J. F, Facilities, 1998, Pig-Flow and Economic Analysis of Wean to Finish Facilities, presented at American Association of Swine Practitioners 29th Annual Meeting.
6. Brumm, M.C., 1997 Nebraska Swine Report.

Chart #1

Estimated savings for a 2,400-head sow unit
Assumes flow of 1,000 head per week for wean-to-finish system, compared to two moves per week for systems with nurseries and finishing barns.
Labor
Moving and receiving pigs:	$300 per move (3 employees @ 8 hr. x 12.50 per hr)
Cleaning:	$200 per move (2 employees @ 8 hr. x 12.50 per hr)
=	$500 per move (weekly)
	$500 per week x 52 weeks	= $26,000 annually (equal to one employee)
Cleaning
Two power washers:	$30 per cleaning (repair, maint. and deprec.)
Utilities:	$16 per cleaning
Disinfectant:	$10 per cleaning
=	$56 per cleaning (weekly)
	$56 per week x 52 weeks	=$2,912 annually
Transportation
Trucking:	$500 per move (1,000 feeder pigs @ $.50 per pig for fuel, truck maint. and clean-up, etc.)
=	$500 per week x 52 weeks	=$26,000 annually
Total annual savings for wean-to-finish:		$54,912

Chart #2

Predicted Growth Performance Advantages of Wean-to-finish

ADG - Days to Market 5 to 11 days due to feed intake improvement 2 to 4 days less empty space ADG - Market Weight 7 to 20 lb (3.18 - 9.09 kg) improvement 3 to 7 lb (1.36 - 3.18 kg) increase from less down time 7 to 15 lb (3.18 - 6.82 kg) increase from feed intake improvement Dritz et al 1998

Chart #3

Solid Dividers

Reduce sort loss by decreasing lightweights. Economic impact calculated at $.84 per pig or $2,278 annually for standard 1,000 head finisher. Reduced trim loss - 50% fewer cases. Dr. Joseph Connor, Carthage (IL) Veterinary Service Ltd. Dr. Steve Dritz, Kansas State University, 1996 Study

Chart #4

Three University of Nebraska Drinker Trials Summarized
University of Nebraska researcher Dr. Micheal C. Brumm has recently conducted three different trials to determine the effect of drinker type on water disappearance and performance. Results are listed below:
Trial	Drinker Type	Water Disappearance Gallons/Pig/Day (liters)	Average Daily Gain lbs (kg)	Feed: Gain (#)
Test #1a	Wet/Dry Feeders	1.19 (4.5)	1.72 (.78)	3.05
	Conventional Nipple Bracket w/Standard Dry Feeder	1.60 (6.05)	1.68 (.76)	2.96
	p values:	<.05	<.05	<.005
Test #2a	Swinging Nipple Waterer w/Standard Dry Feeder	1.36 (5.15)	1.66 (.755)	3.06
	Conventional Nipple Bracket w/Standard Dry Feeder	1.53 (5.79)	1.65 (.75)	3.09
	p values:	<0.5	>.10 b	>.10
Test #3	Swinging Nipple Waterer w/Farmweld Jumbo Feeder	1.33 (5.03)	1.83 (.83)	2.55
	Farmweld DRIK-0-MAT® Water Cup w/Farmweld Jumbo Feeder	1.00 (3.78)	1.81 (.82)	2.49
	p values:	.060	>.10	.095
a 1997 Nebraska Swine Report b According to Univ. of Nebraska researcher Michael C. Brumm, p values >. 10 are not significant for these types of trials.

Drawing 1

Click to magnify

Drawing 2

Click to magnify