As more swine operations transition from individual gestation stalls to group housing systems, some production practices like feedback delivery have become more challenging. The concept of feedback, feeding infected deceased pigs and their manure back to breeding pigs, is one way to help strengthen the mother’s immunity so she can pass on protective antibodies to her piglets. A simple but effective method, feedback is necessary to help control E.coli or other scours in the farrowing house, Emma Zwart, a veterinary student at Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, explained at the Allen D. Leman Swine Conference.
“In individual stalls, it is easy to ensure each sow received controlled pathogen exposure to build immunity that protects their piglets,” Zwart says. “However, in group housing with electronic sow feeding systems (ESF), sows move freely and utilize only four stall spaces for food consumption throughout the entire day. While previous research showed ice blocks could work as delivery vehicles, they had limitations with durability and timing.”
Zwart recognized an opportunity to develop a reliable, welfare-conscious method using dedicated tube-feeding systems. She set out to evaluate a novel system for delivering feedback material to group-housed sows and hypothesized that the tube-feeding system would successfully achieve 50% sow exposure within two hours.
Pipestone served as Zwart’s host and sponsor for the summer through the Iowa State University Swine Veterinary Internship Program.
A Novel Approach
She tested this new delivery system on a farm that uses an electronic sow feeding system across eight different pens with an average size of 44.5 sows each. Each tube feeder was fixed to the side of the pen so that the person administering the feedback would not be required to step into the pen with the animals.
The feedback material consisted of fecal content from P0-P1 sows, intestinal content from piglets, water, a Reload pack, and Underline gel pack, Zwart says. The Reload pack was utilized as a visual aid to monitor exposure rates by counting sows with blue pigmentation on their snouts at 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, and 24 hours post-delivery.
In this study, sow exposure rates were 37% at 30 minutes, 47% at 60 minutes, 51% at 2 hours and 75% in 24 hours.
She also assessed animal welfare by scoring lesions before and after feedback administration to ensure the protocol didn’t compromise sow wellbeing.
“I demonstrated that this method doesn’t compromise animal welfare as the lesion scores showed no significant difference before and after feedback, indicating the system doesn’t increase aggressive behavior or competition among sows,” she adds.
Practical Solution
Zwart believes this research provides producers with a practical, welfare-conscious solution for implementing feedback programs in modern group housing systems.
“The tube-feeding method offers several advantages: maintained pathogen viability and the ability to achieve targeted exposure rates without compromising animal welfare,” she points out. “From an economic perspective, while the upfront cost is higher ($6.49/animal vs $0.52/animal current methods), the system potentially reduces workplace injury risks (average cost: $3,400) and provides more reliable immunity building for piglets.”
This is particularly valuable for operations transitioning to ESF systems or those seeking to improve their feedback protocols while meeting welfare regulations, Zwart says.
“The research demonstrates that producers don’t have to choose between effective disease management and animal welfare- they can achieve both,” she says.
Limitations and Opportunities
Zwart notes a few limitations in this study, including temperature and timing.
“I did this late July when it was warm out, and feedback was given at 11 a.m.,” she explains. “Both are time-confounding things when sows are maybe not the most active and willing to get up to go investigate something new in the pen. Additionally, another limitation was the subjectivity with lesion scores. I did all the lesion scoring with help of one other person, but that other person was different between the two times. There’s some subjectivity within that.”
Looking at future studies, Zwart says one thing to consider is desensitization.
“If we leave these in the pens 24/7, would the sows still be interested?” she says. “We don’t know because that was not part of this study. Additionally, longevity of equipment and seasonality are factors that could also be explored more.”
Zwart was one of seven finalists for the Morrison Swine Innovator Prize recognized during the Allen D. Leman Swine Conference. She presented her research findings during a session at the conference.
