Can new technologies and tools reduce the need for cleaning crews to move from farm to farm? A recently completed Wean-to-Harvest Biosecurity Program research project funded by the Swine Health Information Center (SHIC), along with the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research and the Pork Checkoff, took a deeper look at this topic.
“The study compared the efficacy and efficiency of the robotic power washer compared to a manual power washing crew with regards to cleaning time, manpower, water volume usage and cleanliness rate,” explains SHIC Director Megan Niederwerder, DVM.
Cleaning crews that move from farm to farm present a biosecurity hazard not only in the actual individuals, the personnel, but also the cleaning equipment that may go from farm to farm, she adds.
Led by Francisco Cabezon, vice president of Pipestone Research, the study evaluated two seasonal wash events to account for the aspect of season with regards to the study outcomes. The study was conducted in a 2,400 head wean-to-finish barn with two rooms of 1,200 head capacity (196 feet x 50 feet) with 44 pens each. One wash event took place in February and one wash event was held in August. The barn held a group of nursery pigs that were placed in the barn and raised until harvest.
“One room was cleaned with traditional manual power washing methods from a contracted service crew. The other room was cleaned with a railed robotic power washing prototype that was then followed up with manual power washing to remove any additional debris for a post-robotic power washing touch up,” Niederwerder says.
Overall, this study found that the robotic power washer compared to manual power washing required more water and more time to clean the room. The big advantage to the robotic power washer was that it did reduce overall manual labor hours that were required for the room to be washed. However, it didn’t provide advantages to either overall time or water usage.
Cleaning score differences before and after washing were significant for each power washer method, at all sites in a pen, and in each testing method. The visual cleanliness trend was from very dirty to clean or very clean. For the robotic power washed room, the post-wash touch-up by the manual power washing team was necessary for the median value to reach the “Very Clean” score.
Greater bacterial count, higher rotavirus detection, and increased ATP levels were found after the washing process for both wash methods. Power washing does not disinfect the barn, Niederwerder emphasizes. It is solely a means to remove debris and must be followed by a disinfection process. Power washing should be completed to the necessary level to ensure that disinfection can be performed effectively.
Cleaning expectations of this barn were extremely high per the investigators and could explain, to some degree, the long touch-up process, she adds. The robotic power washer cannot easily access the feeders and as such, the washing crew spent considerable time washing the feeders. The number of feeders in the barn will be a limiting factor to the efficiency of the robotic power washer. The barn used for this research has a low pigs:feeder ratio (27 pigs per feeder, doubled one-hole wet dry feeder). Another limiting factor for the automated power washer was the number of rails and their positioning. In the current study, four rails were installed in the room. This allowed walls to be washed at a maximum height of 10 inches from the slat level; however, the robotic washer did not cover the central hallway.
“Any automated technology needs to be economical and efficient for producers to use,” she says. “Robotic power washers are certainly a technology that has potential for our industry in the future with regards to overcoming labor shortages and enhancing biosecurity. But with this specific experimental setup, it didn’t appear that the robotic power washer provided a significant advantage over manual power washing on water or time. However, it’s certainly a start to understanding the potential of this technology and what additional research questions may be needed to advance our knowledge on use for the future.”
Niederwerder is hopeful more research and time can improve technologies like this, allowing barn crews to spend even more time with the pigs.
“It could be a real avenue for us to effectively use people as much as we can in the animal rooms with the animals as opposed to in the pens washing,” she says.
Power washing is important to reduce organic material prior to disinfectant, so it’s a necessary and needed part of biosecurity and cleaning barns between pig turns, Niederwerder points out.
“We know it’s time intensive, it’s labor intensive, it’s water intensive. If any producers or veterinarians are interested in looking at robotic power washing, I think one of the aspects to consider are the angles that would be necessary to access the feeders and the number of rails that may be necessary to comprehensively cover each pen and each barn,” she says.
Niederwerder is encouraged about the additional engineering that can take place now to make robotic power washers as effective as possible.
“I think it’s an exciting area, and certainly one that deserves more research and investigation,” she says.
