The Grow-Disk chain disk system is a cost-effective solution for automating feed delivery.
Any equipment that reduces labor or enables workers to be more productive deserves serious consideration. Updating a farm's feed delivery in farrowing is a great way to reduce the physical effort and time needed to distribute rations and give employees more time to care for the animals.
The size of individual sow farms continues to increase; just a few years ago 2,400 head units were considered large, but new sow farms under construction this year range between 5,000 to 14,000 head in size.
Building cross-section comparison
Designing the central production facility into two or three larger buildings has many advantages including smaller land requirements, less underground utilities to bring to the site, shorter roadways to build and maintain, fewer walkways between buildings and less linear footage of exterior building walls.
Because of increased pig capacities and the desire to minimize the number of buildings, it was necessary to increase the buildings widths up to 190 feet. Instead of the 4/12-pitch roof used on standard farm buildings, these jumbo-wide facilities utilize a two-piece rafter with a 1/12-pitch roof line resting on a center support wall in the middle. Almost 6 feet high at the heel with a center height of 13 feet, the rafters are designed more like a large floor joist. The outside appearance resembles a steel frame building more than conventional wood framed structures.
Breeding/ Gestation
Galvanized gestation stalls
Totally slatted flooring is a common feature of newly constructed B&G buildings. While past layouts consisted of a solid laying area with slat sections in the rear of the pen or stall only, new construction plans incorporate slats over the entire floor with stainless feeding troughs fastened in place. This arrangement allows long-term flexibility to reconfigure the pen layout in the future if needed.
Group housing with stanchions is the predominant type of housing under construction this year. Largely through trial and error, the industry seems to have settled into pen configurations containing eight to twelve sows. This pen size permits closer grouping by size and condition and promotes easier visual inspection.
Whether the production system chooses gestation stalls, stanchions, or ESF, most equipment is specified with hot-dipped galvanized equipment instead of painted finish. The extended equipment life provided by the galvanized finish makes this an economical business decision.
One advantage reported with stanchion systems is longer equipment life resulting from moving the water away from the front of the stanchions. Locating a cup or swinging water pipe with nipples in the center of the pen reduces the deterioration of feed pipes and stall fronts by minimizing water contact with these areas.
Farrowing
Large pen farrowing crates with SowMAX feeders
Jumbo style layouts permit designing a double farrowing building with an extra wide 8-foot center alleyway to aid in animal and people movement between rooms.
Almost every new construction project increases the length and width of the farrowing crates and creep area from the standard 5′ x 7′ footprint up to 6’ wide by 8′ long, with some systems choosing 8’6″ long crates. Longer framed sows and reduced piglet crushing rates from using wider pens have driven this trend. Again, the equipment will have a galvanized finish with a combination of cast iron, TriDek, or plastic slats for flooring choices.
Most production systems will incorporate some provision for ad-lib sow feeding. Besides reducing farm labor, ad-lib sow feeding is the most efficient method for feeding individual sows to reach full milk production potential. The type of systems can range from electronic transponder metering devices to sow activated hopper type feed dispensers.
Swinging rafters on new farrowing house
Projects of this size require builders with an expanded skill set. A builder must be able to provide professional project management, understanding of regulatory issues, and increased insurance coverage. It is also critical for any construction firm undertaking projects of this size to have sufficient financial backing and the ability to manage large cash flows.
For more information about Hog Slat’s construction projects and swine production equipment offerings, contact your nearest sales representative by clicking here.
Here’s another selection from the 1960 edition of The Yearbook of Agriculture on the latest trends in farrowing.
Welfare-friendly farrowing pens
Caption in yearbook:
In this minimum-stress pen, the shape of the guardrail encourages the sow to lie with the teats toward the pigs. The pigs stay where it’s warm – under the heat lamp and behind the guard.
How about this for Ad Lib feeding? An overhead auger delivers feed to the farrowing pens. No carts or scoops are needed.
Labor saving feeding from the past.
And finally, double-decker farrowing crates! I saw one of these set up in Red Oak, Iowa years ago.
From the yearbook:
Hogs in double-deck, all steel, cage-type farrowing stalls. The pigs are transferred after weaning. Manure is removed by mechanical drags.
Double-decker farrowing crates.
Hog Slat manufactures a complete line of farrowing equipment for new construction or remodeling an existing facility. Our SowMAX ad lib dispenser feeds lactating sows 24/7 while reducing farm labor. See more at www.hogslat.com or call 800-949-4647.
Galvanized Hog Slat farrowing crates with SowMAX Ad Lib dispensers, Cast/ TriDEK floors, and Poly Lamps
Hog Slat’s newest feed drop hangs straight under the feed pipe to reduce twist. Available in two models; HSSD60C for mounting on Grow-Disk metal pipe or HSS55DC for model 55 PVC pipe.
The Center Drop is molded from UV stable polypropylene to prevent damage from sunlight and cold temperatures. An open-top design permits direct installation on feed pipe and a large access plug allows access to inside of the feeder. A plastic clip for record cards completes the exterior features.
The Center Drop features positive open/close shutoff.
Large adjustment dial permits single-hand regulation feed settings from one to eight pounds.
Nylon wheel reduces wear on lifter cord and the weighted ball securely seals bottom opening.
To order go to http://hogslat.com/hog-slat-center-drop-sow-feeder-8-lb
Hog Slat’s Drop Tube Assembly completes the installation to a metal pipe. Available in 2″ or 3″ models, the flared top reduces feed spillage and provides a flexible mount to sow drops.
To order go to http://hogslat.com/grower-select-adjustable-drop-tube-assembly-4
One of the benefits we list for the Grow-Disk system is a “superior chain.” The feed chain with molded plastic disks is the main component of the system, physically moving feed to a feeder or sow drop.
I dropped in on Hog Slat’s engineering group to see what I could find out. I found Tim Hawkins, the project engineer for the Grow-Disk product line. Tim led me to a complicated looking run of 12 corners occurring in less than eight feet with intersecting vertical and horizontal corners.
“The drive unit is off of it now,” Tim explained, “but we ran different brands of chain through this setup to show accelerated wear. Look at this…..see the metal filings in the bottom of the corner? Those showed up when we ran the last batch of electroplated chain through the unit. The process of electroplating weakens steel causing it to wear faster.”
“This confirmed the difference between using hardened steel compared to galvanized or electroplated chain. Hardened steel is high carbon steel given heat treatments of quenching followed by tempering. The result is tough steel chain that resists wear without being brittle. We can run a hardened chain for days and never see filings like that.”
“With most chain feeding systems you have to adjust for “chain stretch” after the systems have operated for awhile. We don’t think the individual chain links stretch but as they go around corners constantly rubbing together they elongate because of wear.”
“The only reason, to galvanize steel, is to prevent rust. With the fat and oils in the feed, the chain doesn’t rust in the tube. Most brands of feeding chain is galvanized for it’s appearance before installation. A new bag of Grow-Disk may have some surface rust on it, not a big deal.”
We next looked at how well the plastic disks are fastened to the chain.
“We placed each brand of chain link in a load cell and attached it to a winch, measuring the force needed to pull the disks off the link.”
“Most of the disks pulled off at 300 lbs., although one slipped at only 160 pounds! We applied over 600 lbs. of force to the Grow-Disk disk before it slipped.”
“First of all, the disks are manufactured from nylon, a stronger, denser plastic instead of polypropylene.
Second, if you look closely at all the chains the connector welds are smooth, except on the Grow-Disk chain….see the little knob? That knob prevents the nylon disk from slipping…the nylon has to break instead of just slipping.”
“Most feeding chain suppliers buy general purpose chain with the knob removed. By using a chain fabricated “in-house” and designed specifically for feed systems, we can produce a superior product.”
“A strong plastic disk is important because the drive sprocket powering the entire system makes contact with each, single disk for a brief moment. If an individual disk slips this causes the chain to be slightly out of alignment causing possible jams.”
You can be confident using Grow-Disk chain knowing you are buying the very best even though the cost is usually less.
Hog Slat streamlined distribution system reduces margin stacking. We manufacture and source products direct to you….eliminating extra dealer margins.
Good product engineering does not add cost to a product but instead takes manufacturing processes into account to reduce costs. It costs no more to spec a hardened chain with knobs intact to provide a better contact for injecting the nylon disk. The result is a superior product that lasts longer on your farm.
Grow-Disk systems, read more…
The main objective of this study was to collect lactation and rebreeding data from sows fed with SowMAX self feeders opposed to sows that were hand fed. The secondary objective was to measure the amount of labor required to manage the sows using each type of feeding system, specifically during lactation. Two farrowing rooms were observed in this study. One-half of the farrowing crates in each room were retrofitted with SowMAX feeders. Farrowing occurs every other week at the Swine Educational Unit (n=24 sows per group). At the present time, data has been collected from 36 sows utilizing SowMAX feeders and34 sows that were hand fed.There were significant interactions between season (winter versus summer) and feeding strategy (SowMAX versus hand feeding) for both sow and piglet performance and sows’ daily feed intake patterns. Consequently, the data is presented seasonally. Sow and piglet performance during lactation is shown in Tables 1 and 2, while sow daily feed intake patterns are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Tables 3 and 4 contain sow rebreeding performance and baby piglet death losses, respectively. (see complete article online including tables) There were no significant interactions between seasons and feeding strategy for this data, therefore the means in these tables were averaged across seasons.
The data in all the Tables are the mean values and the standard errors. The last column in each table is the p value, which is a measure of how different the means is statistically. In a general sense, the p value can be thought of in the following manner. If the experiment was repeated 1000 times, then one would expect the same result as indicated by the p value due to chance. For example, in Table 1 the p-value for total feed intake is 0.043. Sows fed with the SowMAX feeders consumed 17.2 lbs. more feed during lactation compared with those fed by hand. What this means is that there is less than 5% chance that this difference is simply due to chance and random events and a 95% chance that it is due to the SowMAX feeder. Conversely, the body weight of sows after farrowing has a p value of 0.671. What this means is that there is more than 50% chance that the differences observed are, in fact, due to chance or random events and not related to the way they were fed (SowMAX versus Hand Feeding). The p values in bold are those that are less than 0.05 that is considered to be highly significant in the scientific literature. In other words, there is a 95% probability that the current difference is due to the feeding system. The p values in bold italics are ones with p values between 0.05 and 0.20. These are considered important trends in scientific literature. Usually what happens with trends is that as more data is collected (more observations) then their p values move closer to 0.05.
In general, both total feed intake and daily feed intake appear to be superior for sows being fed with the SowMAX feeders. This was predominantly true during the summer months. Daily sow feed intake was consistently greater during the summer with the SowMAX feeders after the first week of lactation compared to hand feeding. This was also true during the winter months due to a more consistent feed intake pattern over the entire lactation period, with less variation from day to day. During the summer, sows had a similar pattern of daily feed intake with both feeding systems. However, sows in farrowing crates with a SowMAX feeder simply ate more. In contrast, during the winter the increase in feed intake for sows with the SowMAX feeder was due mainly to the lack of several transient periods of decreased feed intake which were prevalent when sows were fed. In this study, there was less feed wastage on a dry matter basis with the SowMAX feeders. Additionally, SowMAX feeders required less labor and maintenance (cleaning) by employees that fed the sows, especially during the summer months when sow water consumption is high.
The increased feed intake during lactation resulted in better pre-weaning weight gain by the piglets. There were no differences in piglet mortality or rebreeding performance between treatments. A rather interesting observation was the lower body temperature during the last week in lactation of the sows utilizing the SowMAX feeders. This was even more prominent during the summer months and most likely is the factor responsible for the increased daily feed intake in these sows. This is most likely due to them being able to regulate their feed intake during the day. It has been shown that after consumption of a single large mealthe core body temperature increases, compared to intake of the same amount that is distributed evenly over a longer period of time. It appears the sows actually do regulate their feed intake, at least in part, based on the temperature of the ambient environment.
To obtain a copy of the full report contact us at: webinfo.us@hogslat.com
While speaking with Perry Hartman, a sales rep for Hog Slat in Minnesota, I was brought up to speed on a topic that is quietly gaining some momentum in the industry…air filtration. Southern Minnesota is an area that has seen rapid growth in pig numbers in the past several decades. This high hog density has made herds there very susceptible to PRRS outbreaks. To combat this, area producers have turned to air filtering to prevent herd infections. Perry has been involved with 6 different projects and is currently working on the 7th. These projects have ranged from a boar stud to a complete 5,000 head sow complex. Perry credits a close working relationship with Dr. Darwin Riecks of the Swine Vet Center in St. Peters, MN in making these projects a success.
Some of the leading technical information has come from an U of M test farm in Morris, MN. There are three different buildings that have been outfitted with three different brands of filters and are tested for effectiveness against the PRRS virus. From this initial research, it was determined the PRRS virus can be transmitted over 5 miles in distance and the greatest risk comes at temperatures between 40°-60° with a light 3-7 mph wind.
Using this information, a basic strategy has evolved around filtering the minimum air flow coming into the building. A typical farrowing room has ceiling inlets for winter/transition air flow. Minimum winter air flow can be effectively filtered by placing filtering boxes in the attic over the inlets.
To permit installation and future service to the attic filtering system, an access is built in the end of the building gable with a stairway and locked door.
A catwalk is built inside to allow access to inlet filter boxes.
Galvanized boxes are installed between the rafters to mount the filters in. A pre-filter is installed to protect the filter from dust. The building structure needs to be examined for cracks that must be sealed and caulked to prevent unfiltered air from short circuiting the ventilation inlets. By filtering the incoming air during the periods of highest disease threat (40-60°) some producers feel that temperatures above this will kill the virus effectively.
A complete filtration system goes past the basics and includes filtering the maximum air flow coming through the cool cell system. Every situation requires careful calculation but a rough rule of thumb is to provide twice as much air filtering area as existing air inlets.
Retrofits for farrowing buildings have involved extending the roof line and adding a hallway to mount the filters in. The filtering pads are installed in the new exterior wall and are protected by an outside curtain.
Pre-filters are installed over the filters to prevent clogging of the system by dust and debris.
A tunnel ventilation system, as used in many gestation and GDU buildings, require adding an extension on the gable end and creating an area that is large enough to mount the filter system. An “accordion” style arrangement of filter mounting is used in many cases to achieve the desired amount of filtering area.
This is brief overview of the basics for air filtering as it has evolved to date. Again there is no “canned” solution as they are retrofits to existing ventilation systems. Each must be examined carefully and correctly sized to prevent excessively high static pressures that could damage fan motors and the filters themselves. Perry has invaluable knowledge of filtration systems gained through field experience over the last couple of years.
The 2012 Pork Expo is in the books. Great weather this year and great food. Especially the 260 lb pork burger Vinny and crew from Hog Slat cooked up. This wasn’t just an inedible gimmick either…..the slice I had was very good.
Walking around the trade show, I noticed there were a few companies with products to address the bin bridging and feed outage problems caused by using DDGS and other alternative feed ingredients……mechanical bin whackers in other words. One rep explained that his product was a much better choice than his competitor’s model and “ours is only about $1200 compared to theirs at $2000.” Wow. The price of the anti-bridging device is almost as much as the bin.
Quite a few companies displayed their version of Electronic Sow Feeding (ESF). One says each feeding station will handle 60-65 sows, the next guy’s will handle 300. All the computerized systems are easy to use; intuitive I believe was the term they used. Everybody had a “system expert” who probably lives several states away from your farm.
Remember when everyone had to hook up their ventilation controls up to a computer in their office? Going to run the barn from the house was the idea. Most ended up with the plastic cover left on after a month or two. A couple of years ago, sorting scales were going to change the way finishing pigs were raised. Most of those are sitting outside rusting away now.
No doubt some producers will successfully adopt ESF technology. One thing is guaranteed, not all the companies offering ESF will be at this show five years from now. Choose carefully.
I recently caught up with Mark Daughtry of Prestage Farms in North Carolina to discuss his experience with SowMax farrowing ad lib feeders. Mark is the Sow Production Manager in North Carolina and oversees about 55,000 sows. He quickly corrected my terminology regarding the SowMAX.
“First of all…” Mark said, “the SowMAX is not a sow feeder. It’s a feed storage device that delivers feed to the sow on demand. It’s like having a bunch of MINI FEED BINS sitting above the feeders ready to deliver fresh feed on demand.
“I’m not sure exactly what you mean.”
Look I’ve been working with sow herds for 24 years in one way or another. The BIGGEST challenge I’ve faced in that time has been training farrowing house personnel to feed lactating sows. It is extremely difficult to feed sows correctly by hand.
Sows are individuals and depending on their genetic makeup some sows are capable of eating much more feed on a daily basis than the group. If you were to look at daily feed intake per sow, you would see a normal bell curve. The bulk of sows will eat somewhere between 18-22 pounds per day, but some of those gals will eat as high as 30 pounds a day! Those are the sows that normally don’t get fed correctly with hand feeding.
If we decide that 20 Lbs is all we will ever feed any sow, then those high appetite sows are going to get short changed. Those are the sows that will typically wean desirable large litters of heavy pigs.
I like to think of today sows as being like high performance race cars. If we don’t fuel up a race car, it will not run. Same with sows, they are capable of high performance as far as producing large numbers of pigs, but we have to get the feed/fuel in them.
How does that change with SowMAX?
SowMAX allows us to feed sows to full appetite without guess work. Our feeding regiment in farrowing goes like this:
For three days prior to farrowing we feed four pounds of feed through the SowMAX. We instruct the farrowing personnel to place two pounds, twice a day in the SowMAX hopper. This gets them up each time and gets them accustomed to activating the trigger lever on the SowMAX.
After farrowing, we continue to hand feed for two more days. On day three, we fill them up and monitor feed disappearance.
Feed disappearance? What does that mean?
Simply put it means that we fill the SowMAX up twice a day and look the amount feed that is gone in the hopper. As long as the sow is eating over half of that amount we just fill it up again and go on. We are only concerned with the sows that aren’t eating; that’s the one that’s having trouble and needs our attention.
“You know Mark, feed is very expensive; what about a producer’s concern that SowMAX may be getting more feed into the sows but that it’s also wasting more feed?”
Our experience has shown the exact opposite. We waste less feed with SowMAX than hand feeding, and that’s easy to figure out. With hand feeding if you guess wrong and put more feed in the feeders than she can eat, it spoils and you end up dumping it out. The SowMAX delivers fresh feed to the feeders….on demand….whenever a sow is ready to eat. Human judgment is eliminated….we don’t have to try and outguess mother nature. Again, we have those MINI FEED BINS sitting there ready to deliver feed whenever she’s ready to eat.
Do you have farms with other types of systems?
Yes, we have automatic systems where feed is dumped from drops into the feeders several times a day. There is less physical labor but it really isn’t any better than hand feeding. You still have to guess on the amount of feed each sow will consume each day. Plus, as the systems get older they take more maintenance; it seems like we are always fixing a switch or replacing a motor. SowMAX works everyday; no timers, no motors, no switches, nothing to wear out.
With SowMAX, we fill the hopper, and we have some flexibility if something goes wrong. In a dire emergency, we still have almost a day’s worth of feed storage at each hopper. We have other systems that use a plastic tube and have almost no storage. We have a lot more cushion with SowMAX than the other systems.
So with SowMAX, you are able to “fuel up the race cars” What differences do you see in performance?
First, there are only two things that make milk, feed and water. A sow produces more milk per body weight than a milk cow. Can you image a dairyman limit feeding a milk cow? That would never happen, yet we expect a sow to produce to her full genetic potential on limit feeding! SowMAX allows us to fully feed sows according to their individual appetite and they produce heavier litters.
Second, we quit condition scoring sows coming out of the farrowing crates that are using SowMAX. Rarely would we have a Two score, they consistently scored as Threes. Because of their better body condition rebreeding is improved.
We have SowMAX in about 5,000 crates in North Carolina. You can bet that any updates or remodels that we do in the future will include SowMAX feeders also.
To learn more go to http://hogslat.com/sowmax-feed-dispenser on our web store.
Ever notice how some people or companies try to make a job more difficult than it has to be?
Today I read an article about a show case farm with an integrated computer system including electronic sow feeding. There is a picture showing a hand held computer programming in the amount of feed that a sow will receive according to its body condition score.
Looks like a complicated and expensive system that isn’t any more effective than hand feeding. If the computer based delivery system puts more feed in front of the sow than she can eat then it spoils and if the system puts in too little she doesn’t get the nutrients she needs for full milk production.
Compare this to feeding with a SowMAX.
You fill the hopper. The sow activates the lever and eats as much or as little as she wants….whenever she wants……night or day.
No guess work. No wasted feed. No under fed animals.
In the same e-mag there was also an advertisement describing an ad lib sow feeder that looked a lot like the SowMAX. One crucial difference though, it described the product as having a “timer that dispenses food at desired intervals over a 24 hour period”
Who’s desired time, yours or the sow’s? Why would you use a timer and motor instead of a lever? Most importantly this feeding dispenser still requires the operator to make a decision on the amount of feed that is metered out in 24 hours.
Again, same story. Feed too much and you’ll get spoilage or feed too little and the sows produce less milk. The SowMAX system lets the sow make the decision instead of a human operator.
SowMAX is the best Ad Lib Feeder on the market today.
To learn more about SowMAX go to http://hogslat.com/sowmax-feed-dispenser
Canada
中国
Polska
România
Україна
Méjico
