Comparison of Finishing Systems: Performance, and Carcass Composition Jessica Gentry1 and John McGlone2 1Middle Tennessee State University 2Pork Industry Institute, Texas Tech University 2003 Midwest Animal Science Meetings Background • Pigs may be reared in a wide variety of systems. • Indoor vs. outdoor production system provides the greatest contrast in environment. • Indoor systems are more common today. • Outdoor systems may command a premium in some niche markets (ex., Niman Ranch program). Housing for Grower/Finisher Pigs in the United States Facility type: Percent Total confinement 69.9 Open building, no outside access Open building, outside access Outside lot 19.7 Pasture 9.2 0.8 0.4 NAHMS, 2001 Outdoor Pig Production • Growing interest in outdoor pig production: – Low capital cost of outdoor systems. – Work well in arid climates. – Animal welfare regulations. – Potential niche marketing benefits of “natural”, “free range”, “antibiotic-free”, and “sustainable” products. Outdoor Pig Production • Low capital cost – varies from 40 to 70% of the cost for conventional indoor systems (Thornton, 1988). • Can achieve similar gross margins as indoor systems (Edwards, 1995). • Outdoor pigs have a calmer behavior (Warriss et al., 1983). • Less susceptible to stress in connection with transport (Barton-Gade & Blaabjerg, 1989). Sustainable Agriculture Systems • Essential to preserve, protect, and improve the environment and animal’s experiences. • Sustainable swine production involves use of production techniques to: – Enhance profits – Improve environmental and socioeconomic conditions on the farm (Honeyman, 1996) Outdoor vs. Indoor Finishing • Environmental effects on performance and carcass measures have yielded widely differing conclusions (Warriss et al., 1983; van der Wal et al., 1993, Enfalt et al., 1997; Sather et al., 1997; Gentry et al., 2001; Olsson et al., 2003). Impact of Alternative and Indoor Housing Systems on Health Health • Limited research has been published on the impact of alternative finishing systems on pig health. • Pigs on bedding had fewer foot pad lesions and tended to have fewer respiratory problems than pigs on slatted flooring (Gentry et al., 2001). Percentage of Foot and Lung Lesions Feet Clear All lesions Severe Lungs Clear All lesions Severe Bedded, % Slats, % 68 32 31 45 55 9 68 32 6 76 24 13 Gentry et al., 2001 Impact of Housing Systems on Performance and Carcass Composition Growth Effects of Alternative vs. Conventional Systems for Finisher Pigs Live Wt. Warriss et al, 1983 van der Wal et al, 1993 Authors Sather et al, 1997- winter - summer Enfalt et al, 1997 Beattie et al, 2000 Olsson et al, 2003 ADG Feed Intake F:G LR Backfat ns - - - -18.0% ns - - - ns ns +8.9% - -15.9% ns 11.2% -16.4% -12.8% ns -15.8% - + 5.0% +16.0% +6.0% ns +8.5% - ns ns - -15% -9.0% +26.8% - +35.4% *A positive value indicates an increase for the alternative production system compared to the indoor system; ns = effects not significantly different (P > 0.05). Bedded vs. Slatted Flooring (JAS 2001, 80:1781-1790) Objective • To evaluate the effects of pig rearing environment (bedded vs. slatted flooring) on growth and carcass quality. Bedding vs. Slatted Flooring • Indoor-born pigs finished on concrete slats or bedding (fescue hulls). • PIC genotype, fed corn-SBM ration. • Processed at Excel, Marshall, MO. • n = 50 loins per treatment. Results • Pigs finished on bedding: Had more severe foot lesions but a lower percentage of foot lesions (32% bedding vs. 55% slats). Heavier (+ 8 kg). Had more backfat (+ 0.5 cm at last rib measurement). • For loin quality measures, there were no significant differences. Diverse Birth and Rearing Environments for Pigs: Effects on Growth and Meat Quality (JAS 2001, 80:1707-1715) Objective • To determine the effects of diverse birth and rearing environments on pig performance and meat quality. Pig Birth Environments English style farrowing hut Farrowing crate Pig Finishing Environments Alfalfa pasture, 212 m2/pig Pen size: 12 x 102 m Hut (9 x 15 m) for shelter Wallow provided during summer Concrete slatted flooring Pen size: 2 x 3.6 m 1.2 m2/pig Experimental Design Pig birth environment Indoor-born pigs Outdoor-born pigs Indoor finishing n = 12 Outdoor finishing n = 12 Indoor finishing n = 12 Pig rearing environment Outdoor finishing n = 12 Animals • n = 48 pigs/exp., 3 indoor-born and 3 outdoor-born pigs/pen. • Replicated over seasons: summer and winter group (96 pigs total). • Placed on trial at weaning, similar average weights in each pen. • Newsham hybrids, halothane negative. • Fed milo/SBM based ration. • Processed at Seaboard, Guymon, OK. Body Weight - Summer Group 140 * 120 * 100 kg 80 60 * 40 * 20 0 d0 d 28 d 56 Indoor born d 112 Outdoor born * P < 0.05 d 143 ADG – Summer Group a 0.85 kg/d 0.80 0.75 b 0.70 0.65 Indoor-born Outdoor-born P < 0.05, SEM = 0.03 F:G – Summer Group 1.4 kg:kg 1.3 a b 1.2 1.1 1.0 Indoor-reared Outdoor-reared P = 0.02, SEM = 0.002 Last Rib Backfat – Summer Group 3.4 a 3.2 3.0 cm b 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 Indoor-reared Outdoor-reared P = 0.04, SEM = 0.10 Outdoor vs. Indoor Finishing: Summer Group Measure No. of pigs Birth Indoor Outdoor 12 12 Rearing Indoor Outdoor 12 12 1st rib BF, cm 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.7 Last rib BF, cm 2.5 3.1 2.8b 3.6a LEA, cm2 49.7b 54.6a 51.3 52.9 Marbling score 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.5 Shear force, kg 2.1 2.1 2.2a 2.0b L* 49.5 49.2 50.5a 48.1b a* 1.4b 2.4a 1.6 2.2 b* 10.2b 10.9a 10.5 10.7 a,b Means in the same row within a main effect with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). Winter Group • Pigs born outdoors were heavier at d 28, 56, and 112. • Pigs finished outdoors were: heavier at d 140, higher F:G. more backfat. higher a* values (redder color). no differences in sensory or WBS values. Outdoor vs. Indoor Finishing: Winter Group Measure No. of pigs Birth Indoor Outdoor 12 12 Rearing Indoor Outdoor 12 12 1st rib BF, cm 3.9b 4.3a 4.1 4.2 Last rib BF, cm 2.1b 2.5a 2.2 2.4 LEA, cm2 43.5 40.2 42.7 40.9 Marbling score 1.3 1.3 1.5a 1.1b Shear force, kg 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 53.6 55.0 54.9 53.8 L* a* 4.2b 5.0a 4.2b 5.0a b* 8.9b 9.8a 9.2 9.6 a,b Means in the same row within a main effect with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). Summary: Birth Environment • Pig birth environment played a significant role in growth throughout the finishing period. • Advantages of outdoor-born pigs include: – increased ADG. – larger loineye area. Summary: Rearing Environment • Advantages of outdoor-reared pigs include: – lower L* values & higher a* values. • Disadvantages of outdoor-reared pigs: – increased backfat. – higher F:G ratio. • Both birth and finishing systems resulted in pigs that had carcasses with acceptable quality. TTU Sustainable Pork® Farm • 330 sows on 108 acres. • Center pivot over the site. • Old World Blue Stem on USDA-CRP land. • Use of automated feeding. • All sows can be bred by AI. • PIC C-22 and Newsham lines used. • A scaled-up version was started in Colorado with 10,000 sows. Breeding and Gestation Farrowing Weaning through finishing Winter Summer Conventional Challenges • • • • • • Weather, particularly in cold climates. Maintenance of ground cover. Image of older outdoor systems. Parasite and microbial controls. Appropriate genotypes. Higher level of stockmanship required. Implications • Many options for successful pig finishing systems. • Pigs finished in alternative systems had: – similar performance measures (or improved in some cases). – loins were acceptable in color, water holding capacity, and quality. • Success depends on many factors including: – Environment – Genetics – Management level This research was supported in part by a USDA Fund for Rural America grant and the Texas Tech University College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Thanks for your attention. Questions?