HOUSING
PIH-28
pork industry handbook
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE • PURDUE UNIVERSITY • WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA
Confinement Sow Gestation and Boar Housing
Authors
Gilbert R. Hollis, Texas A & M University
L. Bynum Driggers, North Carolina State Universit
Arthur J. Muehling, University of Illinois
G. R. Carlisle, University of Illinois
Reviewers
William H. Friday, Purdue University
Tom High, Auburn University
Ken VanGilst, Oskaloosa, Iowa
A major concern in a swine production system is proper management of the pregnant sow. In the past, sows usually have been sheltered in open-front buildings, barns or portable houses on pasture or dry lot. Only a relatively small percentage of breeding ' herds have been continuously confined.

Recently, however, high land values, environmental problems, and efficiency in handling and managing the breeding herd have stimulated considerable interest in confining the breeding herd. Producers who are farrowing large numbers of sows are attempting to solve some of these problems by turning to a confinement system of housing. The type of housing and management system that is best for this phase of swine production, however, depends on each manager’s skill and ability and on financial considerations.

Some advantages of confinement sow housing are: (1) better control of mud, dust and manure, (2) reduced labor for feeding, breeding and moving to farrowing house, (3) improved control of internal and external parasites, (4) smaller land requirements, (5) better supervision of herd at breeding time, (6) use of existing buildings, (7) improved operator comfort and convenience, (8) opportunities for better all-around management.

Some disadvantages of confinement sow housing are: (1) higher initial investment, (2) possible delayed sexual maturity and breeding age, lower conception rates in gilts and lower rebreeding efficiency in sows, (3) requirement of better management and daily attention to details, and (4) increase in feet and leg problems.

The major disadvantage to confined sow housing is the higher initial capital investment in buildings and equipment. Material, labor and equipment costs can vary tremendously, depending on locality and building design. Because of the initial capital investment, many producers prefer to remodel existing out-of-date farm structures for
sow confinement rather than build new ones. In either case, the basic principles of design must be followed Some old buildings, however, are totally unsuitable for renovation.

Investment for a new facility can run between $75 and $200 per sow, or even up to $300 or higher for the more sophisticated systems. Assuming an annual cost of 15%, gestation building costs can easily add $1 per pig for total production costs. Therefore, any confined sow housing system, to be economically feasible, must either provide production cost savings and efficiencies (feed, bedding, labor, etc.), result in improved reproductive efficiency (higher conception rates, larger litters, etc ), or make total management of a large number of sows easier.

Design and construction of confinement housing for gestating sows and boars must be very precise and detailed if they are to be successful. The facility must provide (1) a suitable environment for the animal, (2) minimal requirements for routine labor, and (3) a comfortable environment and convenient arrangements for the herdsman. Table 1 provides recommended space requirements.

Suggested Housing Systems
Confinement sow gestation and boar housing units in use today can be divided into several definite patterns, with possible variations in feeding methods, breeding methods, and number grouped together.

System 1 Solid concrete floor with individual free stalls. This very simple but very effective structure (Fig. 1) is usually used by small producers. It is convenient in that sows are individually fed in stalls. The transfer to boars in breeding pens requires only one man. With the boars adjacent to the sow pens, sows in heat can be easily detected. Hand-mating is practiced.
Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics State of Indiana, Purdue University and U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating. H. G. Diesslin, Director, West Lafayette, IN. Issued in furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. It is the policy of the Cooperative Extension Service of Purdue University that all persons shall have equal opportunity and access to its programs and facilities without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age or handicap.