HOUSING
PIH-69
pork industry handbook
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE • PURDUE UNIVERSITY • WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA
Swine Confinement Breeding Units
Authors
Wayne L. Singleton and W. H. Friday, Purdue University
Richard P. Kesler, University of Illinois
R. M. Liittjohann, Wiggins, Colorado
Reviewers
Rick Jones, University of Georgia
Ray Hankes, Fairbury, Illinois
Reproductive performance is the weakest link in most swine operations. As confinement intensifies, reproductive performance tends to become more of a problem. While confinement technology is well advanced in the farrowing, nursery and finishing phases, it is not so in the breeding phase. The ideal confinement breeding system has not yet been designed or described; much has been learned, however, through research and producer trial and error.

The three major reasons for considering a confinement breeding unit are: (1) It provides alternative uses for land required for sow lots; (2) It maintains reproductive efficiency during stressful environmental conditions; and (3) Many producers desire to adapt a weekly farrowing schedule with the “all-in, all-out” building use concept.

This fact sheet will consider these reasons by examining management strategies, physiological considerations, and sample physical arrangements in the confinement breeding unit.

General Considerations
In general, a confinement breeding system is accompanied by a hand-mating program. When a pen-mating system is chosen to reduce labor costs, however, modified confinement building systems may be more desirable. For example, many producers have taken advantage of existing facilities, such as a vacant cattle-feeding lot, where considerable concrete space and shelter is available, by converting the facilities to confinement breeding units. Also, many automated cattle-feeding systems may be converted for sow feeding. In most instances, this type of system is low cost. It also reduces land needs and eliminates mud problems. When manure builds up or if ice is present, however, slick footing becomes a problem during mating.

Another example of a less intense confinement system would be the use of a low profile, open-fronted building.
Yet this system has disadvantages similar to the previous system. Boars should be rotated from one breeding pen to another every 12-24 hrs.

A totally confined, environmentally controlled breeding unit eliminates most of the problems associated with the weather; however, it generally requires hand-mating. Hand-mating is not a disadvantage because it enables the producer to plan a more precise farrowing schedule as compared to pen breeding.

Management Strategies for Confinement Breeding
Each producer must deal with different management circumstances when considering a confinement breeding facility. One important consideration for all producers is return on investment. With present building costs, a total investment of $1500-$2500 per sow in breeding through finishing facilities is not uncommon. When farrowing crate or finishing space is empty because of a reproductive failure, the cost of the failure must be covered by the production from those stalls, crates or spaces which are occupied. Therefore, buildings must be occupied at 100% capacity for maximum return on the investment. Thus, a producer must plan a breeding herd program and provide the facilities and management that will consistently achieve a conception rate and litter size that insure an animal for every available space. This concept is especially important during periods of smaller profit margins.

Hand-mating is another important management consideration. For the purposes of this publication, handmating will be considered an integral part of confinement breeding. Most sows return to heat 4-7 days following weaning. First-litter sows generally take about 48 hrs. longer than older sows in returning to heat. Thus, if weaning occurs on Thursday or Friday, a producer can expect to breed the sows the following Monday through Thursday.
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.