Hoop Structures for Swine Housing

1. Presented by Tommy Bass and Mike Daniel 2005 Georgia Pork Congress, Macon GA Hoop Structures for Swine Housing University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

2. Solid versus Liquid Wastes • Liquid Waste • accident potential and liability • expensive to haul • difficult to export • complicated management (flushing, pumping and irrigating) • public perception, NIMBY • Solid Waste • low accident potential • compostable • cheaper to haul • easier to export • simpler management (loading, stacking, spreading)

3. Hoop Basics • Hoop structures are naturally-ventilated structures that have a heavy fabric roof. • Sidewalls are wooden, block or poured.

4. Hoop Basics • Reflective tarps are used to reflect solar radiation to prevent over-heating.

5. Hoop Basics • Roofs are supported by tubular arches • Hoops wider than 38´ generally use trusses

6. Hoop Basics • Tarps are held in place by winch or ratcheting straps.

7. Hoop Basics • The north end is generally closed during winter except a small area for ventilation. • Various ends are available. This one uses tracks • Others provide more open space for ventilation.

8. Hoop Basics • Hoops are often used for finishing pigs. • Plentiful, high quality deep bedding is the key.

9. Hoop Basics • Sow gestation is another common use for hoops. • Sow feeding is an important decision.

10. Animal Health and Performance • Pigs fed in hoops compared to partially slatted confinement • excellent health • similar rates of gain • faster in summer, slower in winter • similar feed efficiency, • except in cold winter months (Canada) • lower mortality Connor, 1993 and 1994, Manitoba Swine Seminar Proceedings

11. Labor • Per pig labor is no more than in confinement, however tasks are distinctive • checking pigs, walking through bedded area • Storing and handling round bales, straw, shavings or other bedding • hauling solid manure/litter

12. Cost • Iowa research, Canadian research and Iowa farmer data showed hoops: • lower heating, maintenance and utilities cost • increased winter feed cost • new expense in bedding • lower initial investment • This data showed slight advantage to hoops ($3.50 per pig)

13. Hoop Barns at UGA • 3 bedded hoop barns • 2 hoop roofs over slatted floors • 1 hoop barn for composting operation and some dry waste storage

14. Hoop Barns at UGA • Finish pigs at UGA • Bedded on shavings/saw dust

15. Hoop Barns at UGA • Slab between barns for working and loading animals

16. Hoop Barns at UGA • Fresh Bedding in cleaned-out barn • Waste is exportedoff site

17. Hoop Barns at UGA • Mortalities are composted in a hoop barn not used for livestock • Safe from run-off • Limited scavenger access

18. Hoop Barns at UGA • Gestation/breeding barn • Hoop roof was added to old confinement building foundation • Fans used for increased ventilation

19. Take Home Points • Cost benefit: break even or slight favor to hoops • Labor: break even or slight favor to hoops • Maintenance: favor to hoops • Feed: cold climate favor to confinement, southern data not well organized • Waste/Environment: major favor to hoops

20. Additional Questions/Needs • Need more data for southeast; additional analysis • Health issues related to bedding • initial UGA experience and research (Jones) • worms, liver ascarids (Thacker et. al., Iowa State) • Inexpensive and readily available bedding enhances cost advantage

21. Additional Information • http://www.abe.iastate.edu/research.asp • Click on: “Hoop Structures for Swine” in the right hand list of topics. • http://www.agp2.org/aware • Click on: “Search”, then type “hoop” and press “Enter”. Information for this presentation was obtained from the: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University