Toll Free Helpline (India): 1800 1234 070

Rest of World: +91-9810852116

Free Publication Certificate

Vol. 12, Special Issue 9 (2023)

Automatic versus conventional rearing systems in commercial piggery farms: A survey

Abhijeet Kumar, Mahadevappa D Gouri, Ningaraju K and Vivek M Patil
An automatic rearing system in commercial pig farming helps to reduce manpower requirements and also increase the efficiency of the productive animal. Automatic rearing systems (ARS) have recently been introduced in commercial piggery farms and little information is available regarding their feasibility to the Indian farmers. The primary Objective of this paper was to identify differences in economic parameters between ARS and Conventional rearing systems (CRS). The survey was conducted in 10 piggery farms of Karnataka state in India, out of which 20 per cent were using ARS and 80 per cent of the farms were on CRS. The nature of survey conducted was through interview and a set of a questionnaire. During the interviews, which lasted about 2 h, the following information was obtained: i) farm characteristics, ii) feeding systems, iii) Feeding strategies, iv) Watering system and v) Meat and skin quality. The farms were divided into two groups where the first one (n=50) utilized ARS while the second group (n=50) had CRS. The average width of the Sty, Farm area, pork production, number of pigs maintained in group I and II was observed 30±1.4 ft, 5000±282.8 sqft, 8±0.2 MT, 102±1.4 and 26.75±0.4 ft, 7962.5±127.6 sqft, 6.08±0.1MT, 103±0.6 respectively. The breed at 86% of all surveyed farms in Group I was three way cross bred commercial lines while remaining 14% were pure lines, such as Large white Yorkshire, Landrace and Duroc. The average of these lines pork yields of Group I farms was 8 MT. Whereas, in group II was having 72% three way cross bred commercial line and 28% indigenous Ankamali breed. The average yield for Group II farms was 6MT of pork. The most striking differences in the two surveyed groups were related to the feeding systems. Their entire systems featured auger driven suspended feeders, electric powered, with nominal volume ranging from 3.0 to 4.0 m3, that were filled on average, at 55% of their capacity. They delivered feed with an average frequency of 4 times per day. Ninety per cent of the CRS farms delivered Hotel or kitchen waste by manual feeding system. The remaining 10% of these farms offered ration components along with Hotel or kitchen waste by means of manual feeding system. The majority of Farms in Group II (85%) provided only one ration irrespective of Balanced ration and remaining 15% were provided single ration with different measured quantity to lactating sow, pregnant sow, Dry sow, Gilt and Fattener pigs. Whereas, in Group I followed phase feeding method for the fatteners as per the NRC (1998) recommendation, in these farms feeding was done in three difference phases and also split sex feeding for the breeders was observed. Water quality with respect to Coli form Bacterial counts (per ml), Nitrate (mg/l), Total Hardness (ppm), pH in Group I and II were 55.3±7.1 and 75.0±7.6; 9.0±1.4 and 32.5±2.6; 62.0±2.8 and 181.5±5.4; and 6.7±0.07 and 6.4±0.1 respectively. The average mean of back fat thickness (mm), Fat firmness in Loin and shoulder, water content (mg/g) and lipid content (mg/g) in pork in Group I were 16.5±0.70, 685±7.07, 785±7.07, 197.9±0.56 and 8.7±0.12 respectively. These values for Group II were 25.3±0.28, 735±5.80, 840±10.69, 167.67±1.42, 14.06±0.38 respectively.
The study revealed that when compare to the Conventional Rearing Systems (CRS), the Automatic Rearing System (ARS) farms showed efficient farm production with regard to less farm space utilization, eased and better feeding strategies, quality supply of water, increased liveability, improved FCR and ease of leaner meat production was observed.
Pages: 578-581  |  90 Views  43 Downloads
How to cite this article:
Abhijeet Kumar, Mahadevappa D Gouri, Ningaraju K and Vivek M Patil. Automatic versus conventional rearing systems in commercial piggery farms: A survey. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023; 12(9S): 578-581.
Important Publications Links
The Pharma Innovation Journal

The Pharma Innovation Journal

Call for book chapter