The grower-finisher stage accounts for 64% of the total on-farm herd water use. Part of this is consumed by the pigs, but a part is also wasted. Drinking water usage and wastage is affected by different factors. We investigated how different group sizes and different levels of enrichment affect water usage (ingested plus wasted), water wastage, behavior and performance in grower-finisher pigs. Pigs (n = 672), 11 weeks of age (77 ± 2 days) were used for the experiment. The effect of group size: SMALL (12 pigs), MEDIUM (24 pigs), and LARGE (48 pigs) was assessed across two levels of enrichment (LOW—wooden post, hanging rubber toy, HIGH—Same as LOW + fresh grass). There was no effect of group size on water use or wastage. Pigs with HIGH enrichment (10.4 ± 0.4 L/pig/day) used less water than LOW enrichment (11.0 ± 0.4 L/pig/day; p < 0.001). The water wastage/drinker/hour was lower in pens with HIGH enrichment than LOW (p = 0.003). The drinking bout number (p = 0.037) and total occupancy/hour (p = 0.048) was also higher for pens with LOW than HIGH enrichment. Aggressive and harmful behaviour were performed less in LARGE groups and pens with HIGH enrichment. Thus, HIGH enrichment allowance reduced water usage and wastage so may have benefits for the environment, as well as animal welfare.

No abstract

Pork is one of the most globally eaten meats and the pig production chain contributes significantly to the water footprint of livestock production. However, very little knowledge is available about the on-farm factors that influence freshwater use in the pig production chain. An experiment was conducted to quantify the effect of three different washing treatments on freshwater use, bacterial levels [(total bacterial counts; TBC), Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus] and cleaning time in washing of pens for weaning pigs. Three weaner rooms were selected with each room having 10 pens and a capacity to hold up to 14 pigs each. Pigs were weaned and kept in the pens for 7 weeks. Finally, the pens were cleaned before the next batch of pigs moved in. The washing treatments used were power washing and disinfection (WASH); presoaking followed by power washing and disinfection (SOAK), and presoaking followed by detergent, power washing and disinfection (SOAK + DETER). A water meter was used to collect water use data and swab samples were taken to determine the bacterial levels. The results showed that there was no overall effect of washing treatments on water use. However, there was an effect of treatment on the washing time (p<0.01) with SOAK and SOAK+DETER reducing the washing time per pen by 2.3 minutes (14%) and 4.2 minutes (27%) compared to WASH. Nonetheless, there was an effect of sampling time (before or after washing) (p<0.001) on the levels of TBC and Staphylococcus, but no effect was seen on Enterobacteriaceae levels. Thus, the washing treatments used in this study had no effect on the water use of the pork production chain. Although there was no difference in both water use and bacterial load, from a producer perspective, presoaking and detergent use can save time and labour costs, so this would be the preferred option.