A cost–benefit analysis of Salmonella-control strategies in Danish pork production

Posted in: Economics by admin on January 1, 2006 | No Comments

This economic analysis is an evaluation of the socio-economic profitability of different control strategies along the stable to table chain. It was found that only hot-water decontamination would be profitable from a socio-economic point of view because it was the only alternative with a positive net present value: €3.5 million.the least profitable alternative was use of home-mixed feed with a net present value of -€262.3 million, whereas for sanitary slaughter it was -€43.6 million, and for acidified feed it was -€79.9 million. Furthermore, regardless of the alternative chosen, it is the pig industry (farmers and slaughterhouses) that would have to pay for the benefits of the rest of society. After our analysis was concluded, the Danish pig sector decided to increase focus on slaughterhouse hygiene and at the same time to introduce hand-held steam-sucking on some slaughterhouses. The effect of this will be shown in the years to come.

Residual Effects of Composted and Fresh Solid Swine (Sus scrofa L.) Manure on Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] Growth and Yield

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Preference of Growing Pigs for Illuminance

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Inappropriate lighting has a negative impact on the welfare of many captive animals; photoperiod, illuminance and spectrum all influence the suitability of a light source or regime. The lighting under which a pig is raised can influence an animal’s ocular, physical and neural development, as well as its behaviour. Although there are no published data for the UK pig industry, photoperiod and illuminance are thought to vary widely within pig housing. In England, the legal requirements for pigs housed under artificial lighting are: (i) that lighting with an intensity of at least 40 lx must be provided for a minimum period of 8 h per day (The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003; S.I. 2003 No. 299; following EC regulation: Council Directive 2001/88/EC) and (ii) that animals kept in buildings must have an appropriate period of rest from artificial lighting (TheWelfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000; S.I. 2000 No. 1870; DEFRA, 2003), though the duration of this period is not specified. Additionally, adequate lighting (whether fixed or portable) must be available to enable the animals to be thoroughly inspected at any time (ibid). One UK farm assurance scheme (Freedom Food, 2003) further requires that housed pigs must have access to an area that provides a minimum illuminance of 50 lx for a continuous period of at least 8 h and a continuous dark period of at least 6 h; either of these temporal minima may be reduced to correspond with seasonal changes in daylength. The research described in this paper stresses the importance of identifying the needs and preferences of domestic animals rather than imposing conditions based on human perception and preference. The preferences of growing pigs for different illuminances and indirectly for photoperiod were determined experimentally. This experiment investigated the preference of juvenile pigs for illuminance, and indirectly photoperiod, at two ages. The animals were equally familiar with all illuminances prior to testing. Four groups, each of four pigs, occupied a four-compartment preference chamber in which a different illuminance was applied to each compartment: minimum (2.4), 4, 40 and 400 lx. Illuminances were rearranged every 2 days to avoid positional bias. The pigs significantly preferred the dimmest illuminance (mean occupancy 7 h 20 min per 24 h, backtransformed data) and spent the least time in the brightest (4 h 49 min per 24 h), with an intermediate and similar length of time spent in the other illuminances (6 h 25 min and 5 h 25 min in 4 and 40 lx, respectively, F3, 127 = 8.93, P < 0.001). The most common behaviours of the pigs when in the darkest compartment were resting and sleeping. The EU directive 2001/88 requires a minimum illuminance of 40 lx for pig production; this illuminance was neither aversive nor strongly preferred by the pigs. Our findings also suggest that pigs should be provided with an appropriate period of rest at an illuminance of 2.4 lx for at least 6 h per day. The only active behaviour affected by illuminance was defecation; the pigs preferred to defecate in the brighter illuminances. Spatial provision of minimal illuminance could potentially improve pig welfare by providing a preferred light environment for resting and also by creating a resting area distinct from dunging areas, thus improving hygiene.

Value Added Opportunities Based on Animal Care

Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments

Fifty years ago, most consumers still had grandparents or relatives that lived on farms and were involved in production agriculture. The average consumer still had a direct “connection” to agriculture. That is not the case today, customers and consumers are asking questions about environmental performance, animal welfare, food safety and security and worker care issues. Animal agriculture is facing increased pressure and growing questions about the production systems and practices. Activist groups opposed to contemporary production practices are pressuring customers and initiating legislation and litigation to change the way things operate. Today, there is little understanding of livestock production and a general lack of trust in our practices. Animal agriculture is challenged by anthropomorphism, affluence, and agricultural alienation. This list of socially responsible attributes is growing and becoming more embraced by the supply chain each day. To be successful today, animal agriculture must understand and address the consumers’ questions of trust and their values. When customers and consumers ask questions about animal welfare and the industry responds only with science and data, they perceive this as uncaring and non-responsive. Even though animal welfare today is not a top-of the mind concern for those who purchase meat, there is a societal expectation that animals used for meat will be treated humanely (USDA, 2004). Those who do not believe animals are being treated humanely or have other additional agendas are seeking changes by pressuring consumers, initiating legislation, and litigating against certain production practices. The demand for socially responsible production practices such as animal welfare will continue to increase. These demands will eventually become industry standards as the practices initiated by the innovators and early adaptors are adopted. As time passes, socially responsible production will become a requirement for doing business. As we increase both the distance most consumers have from the farm and the level of technology we implement in food production, consumers will become more interested in social responsibility. That means producers will have to become more and more concerned about non-product specific attributes like animal welfare, environmental stewardship, the use of health products and worker care issues. Science alone will not prevail. It is not persuasive in a value-based culture. The list of socially responsible production attributes is growing and being embraced by more of the supply chain every day. Trust must be built between the consumer, processor, and the producer. Building trust will require transparency, professionalism, and third-party certification and verification at all levels of production and processing. The biggest trend in the food system in the next two to three years will involve increased focus by food marketers and others on how producers operate their farms. Specifically, outside sources will want to know a lot more detail about how producers care for their animals, how they care for the land, how they care for their workers, and how they produce a safe product.

Limited Cross-Fostering Shows Results

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

As the health challenges facing the swine industry continue to evolve and change, the management practices needed to support production must also change. In a paper presented at the London Swine Conference, Dr. Monte McCaw outlined the limited cross fostering procedures that are showing positive results. The intent of these procedures is to confine health problems to as small a group as possible and move them through the production system.Point #1 – Don’t cross foster piglets after 24 hours of age. You would move only the minimum number of piglets to load functional teats, and not one pig more. Knowing when to stop and start cross fostering is a critical component here. For instance, you would no longer cross foster to create litters of uniform size or sex. When you have extra medium or large pigs that must be moved, match them by size and milking ability of the receiving sows and litter. You should ensure that smallest piglets are given the lowest priority for functional teat assignment. They are best left on their birth sow or moved as extras when there are more piglets than available teats. The highlight of this whole section comes down to maximizing the number of piglets left on their birth mother, cross fostering only once within 24 hours of birth, and if faced with surplus pigs maximizing the number of pigs on colostrum mothers. Point #2 – in Dr. McCaw’s presentation, the point was made to not move piglets between rooms. It is imperative to follow strict all in, all out production practices. Moving pigs between rooms presents far too many threats to all animals involved to any longer consider it a useful or appropriate procedure. Thinking along other lines, the litter is now the all in, all out unit. We traditionally thought rooms, or even whole facilities, but this is now restricted to as small a unit as possible which is the litter.Point #3 – made by Dr. McCaw covered culling. He strongly recommended removing very sick, moribund or bad body condition pigs from the system. He recommended producers sell or eliminate piglets at weaning that are too light to survive in the nursery and have poor body condition. If you have to treat piglets and they don’t get better quickly after treatment, they should also be removed immediately from your production system. Other piglets that show symptoms of very thin, starved out, lameness, light body weight, long hair or chronic illness should be removed from the production system as they appear. It is important to remember a piglet held back from weaning takes a teat away from a younger potentially healthier pig. In the area of Nursery Management the priorities according to Dr. McCaw included:• Carefully sorting piglets into pens according to size. Equals are equal and less equal will suffer accordingly. Care should be taken to place the smallest piglets in the part of the room that is most free of drafts and remains warm enough to support them. Special efforts in feeding must be made. He recommends hand feeding four times daily for at least five days. When deciding to switch rations the decision should be based on the weight of the pigs in the pen, not the weight of the pigs in the room. Supplemental heat (lamps) and plastic mats must be used if required, and are most often required. A drinker that runs water constantly should be available at a level that all pigs can reach for the first 24 hours after weaning. • Gilt and sow management are major factors in determining the number of piglets weaned in a room. You cannot reasonably expect to wean more quality pigs than there are functional teats in a farrowing room. To achieve high functional teat scores requires careful gilt selection and refined records of functional teat numbers in previous lactations.Now to expand on this material and put some numbers on it, we can go to a talk delivered November 30, 2005 at the Shakespeare production seminar by Dr. Sue Burlatshenko. She applied some nursery math in her presentation at a level that most of us can understand. Assume the death rate in pigs weaned at less that 3.8 kg is 45%. Assume the death rate of pigs between 3.8 and 5 kg is 12%, and assure the opportunity cost (had the pig lived) of a dead or live weight pig is $37. So every pig less than 3.8 kg entering the nursery has an opportunity cost of 45% of $37. = $16.65. Every pig between 3.8 and 5 kg has an opportunity cost of 12% times $37 equals $4.44, therefore, $16.65 – $4.44 = $12.21 that can be used to address potential treatment methods for these pigs.The message from these two papers is that management must pay extreme attention to detail and be carried out correctly in all instances to achieve the best levels of healthy weaner pigs, when faced with serious disease challenges.

Arthritis or OCD – Identification and Prevention

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Physical lameness in swine still exists despite the decades of improvements in genetic, nutrition, disease, and housing management practices. Osteochondrosis (OC) is the most prevalent cause of structural lameness in growing swine and can progress to osteochondrosis dissecans (OCD) and osteoarthritis (OA). It is still unknown what exactly causes these diseases and are classified as idiopathic (disease of unknown cause or origin). Genetics could potentially contribute to these diseases. Work is being done to find a genetic basis for OC and related disorders. A single gene mutation is unlikely to explain all the factors that lead to OA disorders (it is most likely multiple gene mutations). Environmental factors thought to be important in modulation of gene expression include nutrition, disease, and housing. There is current work being done on investigating nutritional factors, and there is no evidence that OC results from infectious organisms. Different housing systems have not had any effect on the occurrence of OC. Management recommendations include selecting for extremes in growth potential, keeping pigs fit by feeding complete diets to meet all requirements, and allow adequate stocking rates.

Heterogeneous Production Efficiency of Specialized Swine Producers

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

How Does Weaning Weight Influence the Growth Check in Early Weaned Piglets?

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Weaning can be a difficult time for early-weaned piglets. During the first 3 to 4 days post weaning they lose weight and may not consume enough water to meet their physiological needs. This is not surprising as weaning is an abrupt change for piglets. Up to weaning piglets have lived with the sow and their littermates and acquired their nourishment through nursing. Following weaning, piglets must learn to drink from a nipple drinker, eat a solid diet and feed individually, without the benefit of nursing grunts to signal feeding times. The result of this is a growth check, which is a welfare and economic concern. In this research project we asked the question: How does weaning weight affect the piglet’s ability to negotiate the growth check? The result of this experiment showed that the heavier piglets from a litter lost more weight over a longer period and had lower percentage ADG than their lighter littermates. These heavier piglets may have more difficulty in the immediate post-weaning period because they have less experience with creep feed and water. Increased fighting among these heavier piglets probably exacerbates this. Producers may want to pay more attention to these larger piglets as they may look better on casual inspection but may actually be at more risk during the first week post weaning.

Opportunities For Improving Reproductive Management And Efficiency Of The Swine Breeding Herd With Artificial Insemination

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

Artificial insemination (AI) was first developed for use in swine in the late 1960’s. Since that
time, advancements have led to a slow but gradual increase in the use of this technology.
This article describes the current status of swine AI, its benefits and applications, and its
relationship to current reproductive performance in the USA.

Feeding time and feeding rate and its relationship with feed intake, feed efficiency, growth rate, and rate of fat deposition in growing Duroc barrows

Posted in: Production by admin on | No Comments

The objectives of this study were to investigate trends based on daily measurements of feeding behavior traits in Duroc barrows during growth, and to investigate phenotypic correlations between feeding length and feeding rate, and feeding frequency, ADFI, G:F, growth rate, and rate of fat deposition. The data set of the current study was not sufficiently large for accurate estimation of heritabilities and genetic correlations. Knowledge on genetic parameters is needed in order to further discuss the possibility of incorporating feeding length and feeding rate in the
selection objectives. However, results of the current study indicate that, when sufficiently heritable, feeding length and feeding rate may be used to improve feed intake capacity in pigs during growth.