Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:54:14.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The biosecurity status and its associations with production and management characteristics in farrow-to-finish pig herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2015

M. Postma ,
A. Backhans ,
L. Collineau ,
S. Loesken ,
M. Sjölund ,
C. Belloc ,
U. Emanuelson ,
E. Grosse Beilage ,
K. D. C. Stärk  and
J. Dewulf
M. Postma*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
A. Backhans
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, SVA, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
L. Collineau
Affiliation:
SAFOSO AG, Waldeggstrasse 1, CH-3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland ONIRIS, UMR 1300 BioEpAR, BP40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
S. Loesken
Affiliation:
Field Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Büscheler Straße 9, D-49456 Bakum, Germany
M. Sjölund
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, SVA, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
C. Belloc
Affiliation:
ONIRIS, UMR 1300 BioEpAR, BP40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
U. Emanuelson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E. Grosse Beilage
Affiliation:
Field Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Büscheler Straße 9, D-49456 Bakum, Germany
K. D. C. Stärk
Affiliation:
SAFOSO AG, Waldeggstrasse 1, CH-3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland
J. Dewulf
Affiliation:
Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Disease prevention through biosecurity measures is believed to be an important factor for improvement of the overall health status in animal production. This study aimed at assessing the levels of implementation of biosecurity measures in pig production in four European Union (EU) countries and to describe possible associations between the biosecurity level and farm and production characteristics. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 232 farrow-to-finish pig herds in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden between December 2012 and December 2013. The biosecurity status in each of these herds was described and quantified by using the risk-based scoring tool Biocheck.UGentTM (www.biocheck.ugent.be). Production and management characteristics, obtained from the herd management system and by interviewing the farmer, were analysed for their association with the biosecurity level. A causal path was designed to study statistical associations. The results showed that there was substantial room for improvement in the biosecurity status on many pig farms. Significant differences (P<0.01) both in internal and external biosecurity levels were observed between countries. The external biosecurity status, combining all measures taken to prevent disease introduction into the herd, was highest in Germany and lowest in France. The internal biosecurity status, combining all measures taken to prevent within herd disease transmission, was highest in Sweden and lowest, with a large variation, in Belgium. External biosecurity scores were in general higher compared to internal biosecurity scores. The number of pathogens vaccinated against was significantly associated with internal biosecurity status, suggesting an overall more preventive approach towards the risk of disease transmission. A higher external biosecurity was associated with more weaned piglets per sow per year. Furthermore also the weaning age and the mortality till weaning were highly associated with the number of weaned piglets per sow per year. The negative association observed between the biosecurity level and the estimated frequency of treatment against certain clinical signs of disease as a proxy for disease incidence is consistent with the hypothesis that a higher biosecurity level results in healthier animals. These findings promote an improved biosecurity status at pig farms and are of relevance in the discussion on alternative ways to keep animals healthy with a reduced necessity of antimicrobials; Prevention is better than cure!

Keywords

biosecurityalternative to antimicrobial agentspig productioncausal pathdisease prevention
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 3 , March 2016 , pp. 478 - 489
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

MINAPIG project: Evaluation of alternative strategies for raising pigs with minimal antimicrobial usage: Opportunities and constraints. More information can be found at http://www.minapig.eu.

References

Amass, SF and Clark, LK 1999. Biosecurity considerations for pork production units. Swine Health and Production 7, 217–228.Google Scholar
American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) 2007. PADRAP (Production Animal Disease Risk Assessment Program). AASV, Perry, Iowa, USA. Retrieved from http://vdpambi.vdl.iastate.edu/padrap/pages/contact.aspx.Google Scholar
Backhans, A, Sjölund, M, Lindberg, A and Emanuelson, U 2015. Biosecurity level and health management practices in 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 57, 14.Google Scholar
Belgian FPS Economy 2013. Landbouwgegevens van 2013 [Agricultural Data of 2013]. In (ed. KMO FOD Economie, Middenstand en Energie)Self-Employed and Energy, Brussel, Belgium.Google Scholar
Brennan, ML and Christley, RM 2012. Biosecurity on cattle farms: a study in north-west England. PLoS One 7, e28139.Google Scholar
Brockhoff, E, Cunningham, G and Misutka, C 2009. A retrospective analysis of a high health commercial pig production system showing improved production and reduced antibiotic use after implementation of a PCV2 vaccination. In 8th International Symposium on the Epidemiology and Control of Foodborne Pathogens in Pork (SafePork), Quebec City, Canada, pp. 182–187.Google Scholar
Casal, J, De Manuel, A, Mateu, E and Martín, M 2007. Biosecurity measures on swine farms in Spain: perceptions by farmers and their relationship to current on-farm measures. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 82, 138–150.Google Scholar
Chantziaras, I, Boyen, F, Callens, B and Dewulf, J 2013. Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animls: a report on seven countries. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 69, 827–834.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version). In (ed. European Union) Official journal of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
European Commission 2007. A new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007–2003) where “Prevention is better than cure”. In Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
European Commission 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Action plan against the rising threats from Antimicrobial Resistance. COM (2011) 748. In AMR Road map – Action No. 10 European Commission, Brussel, Belgium.Google Scholar
EUROSTAT 2015. Pigs: total, fattening pigs and sows (selection “type of rearing”=sows, “Strucpro”=Number of holders, year=2005). EUROSTAT, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Committee on Agriculture 2003. Biosecurity in Food and Agriculture. In Seventeenth Session, Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Fraile, L, Alegre, A, López-Jiménez, R, Nofrarías, M and Segalés, J 2010. Risk factors associated with pleuritis and cranio-ventral pulmonary consolidation in slaughter-aged pigs. The Veterinary Journal 184, 326–333.Google Scholar
German Federal Statistical Office 2014. Viehhaltung der Betriebe – Agrarstrukturerhebung 2013 [Livestock Holdings – Agricultural Structure Survey 2013]. In German Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Ghent University 2010. In Biocheck.UGent, Retrieved March 10, 2015, from www.biocheck.ugent.be, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction Obstetrics and Herd Health, Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Merelbeke, Belgium.Google Scholar
Gunn, GJ, Heffernan, C, Hall, M, McLeod, A and Hovi, M 2008. Measuring and comparing constraints to improve biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 84, 310–323.Google Scholar
Ingvar Eriksson, SP 2014. Internationella rapporten – InterPIG. In Svenska Pig, Kalmar, Sweden.Google Scholar
Laanen, M, Beek, J, Ribbens, S, Vangroenweghe, F, Maes, D and Dewulf, J 2010. Biosecurity on pig herds: development of an on-line scoring system and the results of the first 99 participating herds. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift 79, 302–306.Google Scholar
Laanen, M, Maes, D, Hendriksen, C, Gelaude, P, De Vliegher, S, Rosseel, Y and Dewulf, J 2014. Pig, cattle and poultry farmers with a known interest in research have comparable perspectives on disease prevention and on-farm biosecurity. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 115, 1–9.Google Scholar
Laanen, M, Persoons, D, Ribbens, S, de Jong, E, Callen, B, Strubbe, M, Maes, D and Dewulf, J 2013. Relationship between biosecurity and production/antimicrobial treatment characteristics in pig herds. The Veterinary Journal 198, 508–512.Google Scholar
Lambert, M-È, Arsenault, J, Poljak, Z and D’Allaire, S 2012. Epidemiological investigations in regard to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) in Quebec, Canada. Part 2: Prevalence and risk factors in breeding sites. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, D, Segales, J, Meyns, T, Sibila, M, Pieters, M and Haesebrouck, F 2007. Control of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in pigs. Veterinary Microbiology 126, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, D, Segales, J, Meyns, T, Sibila, M, Pieters, M and Haesebrouck, F 2008. Control of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infections in pigs. Veterinary Microbiology 126, 297–309.Google Scholar
Maes, DGD, Duchateau, L, Larriestra, A, Deen, J, Morrison, RB and de Kruif, A 2004. Risk factors for mortality in grow-finishing pigs in Belgium. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. Series B 51, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nöremark, M, Frössling, J and Lewerin, SS 2010. Application of routines that contribute to on-farm biosecurity as reported by Swedish livestock farmers. Transboundery and Emerging Diseases 57, 225–236.Google Scholar
Regeringskansliet Sweden 1988. SFS 1988, Swedish Code of statues 1988. 539 Animal Protection Ordinance (in Swedish) – amended by SFS 2009:303 of 1 January 2010. In Sveriges riksdag, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
SSP-Agreste 2010. Recensements agricoles [Agricultural census]. In French Ministry of Agricultre, Food and Forest, Montreuil-sous-Bois, France.Google Scholar
Statistics Sweden 2014. Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 2014 med data om livsmedel [Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 2014 Including Food Statistics]. In Jordbruksverket, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt 2014. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei – Viehhaltung der Betriebe Agrarstrukturerhebung – 2013. In Fachserie 3 Reihe 2.1.3, p. 15. Statistisches Bundesamt – DESTATIS, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Valeeva, NI, van Asseldonk, MAPM and Backus, GBC 2011. Perceived risk and strategy efficacy as motivators of risk management strategy adoption to prevent animal diseases in pig farming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 102, 284–295.Google Scholar
VILT – VLaams Infocentrum Land- en Tuinbouw 2010. Belgische veestapel groeit verder aan. In VILT, Brussel, Belgium. Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.vilt.be/Belgische_veestapel_groeit_verder_aan Google Scholar
Visschers, VHM, Backhans, A, Collineau, L, Iten, D, Loesken, S, Postma, M, Belloc, C, Dewulf, J, Emanuelson, U, Beilage, E, Siegrist, M, Sjölund, M and Stärk, KDC 2015. Perceptions of antimicrobial usage, antimicrobial resistance and policy measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in convenient samples of Belgian, French, German, Swedish and Swiss pig farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 119, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wageningen University 2008. Checklist bestrijding Streptococcus suis door managementmaatregelen. In Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Postma supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Postma supplementary material(Image)
Image 1.1 MB