Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:42:01.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High biosecurity and welfare standards in fattening pig farms are associated with reduced antimicrobial use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

A. H. Stygar Open the ORCID record for A. H. Stygar [Opens in a new window] ,
I. Chantziaras ,
I. Toppari ,
D. Maes  and
J. K. Niemi Open the ORCID record for J. K. Niemi [Opens in a new window]
A. H. Stygar*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Latokartanonkaari 9, Helsinki00790, Finland
I. Chantziaras
Affiliation:
Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Unit of Porcine Health Management, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke9820, Belgium
I. Toppari
Affiliation:
Animal Health ETT, Huhtalantie 2, Seinäjoki60100, Finland
D. Maes
Affiliation:
Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Unit of Porcine Health Management, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke9820, Belgium
J. K. Niemi
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Kampusranta 9, Seinäjoki60320, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In order to reduce antimicrobial use in pig production, the consequences of insufficient biosecurity and welfare problems need to be known. This study aimed to investigate associations between the number of antimicrobial treatments per fattening pig, and biosecurity, indicators for animal welfare as well as the prevalence of lesions at slaughter. The data used in this study were extracted from the pig health and welfare classification system (Sikava), which gathers data on medicine usage, meat inspection, animal welfare and the condition of farm buildings from over 95% of pig production in Finland. The data were registered during years from 2011 to 2013. Upon antimicrobial prescription, information on the number of fattening pigs treated and the main reason for treatment was recorded. In addition, at least 4 times per year, pig farms registered in Sikava were visited by the farm veterinarian who assessed, among other things, biosecurity and indicators for animal welfare (air quality, condition of facilities, cleanliness, enrichment and stocking density). Finally, data from slaughterhouse inspections were collected (number of carcasses with joint infection, abscesses, lung lesions, pleurisy and liver lesions). For analysis, these datasets were aggregated at the farm level to a quarter of a year. During the studied period, the mean number of antimicrobial treatments per fattening pig per 3 months was equal to 0.09. The main reasons for antimicrobial treatments were musculoskeletal diseases, tail biting and respiratory disorders (42, 33 and 12% of diagnoses, respectively). The meat inspection scoring indicated that as much as 14.7% of all pigs had pleurisy, 5.3% liver lesions and 4.1% abscesses. A standard zero-inflated negative binomial model was used to identify factors associated with the number of antimicrobial treatments per pig. The count of antimicrobial treatments per pig increased with the size of a farm. Regardless of prevalence of lesions, farms with poor drinking equipment, insufficient enrichment and a combination of poor condition of pens and high stocking density were associated with an increased number of antimicrobial treatments for musculoskeletal diseases per pig. Problems with stocking density and enrichment were associated with the number of antimicrobial treatments for tail biting, although these results depended on prevalence of joint infections. Problems with air quality and the combination of poor cleanliness and poor condition of facilities were associated with increased number of antimicrobial treatments due to respiratory diseases. This study suggests that by improving biosecurity and welfare at pig farms, antimicrobial use can be reduced.

Keywords

antimicrobial usebiosecuritymusculoskeletal diseasestail bitingrespiratory disorders
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 10 , October 2020 , pp. 2178 - 2186
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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.)

References

Bello, NM and Renter, DG 2018. Invited review: reproducible research from noisy data: revisiting key statistical principles for the animal sciences. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 5679–5701.10.3168/jds.2017-13978CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolker, B, Brooks, M, Gardner, B, Lennert, C and Minami, M 2012. Owls example: a zero-inflated, generalized linear mixed model for count data. 2012. Retrieved on 2 February 2018 from : https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/non-linear-modeling/projects/owls/WRITEUP/owls.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brooks, ME, Kristensen, K, van Benthem, KJ, Magnusson, A, Berg, CW, Nielsen, A, Skaug, HJ, Maechler, M and Bolker, BM 2017. Modeling zero-inflated count data with glmmTMB. The R Journal 9, 378–400.10.32614/RJ-2017-066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantziaras, I, Boyen, F, Callens, B and Dewulf, J 2014. Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals: a report on seven countries. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 69, 827–834.10.1093/jac/dkt443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, B, Panzone, LA, Stewart, GB, Kyriazakis, I, Niemi, JK, Latvala, T, Tranter, R, Jones, P and Frewer, LJ 2019. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. PLOS ONE 14, e0210432.10.1371/journal.pone.0210432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8, 1479–1497.10.1017/S1751731114001359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derks, M, van Werven, T, Hogeveen, H and Kremer, WDJ 2013. Veterinary herd health management programs on dairy farms in the Netherlands: use, execution, and relations to farmer characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 1623–1637.10.3168/jds.2012-6106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Done, S, Williamson, S and Strugnell, B 2012. Nervous and Locomotor Systems. In Diseases of swine (ed. Zimmerman), pp. 294–328. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
EMA and EFSA 2017. EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA). EFSA Journal 15, 332.Google Scholar
ETT SIKAVA 2018. Sikava - Stakeholders health and welfare register for swineherds in Finland. Retrieved on 4 August 2018 from https://www.sikava.fi/PublicContent/IntroductionInEnglishGoogle Scholar
European Medicines Agency 2018. Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 30 European countries in 2016. Trends from 2010 to 2016. Eighth ESVAC report. Retrieved on 8 August 2018 from https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/report/sales-veterinary-antimicrobial-agents-30-european-countries-2016-trends-2010-2016-eighth-esvac_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
EVIRA 2013. Guidance on meat evaluation during meat inspection (in Finnish). Retrieved on 12 March 2018 from https://www.evira.fi/globalassets/tietoa-evirasta/lomakkeet-ja-ohjeet/elintarvikkeet/laitokset/liha/eviran_ohje_16002_2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fertner, M, Denwood, M, Birkegård, AC, Stege, H and Boklund, A 2017. Associations between antibacterial treatment and the prevalence of tail-biting-related sequelae in Danish finishers at slaughter. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4, 1–8.10.3389/fvets.2017.00182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grohn, YT, Carson, C, Lanzas, C, Pullum, L, Stanhope, M and Volkova, V 2017. A proposed analytic framework for determining the impact of an antimicrobial resistance intervention. Animal Health Research Reviews 18, 1–25.10.1017/S1466252317000019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, T and Toft, N 2009. Causes of and predisposing risk factors for leg disorders in growing-finishing pigs. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, 1–8.10.1079/PAVSNNR20094010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P, Niemi, JK and Tranter, R 2017. Stakeholder preferred ways to reduce production diseases in broiler chickens and layer hens. Presentation at the XV EAAE Congress “Towards Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Balancing between Markets and Society”, August 29–September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy.Google Scholar
Klaas, IC, Enevoldsen, C, Vaarst, M and Houe, H 2004. Systematic clinical examinations for identification of latent udder health types in Danish dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1217–1228.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73272-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1–9.10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lastein, DB, Vaarst, M and Enevoldsen, C 2009. Veterinary decision making in relation to metritis - a qualitative approach to understand the back ground for variation and bias in veterinary medical records. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51, 1–10.10.1186/1751-0147-51-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Léger, A, De Nardi, M, Simons, R, Adkin, A, Ru, G, Estrada-Peña, A and Stärk, KDC 2017. Assessment of biosecurity and control measures to prevent incursion and to limit spread of emerging transboundary animal diseases in Europe: an expert survey. Vaccine 35, 5956–5966.10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maes, D, Deluyker, H, Verdonck, M, Castryck, F, Miry, C, Vrijens, B, Verbeke, W, Viaene, J and de Kruif, A 1999. Effect of vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in pig herds with an all-in/all-out production system. Vaccine 17, 1024–1034.10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00254-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niemi, JK, Sahlström, L, Kyyrö, J, Lyytikäinen, T and Sinisalo, A 2016. Farm characteristics and perceptions regarding costs contribute to the adoption of biosecurity in Finnish pig and cattle farms. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 97, 215–223.10.1007/s41130-016-0022-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, J, Sinisalo, A, Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2011. The timing and treatment of tail biting in fattening pigs. In 24th NJF Congress “food, feed, fuel and fun – nordic light on fugure land use and rural development”, NJF Report 7 (ed. Hulgren, J, Persson, P, Nadeau, E and Fogelberg, F), pp. 50–55. NJF, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, GL, Loschi, RH and Assunção, RM 2017. A random-censoring Poisson model for underreported data: a random censoring Poisson model for underreported data. Statistics in Medicine 36, 4873–4892.10.1002/sim.7456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postma, M, Backhans, A, Collineau, L, Loesken, S, Sjölund, M, Belloc, C, Emanuelson, U, Grosse Beilage, E, Stärk, KDC, Dewulf, J and MINAPIG consortium 2016. The biosecurity status and its associations with production and management characteristics in farrow-to-finish pig herds. Animal 10, 478–489.10.1017/S1751731115002487CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Ritter, C, Adams, CL, Kelton, DF and Barkema, HW 2018. Clinical communication patterns of veterinary practitioners during dairy herd health and production management farm visits. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 10337–10350.10.3168/jds.2018-14741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinisalo, A, Niemi, JK, Heinonen, M and Valros, A 2012. Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs. Livestock Science 143, 220–225.10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stärk, KDC 2000. Epidemiological investigation of the influence of environmental risk factors on respiratory diseases in Swine – a literature review. The Veterinary Journal 159, 37–56.10.1053/tvjl.1999.0421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stygar, AH, Dolecheck, KA and Kristensen, AR 2018. Analyses of body weight patterns in growing pigs: a new view on body weight in pigs for frequent monitoring. Animal 12, 295–302.10.1017/S1751731117001690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stygar, AH, Niemi, JK, Oliviero, C, Laurila, T and Heinonen, M 2016. Economic value of mitigating Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infections in pig fattening herds. Agricultural Systems 144, 113–121.10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennesen, L, Enevoldsen, C and Klaas, IC 2015. Fra erkendelsen af mastitis til registrering af mastitisbehandlinger (in Danish). Dansk Veterinaertidsskrift 98, 26–31.Google Scholar
Taylor, NR, Main, DCJ, Mendl, M and Edwards, SA 2010. Tail-biting: a new perspective. The Veterinary Journal 186, 137–147.10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, D, Stram, D and Dwyer, J 1993. Exposure measurement error: influence on exposure-disease relationships and methods of correction. Annual Review of Public Health 14, 69–93.10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.000441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timmerman, T, Dewulf, J, Catry, B, Feyen, B, Opsomer, G, Kruif, A de and Maes, D 2006. Quantification and evaluation of antimicrobial drug use in group treatments for fattening pigs in Belgium. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 74, 251–263.10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrison, JT 2018. Overview of lameness in pigs. MSD and the MSD veterinary manual. Retrieved on 10 March 2018 from https://www.msdvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/lameness-in-pigs/overview-of-lameness-in-pigsGoogle Scholar
Valros, A, Ahlström, S, Rintala, H, Häkkinen, T and Saloniemi, H 2004. The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 54, 213–219.10.1080/09064700510009234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2015. Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 1, 2.10.1186/2055-5660-1-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valros, A, Munsterhjelm, C, Hänninen, L, Kauppinen, T and Heinonen, M 2016a. Managing undocked pigs – on-farm prevention of tail biting and attitudes towards tail biting and docking. Porcine Health Management 2, 1–11.10.1186/s40813-016-0020-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valros, A, Munsterhjelm, C, Hänninen, L, Kauppinen, T and Heinonen, M 2016b. On-farm tail biting prevention in long-tailed pigs – results from a producer questionnaire in Finland. Royal Dublin Society: Abstracts book of the 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, Dublin, Republic of Ireland 7–10th June 2016, p. 144.Google Scholar
Van Boeckel, TP, Brower, C, Gilbert, M, Grenfell, BT, Levin, SA, Robinson, TP, Teillant, A and Laxminarayan, R 2015. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 5649–5654.10.1073/pnas.1503141112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallgren, T, Larsen, A, Lundeheim, N, Westin, R and Gunnarsson, S 2019. Implication and impact of straw provision on behaviour, lesions and pen hygiene on commercial farms rearing undocked pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 210, 26–37.10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO 2018. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Retrieved on 5 October 2018 from https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index_and_guidelines/guidelines/Google Scholar
WHO 2019. Antibiotic resistance. Retrieved on 21 April 2019 from http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antibiotic-resistanceGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stygar et al. supplementary material

Stygar et al. supplementary material

Download Stygar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 234.9 KB