Welcome to March’s Newsletter - Teagasc€¦ · Health and Welfare March 2016 Editor: Amy Quinn ....
Transcript of Welcome to March’s Newsletter - Teagasc€¦ · Health and Welfare March 2016 Editor: Amy Quinn ....
Welcome to March’s Newsletter
Ciarán Carroll
Welcome to the March edition of
our monthly newsletter. The
climate in the pig sector
continues to be one of worry,
with no change in pig price in
recent weeks despite
improvements in some European countries. The
downward pressure on feed ingredient prices
continues and the positive news is that a USDA
report is expected to report substantial stocks in
corn (highest levels since 1987), soybean (highest
since 2007) and wheat (highest since 2011). This
will hopefully result in lower feed costs for all, the
timing remains unknown. As mentioned in the
last newsletter and at our recent seminars, it is
important to try to stay positive and focus on
what we have control over inside the farm gate.
Work closely with your Pig Specialist to draw up a
plan, implement it and monitor it.
The next few months will be busy with a number
of key events on the calendar. The first of these
will be the Pig Health Society Symposium at
Mullingar on April 12th. As usual, Teagasc will
have a stand there so make sure you come along
and visit us on the day. Later in the month we will
host the second of our Annual Pig Research
Dissemination Days, the first day at Cavan Crystal
Hotel on April 27th and the second at Horse &
Jockey Hotel on April 28th These will feature a
number of excellent presentations and posters,
giving attendees the most up-to-date research
results and an overview of on-going research
carried out by our research team and their
postgraduate students. Both events start at 2pm.
I encourage all of you to attend and catch up on
our latest research.
In this issue:
More on Best Available Technology
A Summary of Some of the Findings from the Tail Biting Survey
Effects of Birth Weight, Parity and Litter Size on Pig Performance, Health and Welfare
March 2016
Editor: Amy Quinn
Parameter Animal Category (kg NH3/animal place/yr)
Ammonia expressed as NH3
Mating and gestating sows 0.2 – 2.7 (2)
Farrowing sows (including suckling piglets) with crates 0.4 – 5.6 (3)
Weaners 0.03 – 0.53
Fattening Pigs 0.1 – 2.6
This Table has been reduced to cater for slurry based systems only for the purpose of this article. (1)The lower end of the range is associated with the use of an air cleaning system. (2) For existing plants using a deep pit in combination with nutritional management techniques the upper end of the BAT-AEL is 4.0 kg NH3/ animal place/year. (2) For existing plants using a deep pit in combination with nutritional management techniques the upper end of the BAT-AEL is 5.2 kg NH3/ animal place/year.
Best Available Technology
Gerard McCutcheon
The emission of ammonia gas from pig
production is an environmental concern as this is
an important compound in the acidification of
soil and water. The gas may be emitted via the
ventilation system of the pig house, and it is
much more closely monitored under the new BAT
regime.
A new requirement linked to BAT number 30 sets
annual emission limits (AELs) for ammonia
emissions to air from an animal house for pigs. It
shows a Table (on Page 747 to 748 of the
document) with various techniques for managing
slurry/ manure on pig farms which should be read
by all who are involved in “licensable” pig rearing
activity.
A deep pit (in case of a fully or partly slatted
floor) for existing licensed pig houses is only
allowed if used in combination with an additional
mitigation measure (e.g. a combination of
nutritional management techniques; air cleaning
system; pH reduction of the slurry; or slurry
cooling). A deep pit appears to be a tank deeper
than 1.2 metres. Existing licensed installations
will have four years to comply with this
requirement.
All new plants may not have deep pits under pig
houses unless it is combined with an air cleaning
system, slurry cooling and/or pH reduction of the
slurry. A “plant” is defined as “a part of the farm
where one of the following processes or activities
is carried out: animal housing, manure storage,
manure processing. A plant consists of a single
building (or facility) and/or the necessary
equipment to carry out processes or activities. A
“new plant” is defined as “a plant first permitted
at the site of the farm following publication of
these BAT conclusions or a complete replacement
of a plant on the existing foundations, following
the publication of these BAT conclusions”.
These definitions have serious implications for
any current or new construction work on pig
farms and also for any existing pig units that are
above the licensable threshold (of 750 sow or
2000 production pig places i.e. pigs over 30kg
liveweight) that have not yet received an
Industrial Emissions Licence for their pig rearing
installation.
There are 34 BAT conclusions listed in Chapter 5
which will be adopted into EU legislation in mid
to late 2016 after which they will be legal
requirements on licensable pig and poultry
installations.
*Note the BAT document referred to here is “Best Available Techniques
(BAT) Reference Document for the Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs
(Final Draft August 2015) which is 911 pages in length and can be
downloaded from the following link:
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/IRPP_Final_Draft_082015_
bw.pdf
Table 1. BAT –AEL for ammonia emissions to air from an animal house for pigs
“Tail Biting is the Biggest Negative of Pig Production”-
A Summary of Some of the Findings from the Tail Biting Survey
Amy Haigh
Fig 1: Word map produced from the most common words used to describe tail biting from survey
respondents.
Tail biting continues to be a problem for Irish pig
producers. To gain a greater understanding of
producers first-hand experience of tail biting (Fig.
1), last autumn we asked you to take part in a
survey on the subject. Your responses gave us
some invaluable insights into your first hand
experiences and concerns regarding this
abnormal behaviour.
Although tail biting has been recognised since
World War 2, it was not considered a major
problem until the 1950s and 60s, when farms
grew larger and with that the incidences of tail
biting. Many of you expressed your frustration at
the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the
outbreaks and the fact that there is no definite
solution when it does occur. In effect, despite the
extent of tail biting and negative impacts it
accrues both through reduced welfare standards
and economic losses, the primary cause of tail
biting is unclear and it is believed to have
multifactorial causes.
A major concern
“Tail biting is horrible. The biggest negative for
me is seeing a good pig destroyed.”
For 79% of you, condemnation was the biggest
negative associated with tail biting, closely
followed by loss of productivity. As many of you
expressed, “it could cost 80-90 euro to feed a pig
that is than ruined”. When losses due to of
carcase condemnation / trimming and reduced
carcase weights associated with tail lesions are
combined they can add up to a loss of 43% of the
profit margin per pig. Many of you also
commented about the fact that condemnation
could result from an old wound with no obvious
signs of tail damage at the time of slaughter. As
one respondent commented “You can have a
situation where the pig heals up and thrives and
looks perfect and then when it is opened up at
the factory it will have a spinal abscess. In
contrast you may have one with a big red tail just
before it goes to the factory and he will be fine. It
can be worse if they are attacked early”. Another
respondent remembered a similar situation
where “One week, ten years ago, I had 21 pigs
condemned from tail biting that occurred when
they were first stage weaners”. Since the tail
vertebrae are often involved in incidents of tail
biting, the wounded tail may become
contaminated leading to abscesses of the
hindquarters and the posterior segment of the
spinal column. In Northern Ireland, a study
observed that 61.7% of multiple abscesses on
carcasses were reported to be attributable to tail-
biting.
When it occurs most commonly
As well as ear and tail biting, some of you
highlighted concerns due to high incidences of
flank and leg biting. Ear biting was reported to
occur most often during the second stage, with
few incidences of it occurring once the pigs had
entered the finishing stage (Fig. 2). In contrast,
tail biting while still observed in the first and
second stage was observed by the majority of
respondents to be most common in the finishing
stage (Fig. 3). This pattern ties in exactly with the
results of 31 on farm welfare inspections that
Nienke van Staavaren carried out as part of her
PhD (reported in February’s newsletter).
Fig. 2: Percentage of respondents who’s farm experienced ear biting in the last year, by stage.
Fig. 3: Percentage of respondents who’s farm experienced tail biting in the last year, by stage.
In the majority of cases, tail and ear biting wasn’t
continuously occurring on your farm and instead
occurred sporadically, at certain times of the year
or amongst certain batches (Fig. 4). Certainly,
most of you felt that it was a “symptom of
another problem” (Fig. 5). However, identifying
that problem is not always so easy and is
associated with increased time, labour and
housing where space is often in high demand.
Therefore even low numbers of incidences does
not make tail biting tolerable.
Fig. 4: The frequency of biting observed in each stage by respondents.
Fig. 5: Respondents main causes of tail biting, in
order of importance
Causes highlighted
Certain pigs/batches
“Biting will be a life time problem with specific
pigs”
Many respondents identified that it was certain
pigs that were responsible for biting and
conveyed that “If they have been a biter in the
weaner stage I have to watch them later on in the
finisher stage”. While some of you felt ear biting
was a bad habit that began when they were
weaned, several of you had noted a greater
incidence of biters amongst the sick, pale or
smaller pigs in the group. It is felt that biting
behaviour is related to pig’s frustration at not
being able to access a limited resource. Indeed, a
previous study observed that 60% of tail biting
was conducted by pigs which had limited feeder
access. This could explain higher incidences in
smaller pigs as they struggle to gain
access to the food trough and bite more
dominant larger pigs while they eat. Many of you
also highlighted the importance of limiting stress
to combat tail biting, with one respondent stating
that “I try to minimise stress at all stages. I don’t
hit them when I am moving them and give them
time. I think stress can impact on biting.”
Overcrowding
A recent risk analysis confirmed that the space
allowance per pig in the pen is very influential
regarding an outbreak of tail biting with
increased stocking rates being associated with
increases in stress levels. Correspondingly, lower
stocking rates have also been associated with
lower levels of frustration behaviour, fewer
lesions and a higher average daily gain. Density
was thought to be one of the leading causes of
tail biting amongst respondents, and as one
respondent commented “In the finishers there
are more pigs per pen and there is more tail
biting.” Many of you were also recording a
higher incidence of tail biting when weaners
weren’t moved in time and consequently space
restriction became more severe.
Extremes of temperature/draught/diet
In a questionnaire survey among Dutch
conventional farmers, climate was considered to
be the most important risk factor for tail biting.
While there was no clear seasonal pattern
reported in the survey, many of you felt that
extremes of temperature or air quality was a
trigger, with more incidences recorded at the
changing of the seasons, due to ventilation
malfunctions and after particularly cold/warm
nights. Therefore many of you try to minimise
extremes of temperature in an effort to combat
biting outbreaks. As well as temperature, several
of you pinpointed dietary changes as a major
trigger. One respondent found that “when I am
getting to the end of last years feed in
July/August I can have a problem,” while another
recorded that the “change of diet in autumn
leads to increased agitation.”
In the event of an outbreak…
Spray
In 40% of cases sprays were seen as a “dead loss”
by respondents. While they may cause an
immediate cover to the wound, making the tail
less attractive to biting pigs, this solution was
found to be very short term and many of you
would rather solve the problem than use
substances like that. In fact, sprays do not
prevent abscess formation in tail bitten pigs.
Enrichment
It has been suggested that tail biting behaviour is
redirected exploration behaviour accelerated by
the frustration of being denied the ability to
perform natural behaviours such as rooting.
Many of you believed that “boredom has a big
effect on tail biting” and have found various
methods successful in reducing it (Fig. 6). As one
respondent commented “Use of bedding material
would no doubt prevent it. In the old days it
would never have been a problem, the pigs are
bored.” The majority of you have found
enrichment of paramount importance in both
reducing the incidences of tail biting and
stabilising it when it does occur, with 65% of you
adding additional enrichment following an
outbreak. One respondent stated that if there is
the slightest sign of agitation he puts in wood.
Wood was found to be effective by many of you
with another of those surveyed stating “In the
event of a tail biting outbreak I will generally put
in wooden posts or break up a pallet”. Many of
you also identified the importance of novelty and
will “put new stuff in every day in the problem
pen, generally fresh vegetation on wood or about
three logs”. Other strategies found to be
successful were the addition of paper feed bags,
drainage pipes, branches and rope. Finally,
several of you found commercially available
hanging toys quite successful. This was mainly
due to problems you had experienced with floor
toys becoming dirty and pigs putting them into
their feed troughs.
Fig. 6: Enrichment which is currently used and found to be successful by those surveyed.
The analysis of the survey results is still on-going.
However, as many of you expressed an interest in
its outcome we were keen to share our initial
findings with you now. If any of you have any
questions about any of the issues or topics raised
or would like to share any experiences, please do
not hesitate to contact me
([email protected]). I would just like to take
this opportunity to thank you all again for taking
part in the survey, it is very much appreciated.
Effects of Birth Weight, Parity and Litter Size on Pig Performance, Health and Welfare
Julia Calderón Díaz, Laura Boyle, Edgar Garcia Manzanilla
Appropriate sow and piglet management
practices are crucial to maximize profit at
slaughter. Such management practices need to
be adapted to the characteristics of each farm
depending on factors such as genetics or health
status. Information available from the farrowing
rooms about sows and their litters could be very
useful in establishing the best management plan.
However, the question remains as to what are
the main factors to account for? In the following
study, all 1050 pigs from a batch born during one
week in a farrow-to-finish farm were tagged and
weighed at birth and followed through the
production cycle. Health and welfare problems
were monitored at different stages and carcasses
and viscera were inspected at slaughter. The
results from this study will be discussed in two
articles. In the first, we look at the effect of birth
weight, parity of the sow and litter size on pig
performance. In the second article, to be included
in next month’s newsletter, we will discuss the
flow of the animals through the different
production stages.
Relationships between parity, litter size and
birth weight
Pigs used in this study originated from sows of
parity 1 through to 6. The parity of the sow did
Table.1 The effect of litter size on average birth weight
Litter size 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19
Average birth weight 1.64 1.65 1.65 1.45 1.36 1.31 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.20 1.18
% piglets <1kg 0 0 0 9 13 15 21 13 18 29 31
% piglets <1.3 13 12 10 27 41 46 55 53 55 59 52
not affect the average birth weight of the
offspring (1.34 ± 0.32kg) but gilts had smaller
litters than multiparous sows (average litter size
10.9 vs 13.0 piglets born alive). Litter size affected
the weight of the offspring (table 1). As litter size
increased, birth weight decreased, increasing the
percentage of animals with birth weight below
1kg.
Larger litters were also heavier (total weight of
the litter at birth; Fig. 1). Thus there was no
apparent limit to the weight of the litters.
Fig. 1 Effect of litter size on total weight of litter
at birth.
Effects of parity and litter size
Although parity had no effect on birth weight,
pigs born to gilts had a lower growth during
lactation than those born to multiparous sows. In
fact, pigs born to gilts were, on average, 2 kg
lighter when transferred to the finishing unit at
60kg. Nevertheless, it seems that pigs born to
gilts were able to catch up to pigs born to
multiparous sows during the finishing period and
all animals were slaughtered at similar weights.
However, pigs born to gilts had a much higher
mortality rate during the productive cycle,
especially during lactation (18.5% vs 9.1%), and
had double the lameness prevalence (21% vs
11%) prior to slaughter. Litter size had no effect
on any of the variables studied despite its initial
relationship with birth weight.
Effects of birth weight
Birth weight was the main factor affecting the
pre-slaughter weight. For this study, pigs were
divided into four weight classification groups
depending on their birth weight: <1kg, from 1 to
1.3 kg, from 1.3 to 1.7 kg and >1.7 kg. The four
groups are described in table 2.
Table 2. Details of weight classification groups.
The average parity of the four groups was similar.
However, litter size decreased as the birth weight
increased. For instance, litter size was much
smaller for piglets in group >1.7 kg (11.2 piglets)
than for those in group <1kg (14.0 piglets). The
initial difference in the weight of the animals in
groups <1 and >1.7 kg at birth was around 1kg.
This initial difference became a 2.9 kg difference
at weaning and a 21 kg difference at slaughter.
This could mean a potential increase in slaughter
weight of around 2 kg for each extra 100 g at
birth. If it is calculated by regression, 100g of a
difference in birth weight becomes 1.3 kg of a
difference in carcass weight.
The variability of weights in the lighter groups
was also much higher compared with the heavier
groups making the management of these animals
Table 2. Details of weight classification groups.
Birth weight group <1kg 1-1.3kg 1.3-1.7kg >1.7kg
No. of pigs in group 149 299 459 136
Avg. parity 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.3
Avg. born alive 14.0 13.7 12.9 11.2
Avg. birth weight 823 1157 1479 1844
Avg. weaning weight 5.4kg 6.5kg 7.5kg 8.3kg
Avg. slaughter weight 103 113 118 124
more complicated. However, this variability
decreased over time and at slaughter the
variability was similar among the four groups.
Mortality was also clearly affected by the birth
weight group. Animals with birth weight <1kg had
a 30% mortality with most of it occurring during
the lactation period.
Fig.2. Effect of Birth weight on mortality.
Pathological findings
At slaughter, lungs were scored for pleurisy and
enzootic pneumonia (EP) like lesions (adapted
from British Pig Health Scheme). Heart and liver
condemnations were also recorded. Once again,
birth weight had an important effect on the
average pleurisy and EP scores. Pleurisy score
reduced as birth weight increased and EP score
was much higher for pigs with birth weights <1kg
as shown in figure 3.
Fig.3 Effect of birth weight on pleurisy and
enzootic pneumonia (EP) score.
We observed interesting results regarding the
effect of parity on the pathological findings;
although more research should be done to
confirm them. Animals born to first parity sows
had higher scores for pleurisy and EP and also
had a higher percentage of heart condemnations
due to pericarditis compared to pigs born to sows
from parities 2 to 5. However, scores for the
three conditions studied were similar between
pigs born to gilts and pigs born to sows parity 6 as
shown in the following figure.
Fig.4 Effect of parity on progeny pleurisy and
enzootic pneumonia (EP) score and percentage of
heart condemnations.
QQI Level 5 Pig Production Course
The Teagasc Pig Development Department are
currently enrolling students for our next QQI level
5 course in Pig Production. This course is run in
Cork (Teagasc Moorepark/Clonakilty Agricultural
College) and Cavan (Ballyhaise Agricultural
College). It takes place over 2 years; with
students attending the course one day per month
for the 2 years with 2/3 block release days (3-4
days) over the course of the 2 years. For details
on the course content please contact your local
advisor. We look forward to getting the fourth
such course underway, as the previous courses
have proved to be a great success.
If you or a member of your staff is interested in
enrolling please email [email protected] or
contact your local Pig Specialist. We hope to get
the course up and running as soon as possible
and so the start date will be determined by
enrolment numbers. Spaces are limited and will
be based on a first come first served basis.
Teagasc Research Dissemination Days
The Teagasc Research Dissemination Days will
take place at 2pm on Wednesday April 27th in the
Cavan Crystal Hotel and Thursday April 28th in the
Horse and Jockey Hotel.
Teagasc Workshop Schedule 2016
The Teagasc Pig Development Department have
outlined the priority workshops to be held
throughout 2016. These include a workshop on
nutrition, welfare and health & safety.
The Welfare workshop has been scheduled for
May 10th in Portlaoise. If you or any of your staff
wish to attend please contact Amy Quinn at
[email protected] or 087 3779015.
Dates of the other upcoming workshops will be
circulated in future newsletters.
IPHS Symposium 2016
The Irish Pig Health Society will
hold their annual symposium,
at midday Tuesday the 12th
April 2016 in the Mullingar
Park Hotel. We look forward to seeing you there.
More Dates for your Diary 2016
The European Pig Producers conference (EPP)
will take place in Dublin from the 25th-27th May
2016.
The 24th International Pig Veterinary Society
(IPVS) Congress will take place in the RDS,
Dublin from 7th –10th June, 2016.
The Teagasc Pig Conference will take place in
Horse & Jockey Hotel on Tuesday the 18th of
October and the Cavan Crystal Hotel, on
Wednesday the 19th of October.