Better Pork - August/September 2002Is group housing the answer to sow well-being?
Not in every case, says this professor of veterinary medicine. A combination of gestation crates and pens is the best way to provide for all needsby CATE DEWEY
The newest trend in sow housing is indoor group housing. I agree that this may be the best system for most sows. I am an advocate of sow exercise, movement and socialization. Most sows in a group choose to lie together. A well-designed and well-managed group housing facility likely promotes sow well-being.However, poorly designed and poorly managed group sow housing systems are disastrous. In my opinion, these systems are substantially worse than sow crates. You only have to see one sow "beaten up" by the other sows in the pen to realize how inhumane sows can be to one another. Similarly, sows that are in oestrus and mounting one another often cause lameness in the mounted sow.
We are responsible for the well-being of the pigs under our care. Group sow housing can be a positive alternative to gestation crates. Two farms that I recently visited have well-designed, well-managed group sow housing. The sows in the group pens appear well fed, comfortable and content.
But these farms also have sow crates. The sows are weaned into crates and stay in crates until they are 30 days pregnant. They are not mixed together at weaning nor are they in a group while coming into heat. The sows are moved into the pens when they are pregnant and they are added to pens in groups of five to 28 sows at a time. This mixing technique reduces the fighting.
As swine producers and swine veterinarians, we are responsible for attention to individual animal welfare. There are sows that do not thrive in a group housing facility. I know this because one of my clients has only penned gestation. Weaning sows into pens sometimes causes massive battles that can lead to permanent crippling of one of the sows. There are some sows that do not overcome their need to bully other sows. Other sows remained submissive and never become accepted by the group. I remember one sow that was "forced" to sleep over the slats, away from the rest of the sows. These problems were very obvious because my client had no alternative housing for his sows.
I discussed this potential problem with the owners/managers of the two barns that I recently visited. Both people said that some sow crates are necessary. Sows that are too thin coming from the farrowing room are kept in crates so that they can be feed individually. Bully sows and sows that are not eating in the pens are removed from the pens and put back into crates.
One producer felt that he needed a minimum of 40 per cent of his sow capacity in crates. This will accommodate 30 per cent of his sows from weaning to 30 days after breeding and a further 10 per cent for sows that do not adjust to the group situation. He said that he often moves two sows out of a group of 20 from the pens and puts these sows back into the crates. The second producer has crate accommodation for all of his sows that are weaned, sows that return to oestrus and cull sows. This producer believes that only two to three per cent of his sows that were moved into the pens needed to be returned to the crates.
There is no one ideal housing system for all animals. Sows have individual needs based on their level of dominance, body condition and physical health. I believe that farms with both gestation crates and well-designed, well-managed gestation pens will have the best accommodation available for each sow in the herd. BP
Cate Dewey is a professor in the Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph.
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back
Better Pork - August/September 2002
Hay Bay to appeal court's decision on fisheries violations
Stung by accusations that it didn't offer help to the Napanee-based operation, Ontario Pork takes the opportunity to explain its policiesby DON STONEMAN
Convicted of violations to the federal Fisheries Act last February, Napanee-based Hay Bay Genetics Inc. was scheduled to be sentenced in Kingston July 31. Regardless of the penalty, Hay Bay will appeal the court's decision, says Mark Davis, farm manager and a partner in the family-owned swine breeding stock operation. Federal Crown Attorney David Crowe told Better Pork sentencing was delayed twice so that prosecuting and defense lawyers "could make a joint submission."
The Hay Bay case has been controversial for a number of reasons. When Hay Bay was found guilty of the charges last winter, the Davis family, which owns the farm, complained that it received little help from the industry, including Ontario Pork, after the charges were laid in March, 1999.
Now, Mark Davis admits that help was offered by Ontario Pork but that the farm's lawyer deemed it to be of little assistance. "They (Ontario Pork) did have their lawyer talk to our lawyer. But their lawyer couldn't offer anything of value to our court case. Yes, I think they attempted to help, but they couldn't."
In March of 1999, Hay Bay was charged under Subsection 36 (3) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of any substance that may enter water inhabited by fish. Davis says water samples containing small amounts of ammonia were found coming from a tile on farm property 186 feet away from the Bay of Quinte, a popular fishing area, while none has been found where combined drains actually reach the bay.
The tile drain carried water from the roofs of barns, and also leached material from the area around a 5,000-gallon septic tank serving as a transfer station between the pit under a barn and a storage lagoon. The seal had failed on the septic tank, a unit rated for human sewage use and commonly used in rural softball fields, Davis says. Charges were laid after complaints from a local citizen.
Hay Bay's 2,700 sow farrow to finish operation has been under exceptional pressure from local environmental groups. Mark Davis says the farm's activities are under constant scrutiny. A local group posts its observations on crop planting, harvesting and manure spreading on farm fields on an Internet web site.
Stung by the accusations that Ontario Pork didn't help Hay Bay, Ontario Pork chairman Clare Schlegel of Tavistock has stated that the pork board has some strict rules about how it will help producers.
Schlegel explains that Ontario Pork helps producers if it appears that the case will have an effect on other farms, sometimes even in cases that do not directly involve pork production. A case in point was a bylaw battle that spanned 2000 and 2001 in Perth County, a large livestock production area. Beef farmer Ben Gardiner was fighting a West Perth Township bylaw that threatened to restrict his future ability to expand his feedlot and bring in his son as a partner.
The goal is to "build a climate over time where livestock agriculture is stable and predictable," Schlegel told Better Pork.
Schlegel says that typically Ontario Pork will get a request from a producer and the board's legal counsel will review the matter. "If it passes that test, we request that our legal counsel be involved in defending and articulating the case." That's so Ontario Pork can oversee the arguments put forward in defending the interest of the parties involved.
However, Ontario Pork doesn't write cheques for producers to cover their legal costs. "Some producers feel we should put dollars to help support an individual case. We won't do it if our lawyers aren't involved," Schlegel says.
"There are an increasing number of issues that appear to be precedent setting," she notes. "The parties involved also have to help defend their situation. Ontario Pork can't do it on their behalf. We can support them. We can't fight the battle for them."
As for the Hay Bay case, she adds: "We are totally supportive of Hay Bay if tolerance for agriculture is zero and it's higher for other industries." BP
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back
Better Pork - August/September 2002Mosquitoes, flies and snowballs from hell--the surprising path of the PRRS virus
Researchers at the University of Minnesota have discovered several previously unknown, though in some cases long suspected, methods of transmissionby S. ERNEST SANFORD
By just about anyone's measurements, last fall and winter were very mild for us in the northern parts of North America. But don't tell that to pork producers in Southern Minnesota and Northern Iowa, who were battling harsh PRRS outbreaks in sow herds and boar studs.The boar stud breaks were particularly alarming since boar studs are expected to have the highest levels of biosecurity. No less disconcerting was the feeling of disappointment among producers, workers and veterinarians, since many of the sow herds had recently gone through PRRS eradication programs.
These PRRS outbreaks galvanized Dr. Scott Dee at the University of Minnesota to make even more aggressive investigations into how the PRRS virus gets transmitted from one herd to another. He and his graduate student, Dr. Satoshe Otake, have been conducting ongoing research into, among other things, mechanisms of transmission of the PRRS virus. Through these studies, they have uncovered several before unknown, though in some cases long suspected, methods of transmission of the PRRS virus.
I have previously reported on their work, where they demonstrated transmission of PRRS virus via injection needles, boots, coveralls and unwashed hands (Better Pork, June 2001, pp 50-51). The following is a brief synopsis of their most recent research findings: PRRS virus transmission by mosquitoes and flies. In this study, they investigated the potential for biting insects to transmit the PRRS virus. The mosquito was chosen to test this hypothesis. About 300 mosquitoes were allowed to feed for 30-60 seconds on a PRRS-virus viremic pig. Feeding was interrupted and mosquitoes were manually transferred in small plastic vials onto a PRRS-naïve recipient pig, where they fed to completion. Virus isolation and PCR techniques were used to recover PRRS virus from a pool of the mosquitoes after they had fed. The same techniques were used to isolate PRRS virus from the recipient pig. Isolates from mosquitoes, donor and recipient pigs were compared with each other. Viruses from all three sources were identical.
The conclusion was that mosquitoes did, indeed, transmit PRRS virus from infected pigs to PRRS-naïve pigs. Using the same methodology as used for the mosquito study, PRRS virus was transmitted by flies from PRRS-virus infected pigs to PRRS-naïve pigs.
Snowballs and mudballs. The PRRS outbreaks in the U.S. Midwest last fall and winter evoked a sharp jolt to the current thinking about. After all, mosquitoes and flies are not overly abundant in Minnesota in December and January. Drs. Dee and Otake got to work again and set up a sequence of events that occurs on a routine, day-to-day basis on most swine farms today to test other paths that the PRRS virus might take.
Their sequence of events consisted of the following:
Drs. Osake and Dee did all of the above, then repeated the sequence several times and were successful in tracking the PRRS virus from one farm to another in most of their replicates.
- The PRRS virus sticks to the exterior of a vehicle making a delivery or picking up pigs (for example, in a snowball under the wheelwell of a transport truck).
- The truck leaves the farm, taking the PRRS virus contaminated snowball with it.
- The snowball falls off when the truck is washed and is picked up on the boot of the driver (or someone else).
- The PRRS virus is tracked into the interior of the vehicle's cab.
- The truck drives to another premises.
- Boots track the virus into the entrance section of the second farm.
- The snowball, with PRRS virus, melts on the floor of the anteroom.
- A delivery parcel (semen container, Purolator package, tool kit, etc.) rested on the floor picks up the virus.
- The container is passed through the access window into the "secure" section of the barn.
- Presto! The PRRS virus has now entered the animal airspace of a PRRS-naïve herd.
Dr. Dee's group has now extended their work to include mudballs. Using a sequence of events similar to the snowball sequence, they have demonstrated successful transmission of the PRRS virus via mudballs.
So, it seems that the PRRS virus can be tracked mechanically from farm to farm, virtually at any time of the year, from winter through summer. This study also identifies new areas of risk, such as the cab of a vehicle, the farm anteroom and delivery packages.
It also demonstrates that the PRRS virus can be tracked around from herd to herd via several obvious and not so obvious ways. The above are a few that have now been experimentally documented.
It must be borne in mind, however, that although we now have experimental proof that the PRRS virus can be tracked around in these ways, this is not de facto evidence that in the field it is being so tracked -- or if it is, just how much of it is. We do need, however, to tighten up cracks in biosecurity that might allow the virus access through any of the above means.BP
S. Ernest Sanford, DVM, Dip. Path., Diplomate ACVP, is a swine specialist with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica (Canada) Ltd. in Burlington.
© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..
back