Better Pork - December 2004
Complete AI farm kits (including the boar) for just $270 a month
A leading British swine breeding company is offering a complete do-it-yourself lease package, including training, equipment and sires under the catchy brand name "UltiMate"by NORMAN DUNN
British hog breeders are being offered custom-built on-farm laboratories complete with all the equipment for collecting semen, processing it and then inseminating sows. Even top class boars can be leased under the scheme to help ensure the best possible on-farm genetic material.Behind the scheme, with the clever brand name "UltiMate," is one of the country's top swine breeding companies, JSR Genetics. AI now accounts for up to 90 per cent of sow services in Europe, according to Angela Cliff, technical services manager with JSR. And in most countries now it is the farmer or stockperson who serves the sows, with semen sometimes delivered daily to larger units by post or courier service. But increasing biosecurity on large hog production units means semen continually arriving from outside the farm can represent a disease risk, and sometimes timely semen delivery on more isolated farms can be difficult, especially in winter.
The UltiMate service is built around pre-filled containers of special diluent/conservation liquid. The stockperson uses the delivered UltiMate equipment to collect semen from boars on the farm, check it under a microscope and then inject it into the diluent containers which can be tubes, flat packs or bottles depending on preference. Whatever kind of container is used, each is large enough for a single service and costs the equivalent of $1.25 Cdn. After adding fresh semen, the container is resealed with a shelf life of three days. Unopened containers are good for four weeks if kept in a refrigerator.
JSR leases sires selected according to individual herd gene requirements. The two-year leasing contract, which includes replacement of the boar sometime during the leasing period to ensure the latest genetic progress is always available to the particular herd, costs the farmer around $270 Cdn, per month.
On top of this, the breeding company offers training for those buying the kit. The price for all equipment and training depends on requirements, but a start-up UltiMate kit with equipment for a 500-sow herd costs the equivalent of about $1,700 Cdn. This includes full technical support as well as training and there's a free-phone helpline available too.BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Is the sow breeding centre concept on the way out?
by Norman Dunn
Two of Europe's largest producers of swine equipment and housing systems have introduced systems for loose housing of dry sows from litter weaning onwards.
Traditionally, sows in loose housing systems are kept in a "service centre" first for insemination. They remain there until settled to service before being released into the dry sow herd. The problem here is that continually introducing served sows into the herd guarantees stress for the animals while dominance is sorted out -- unrest that often results in injuries and sometimes miscarriages.
"Helping to solve this problem is a strategy of housing the herd together right from litter weaning onwards," says Asger Kjaer Nielsen from the Danish systems firm Egebjerg. "We're using new self-catch feeding crates that can be locked from outside the pen and are designed to allow easy access for checking heat and for AI without the sow having to leave the group."
Egebjerg's "T house" system -- so called because the bank of self-catch feeding crates is usually placed like the bar of "T" at the end of the loose housing area -- has been tested on large commercial hog units and, according to the firm, appears to have been a factor in a much quieter atmosphere in the respective herds with less fighting and improved breeding performance.
The same peace-bringing benefits are claimed for Dutch firm Nedap's new "Group Manager" system which has also been tested for the last year with very large single groups of as many as 350 sows. Here, banks of up to five computer-controlled feeding stations form a central point within a large loose housing area which is characterized by rows of open-fronted bays between slatted passages.
All sows have ear transponders and, after identification and feeding, the animals must pass through a sluice where an automatic marker spray identifies those animals the computer has pinpointed for segregation -- those not feeding properly or in heat, or even ones which have lost their transponder. The marked sows are then automatically gated into a holding pen.
Also automatic with the Nedap Group manager is heat identification, with the sow spray- marked and also noted in the computer sow plan when she puts her head through an opening near the boar pen. These females are also automatically segregated into the holding pen at next feeding. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Intra-uterine AI -- the new insemination technique for more piglets
by NORMAN DUNN
Reduced returns to service, less semen per insemination and perhaps even more piglets per litter: these are the advantages being claimed for intra-uterine AI (IUI) by some proponents in Europe. IUI is a system where a longer catheter is used to place semen right inside the sow uterus.
French-based IMV Technologies claims an improved fertilization rate for its "Goldenbag" system, which is designed for on-farm semen collection, processing and insemination and which features a special IUI applicator. IMV spokesman Karl Kniepeiss says the advantages of IUI service include one extra pig weaned per sow per year, based on his company's records from French clients. "But IUI is more complicated and special training of operators is important," he warns.
Another of France's largest swine AI organisations, Cobiporc of Brittany, has also adopted IUI for sows, but it warns farmers against trying the technique with gilts, which are more liable to damage through intra-uterine AI. Cobiporc is currently running trials on commercial farms assessing IUI potential with reduced motile sperm counts below the three billion and two billion levels currently used in France and Germany, for example.
In Denmark, reduced doses are also the subject of a large-scale trial by the National Committee for Pig Production. "I am doubtful of IUI's potential for increasing piglet numbers per litter," declares Danish AI expert Flemming Thorup. He thinks that increased advisory aid to French units using the technique, with subsequent improved heat identification, is responsible for the increase in output from IUI sows. "The real value is probably in being able to reduce the sperm counts per insemination and still get the same litter sizes," he adds. Scientists in Denmark are halfway through a large-scale trial looking at the effects of IUI with sperm count reduced from conventional two billion motile sperm to as little as 500 million. The prognosis is good, according to Thorup. "The potential for much lower sperm counts per dose is reduced costs because less boars are required and there is a greatly increased selection rate. "Because we use far less semen, we can mate the very best boars with more sows instead of just the best."
This point of view is supported by a recent on-farm trial with 500 sows in central Spain. There, IUI with one billion sperm per insemination offered similar conception rates and piglet production (11.17 born alive) as did conventional AI with three billion sperm inseminations. Where only 500 million sperm were used in IUI, the average litter size was still 10.98 born alive and, even with just 250 million motile sperm, IUI still produced an average 9.91 pigs alive per litter.
This fall, the Dutch pig equipment specialist Schippers introduced a specially designed IUI catheter system aimed at helping to avoid injuries to sows when using the technique. This so-called AI Ballonpipette features a soft rubber balloon at the tip which extends under the pressure of the insemination and deposits semen inside the uterus.
Schippers cautions that operators should still be schooled, but adds that its balloon system means gilts can also be safely inseminated. The price of the new ballonpipettes? A pack of 100 can be bought in Europe for the equivalent of $240 Cdn.BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Still good arguments for dry sow crates
by NORMAN DUNN
Animal welfare pressures have been relentlessly pushing the dry sow stall and crate systems back into history within Europe. Britain has had 100 per cent loose housing for some years now, while Denmark has reached the 60 per cent mark. But there are plenty of experts still banging the drum for feeding crates or individual stalling throughout pregnancy. Main reasons: no fighting and dominance stress, and often better control of feeding and therefore sow body condition.
That these positive attributes will nearly always lead to better breeding performance is the argument of international livestock management software company Agrovision. Using the records of its software customers during 2003, the firm reports that crated sows produced an average 24.3 weaned hogs per sow during the year compared with 23.7 from loose-housed sows with electronic feeding stations and 23.4 for loose-housed sows on ad lib feeding regimes.
CRATES: MANAGEMENT ADVANTAGES IN HOGS PER YEAR Feeding station Crates Ad lib feeding Litters per sow and year 2.30 2.34 2.28 Litters from first service ( per cent) 84 86 82 Interval between weaning and insemination (days) 6.1 6.0 6.6 Piglets born alive per litter 11.6 11.8 11.6 Piglets weaned per litter 10.3 10.3 10.2 Weaned hogs per sow and year 23.7 24.3 23.4 Source: Agrovision, 2003 results Actual numbers weaned per litter were almost identical at just over 10 and the Agrovision records indicate the root of this superior output for stall or crate sows lies in better identification of heat, more successful first inseminations and therefore more litters per year. In fact, the 2003 records show that, n average, 86 per cent of first inseminations were successful on the dry sow crate or stall farms against 84 per cent for the feeding station units and 82 per cent for those on ad lib regimes.
Agrovision researchers note that stockpersons in stall systems can check more easily for sows in heat and also keep a closer eye on the individual body condition of every animal in the dry sow herd. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Take the time to learn about hydrogen sulphide dangers in manure storage
Gases released from liquid manure storages, of which H2S is the most dangerous, have caused multiple fatalities. Take the time to learn about them and monitor them properlyby RON MACDONALD
Manure storage injuries and fatalities continue to happen year after year. The Canadian Agricultural Injury Surveillance Program found forty people died on Canadian farms between 1990 and 2000, from gas associated with manure. Yet tragedy can be avoided through a basic knowledge of the hazards around the storages and by applying common sense and sound safety rules.A half-day course designed to train personnel working in and around liquid manure on the hazards of hydrogen sulphide is offered throughout Ontario and the Maritimes and can be arranged with Agviro Inc. The course covers information on occupational health and safety and barn air quality and the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatoon will issue certificates for all successful students completing the course.
Depending on the type of manure storage, the danger can present itself in different ways.
Manure gases. There are more than 170 known gases released from liquid manure storages. Of these, Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is the most dangerous. It is produced from the anaerobic decomposition (meaning "without oxygen) of the manure. In liquid manure storages, any oxygen present is quickly used up and the anaerobic bacteria that form hydrogen sulphide multiply rapidly. If the manure is allowed to warm up much past 20 C (68 F), the gas production will increase rapidly.
- Agitating manure in a liquid storage results in a rapid increase in the release of manure gases. Both animal and human lives have been lost from these dangerous gases. Entering an area where gases gather or are released can quickly expose a worker to lethal concentrations of manure gas.
- Explosions have taken place when methane gas was allowed to accumulate in an enclosed space.
- Accidental drownings have occurred in above-ground tanks and earthen storages. In other cases, workers have fallen into storages through poorly designed access holes and ramps.
- The corrosive nature of the liquids and gases can also weaken structures and safety devices, so increasing the danger without it being evident.
Although pure hydrogen sulphide has a characteristic rotten egg smell that is easy to detect at concentrations as low as 10 parts per million (ppm), it is almost completely masked in a liquid manure storage by the other gases present. When concentrations of hydrogen sulphide rise, it paralyses the sense of smell, so giving people a false sense of security.
In high concentrations, hydrogen sulphide paralyses the diaphragm and the victim stops breathing, resulting in death. Table 1 shows the effect of H2S at various concentrations.
Hydrogen sulphide is heavier than air and therefore tends to be located just above the surface of the manure. Its release is relatively low when manure remains undisturbed and the outside temperature is low. However, when a tank is agitated, hydrogen sulphide levels can reach dangerous levels very quickly. Multiple deaths have occurred when workers have entered a manure storage in an attempt to save someone already overcome by H2S.
Table 1. Effects of pure hydrogen sulfide on humans at various concentrations Hydrogen sulfide concentration, ppm Effects on humans 0.005 Barely detectable 4 Easily detectable, moderate odour 10 Eye irritation 27 Unpleasant odour 100 Coughing, eye irritation, loss of smell after 2-15 min. exposure 200 - 300 Eye inflammation and respiratory tract irritation after one hour 500 - 700 Loss of consciousness and possible death in 30-60 min. 800 - 1,000 Rapid unconsciousness, cessation of respiration and death 1,000 Diaphragm paralysis on first breath, rapid asphyxiation Source: American Society of Agricultural Engineering Standards, 2003. Note: these guidelines are for hydrogen sulphide in air and are not functional when other manure gases are present. Safe gas levels. The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists has established maximum safe hydrogen sulphide concentrations of 10 ppm for an eight-hour workday and 40-hour work week for humans (see Table 2). Although threshold limits have not been established for animals, many researchers have suggested that animal responses are similar to humans. Note that the animals are in the barn continuously (168 hours a week).
Gas detection monitors. All of these hazardous gases can be measured with appropriate test equipment.
A box of 10 gas detector tubes costs less than $100. The H2S, when present, changes the colour of a reactant and gives a good estimate of its concentration. These reactor tubes can be used with a calibrated pump to draw a measured sample of gas through the tube and obtain the result within a few minutes. They are also available as passive dosimeter tubes which react slowly when exposed to the environment containing the gas and yield an average gas concentration over time.
Hand-held monitors used to be very expensive, but have dropped in price to the $250 level. They require periodic re-calibration or, in many cases, can simply be replaced periodically. They are also equipped to sound an alarm when a dangerous gas level is detected. In fact, safety consultants are recommending the monitoring units with alarm only and no digital readout, so that the person is not inclined to take the extra time to check the actual gas level before making a rapid exit.
Anyone working with liquid manure would be well advised to consider taking the H2S Awareness course. Please contact the author at rmacdonald@agviro.com or at 519-836-9727, Ext.1. BP
Ron MacDonald, P. Eng,. and Mark Armstrong, P.Eng., are agricultural engineers with Agviro Inc. in Guelph.
Acknowledgement:
Parts of this article were extracted from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's fact sheet: Safety Features Around Liquid Manure Storages, Agdex 743.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Unity helped the lumber and greenhouse industries fight their trade battles
by DON STONEMAN
There are a number of parallels between the pork industry's anti-dumping fight with the United States and similar battles by softwood lumber and greenhouse vegetable growers. Ironically, it appears that the unregulated lumber industry has worked together better in its trade fights than either the regulated greenhouse or pork industries have. Or maybe it's just that the initial differences have healed with the passing of time, been patched up or smoothed over.The Toronto-based Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association is part of a nation-wide coalition that has been involved in four softwood lumber disputes with the United States. General manager Dave Milton says he has been working with this dispute "every day" for 18 years. The current softwood lumber trade dispute is labelled as "Lumber IV."
An Oct. 25 article in The Globe and Mail reported that Lumber IV is the most costly trade action in North American history. Since the action commenced in 2001, the industry, Ottawa and the provinces have spent $250 million on legal counsel and lobby costs and the industry has coughed up $3.5 billion in duties. The monies are sitting in a trust account and the industry hopes to be reimbursed when the dispute is settled.
Sawmill operators across Ontario had to be convinced of the importance of paying the fees. "It was often difficult to convince them to put money into the legal defence," Milton says. When the lumber trade challenge arose, Milton says independently-owned family operations shipped product to the United States through an intermediary and they argued that the trade dispute didn't involve them. Then producers that didn't export found that those who did were competing with them for markets in Canada.
As the industry "has matured and consolidated...it has become easier to get everyone to accept that this is an important fight. They realize the American influence on their business, whereas it was not apparent before." Fees to pay the Ontario industry's legal bills are based on a company's sales volumes. A mill that sells 100 million board feet of lumber pays twice as much as a mill that cuts 50 million board feet. "Everyone has the same level of ability to penetrate the market," Milton says.
"It has been a hard slug," he says. We knew we were going to win. We always have won. We know we are not injuring the U.S. market." That said, Lumber IV remains unfinished, although Canada appears to have the upper hand at this time.
Milton says that when prices fall below a certain level for sawmills in the United States, they shut down, while mills in Canada which he describes as "more efficient" continue to pump out lumber. There is another parallel here with Canadian pork.
Did every sawmill in Canada pay the same amount to the legal defence fund? Milton doesn't know. Each provincial jurisdiction kept its fee collecting system to itself. The coalition determined from Statistics Canada and other federal agencies the volume of softwood lumber from each province that was being shipped to the United States. As a condition of signing on to the coalition, each province was required to take care of its portion and set up its own fee collection mechanism.
(One of the rubs with the current trade defence in pork is that fees in Manitoba, for example, are lower than they are in Ontario.)
In Lumber IV, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, as the major exporters, are paying for the collective industry defence, Milton says. The other provinces "have separated themselves on the legal front" and are presenting their cases independently of the Canadian industry front.
Milton says the coalition has no problem with provinces doing their own legal defence. Would he tell Better Pork how much Ontario sawmills pay per million board feet? "I would be reluctant to do so," he said politely. Nor would he say what the budget is to fight the current battle.
Another industry that has fought dumping charges and won is the greenhouse tomato industry, which grew in sales tenfold in 20 years to $400 million. More than half of Ontario's greenhouse tomato production is sold into the United States.
"There were a lot of initial misgivings" about all producers paying into the fund to fight the dumping action, says current greenhouse board chair Glen Lutz of Ajax, who has been appointed to that position by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission while the board works through governance issues. (These issues are unrelated to the dumping battle, says new commission chairman Dave Hope.)
Greenhouse tomato and cucumber growers market through the same board and cucumber growers paid a levy to fight the tomato battle as well.
Lutz points out that greenhouses growing tomatoes can easily be shifted to cucumber production with the potential to cause havoc in that market as well. Lawyers' fees pile up in cases like this because seemingly arcane issues are important. However, the technical issue of dumping never came to the forefront in the resolution of the tomato case, Lutz says, which came to an abrupt end with a simple but important ruling last December. The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled 4-1 that a tomato was a tomato.
This was important because Canadian greenhouse tomato production costs were compared by the U.S. department of commerce to field tomato production costs in the United States and were much higher. Only the greenhouse industry in the United States was complaining that it was being undercut. The American greenhouse industry is only 10 per cent of total American total production. A minimum 25 per cent is required to have standing before the trade commission. "They could not prove injury. It never got to the technical dumping question," Lutz says.
As for the question of collecting fees to pay for professional help in fighting trade disputes, Lutz believes that farmers can't expect to be independent any more. "Today, what my neighbour does affects me. We all pay for it."
Denton Hoffman, now general manager of the asparagus and ginseng boards, was general manager of the greenhouse growers at the time of its extraordinary growth and also during the trade dispute. He says the dumping rule was really aimed at the British Columbia industry and Ontario got caught in the cross fire, because dumping challenges can't be regionalized and aren't restricted to just growers who export.
There was a lot of dissension within the greenhouse board at the time, Hoffman acknowledges. "The short-sighted argument was: 'I don't export, it doesn't affect me.' The answer to that is, if you've got 200 acres of tomatoes in Ontario, it affects you. It affects everybody." BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Incinerators still not a deadstock option for Ontario farmers
Technically against the law, except for poultry, incineration is already a costly operation. By the time the provincial government approves it, energy costs to do it right may put it beyond reachby DON STONEMAN
When Brenda and Walter Jackson's SEW operation near Talbotville got a visit from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) a couple of months ago, the couple was surprised to learn that they were breaking the law by incinerating dead piglets."I had no idea," says Brenda Jackson. The couple runs a farrowing operation with 2,000 SEW sows in Elgin County. "This was news to us. We've had the incinerator for a long time."
The Jacksons' visitor was OMAF's Dead Animal Disposal Advisor, Kevin Joynes, based in Guelph. Brenda Jackson describes him as "a really nice man." Joynes is the front person for OMAF's food inspection branch on deadstock issues.
There are three legal options for dealing with the five species that are covered by the Dead Animal Disposal Act in Ontario, Joynes says, and incineration isn't one of them. The first legal option is burial, with the carcass covered by at least 60 centimetres (26 inches) of earth. The second is compost, with the carcass covered by a minimum of 60 centimetres of a substrate such as sawdust and the third is pick-up by a licensed deadstock operator.
Why the visit? Is the ministry targeting producers who are illegally using incinerators?
Joynes says that he is not aware of a crackdown on livestock operators and his involvement is usually as a result of a complaint.
Though Brenda Jackson was unable to get the name of the complainant from Joynes, she is pretty sure it was a next-door neighbour. Jackson says their operation has been subjected to harassment ever since a couple moved into the house next door in 1998. The Jacksons have operated on their present location since they took up pig farming in the early 1980s with 100 sows. They operate independently of any of the loops and found their own contract growers in the United States after their long-term partner in finishing, Gary Van Loon of Dublin, owner of Bruce Packers at the time, died as a result of an automobile accident several years ago.
The approval of incineration has been slowed by events in Ontario, most notably the scandal stemming from allegations of improprieties at provincially inspected Aylmer Meats. The result of that was a study into meat safety by Justice Rudolph Haines.
The Haines Report, released last July, contained a number of references to the use of incineration for deadstock disposal. The report says incineration "is not widely used in Ontario and, where used, only smaller quantities of waste are involved" and notes that OMAF is undertaking a study to determine whether the method is safe and practical for farmers.
The Haines report goes on to say that "initial results from tests of small incineration units show significant destruction of pathogens and emissions within the permissible air quality standards. However, this method requires substantial capital and operating costs."
The report also refers to the protocol governing how OMAF and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) will respond to improper disposal of animal carcasses. Haines calls for the two ministries to enter into an agreement regarding their respective roles and responsibilities and how they deal with situations involving overlapping authority. Currently, the Ontario agriculture ministry deals with deadstock issues.
Certainly, the use of incinerators is not legal for disposal of pigs, cattle, sheep, goats and horses, the five species named under the Dead Animal Disposal Act. However, the act doesn't mention poultry, so that category slides through a loophole, says livestock industry consultant Graeme Hedley, who co-ordinates a project that gets money to deadstock collectors to keep them operating. The current monies run out at the end of the year, Hedley says.
"If a chicken operation opts to incinerate, then technically it is not breaking the law. If they are breaking a law, it falls under MOE." This is another one of those cases where we are waiting for new regulations to develop, he says. The regulations of the dead animal disposal act will move over to the new food quality and safety act. So when will a new act permitting legal use of incinerators become law? "As far as timing is concerned, I don't know," says Leslie Woodcock, policy advisor, OMAF.
The Haines report recommended that a number of old laws be rolled into one piece of legislation covering food safety. Rolling all these laws into one "does tend to complicate things," Woodcock says.
Jamie Rilett, communications officer to agriculture minister Steve Peters, concurs. Bringing forward all those regulations at once is slowing down the process, he says.
"Because it is so complicated, they are trying to get everything right and get the regulations done right the first time."
Mark Rabbior, a spokesperson for the MOE, says his department and OMAF are jointly funding a study at the University of Guelph into the feasibility of incinerating pigs. Environment Canada is monitoring emissions. The provincial ministries will get a report back but the results of the study are not expected soon, Rabbior says.
"Changes are on the way," says Paul Mistele, Ontario Pork director and president of Elgin Pork Producers. But by the time approval is granted, incineration may not be all that attractive because of energy costs.
The shortcoming of incineration is that it is costly to do it right, he says. "Composting is much cheaper." Poultry producers have used incinerators for years but are abandoning them in favour of using litter from barns "in a clear and distinct separate section of the manure pile for composting."
Burial is also an option, but not a particularly attractive one. "I think most producer organizations say that this should be one of the last options that (a producer) would consider," Mistele says.
Back at Talbotville, Jackson is still shaking her head over this new escalation of harassment from a neighbour. "We have done everything we could possibly do not to bring attention to ourselves," Jackson says. "We had no idea the incinerator could ever be a problem." BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
How best to reduce postweaning E. coli diarrhea in your pigs
Combining management changes with effective treatment is the most satisfactory way of limiting the damage E. coli can do to your herdby CATE DEWEY
Producers and veterinarians working to reduce clinical diseases in pigs must use a combination of treatment and management changes to stop or reduce the problem.We all know that nursing pig diarrhea due to E. coli is best controlled by cleaning and disinfecting the farrowing crates between groups, vaccinating the sows, ensuring adequate colostrums and milk intake and treating the individually affected litters when the rest of the system breaks down.
Unfortunately, with postweaning or nursery pig E. coli diarrhea, vaccinations are not successful. That makes management changes and medication even more important. This column describes how to reduce clinical problems with management changes.
Reduce the amount of E coli in the environment. This can be done by:
Manage the room or the barn all-in and all-out Using a detergent when you wash the room will help you to remove the debris and will break through the biofilm. The biofilm is a greasy-feeling film left on the walls and floors even after you use the high-pressure washer. It is made of organic matter like fat from the manure and it sticks to surfaces. Bacteria can live in the biofilm and prevent the disinfectant from killing the bacteria. A research project conducted by Dr. Rocio Amescua at the University of Guelph found that farms using a detergent were less likely to experience post weaning E. coli diarrhea than farms that did not use. You can purchase a detergent from the same source as your disinfectant.
- Using a detergent when you wash the room;
- Removing some manure from below the slats before washing;
- Heating the room to 30 degrees after you disinfect the room;
- Ensuring the mats are laid out flat to dry completely.
You may wish to empty some of the manure from under the slats before you clean the room. Research at Kansas State University found that splashing from the manure under the slats increased the chance of re-infection during cleaning and disinfecting.
Heat the rooms to 30 degrees before the pigs are moved into the empty room. We know that pigs get stressed if they are in a colder than acceptable environment. Also, E coli likes to grow at lower than body temperature. If the pigs are chilled, their body temperature goes down and this increases the growth of the E. coli in the pig's intestine.
Reduce the chance of contamination from the water nipples. Disinfect the water lines between batches of pigs. Pigs can contaminate the water nipples and then the warm, moist environment in water lines is ideal for the growth of bacteria.
There are many ways to disinfect water lines. One method is to fill the lines with a one-per-cent solution of disinfectant. This solution should be allowed to sit within the lines for several hours, and then the lines need to be thoroughly rinsed afterwards. By flushing the lines between groups of pigs, you will eliminate the nipples as the source of E. coli for the incoming pigs. The first few times that you disinfect the lines, you will have to remove the nipples to clean them out. The sludge that is built up in the water lines will become loose and will plug the nipple drinkers.
Reduce the spread of the disease in the barn. Use different boots for each room in your barn. Fill the rooms all on one day so that you are not continually adding naïve pigs to an infected group.
Typically, pigs are infected 7-14 days after arrival at the farm. We know that there will be large numbers of bacteria on the floors of those rooms. If someone walks into that room and then into another room or into the hallway, the infectious E coli will be spread around the barn.
Ideally, you should use one pair of boots in each room and another in the hallways. This can be done by putting a pair of boots inside the doorway of each room. It will also reduce spread if you change coveralls and wash your hands between handling the older pigs and the young pigs. Also, be sure that you always move from the youngest to the oldest whenever you work in the barn.
Do not move lightweight pigs into another room when you close out a room. Move. If pigs are not big enough to move out of the nursery when the room is emptied, there is a temptation to move these lightweight pigs into the next room to be emptied. These weaker pigs have probably been infected with E. coli and have recovered and they are likely to shed the bacteria in their manure. By moving these animals into another room, you provide a source of environmental contamination, thereby causing a larger bacterial load in that room than would have been present otherwise.
If you believe this is essential in your farm for financial reasons, I would recommend that you ear-notch or tag the pigs that are moved. This way, you will not continue to move these pigs into multiple rooms. If they do not reach acceptable weights with an extra week, then they likely have very poor daily gain. These animals continue to eat but don't grow. They are costing you too much money.
Pay attention to waterer space. Ensure that there is sufficient access to water and that the water nipples are at least two feet away from each other Water is an essential nutrient. Pigs that have proper access to water will eat the maximum amount of feed and grow to their maximum capacity. Pigs with restricted water access will reduce their feed intake. Also, pigs with E. coli diarrhea become quickly dehydrated. Restricting access to water will increase the death loss and the severity of the illness.
Industry standards suggest that you have one nipple waterer for every 10-15 pigs. Even if the nipple waterer has two nipples attached, it is considered one waterer because usually only one pig will drink from it at a time. If the water nipples are spaced less than two feet apart, there will also be restricted access to the water. Pigs can stand lengthwise along the side of the pen near the waterer, effectively blocking access to the water.
Each water bowl can accommodate 15-20 pigs as long as the bowls are spaced far enough apart so that each bowl can be used at once. Providing sufficient water will reduce both E. coli and Strep. suis problems in the nursery.
Build a hospital pen in every room. If the current room design does not include a hospital pen, make one by using a corner of one of your existing pens. This can be accomplished by using extra penning, a feeder and a water bowl. Be sure to include a heat lamp and a rubber mat because these pigs are easily chilled. Pigs with diarrhea often have sunken eyes because they are dehydrated. Providing electrolytes either in the water lines or in a milk-replacer container (for small pigs) will benefit the pigs.
Be sure to monitor the pigs in the sick pen closely. If they have not responded to treatment within they days, they should be humanely euthanised. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back