Hygiene and Biosecurity Procedures

Hygiene Measures

Pig farm biosecurity is a strategic approach to prevent the introduction of pathogens into a pig farm and regulate their spread within the facility. It aims to prevent the introduction of pathogens to which the livestock has not been exposed and mitigate the effects of endemic pathogens. The health and productivity of hogs are enhanced through the interdependence of security and biosecurity procedures. The creation and maintenance of a biosecurity programme are influenced by various factors, and the strength of these factors is dependent on the strength of its weakest connection. This publication aims to provide information on various aspects to consider when implementing and administering a biosecurity and farm security programme. It is not recommended for each farm to execute all procedures in their entirety, as each farm has its own biosecurity and security risk factors. Collaborating with a pig veterinarian or veterinary consultant with comprehensive expertise can yield optimal strategies.

 

Biosecurity

Biosecurity measures in piggery

 

Biosecurity is crucial in numerous on-farm food safety programmes, increasing consumer confidence in the quality and safety of the food supply, promoting animal welfare, and increasing the efficiency and profitability of the pork producer.

Biosecurity comprises three distinct sets of actions and overlapping elements: bio-management, bio-exclusion, and biocontainment. The integration of these into a biosecurity plan depends on the objectives of the production unit or property. Producers often prioritise bio-exclusion and bio-management over biocontainment, as bio-containment serves not only to prevent the transmission of disease agents over long distances but also to neighbouring organisms and safeguard the food supply for consumers.

Bio-exclusion involves preventing the introduction of undesirable disease agents into a system or farm, while bio-management refers to the collaborative approach of managing economically significant infectious diseases prevalent within the agricultural population. In a geographically interconnected animal agriculture region, the economic sustainability of one or more producers can be significantly influenced by each domain.

Managing diseases poses a significant obstacle for pig producers, regardless of their housing arrangement. Due to the economic and technical impracticality of excluding all significant pathogens from a porcine herd, pork producers strive for minimal clinical disease status (bio-management). However, specific pathogens should be consistently excluded due to the impracticality of bio-management approaches and the feasibility of exclusion opportunities.

1. The prevalence of diseases that can affect your herd;
2. How each disease is transmitted;
3. How each disease can be controlled;
4. How to prevent each disease from entering the herd; and
5. The potential cost of an introduction and outbreak.

Every biosecurity endeavour incurs expenses, and ineffective approaches ought to be circumvented. The emphasis should also be placed on production practices that pose the greatest risk, as opposed to low-risk activities. The assistance of a pig veterinarian in the development of a comprehensive and written biosecurity plan is critical. The primary objective of biosecurity programmes is to mitigate unfavourable circumstances and enhance the pig production industry. A single infraction of on-farm biosecurity is sufficient to jeopardise the health of an entire herd or that of a neighbouring herd. Any farm could suffer catastrophic and long-lasting financial and production repercussions as a result of this loss. The following circumstances present the most significant hazards to the well-being of hogs within a porcine operation:

• Adding new pigs to the farm without a quarantine period.
• Failing to quarantine new additions for 30 to 60 days.
• Failing to require testing for specific diseases before addition.
• Failing to require vaccination for specific diseases before addition.
• Allowing pigs to return from fairs, shows, or exhibitions without quarantine and testing.
• Allowing other domestic or wild animals to have contact with the pigs, feedstuffs, or water sources.
• Neglecting to implement measures to prevent the spread of diseases through pig transportation, human contact, vehicular traffic, or equipment that has been used on multiple animals or at off-site farms, processing plants, or purchasing stations.

Small and medium-sized porcine operations frequently utilise outdoor housing for their animals. It is challenging to prevent the spread of disease when pigs are confined or have access to outdoor sites; producers lack control over pig contact with contaminated soil, contaminated aerosols, stray animals, rodents, insects, and aerosols containing disease agents. Wild and feral pigs pose a significant threat to outdoor producers because they harbour the majority of pig disease agents, such as brucellosis and pseudorabies, both of which have been eradicated from domestic pigs in the United States and Canada. Although ensuring the security of an outdoor facility is a perpetual challenge, several methods can be implemented to deter unwelcome intruders and vermin.

 

Sanitation Methods and Substances

A. Small Farms

This publication details a variety of variables that have the potential to impact the biosecurity of pig farms and operations. Certain biosecurity considerations hold greater significance for small farms, defined as those with 100 sows or fewer. Generally, farms housing a limited number of pigs operate without personnel. Herd health status is typically superior for small pig farm managers who collaborate with a pig veterinarian and implement the following biosecurity principles with precision:

Only introduce healthy breeding stock that has been inspected by a porcine veterinarian.

• On all visits to the city, ensure that biosecurity is a top priority at the marketing access point.
• Protect footwear, hands, the pickup truck, and the trailer at all times to prevent the transportation of pathogens home.
• Employ batch farrowing, in which all piglets are transitioned at identical intervals and ages throughout all stages of production, including suckling, nursery, grower, and finisher.
• Before farrowing a stock of sows, ensure that all tail-end piglets from the growing-finishing phase have been removed off-site.

The identical reproductive stock should be utilised for four to eight parties.

Option 1:

Replacing the entire sow herd entails the following:

• Before repopulating the sow herd, ensure that it has been completely depopulated.
• Ensure that all pigs throughout the growing-finishing phase have been sold or relocated off-site before the arrival of replacement animals at the farm.
• Whenever feasible, schedule the depopulation phase to transpire during the summer season, capitalising on the arid surroundings and elevated levels of ultraviolet light to facilitate pathogen eradication.
• It is recommended that all replacements originate from a solitary source, be it purchased from females or gilts reared at home.
• Cash flow will be impacted by this option as a result of decreased productivity at the start and finish of every sow herd turnover.
• The issue of space availability could potentially arise amid the peak productivity period if hogs are raised indoors.

 

Option 2:

Sow herd partial replacement entails the following:

• At least quarterly, a portion of the sows are replaced.
• Each replacement animal ought to originate from a singular source, such as the original source of the sows that are being substituted.
• The health status of the replacement source is identical to that of the farm. This necessitates communication between veterinarians, preferably, and monitoring the source farm before each group of replacement stock is received.
• Whenever feasible, schedule the depopulation phase to transpire during the summer season, capitalising on the arid surroundings and elevated levels of ultraviolet light to facilitate pathogen eradication.

 

B. Larger Farms

The Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points methodology is recommended for forming biosecurity strategies for piglets and farms. This involves consulting field experience, peer-reviewed publications, and scientifically applied field trials to determine critical control points (CCPs). Thorough interviews and input from farm personnel are crucial during initial assessments. Biosecurity interventions can only be formulated after identifying CCPs, and only evidence-based interventions with tangible efficacy in practical settings are applicable. A relative risk assessment can help construct a hierarchy of biosecurity interventions, focusing on factors with the most significant influence and potential for success.

The formula for assessing the efficacy of biosecurity interventions in pigs involves analysing agents and intervention strategies qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. This allows for the formulation of a personalised score that considers the complexity of the intervention and the agricultural staff’s ability to implement it. The formula is system or farm-specific, ensuring optimal results when multiple diseases experience similar reductions in risk. Veterinarians can make approximations using risk assessment tools, published information, and biosecurity experts. The Appropriate Biosecurity Intervention Value (BIV) is calculated as follows:

BIV = [(DEV x RR) ÷ DD] -IC

Where:

• DEV = Disease exclusion value per pig per year (which, apart from historical experience, is frequently exceedingly challenging to ascertain)
• RR = annual percent reduction in risk for each intervention (as calculated by the PRRS Risk Assessment Tool, among others).
• DD = Degree of difficulty (on a scale of one to ten, ten indicates the most challenging aspect to maintain).
• IC = Annual intervention cost per pig

To establish a value equation for each disease, it is often sufficient, to compare diseased pigs to disease-free pigs within the same system. Average disease costs for diseases like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), transmissible gastroenteritis (TGE), Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, and Mycoplasma hypermania serve as valuable benchmarks. Determining a rational expectation for biosecurity interventions is facilitated by the RR and the perceived value of exclusion associated with each intervention.

IC calculation can be challenging and often requires farm or industry expertise. Factors such as clothing expenses, replacement frequency, water usage, electricity consumption, employee downtime, morale, and retention should be objectively evaluated and computed. Devoting substantial research funds to establishing universal DEV and IC for economically significant disease agents is commendable. For example, determining the value of barn filtration could be a daunting task, but disease (PRRS) exclusion must approach 100% given the current costs of filtration application and maintenance.

 

C. Location of Farm

The likelihood that a herd will contract a new disease is frequently exacerbated by the farm’s proximity to other live piglets. The potential danger posed by the proximity of developing pigs is significantly greater in comparison to a breeding herd that relocates all weaned pigs to an off-site facility. In theory, pig production facilities ought to be situated at the greatest distance feasible from other pig facilities.

All facets of biosecurity can be impacted by elements within the property, notwithstanding the significance of location. The success of biosecurity strategies can be influenced by various factors, including the placement of buildings within the unit, the placement of ventilation inlets and outflows, the movement of people, the implementation of isolation procedures, and the movement of pigs.

 

Sources of Pig Diseases

Pig diseases pose a significant concern for organisations of all sizes, irrespective of pig production scale. A disease outbreak can potentially cause severe economic damage to a livestock operation. Those involved in pork production must comprehend the transmission mechanisms of pig diseases and how they can be prevented from spreading among piglets and farms. Pig disease can be spread in several ways, including the following:

• Through diseased pigs or healthy pigs incubating disease, or unaffected carriers.
• Through new replacement gilts and boars.
• Purchased semen.
• Through other farm animals, insects, pets, birds, and wild animals.
• On the clothing and shoes of visitors and employees moving from farm to farm.
• On employees who did not follow all the biosecurity procedures of the farm.
• Any employee or visitor who has had recent direct contact with other pigs.
• On contaminated feed, water, bedding, and soil.
• From the carcasses of dead animals.
• On contaminated equipment and vehicles used on the farm.
• On contaminated veterinary equipment.
• Any equipment that has been in contact with pigs from another site.
• On contaminated commercial vehicles hauling culls, slaughter, or growing pigs.
• Delivering feed (truck and even more so the driver) in airborne particles and dust blown by the wind.
• On consumable supplies entering the farm.

Aerosol infection is frequently ascribed to unexplained disease transmission over modest distances. Numerous variables influence the aerosol and airborne transmission of infections, including the type of pathogen, the number and density of susceptible animals excreting the pathogen, the housing method, the size of the droplets, the relative humidity, the ambient temperature, ventilation fans, wind speed, wind direction, sunlight, topography, natural barriers, and the methods of manure application. While it is preferable to maintain a minimum distance of 2 km between adjacent pig farms to prevent the spread of aerosol diseases, this may not be feasible for pig farms that are already operational.

Frequently, disease agents can be transmitted via routes that are more frequent and significant than aerosols, but just as challenging to document. Similar to aerosols, these methods are effectively deterred by distance from other pigs. The concept of distance dispersal applies to all pathogens as it diminishes the probability of transmission via any means. Aerosol risk is also proportional to the quantity of pigs present at remote locations. A greater quantity of developing piglets heightens the probability of a fortuitous introduction. Investigations of outbreaks have identified aerosol migration distances of up to 8 km for PRRS virus and 3 km for Mycoplasma. Aerosol transmissions are exceedingly challenging to confirm, but they are probable in exceptional weather-related circumstances.

 

Acquiring Substitute Boars and Gilts

It is not always simple to identify a source of animals with minimal disease. Small porcine operations frequently neglect critical components of a biosecurity programme, including the acquisition of reproductive animals from a reputable source and the isolation of said animals before their introduction into the herd. Frequently, testimonials and word-of-mouth take precedence over direct veterinary knowledge gained through pathogen testing and health monitoring. Contact with other pigs directly poses an insurmountable danger of contracting new diseases. It is recommended to adhere to the subsequent principles when procuring substitute gilts and boars:

• Be informed of the disease status of the source and recipient herds.
• Replacement gilts should be selected from a single source that possesses a documented genetic improvement programme and effective disease control (biosecurity) programmes.
• Replacement boars should also be selected from a single source that possesses a documented genetic improvement programme and sound disease control (biosecurity) programmes.

The majority of breeding businesses employ a veterinarian and maintain an internal health database. Request a consultation between your veterinarian and the veterinarian of the source herd for the following purposes:

• verify that there have been no recent disease outbreaks in the source herd;
• identify which diseases have been detected or tested for in the source herd;
• ascertain the vaccination programmes in place; and
• ascertain the antimicrobials used in the feed or water.

Maintain records of animal movement. Include the seller’s contact information, the piglets’ origin, the number of pigs acquired, the date the pigs were transferred to your farm, and the premise identification, if available.

At first glance, it would appear that decreasing the number of gilts and boars introduced into the herd would effectively mitigate the risk of disease transmission. However, the risk may be mitigated by the cost of genetic enhancement and parity distribution associated with infrequent introductions, particularly if a reliable singular source of replacement animals is utilised.

1. Open communication between the veterinarian of the producer and the veterinarian of the source herd reduces the risk of disease transmission; and
2. All new replacement animals are integrated into the herd after a 30- to 40-day quarantine, in a biosecure isolation facility equipped with a robust disease monitoring and detection system.

 

Effective Management Procedures

A. The Welfare and Health

It is critical to conduct daily health inspections on deep-litter systems. When inspecting enclosures, ensure all hogs are moving in a zigzag pattern down the shed. Additionally, ensure that each feeder and user is operational. Providing sufficient space and feeding points will reduce the likelihood of injury in groups of any size. This is beneficial as animal welfare is directly correlated with productivity.

 

B. Contract Expansion

Contract pig farming provides the advantages of a consistent revenue flow without requiring substantial investments in sow lodging or breeding. The pig remains under the custody of the supplier. Contractors are generally remunerated at a fixed rate per pig sold in exchange for their labour and oversight. Incentives or sanctions are imposed in accordance with feed efficiency and carcass quality. Before entering into a contract, legal counsel is strongly advised.

The weekly deep litter contract fee ranges from 75 cents to 80 cents per pig. Failure to provide refuse at the prescribed rates may lead to an escalation in damp areas within sheds, a decline in growth rates, and a worsening of health and welfare issues.

 

C. Refuse into Shelters

A flushing system-equipped conventional shed emits approximately fifty percent more odour than well-managed deep-litter shelters. Consequently, neighbouring systems may experience reduced odour-separation distances due to the presence of deep refuse. But if damp refuse is permitted to decompose anaerobically, odour emissions will increase considerably. Poor growth rates, an increase in porcine health problems, and a decline in animal welfare may result.

To reduce potential health risks, it is critical to use new litter for each batch of piglets and to provide adequate bedding in enclosures at the start of each batch to absorb manure, spilt feed, and water. The slumber areas designated for the piglets must remain dry, while any areas designated for dunging do not become excessively moist. Consistent provision of fresh refuse, specifically towards the conclusion of the batch cycle, might be necessary to avert complications linked to an overabundance of moisture. 40% of the floor space of the enclosure should be designated as dry lying space for piglets until the end of the batch.

Faecal moisture that is visible serves as a quality indicator. The debris must be devoid of any observable signs of moisture, including puddles, pools, or wallows. A small number of hogs should also be excessively damp or filthy.

The management and disposal of decomposed animal remains and used refuse. Establish storage and treatment facilities to impede the ingress and egress of manure and surface discharge, respectively. Building raised platforms or an earth wall bunding and containment, preferably in the controlled drainage area, can accomplish this. Less than 0.1 mm per day of effluent from manure must percolate through the soil and into the groundwater; therefore, the base of these areas must be compacted.

Seal and bundle all areas containing discarded manure, litter, litter composting, and carcass composting to prevent pollutant escape. This will prevent the leaching of nutrients and pathogens into groundwater and surface water (creeks, rivers, dams).

 

D. Recycling and Sustainable Distribution of Waste

The dispersion of used garbage can cause an unpleasant odour for residents in the vicinity. Further, unsustainable methods, such as high application rates and distribution near waterways, may lead to the contamination of soils, surface water, and groundwater with pathogens and nutrients.

Dispose of used garbage away from neighbouring structures and exclusively during periods of opposing wind flow. It is prohibited to disperse refuse within a 20-metre radius of intermittent waterways and a 50-metre radius of main streams and rivers. By establishing a verdant buffer zone between waterways and cropland, manure and nutrient discharge can be prevented. When manure and refuse are applied to cut-and-cart commodities (grains or hay), the amount of nutrients removed is eight to ten times greater than when grazing a pasture. Annually or every three years, applying manure and refuse at a rate exceeding 5 to 8 tonne/ha or 15 to 25 tonne/ha will likely result in the oversaturation of soils with nutrients.

 

Hygiene Practices in Processing

A. Maintaining Cleanliness in the Processing Area

Cleaning of pig area

 

The following is composed specifically for slaughterhouses to assist you in adhering to the hygiene requirements and standards that meat manufacturers must meet. This information will assist you in navigating livestock hygiene regulations established by reputable authorities and plant-specific hygiene programmes. Despite the complexity of the subject matter, meat manufacturers are obligated to adhere to these regulations under the supervision of plant management. Therefore, it is imperative that personnel at meat processing facilities acquire knowledge regarding these hygiene programmes before accessing the work area and actively adhere to these hygiene regulations.

1. Personal hygiene;
2. Slaughter and meat processing hygiene;
3. Hygiene of slaughter and meat processing apparatus; and
4. Hygiene of slaughter and meat processing premises is distinguished by the hygiene requirements.

The aforementioned subjects hold comparable importance, and all four themes have the potential to generate risks that can compromise the well-being of consumers and result in financial detriment. Consequently, we shall provide a concise overview of a few hygiene standards and prerequisites for meat production and processing that ought to be known by the slaughterhouse personnel. Every facet pertains to the methods of producing a sanitary livestock product and maintaining food safety.

B. Personal Hygiene in the Preparation of Flesh

Listed below are some of the most important personal hygiene requirements and principles applicable to the production and processing of livestock. Nevertheless, slaughter hygiene and livestock transport and storage hygiene are not encompassed within the principles. Concerning personal hygiene, employees are required to have clean protective attire, cleanse their hands before commencing work and throughout the shift, and refrain from donning finger rings, watches, or bracelets. Additionally, personnel are only permitted to enter production areas while wearing appropriate attire, and they are required to disinfect hands, tools, and clothing after coming into contact with contaminated subjects. Additionally, it is mandatory to apply watertight bandages to knife cuts and other slaughter equipment, and employees who have exposed wounds or cuts are prohibited from handling livestock (owing to the potential for bacterial transmission).

C. Precautions in Meat Processing

The optimal environment for meat slicing is a climatised chamber with low relative humidity and a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius. Gradually transporting the meat to the production area will prevent it from accumulating on the tables used for processing and manufacturing. Watering equipment, walls, or floors adjacent to meat processing operations or finalised products is strictly prohibited. Additionally, it is strictly prohibited to reposition flesh fragments onto worktables that have come into contact with contaminated surfaces or the floor by accident.

D. Hygiene of Facilities for Livestock Processing

Meat processing facilities are required to adhere to hygienic standards to maintain and guarantee a sanitary and hygienic work environment. Therefore, it is imperative that the walls in all chambers where personnel process flesh and by-products possess smooth, washable surfaces. Additionally, it is crucial that the height of the wall windows in each room be suitable to facilitate the cleansing of the floors and walls. Water and electrical supply systems, as well as pipelines, should not obstruct cleaning procedures or be within reach of dirt.

E. Equipment for Livestock Processing Sanitation

The management of meat production is accountable for the construction of meat processing apparatus following appropriate design principles. Due to the equipment’s design facilitating cleanup, the removal of organic matter should not pose a significant challenge. Alternatively stated, sanitation must permeate the entire facility, including the most minute yet critical components of the apparatus. It is of the utmost importance that every component within the facilities adheres to the numerous hygiene standards. Wheels and adjustable casters are among the smallest components of the apparatus, in contrast to the larger elements.