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

(Amy.Haigh@teagasc.ie). 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 amy.quinn@teagasc.ie 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

amy.quinn@teagasc.ie 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.