Biosecurity risks associated with current identification practices of producers trading live pigs at livestock sales

Abstract

Approximately 5% of pigs produced in Australia is believed to be traded at livestock sales. Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with producers (106 and 30 producers, respectively), who traded pigs at livestock sales. The purpose of the study was to gather information on how producers identified their pigs in order to evaluate how these practices may impact the ability to trace pig movements in the event of an emergency animal disease outbreak or food safety hazard. Results were analyzed according to herd size (0 to 150 sows, 1501 sows) and location (peri-urban, regional) as prior studies suggested a higher biosecurity risk among smaller farms and due to perceptions that peri-urban farms pose additional risk. Most producers (91.5%) had less than 150 sows and a high proportion (70.8%) resided in regional areas compared with only 29.2% residing in peri-urban areas. A higher proportion of large-scale producers identified their pigs than small-scale producers. A third of small-scale producers reported not identifying breeding stock and most did not identify progeny. The most common forms of on-farm identification used were ear tags for breeding stock and ear notches for progeny. Producers identified breeding stock to assist with mating management and genetic improvement. Ear notches were used to determine the litter of origin of progeny. All large-scale producers owned a registered swine brand and used the official body tattoo for post-farm-gate identification. However, approximately 15% of small-scale producers did not own a registered swine brand, and an additional 8% did not identify their pigs post-farm-gate. Producers were satisfied with tattoos as a methodology for post-farm-gate identification of pigs and considered other methodologies costprohibitive. However, variations in the maintenance of the branding equipment, the type of ink used and the time of tattoo application in relation to the animal sale were highlighted during focus group discussions. These results suggest that there is a need for education and extension activities, especially among small-scale pig producers, regarding the benefits of identifying animals on-farm. In addition, increased awareness of the traceability legislation that exists in Australia to meet the National Performance Standards for Livestock Traceability in this country is required.

Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis

“…These results support the contention that proper communication is central to stakeholder relationships [25–27], and that positive relationships and buy-in between industry actors are central to the development and utilisation of MI as a health and welfare diagnostic tool. Although producers were regarded as generally innovative and business oriented, concerns were expressed regarding producers not always being open to receiving advice and support from external sources, such as industry and government – reflecting similar findings by Hernández-Jover et al [28, 29]. Furthermore, concerns over producer attitudes, towards pig welfare issues, mirrors results presented in Devitt et al [5] regarding tolerance of potential welfare risk issues on-farm.…”

Automatic monitoring of pig locomotion using image analysis

“…Using these tags raises biosecurity risks (Hernandez-Jover et al, 2008) and pigs endure extreme pain in the installation process (Leslie et al, 2010). Vision-based pig identification technology, however, is a non-intrusive technique that can measure locomotion accurately.…”

Evaluation of the implementation of new traceability and food safety requirements in the pig industry in eastern Australia

“…Pigs that are sold indirectly (through saleyards) to export abattoirs in Australia and domestic abattoirs in NSW must be accompanied by a PigPass form. Approximately 5% of pigs produced in Australia are believed to be traded at livestock sales 3 . Producers should also rear their pigs under an approved QA system, to meet industry and government standards relating to food safety, animal disease control and animal welfare 2,4…”

“…Saleyards and producers. Selection of saleyards and producer recruitment were described previously 3 . Two saleyard locations (one peri‐urban and one regional) in each of the three eastern states of Australia (NSW, Victoria and Queensland) where pig sales were held regularly were selected.…”

“…Focus group analysis. Analysis of the focus group data was undertaken as previously described 3 . A long‐table approach was used for the analysis of the open discussion data, to identify general patterns and categories 6 .…”