Effect of different cleaning procedures on water use and bacterial levels in weaner pig pens

Abstract

Pork is one of the most globally eaten meats and the pig production chain contributes significantly to the water footprint of livestock production. However, very little knowledge is available about the on-farm factors that influence freshwater use in the pig production chain. An experiment was conducted to quantify the effect of three different washing treatments on freshwater use, bacterial levels [(total bacterial counts; TBC), Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus] and cleaning time in washing of pens for weaning pigs. Three weaner rooms were selected with each room having 10 pens and a capacity to hold up to 14 pigs each. Pigs were weaned and kept in the pens for 7 weeks. Finally, the pens were cleaned before the next batch of pigs moved in. The washing treatments used were power washing and disinfection (WASH); presoaking followed by power washing and disinfection (SOAK), and presoaking followed by detergent, power washing and disinfection (SOAK + DETER). A water meter was used to collect water use data and swab samples were taken to determine the bacterial levels. The results showed that there was no overall effect of washing treatments on water use. However, there was an effect of treatment on the washing time (p<0.01) with SOAK and SOAK+DETER reducing the washing time per pen by 2.3 minutes (14%) and 4.2 minutes (27%) compared to WASH. Nonetheless, there was an effect of sampling time (before or after washing) (p<0.001) on the levels of TBC and Staphylococcus, but no effect was seen on Enterobacteriaceae levels. Thus, the washing treatments used in this study had no effect on the water use of the pork production chain. Although there was no difference in both water use and bacterial load, from a producer perspective, presoaking and detergent use can save time and labour costs, so this would be the preferred option.

Pilot Study on Alteration of LA-MRSA Status of Pigs during Fattening Period on Straw Bedding by Two Types of Cleaning

“…The considerable differences in LA-MRSA prevalence at 16 weeks between the two types may be due to thorough decontamination of bacteria from the previous fattening phase (type C&D). A well-performed C&D will reduce the bacterial microbial load by a factor of 10,000 [ 24 , 25 ]. This influence of the initial bacterial concentration at the time of stabling can be considered substantial and represents the only difference between the two groups of animals considered.…”

Using Shotgun Sequencing to Describe the Changes Induced by In-Feed Zinc Oxide and Apramycin in the Microbiomes of Pigs One Week Postweaning

“…Trial 1 studied the influence of the dietary treatments (control diet [Ct], control diet + 3,000 ppm ZnO [Zn], and control diet + 100 ppm apramycin as Apralan G200 [Ab]). Trials 2 and 3 studied the same in-feed treatments in combination with different cleaning protocols ( Table 1 ) for the rooms that were part of another study ( 41 ). A detailed description of each trial is provided further below.…”

Positive biofilms to guide surface microbial ecology in livestock buildings

“…Among internal biosecurity measures to limit the persistence and proliferation of pathogenic bacteria in livestock buildings, cleaning and disinfection (C&D) protocols are applied between each breeding cycle. In addition to environmental and safety concerns associated with their use, several studies have shown that these chemical biocides are poorly effective on biofilms and only allow the elimination of a small fraction of the microbiota present on surfaces [ 3 , 60 , 61 ]. Hence, it has been shown in avian farms that C&D protocols are not totally effective in eradicating residual pathogens responsible for cross-contamination between different batches of animals such as Salmonella spp.…”

“…biofilm with microbial pathogens. These biofilms can persist between two production batches despite the application of biosecurity measures [ 3 , 60 , 61 ]. After C&D protocols and before the entry of animals, positive bacteria can be sprayed on the building surface and material to colonize the “empty” biotope and help to prevent the settlement of undesirable microorganisms.…”