Swine Facts Combo

Swine Facts Combo.pdf

Swine 2006 Study

Swine Facts Combo

OMB: 0579-0315

Document [pdf]
Download: pdf | pdf
United States
Department
of Agriculture
Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service
Veterinary
Services

Part I:

Reference of
Swine Health and Management
in the United States, 2000

National Animal Health Monitoring System

August 2001

Acknowledgments
This report was prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Veterinary Services (VS) during a study of management and animal
health on swine operations.
The Swine 2000 study was a cooperative effort between State and Federal agricultural statisticians, animal health
officials, university researchers, extension personnel, and pork producers. We want to thank the hundreds of industry
members who helped determine the direction and objectives of this study by participating in focus groups.
Thanks to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) enumerators, State and Federal Veterinary Medical
Officers (VMOs), and Animal Health Technicians (AHTs)Call of whom visited the operations and collected the
dataCfor their hard work and dedication to the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). The roles of
the producer, Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), NAHMS Coordinator, VMO, AHT and NASS enumerators were
critical in providing quality data for Swine 2000 reports. Special recognition goes to Dr. LeRoy Biehl, University of
Illinois, for his contribution to the design and implementation of the Swine 2000 study, and analysis and interpretation
of these data. Thanks also to the personnel at the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) for their
efforts in generating and distributing valuable reports from Swine 2000 data.
Additional biological sampling and testing were afforded by the generous contributions of collaborators for the
NAHMS Swine 2000 study, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

USDA:APHIS, National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL)
USDA:ARS, Eastern Regional Research Center (ERRC)
USDA:ARS, National Animal Disease Center (NADC)
USDA:ARS, Russell Research Center
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
University of Wisconsin - Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine

•
•
•
•
•
•

Iowa State University
The Ohio State University
Pfizer
Schering-Plough
University of Tennessee
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.

All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary efforts made the Swine 2000 study
possible.

Thomas E. Walton,
Director
Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:
USDA. 2001. Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management in the United States, 2000, National Animal Health
Monitoring System. Fort Collins, CO. #N338.0801.
Contacts for further information:
Questions or comments on Swine 2000 study methodology or requests for additional data analysis:
Dr. Eric Bush (970) 490-8000

Information on reprints or other NAHMS reports: Mr. Michael Durham
Telephone: (970) 490-8000 or E-mail: [email protected]

Swine 2000

USDA:APHIS:VS

Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Terms used in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Section I: Population Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Sow and Gilt Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.
2.
3.
4.

Production phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Mating techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Culling and death loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Introduction of gilts and breeding males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Farrowing productivity and death loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Weaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Nursery Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Production phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. Nursery death loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Age leaving the nursery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
D. Grower/finisher Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Production phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. Grower/finisher death loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Days to market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
E. Facility Management - All Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Production phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facility type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pig flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sources of pigs entering the grower/finisher phase
Waste management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

USDA:APHIS:VS

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

25
26
27
31
34

Swine 2000

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Disease prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2. Vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3. Use of a veterinarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
G. Biosecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.
2.
3.
4.

Restrictions for entry. . . . .
Trucking . . . . . . . . . . .
Proximity to other swine sites
Rodent control . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

42
43
44
45

H. General Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.
2.
3.
4.

Environmental testing
Carcass disposal . . .
Records. . . . . . . .
Marketing . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

46
47
48
49

Section II: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.
B.
C.
D.

Needs Assessment . . .
Sampling and Estimation
Data Collection . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

50
50
51
51

Appendix I: Sample Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A. Responding Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix II: U.S. Populations and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Swine 2000

USDA:APHIS:VS

Introduction

Introduction
As part of the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), the USDA:APHIS: Veterinary Services
(VS) conducted its first national study of the swine industry with the 1990 National Swine Survey. Study results
provided an overview of swine health, productivity, and management for 95 percent of the U.S. swine herd, the
population represented by the 1,661 participating producers. The 1990 National Swine Survey focused on
farrowing sows and preweaning piglets.
NAHMS’ second national swine study, Swine ‘95, was designed to provide both participants and the industry
with information on over 90 percent of the U.S. swine herd. It focused on the grower/finisher phase.
Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management in the
States Participating in the Swine 2000 Study
United States, 2000 is the first of a series of reports containing national information resulting from NAHMS’ third national swine project, the Swine 2000 study. Swine 2000 was
designed to provide both participants and the industry with
information on nearly 94 percent of the U.S. swine herd on
operations with 100 or more pigs. Data for Part I were collected from 2,499 swine production sites from 2,328 operations. The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) collaborated with VS to select a producer
sample statistically designed to provide inferences
#4392*
Shaded states =
participating states.
to the nation’s swine population of operations with 100 or
more pigs. Included in the study were 17 of the major porkproducing states (see map) that accounted for 94 percent of
the U.S. pig inventory and 92 percent of U.S. pork producers with 100 or more pigs. NASS interviewers
contacted producers from June 1 through July 14, 2000.
Methodology and number of respondents can be found at the end of this report.
Data for subsequent reports were collected by State and Federal Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) and Animal Health Technicians (AHTs) from August 21, 2000, through November 3, 2000, and December 1, 2000,
through February 28, 2001.
Further information on NAHMS studies and reports are available online at:

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm
For questions about this report or additional copies, please contact the address below.

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
USDA:APHIS:VS, Attn. NAHMS
555 South Howes
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 490-8000
[email protected]
* Identification numbers are assigned to each graph of this report for public reference.

USDA:APHIS:VS

1

Swine 2000

Terms Used in This Report

Introduction

Terms Used in This Report
N/A: Not applicable.
Percent animals: The number of animals on sites with a certain attribute divided by the total number
of animals on all sites. In some cases, it is assumed the attribute applies to all animals on the site. The
animal type is defined in each table and may include total inventory, sow inventory, number of pigs
that entered the nursery, or other specific pig groups. The “percent animals” estimates reflect the
larger sites which have the majority of pigs.
Percent sites: The number of sites with a certain attribute divided by the total number of sites.
Percentages will sum to 100 where the attributes are mutually exclusive (i.e., percentage of sites
located within each region). Percentages will not sum to 100 where the attributes are not mutually
exclusive (i.e., the percentage of sites using treatment methods where sites may have used more than
one method). The “percent-sites” estimates reflect the smaller producers, since they make up the
majority of operations.
Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided
with a measure of precision called the standard error. A 95
percent confidence interval can be created with bounds equal
to the estimate, plus or minus two standard errors. If the only
error is sampling error, then confidence intervals created
in this manner will contain the true population mean 95
out of 100 times. In the example at right, an estimate
of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to
9.5 (two times the standard error above and below the estimate). The second estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of
0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0. Alternatively, the 90
percent confidence interval would be created by multiplying
the standard error by 1.65 instead of two. Most estimates in
this report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the
standard error was reported. If there were no reports of the
event, no standard error was reported.

Examples of a
95% Confidence Interval
10

8

95%
Confidence
Intervals

Regions:
Northern: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
West Central: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
East Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio.
Southern: Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the sites from which Swine 2000 data
were collected.
Site: Distinct geographic locations or premises designated as a production site for commercial swine.
Multiple premises were considered to be one site if a single farm manager was involved in the dayto-day activities at all locations. (See operation selection in methodology section for details on site
selection within operations.)
Total inventory: All swine present on the site on June 1, 2000.

Swine 2000

2

USDA:APHIS:VS

Selection I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Section I: Population Estimates
A. Sow and Gilt Management
1. Production phases
a. Percent of sites with the following production phases by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Production Phase Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central
Percent

East Central

Stan.
Error

Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

Gestation

50.2

(3.5)

65.9

(3.1)

50.5

(2.5)

42.6

(2.7)

52.6

(1.7)

Farrowing

50.1

(3.5)

66.2

(3.1)

50.6

(2.5)

43.5

(2.7)

52.8

(1.7)

USDA:APHIS:VS

3

Swine 2000

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

2. Mating techniques

a. Sows
i. Percent of sows serviced in the previous 3 months, by number of matings per service (regardless of
technique) and by size of site:
Percent Sows
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Number Matings

Percent

Unknown
(Pen-mating)

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

64.9

(2.8)

11.2

(1.9)

0.6

(0.2)

17.1

(1.5)

One

5.5

(1.4)

7.9

(1.3)

6.7

(1.1)

6.5

(0.8)

Two

26.7

(2.3)

66.9

(3.5)

57.1

(5.0)

50.9

(3.2)

2.9

(0.5)

14.0

(3.4)

35.6

(5.5)

25.5

(4.0)

Three or more
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Artificial insemination was the most frequently utilized mating method for breeding females. Overall,
68.6 percent of sows were mated by artificial insemination as the predominant mating technique used on
the site for the first mating, and 72.3 percent of sows were mated by artificial insemination as the
predominant mating technique used on the site for the second mating.
ii. Percent of sows serviced by predominant mating technique used on the site for the first and second
mating:
Percent Sows
1st Mating
Percent

Standard
Error

Artificial insemination

68.6

(3.1)

72.3

(2.4)

Individually hand-mated (natural
insemination)

12.9

(2.9)

6.4

(0.9)

Pen-mated with multiple females and one or
more boars

18.5

(1.6)

6.2

(1.2)

N/A

(--)

15.1

(1.5)

Mating Technique

No second mating
Total

Swine 2000

2nd Mating

100.0

4

Percent

Standard
Error

100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Almost two-thirds (64.8 percent) of sows in the U.S. are on sites where the predominant first and
second mating type is artificial insemination.
iii. Percent of sows serviced by predominant mating technique used on the site for the first and second
mating and by size of site:
Percent Sows
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)

Mating Combinations
1st Mating

2nd Mating

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Artificial
insemination

Artificial
insemination

14.9

(2.2)

Hand-mating

Artificial
insemination

1.5

Hand-mating

Hand-mating

9.4

Pen-mating

Any technique

69.1

(2.9)

12.9

(2.2)

5.1

(1.4)

12.1

(4.3)

Other 1st and 2nd mating techniques
Total

Percent

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

51.3

(5.1)

85.3

(4.4)

64.8

(3.3)

(0.5)

6.8

(2.2)

9.4

(4.3)

7.2

(2.9)

(1.9)

16.9

(4.2)

1.8

(0.5)

5.3

(0.8)

0.9

(0.3)

18.5

(1.6)

2.6

(1.2)

4.2

(1.0)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Gilts were generally mated more than once during a service. Larger sites tended to mate gilts more
frequently per service than smaller sites.

b. Gilts
i. Percent of gilts serviced in the previous 3 months, by number of matings per service (regardless of
technique) and by size of site:
Percent Gilts
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Number Matings

Unkown
(Pen-mating)

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

57.0

(5.7)

19.3

(3.9)

One

3.7

(1.1)

10.6

Two

22.1

(3.0)

56.7

Three or more

17.2

(6.6)

13.4

Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

Percent

Standard
Error

1.0

(0.3)

(2.3)

7.8

(4.9)

56.3

(3.5)

34.9

100.0

100.0

5

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

17.9

(2.1)

(1.2)

7.1

(0.9)

(5.3)

47.3

(3.7)

(6.1)

27.7

(4.2)

100.0

Swine 2000

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Section I: Population Estimates

Pen-mating was used more often with gilts than sows for the predominant mating technique used on the
site. For the first mating, 24.0 percent of gilts were pen-mated compared to 18.5 percent of sows.

ii. Percent of gilts serviced by predominant mating technique used on the site for the first and second
mating:
Percent Gilts
1st Mating

2nd Mating

Percent

Standard
Error

Artificial insemination

64.5

(3.7)

65.7

(3.7)

Individually hand-mated naturally

11.5

(1.8)

7.3

(1.3)

Pen-mated with multiple females and one or
more boars

24.0

(2.8)

11.7

(2.9)

No second mating

N/A

(--)

15.3

(1.9)

Mating Technique

Total

Standard
Error

Percent

100.0

100.0

iii. Percent of gilts serviced by predominant mating technique used on the site for the first and second
mating, by size of site:
Percent Gilts
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Mating Combinations
1st Mating

2nd Mating

Small
(Less than 250)
Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Artificial
insemination

Artificial
insemination

13.1

(2.7)

41.6

(6.8)

84.8

(3.9)

60.9

(4.0)

Hand-mating

Artificial
insemination

0.8

(0.3)

3.6

(1.5)

6.0

(2.0)

4.3

(1.2)

Hand-mating

Hand-mating

8.6

(2.1)

17.8

(6.0)

3.8

(1.2)

6.6

(1.3)

Pen-mating

Any technique

76.3

(3.4)

34.7

(6.3)

5.0

(3.1)

27.3

(3.3)

1.2

(0.4)

2.3

(0.8)

0.4

(0.2)

0.9

(0.2)

Other 1st and 2nd mating techniques
Total

Swine 2000

100.0

100.0

6

100.0

100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

c. Percent of sites using various mating techniques in sows or gilts, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Mating Technique

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Artificial insemination

12.1

(1.7)

61.4

(4.3)

91.3

(1.6)

23.2

(1.7)

Individually hand-mated naturally

10.1

(1.3)

31.9

(4.2)

22.8

(4.0)

13.0

(1.3)

Pen-mated with multiple females and
one or more boars

84.4

(1.8)

35.0

(4.3)

6.4

(1.8)

73.3

(1.8)

61.4

60
50
40
30
20
10

50
31.9 35
23.2

22.8

25
12.1 10.1

13

6.4

d. Of those sites using artificial insemination, percent of sites by source of semen:
Percent
Sites

Semen Source

USDA:APHIS:VS

Standard
Error

Purchased semen

72.9

(3.1)

Collected on site

17.1

(2.6)

Collected off site (owner boar-stud)

20.8

(2.4)

7

Swine 2000

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Culling and death loss
Culling and death loss rates are calculated below for a 6-month period. An annualized rate could be
approximated by doubling these numbers (assuming no seasonal differences and no change in
management practices). Average sow and gilt death loss ranged from 2.5 to 3.7 percentCdepending on
herd sizeCduring the 6-month period from December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000. Nearly 18 percent
of sows and gilts were culled from herds during the same period. The total annual removal rate, including
death loss and culling, was 41.6 percent.
a. Breeding-age females died or culled from December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000, as a percent of
June 1, 2000, sow and gilt inventory, by size of site:
Percent Breeding Females
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Reason Removed

Died
Culled

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

2.5

(0.2)

3.0

(0.2)

3.7

(0.2)

3.3

(0.1)

15.0

(1.0)

20.3

(2.0)

18.1

(0.9)

17.5

(0.7)

Reasons for culling due to performance included small litter size, high pre-weaning mortality, and low
birth rate. Animals were culled from the breeding herd for several reasons, but the primary reason was
age (41.9 percent). Large percentages of culled sows and gilts were culled because of reproductive failure
and lameness (21.3 and 16.0 percent, respectively). Other reasons included upgrading genetics, poor
body condition, and liquidation of the breeding herd.
b. Percent of culled breeding-age females by reason culled from December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000:
Reason Culled

Age

41.9

(1.8)

Lameness

16.0

(1.2)

Performance

12.0

(0.7)

Reproductive failure

21.3

(1.3)

8.8

(1.6)

Other reason
Total

Swine 2000

Percent
Standard
Culled Females
Error

100.0

8

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

c. Breeding-age females culled from December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000, as a percent of June 1,
2000, sow and gilt inventory, by reason culled:

Percent
Females

Standard
Error

Age

7.3

(0.4)

Lameness

2.8

(0.3)

Performance

2.1

(0.1)

Reproductive failure

3.7

(0.2)

1.6

(0.3)

Reason Culled

Other reason
Total

17.5

5
3.7
2.8
2.5

USDA:APHIS:VS

2.1

1.6

9

Swine 2000

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Introduction of gilts and breeding males
Proper gilt introduction is critical to herd biosecurity. Small herds were most often closed herds
(48.5 percent). Larger sites were more likely than smaller sites to always isolate their animals prior to
introduction to the herd.
a. Percent of sites by frequency of placing new breeding females through an isolation or
quarantine process:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Frequency

Always
Sometimes
Never
No new arrivals
Total

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

25.9

(2.5)

57.0

(4.3)

68.9

(3.2)

32.0

(2.2)

8.4

(1.7)

6.4

(2.0)

7.1

(2.4)

8.1

(1.4)

17.2

(2.2)

17.1

(2.5)

14.2

(1.8)

16.9

(1.8)

48.5

(2.9)

19.5

(3.1)

9.8

(1.5)

43.0

(2.4)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Quarantine Process
Frequency
Percent Sites

Always
Sometimes

100

Swine 2000

10

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Few sites were closed to new breeding males, regardless of site size. Although more than half the
sites always isolated new boars, approximately 20 percent of sites with fewer than 500 sows never
isolated boars.
b. Percent of sites by frequency of placing new breeding males through an isolation or quarantine process:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Percent

Standard
Error

Always

52.9

(2.8)

Sometimes

12.1

Never

21.0

No new arrivals

14.0

Frequency

Total

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

62.4

(4.1)

(1.9)

8.5

(2.3)

19.1

(1.8)

10.0

100.0

Percent

Standard
Error

66.8

(3.3)

(2.6)

5.4

(2.7)

13.0

(2.4)

14.8

100.0

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

54.8

(2.4)

(1.8)

11.3

(1.6)

(1.7)

20.2

(2.0)

(2.4)

13.7

(1.5)

100.0

100.0

Larger sites tended to isolate their new arrivals for longer periods than smaller sites. There was no
significant difference between the length of time breeding females and males were isolated.

c. For sites that isolated or quarantined new arrivals, average number of days new arrivals were in isolation
or quarantine, by size of site and by pig group:
Average Number of Days
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Pig Group

Average
Days

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Average
Days

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Average
Days

Standard
Error

All Sites
Average
Days

Standard
Error

Breeding females

35.1

(2.0)

43.1

(1.4)

51.1

(3.2)

38.7

(1.5)

Breeding males

31.8

(1.1)

40.9

(1.3)

50.3

(3.0)

34.3

(0.9)

USDA:APHIS:VS

11

Swine 2000

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Section I: Population Estimates

Depending on the risk involved, breeding stock should be tested for a variety of diseases. More sites
tended to test all introduced boars, compared to testing all introduced female breeding stock.
d. Proportion of animals tested for disease:
i. For sites that isolated or quarantined new breeding females, percent of sites testing new breeding
females, either before or after isolation, by proportion of animals tested:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Proportion of Females

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

All

44.6

(4.9)

45.7

(6.2)

37.1

(4.4)

43.5

(3.7)

Some

11.4

(2.7)

13.2

(3.6)

42.6

(5.4)

16.8

(2.4)

44.0

(5.0)

41.1

(6.9)

20.3

(3.6)

39.7

(3.8)

None
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

ii. For sites that isolated or quarantined new breeding males, percent of sites testing new breeding
males, either before or after isolation, by proportion of animals tested:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Proportion of Males

All
Some
None
Total

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

50.2

(3.7)

56.0

(6.2)

61.6

(4.7)

51.8

(3.1)

6.8

(1.5)

9.5

(3.9)

20.2

(3.5)

8.3

(1.4)

43.0

(3.7)

34.5

(6.4)

18.2

(3.6)

39.9

(3.2)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Percent of Sites* Testing New Breeding
Animals, Either Before or After Isolation,
by Proportion of Animals Tested

Swine 2000

12

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt Management

Acclimatization is a method of introducing new breeding stock to viral and bacterial diseases present on
the receiving farm. Prior to the use of new animals for reproduction, new breeding stock may be
vaccinated against diseases at risk, exposed to material from likely infected animals or the animals
themselves, or a combination of the above.

e. For sites that isolated or quarantined new breeding females, percent of sites that used the following
methods to acclimate new arrivals during isolation or quarantine:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Method

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Feedback of feces from
other swine

20.3

(3.5)

34.9

(7.2)

39.0

(4.8)

25.1

(2.8)

Feedback of mummies,
placentas, or stillborn
pigs

6.3

(2.1)

15.4

(4.2)

29.7

(5.0)

11.3

(1.9)

42.7

(5.0)

58.4

(6.2)

69.4

(5.1)

49.0

(3.7)

3.1

(1.5)

13.8

(4.0)

22.7

(4.5)

7.7

(1.5)

81.6

(3.7)

91.8

(3.5)

89.3

(2.5)

84.1

(2.7)

1.7

(1.0)

9.1

(7.3)

2.2

(0.7)

2.6

(1.2)

Exposure to cull
females (sows and
gilts)
Exposure to sick pigs
Administer
vaccinations
Other

USDA:APHIS:VS

13

Swine 2000

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity
1. Farrowing productivity and death loss
The number of pigs born alive is a measure of reproductive performance of the breeding herd. Stillbirths and
mummies are an indication of possible reproductive problems. The number of pigs weaned per litter is a
measurement for farrowing management and reproductive efficiency. Overall, 10.9 pigs were born per litter,
of which 10.0 were born alive and 8.9 were weaned.
a. Average per litter productivity for six-month period (December 1999 - May 2000):
i. Overall
Average Per Litter Productivity
December 1999 - May 2000
Measure

Stillbirths and mummies per litter
Born alive per litter
Total born per litter
Preweaning deaths per litter
Weaned per litter
Total born alive per litter

Number

Standard
Error

0.9

(0.0)

Percent

Standard
Error

8.0

(0.2)
(0.2)

10.0

(0.0)

92.0

10.9

(0.0)

100.0

1.1

(0.0)

11.0

(0.3)

8.9

(0.0)

89.0

(0.3)

10.0

(0.0)

100.0

ii. By sow herd size:
Average Per Litter Productivity
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)

Small (Less than 250)
Std.
Measure
Number error
Percent
Stillbirths
0.9
(0.0)
8.4
(0.1)
91.6
Born Alive
9.3
Total Born 10.2
(0.1)
100.0
Preweaning
0.8
(0.0)
9.0
deaths
(0.1)
91.0
Weaned
8.5
Total
9.3
100.0

Swine 2000

Std.
error
(0.5)
(0.5)

Medium (250-499)
Std.
Number error Percent
0.9
(0.0)
7.9
10.0
(0.1)
92.1
10.9
(0.1)
100.0

Std.
error
(0.4)
(0.4)

Large (500 or More)
Std.
Number error Percent
0.9
(0.0)
7.8
10.2
(0.0)
92.2
11.1
(0.1)
100.0

Std.
error
(0.3)
(0.3)

(0.3)

1.1

(0.1)

11.1

(0.5)

1.2

(0.0)

11.6

(0.4)

(0.3)

8.9
10.0

(0.1)

88.9
100.0

(0.5)

9.0
10.2

(0.0)

88.4
100.0

(0.4)

14

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

Preweaning mortality indicates gilt/sow mothering ability and/or farrowing facility management.
Laid-on and starvation were the most common causes of preweaning death losses, together accounting
for over two-thirds of preweaning deaths. Cause of death did not vary over the time periods. Most other
known problems were listed as low viability pigs (poor-doers, runts, etc.).
b. Percent of preweaning deaths by producer-identified cause, quarter, and by time period:
Percent Preweaning Deaths
Time Period
December 1999 February 2000
Percent

Standard
Error

Scours

9.5

Laid on

51.6

Starvation

March 2000 May 2000
Percent

Standard
Error

(1.4)

9.2

(2.0)

52.6

16.9

(2.2)

Respiratory problem

3.1

Other known problem

11.2
7.7

(0.9)

Producer Identified Cause

Unknown problem
Total

100.0

December 1999 May 2000
Percent

Standard
Error

(1.3)

9.3

(1.4)

(1.9)

52.1

(2.0)

16.6

(2.0)

16.7

(2.1)

(0.5)

2.8

(0.4)

3.0

(0.5)

(1.6)

11.7

(1.6)

11.5

(1.6)

7.1

(0.9)

7.4

(0.9)

100.0

100.0

by Producer identified Cause
Starvation
16.7%

Respiratory problem
3.0%
Other known problem
11.5%
Unknown problem
7 4%

USDA:APHIS:VS

15

Swine 2000

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Weaning
The pig average weaning age and site average weaning age differed, 19.3 days and 28.0 days
respectively. Larger sites, which weaned earlier (17.2 days) accounted for the majority of pigs, whereas
smaller sites, which weaned later (30 days), accounted for the majority of sites. Generally, larger sites
weaned pigs at a younger age than smaller sites, which is why the overall pig average weaning age was
younger than the site average age.
a. Pig average age (in days) of piglets at weaning:
Pig
Average Age
(In Days)

Standard
Error

19.3

(0.2)

b. Site average age (in days) of piglets at weaning by size of site:
Average Age (in Days)
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)

Medium
(250-499)

Average
Age

Standard
Error

Average
Age

Standard
Error

30.0

(0.6)

19.3

(0.3)

Large
(500 or More)
Average
Age

Standard
Error

17.2

(0.2)

All Sites
Average
Age

28.0

Standard
Error

(0.5)

Site Average Age (in Days) of Piglets at
Weaning by Size of Site
Age (in Days)
35
30

30

28

25
20

Swine 2000

19.3

17.2

16

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

c. Percent of sites that weaned pigs at the following ages, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)
Small
(Less than 250)
Weaning Age (In Days)

Less than 16

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(250-499)
Percent

Large
(500 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

2.3

(1.0)

8.8

(2.4)

25.5

(4.6)

4.9

(1.0)

16 - 20

11.2

(1.7)

65.3

(4.0)

67.0

(4.4)

20.3

(1.6)

21 - 27

30.1

(2.7)

20.7

(3.3)

6.3

(1.3)

27.3

(2.2)

28 - 34

22.3

(2.4)

3.3

(1.0)

0.6

(0.3)

18.9

(2.0)

35 or more

34.1

(2.9)

1.9

(0.8)

0.6

(0.4)

28.6

(2.4)

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

d. Percent of weaned pigs by weaning age category:
Weaning Age (In Days)

Percent
Pigs

Standard
Error

Less than 16

15.0

(2.8)

16 - 20

63.9

(3.1)

21 - 27

12.1

(1.2)

28 - 34

4.6

(0.6)

4.4

(0.6)

35 or more
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

17

Swine 2000

C. Nursery Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

C. Nursery Productivity
1. Production phase
a. Percent of sites with a nursery phase, by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Percent

48.5

West Central

Standard
Error

Standard
Error

Percent

(3.5)

59.7

East Central
Percent

(3.3)

Southern

Standard
Error

(2.5)

49.3

All Sites

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

40.5

(2.7)

50.4

Standard
Error

(1.7)

2. Nursery death loss
Nursery mortality is an indication of facility management and/or disease problems.
a. Percent of nursery pigs that died in the nursery phase from December 1999, through May 2000, by size
of site1:
Percent Nursery Pigs
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Percent

2.5
1

Medium
(2,000-9,999)

Standard
Error

Percent

(0.1)

Standard
Error

2.6

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

(0.2)

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

(0.3)

2.6

(0.1)

3.0

As a percentage of pigs that entered the nursery phase during that time frame

Respiratory disease was the greatest cause of nursery mortality. Scours and starvation were also
significant causes of deaths. The majority of other known problems were attributed to Streptococcus
suis and other conditions, such as poor-doers, fighting, and ruptures/hernias. Causes of death did not
vary appreciably by season.
b. Percent of nursery-phase deaths by producer-identified cause, and by time period:
i. Overall.
Percent Nursery Deaths
Time Period
December 1999 February 2000

December 1999 May 2000

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Scours

12.8

(1.3)

12.3

(1.2)

12.6

(1.2)

Starvation

13.4

(1.2)

13.3

(1.1)

13.3

(1.1)

Respiratory problem

28.9

(1.8)

28.6

(1.6)

28.9

(1.7)

Other known problem

23.2

(3.2)

26.0

(3.6)

24.5

(3.4)

21.7

(3.8)

19.8

(3.2)

20.7

(3.5)

Producer-Identified Cause

Unknown problem
Total

Swine 2000

March 2000 May 2000

100.0

18

100.0

100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

C. Nursery Productivity

ii. Percent of nursery-phase deaths by producer-identified cause and by size of site for the six-month
period (December 1999-May 2000):
Percent Nursery Deaths by size of Site
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Percent

Standard
Error

Scours

14.8

(2.0)

Starvation

12.9

Respiratory problem
Other known problem

Producer-identified Cause

Unkown problem
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

Medium
(2,000-9,999)

Large
(10,000 or More)

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

14.1

(1.9)

7.6

(1.9)

12.6

(1.2)

(1.7)

15.4

(1.4)

9.3

(2.8)

13.3

(1.1)

30.9

(2.7)

31.1

(1.9)

22.8

(4.4)

28.9

(1.7)

22.1

(2.5)

21.1

(2.1)

33.5

(12.5)

24.5

(3.4)

19.3

(2.1)

18.3

(2.4)

26.8

(14.3)

20.7

(3.5)

100.0

Percent

100.0

19

100.0

100.0

Swine 2000

C. Nursery Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Age leaving the nursery
The age of pigs leaving the nursery varied depending on type of nursery, climate, other facilities
available, and the management plan of the site. Although weaning age decreased as size of site increased
(see table I.B.2.b), the age of pigs leaving the nursery was similar across size groups.
a. Pig average age (in days) of pigs leaving the nursery:
Pig
Average Age
(In Days)

Standard
Error

63.3

(0.5)

b. Site average age (in days) of pigs leaving the nursery by size of site:
Average Age (in Days)
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Average
Age

61.6

Medium
(2.000-9,999)

Standard
Error

Average
Age

(0.7)

62.6

Large
(10,000 or More)

Standard
Error

Average
Age

(0.5)

Standard
Error

64.6

All Sites
Average
Age

(0.8)

Standard
Error

61.8

(0.6)

Site Average Age (in Days) of Pigs
Leaving the Nursery by Size of Site
Age (in Days)
70

64.6

62.6

61.6

60

61.8

50
40
30
20
10
0
Small (<2,000)
Large (10,000+)
Medium (2,000-9,999)

All Sites
#4404

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

c. Site average of number of days in the nursery by size of site:
Average Days
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)

Medium
(2.000-9,999)

Number of Standard Number of Standard
Days
Error
Days
Error

36.2

Swine 2000

(0.8)

44.2

(0.5)

Large
(10,000 or More)

All Sites

Number of
Days

Standard
Error

Number of
Days

Standard
Error

45.9

(1.2)

37.6

(0.6)

20

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

C. Nursery Productivity

Mortality in the grower/finisher phase of production can contribute to a serious economic loss to the site,
due to feed costs incurred in older, larger pigs. During the period from December 1, 1999, through May
31, 2000, 2.9 percent of pigs died in the grower/finisher units, a similar death rate as for nursery pigs
(2.6 percent). Percent of death losses increased with site size.

P

USDA:APHIS:VS

Percent of Grower/finisher Pigs that Died
in the Grower/finisher Phase
(December 1999 through May 2000)
by Size of Site
t

21

Swine 2000

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

Respiratory problems were the most common cause of death in grower/finisher units (39.1 percent) from
D
.
December 1999, through May 2000. During that time, 18.3 percent of grower/finisher pigs died from
G unknown problems. Other known problems were attributed to hemmorrhagic bowel syndrome, ilietis,
r
prolapses and ulcers.
o
w
er/finisher Productivity

1. Production phase
a. Percent of sites with a grower/finisher phase by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern

West Central

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

83.8

(2.6)

84.4

(2.4)

East Central
Percent

89.4

Southern

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

(1.4)

63.3

(2.6)

Percent

Standard
Error

85.5

(1.1)

2. Grower/finisher death loss

a. Percent
isher pigs
grower/finfrom De1999,

Percent of Grower/finisher Deaths
(December 1999 - May 2000)
by Producer-identified Cause

of grower/finthat died in the
isher phase
cember 1,
through
Ma
1
by size of site :

Other known problem
14.2%

Stress
6.7%

Unknown problem
18.3%

Percent Grower/finisher Pigs
Small
(Less than 2,000)

Medium
(2.000-9,999)

y 31, 2000,

Large
(10,000 or More)

Size of

All Sites
Percent

2.4
1

(0.1)

3.0

(0.1)

3.7

As a

(0.2)

2.9

(0.1)
percentage

of pigs that en-

tered the

grower/finisher

phase dur-

ing that time

frame.

Swine 2000

22

USDA:APHIS:VS

Standard
Error

Per

Section I: Population Estimates

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

Days to market are a measure of growth rate, feed efficiency, and target market weights (Market-weight
data were not collected in this study). Sites varied in average time to market, with the most common
times ranging from 166 to 180 days. The largest percentage of grower/finisher pigs was on sites that
marketed at 181 to 209 days. However, time to market may vary among pigs on the same farm.

b. Percent of grower/finisher deaths by producer-identified cause from December 1, 1999, through
May 31, 2000:

Producer-identified Cause

Percent

Standard
Error

Scours

5.3

(2.0)

Lameness

8.4

(0.8)

Injury or trauma
Respiratory problem
Stress

8.0

(0.5)

39.1

(2.0)

6.7

(0.6)

Other known problem

14.2

(1.5)

Unknown problem

18.3

(1.4)

Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

23

Swine 2000

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Days to market

average
days) of
leaving
grower/f
unit:

a. Pig
age (in
all pigs
the
inisher

Age
15.1
12.4

Less than 160 days

Pig Average
Age (in Days)

11.4
8.9

160 - 165 days

Standard
Error

166 -180 days

37

177.6

23.3

181 - 209 days

average
days) of
leaving
grower/f
unit, by
site:

Percent Sites
Percent Pigs

44.2

37.1

6
4.6

210 or more days
0

10

20

30

40

50

#4407

Percent

b. Site
age (in
pigs
the
inisher
size of

Average Age (in Days)
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)

Swine 2000

Medium
(2.000-9,999)

Average
Age

Standard
Error

Average
Age

175.8

(1.0)

176.2

Standard
Error

(1.0)

Large
(10,000 or More)
Average
Age

187.0

24

Standard
Error

(1.9)

All Sites
Average
Age

Standard
Error

176.0

(0.8)

USDA:APHIS:VS

(1.

Section I: Population Estimates

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

c. Percent of sites (and grower/finisher pigs on these sites) by age (in days) leaving the grower/finisher unit:

Age (in Days)

Percent
Sites

Standard
Error

Percent
Pigs

Standard
Errors

Less than 160

15.1

(1.5)

12.4

(1.4)

160-165

11.4

(1.1)

8.9

(0.9)

166-180

44.2

(2.0)

37.0

(2.1)

181-209

23.3

(1.7)

37.1

(2.4)

210 or more

6.0

(1.0)

4.6

(0.8)

Total

100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

25

Swine 2000

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

Total confinement was the most common type of facility for all phases, except gestation. Nearly 65
percent of farrowing sites had total confinement units, and 75.9 percent of nurseries had total
confinement facilities.

E. Facility Management - All Phases
1. Production Phases

Large percentages of sows were farrowed in total confinement facilities (83.4 percent), while 81.8
percent of pigs were placed in total confinement nurseries. Only 1.3 percent of sows were farrowed
outside from December 1999, through May 2000.
Swine sites varied in their production phases, with some
doing all (farrow through finish) and others carrying out
a single phase of production, such as farrowing or
grower/finisher only. Swine production sites in the
Southern region were more segmented/specialized.

a. Percent of sites with the following production phases, by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Production Phase Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

East Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

Gestation

50.2

(3.5)

65.9

(3.1)

50.5

(2.5)

42.6

(2.7)

52.6

(1.7)

Farrowing

50.1

(3.5)

66.2

(3.1)

50.6

(2.5)

43.5

(2.7)

52.8

(1.7)

Nursery

48.5

(3.5)

59.7

(3.3)

49.3

(2.5)

40.5

(2.7)

50.4

(1.7)

Grower/finisher

83.8

(2.6)

84.4

(2.4)

89.4

(1.4)

63.3

(2.6)

85.5

(1.1)

b. Percent of sites with the following combinations of production phases, by region:

Swine 2000

26

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Production Phase Percent

West Central

Stan.
Error

Percent

East Central

Stan.
Error

Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

All four phases

31.4

(3.3)

43.1

(3.4)

34.7

(2.5)

18.4

(2.8)

34.4

(1.6)

Gestation,
farrowing, and
nursery

7.1

(2.1)

4.2

(1.6)

3.3

(0.7)

7.2

(2.0)

4.5

(0.7)

Nursery and
grower/finisher

5.3

(1.2)

7.3

(1.5)

8.1

(1.0)

0.2

(0.2)

6.8

(0.6)

Gestation and
farrowing

4.6

(1.5)

6.5

(1.6)

3.7

(1.0)

14.2

(1.5)

5.1

(0.7)

Nursery only

4.2

(1.1)

3.7

(0.7)

2.8

(0.7)

14.4

(1.6)

4.1

(0.5)

39.9

(3.5)

21.5

(2.9)

37.5

(2.5)

41.9

(2.4)

35.5

(1.6)

7.5

(3.0)

13.7

(3.0)

9.9

(1.9)

3.7

(0.6)

9.6

(1.3)

Grower/finisher
only
Other
combination
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Percent of Sites* with All-in/all-out
Management by Production Phase
Percent Sites*
40
32.3

32.3

Management Style

30
25.224.7

24.4

All-in/all-out by room
All-in/all-out by building
All-in/all-out by site

20
12 2

USDA:APHIS:VS

27

Swine 2000

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

2
. Facility type

a. For sites that had the specified production phases, percent of sites by type of facility used most in the
following phases:
Percent Sites
Production Phase
Gestation
Facility Type

Percent

Total confinement (mechanical
ventilation)

Farrowing

Standard
Error

22.4

Percent

(1.6)

64.8

Nursery

Standard
Error

(2.5)

Grower/finisher

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

75.9

(2.1)

42.9

(1.8)

Percent

Open building with no outside access

13.9

(1.9)

12.2

(1.8)

8.2

(1.3)

18.2

(1.4)

Open building with outside access

45.2

(2.5)

17.0

(2.2)

12.3

(1.7)

33.2

(2.0)

Lot with hut or no building

10.3

(1.4)

3.4

(0.9)

1.7

(0.5)

4.4

(0.8)

8.2

(1.4)

2.6

(0.9)

1.9

(0.9)

1.3

(0.5)

Pasture with hut or no building
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Percent of Pigs on Sites* with All-in/all-out
Management by Production Phase
sites
the
d
on
perce
pigs
of
used
the
g

Swine 2000

Percent Pigs*

80
67

Management Style

60
43 6

44 4

28

All-in/all-out by room

b. For
that had
specifie
producti
phases,
nt of
by type
facility
most in
followin
phases:

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Percent Pigs
Production Phase

Multiple site production involves moving pigs to a separate site/location between three phases of
production: farrowing, nursery, and grower/finisher.
Gestation1
Facility Type

Total confinement

Percent

Farrowing1

Standard
Error

Percent

Nursery2

Standard
Error

Percent

Grower/finisher3

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

64.2

(3.9)

83.4

(4.0)

81.8

(4.5)

69.9

(2.0)

Open building with no outside access

16.4

(4.1)

12.4

(4.1)

15.9

(4.5)

19.7

(1.7)

Open building with outside access

14.7

(1.6)

2.9

(0.5)

1.7

(0.3)

9.2

(0.8)

2.8

(0.4)

0.6

(0.2)

0.3

(0.1)

0.8

(0.2)

1.9

(0.4)

0.7

(0.3)

0.3

(0.2)

0.4

(0.2)

Lot with hut or no building
Pasture with hut or no building
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1 Percent sows/gilts farrowed from December 1999 - May 2000.
2 Percent pigs entering nursery from December 1999 - May 2000.
3 Percent pigs entering grower/finisher phase from December 1999 - May 2000.

Segregated early weaning (SEW) is a disease control management strategy that includes moving
early-weaned pigs (20 days or less) to a separate site. Larger sites were more likely to practice SEW
than smaller sites.

USDA:APHIS:VS

29

Swine 2000

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Pig flow
For SEW to be an effective disease control tool, there must be strict adherence to specific principles, such as
weaning at an early age when protective antibodies are still present. Defining SEW sites by maximum
weaning age may provide a more realistic disease control picture than estimates by overall weaning age.

All-in/all-out and continuous flow are two management methods of pig flow on swine sites. All-in/all-out
management means that every animal is removed from a room, building, or site that is cleaned and
disinfected prior to placing new animals in the facility. For nursery units, all-in/all-out management was
practiced most often by building or room.
a. For sites that had the specified production phase, percent of sites that managed pig flow by management
style and production phase:

Percent of Sites* Where the Maximum Age of
Weaning was 20 Days or Less of Age and Pigs
Were Removed to a Separate Site Nursery
by Size of Site
Percent Sites*
50

40.8

40
30
20

16.5

10

4.7

3.1
0

Swine 2000

30

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Percent Sites
Production Phase
Gestation
Management Style

Continuous flow
All swine removed without cleaning
and disinfecting
All-in/all-out management by room
All-in/all-out management by building

Percent

Farrowing

Standard
Error

Percent

Nursery

Standard
Error

Percent

Grower/finisher

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

71.4

(2.2)

38.7

(2.5)

32.3

(2.3)

40.5

(2.0)

4.2

(1.0)

5.8

(1.4)

3.9

(1.2)

3.2

(0.7)

5.5

(0.7)

25.2

(1.7)

24.4

(1.6)

10.7

(0.9)

12.2

(1.8)

24.7

(2.2)

32.3

(2.1)

32.3

(1.7)

All-in/all-out management by site

1.6

(0.6)

1.2

(0.5)

3.5

(0.7)

10.7

(1.1)

Not applicable

5.1

(1.0)

4.4

(1.2)

3.6

(1.1)

2.6

(0.7)

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Percent of Sites* (and Percent of Pigs Entering the
Grower/finisher Units) that Brought any Pigs into the
Grower/finisher Phase During the Previous 6 Months
that Originated from the Following Sources
51.4
28.7

s

13.1

Percent sites*
Percent pigs

24.1

USDA:APHIS:VS

31

Swine 2000

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

Feeder pig producers, both contract and noncontract, provided 40.8 percent of pigs for the
grower/finisher units. Off-site farrowing and nursery units accounted for over half (54.0 percent) of pigs
placed on larger sites.
b. For sites that had the specified production phase, percent of pigs on sites that managed pig flow by
management style and production phase:
Percent Pigs
Production Phase
Gestation1
Management Style

Continuous flow

Percent

Farrowing1

Standard
Error

Percent

Nursery2

Standard
Error

Percent

Grower/finisher3

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

81.0

(2.0)

17.6

(1.9)

11.1

(1.4)

14.9

(1.1)

All swine removed without cleaning
and disinfecting

1.1

(0.2)

2.1

(0.6)

0.8

(0.2)

1.5

(0.3)

All-in/all-out management by room

10.4

(1.5)

67.0

(2.7)

35.3

(4.0)

14.8

(1.4)

6.0

(1.0)

11.7

(1.4)

43.6

(4.5)

44.4

(3.0)

All-in/all-out management by
building
All-in/all-out management by site

0.5

(0.2)

0.7

(0.2)

8.5

(1.8)

23.8

(2.3)

Not applicable

1.0

(0.3)

0.9

(0.3)

0.7

(0.3)

0.6

(0.2)

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Many sites utilized more than one source to obtain pigs to place in grower/finisher units. This practice
varied with size of site. Using different sources can present a disease risk, particularly when pigs
are commingled.
1 Percent sows/gilts farrowed from December 1999 - May 2000.
2 Percent pigs entering nursery from December1999 - May 2000.
3 Percent pigs entering grower/finisher phase from December 1999 - May 2000.

Swine 2000

32

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

D. Grower/finisher Productivity

c. Multiple site production
i. For sites that had the specified production phase(s), percent of sites that removed pigs from the
following phases to a separate site, by size of site:

Percent of Sites* that Commingled (in the
Same Building) Feeder Pigs from
Different Sources by Size of Site
Percent Sites*
60

55.8

50
43.2
40

35.6

37.7

30
20
10

USDA:APHIS:VS

33

Swine 2000

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

Percent Sites

Types of waste management varied among regions. Overall, a mechanical scraper was the most
common method used during the gestation phase (32.5 percent of sites), particularly in the Northern and
East Central regions, where half the sites used open buildings with outside access for gestation. On
several sites, particularly in the Western and Southern regions, no waste management method was used
during the gestation phase, as gestation facilities were located on a lot or pasture. The pit-recharge
system (shallow pits, pit plugs) was the most frequent “other” waste management system cited.
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Phase

Percent

Medium
(2,000-9,999)

Standard
Error

Percent

Large
(10,000 or More)

Standard
Error

Percent

All Sites

Standard
Error

Standard
Error

Percent

From farrowing to separate nursery
site

35.1

(2.6)

45.3

(3.1)

74.9

(4.9)

36.4

(2.4)

From nursery to separate
grower/finisher site

48.3

(2.7)

57.1

(2.4)

77.8

(4.1)

50.0

(2.3)

Both from farrowing to separated
nursery and from nursery to separate
grower/finisher site

38.4

(3.4)

39.0

(3.7)

81.1

(4.5)

39.0

(3.0)

ii. For sites with a farrowing phase, percent of sites (and pigs weaned on these sites) that both weaned
pigs at an average age of 20 days or less, and removed pigs to a separate site nursery, by size of site:

Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)

Measure
Sites
Pigs Weaned

Percent

Medium
(2,000-9,999)

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

9.3

(1.4)

38.0

(3.1)

68.2

(5.6)

12.7

(1.3)

28.8

(3.4)

64.1

(4.4)

86.7

(5.1)

55.7

(3.5)

iii. For sites with a farrowing phase, percent of sites (and pigs weaned at these sites) where the maximum
age of weaning was 20 days or less and pigs were removed to a separate site nursery, by size of site:

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Swine 2000

34

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

E. Facility Management - All Phases

Small
(Less than 2,000)

Measure
Sites
Pigs Weaned

USDA:APHIS:VS

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(2,000-9,999)
Percent

Standard
Error

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

3.1

(0.7)

16.5

(2.4)

40.8

(8.6)

4.7

(0.7)

12.1

(2.5)

24.9

(5.3)

30.9

(11.8)

21.4

(3.5)

35

Swine 2000

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination

Section I: Population Estimates

4.
For the grower/finisher phase, the most common waste management system used was pit-holding
Sources
(47.1 percent of sites). Just over 4 percent of sites with a grower/finisher phase used no waste
of pigs
management methods.
entering
the
grower/finisher phase
Pigs enter the grower/finisher phase of production from several sources. Overall, on-site farrowing or
nursery units were the most common sources of pigs for grower/finisher units (51.4 percent).
Medium-sized sites relied most heavily on feeder pig producers. Larger sites utilized off-site farrowing or
nursery units more than smaller sites. Sow cooperatives and various other arrangements accounted for
other sources of pigs.
a. For sites with a grower/finisher phase, percent of sites that brought any pigs into the grower/finisher
phase during the previous 6 months that originated from the following sources, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Less than 2,000
Source

Percent

Standard
Error

2,000-9,999
Percent

10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

On-site farrowing or nursery units

54.8

(2.2)

32.4

(2.0)

34.8

(5.7)

51.4

(1.9)

Off-site farrowing or nursery units
belonging to this operation

11.8

(1.5)

18.2

(1.8)

40.9

(6.9)

13.1

(1.3)

Feeder pig producer(s) (both contract
& noncontract)

24.8

(1.8)

47.1

(2.3)

27.0

(4.4)

28.0

(1.6)

Auction, sale barn, or livestock
market

4.2

(1.0)

0.4

(0.2)

0.0

(--)

3.6

(0.9)

Other

7.5

(1.4)

6.3

(1.3)

0.9

(0.8)

7.2

Swine 2000

36

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates
D. Grower/finisher Productivity

b. Percent of pigs that entered the grower/finisher phase during the previous 6 months that originated from
the following sources, by size of site:
Percent Pigs
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Less than 2,000
Source

Percent

2,000-9,999

Standard
Error

Percent

10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Pigs
Percent

Standard
Error

On-site farrowing or nursery units

41.4

(2.0)

24.0

(3.0)

18.9

(4.4)

28.7

(2.0)

Off-site farrowing or nursery units
belonging to this operation

12.3

(1.4)

18.6

(3.0)

54.0

(8.7)

24.1

(3.3)

Feeder pig producer(s) (both contract
& noncontract)

35.2

(2.1)

51.8

(3.1)

26.1

(5.7)

40.8

(2.2)

Auction, sale barn, or livestock market

2.0

(0.6)

0.1

(0.0)

0.0

(--)

0.7

(0.2)

9.1

(1.6)

5.5

(1.1)

1.0

(0.9)

5.7

(0.8)

Other
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

c. For sites that obtained pigs from off-site units or feeder pig producers, percent of sites by reported
number of sources and by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Number of Sources

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(2,000-9,999)
Percent

Standard
Error

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

1

81.7

(2.6)

60.9

(2.8)

39.6

(7.8)

76.1

(2.1)

2

13.3

(2.2)

24.1

(2.2)

38.3

(9.3)

16.3

(1.8)

3

3.3

(1.2)

10.4

(1.8)

14.6

(4.8)

5.1

(1.0)

4-5

0.9

(0.5)

2.6

(0.7)

5.8

(4.2)

1.4

(0.4)

6 or more

0.8

(0.7)

2.0

(0.5)

1.7

(0.8)

1.1

(0.6)

Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

100.0

37

100.0

100.0

Swine 2000

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

d. For sites that obtained pigs from off-site units or feeder pig producers, average number of sources, by
size of site:
Average Number of Sources
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Less than 2,000
Number

1.3

2,000-9,999

Standard
Error

(0.1)

Number

10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Number

Standard
Error

(0.1)

2.0

(0.1)

1.7

All Sites
Number

Standard
Error

1.4

(0.0)

e. For sites that received feeder pigs from more than one source (off-site units or feeder pig producers),
percent of sites that commingled pigs from different sources in the same building, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Percent

35.6

Swine 2000s

Standard
Error

(7.2)

Medium
(2,000-9,999)
Percent

55.8

Standard
Error

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

(4.1)

37.7

38

Standard
Error

(10.3)

All Sites
Percent

43.2

Standard
Error

(4.5)

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates
D. Grower/finisher Productivity

5. Waste management

a. For sites that had a gestation phase, percent of sites by type of waste management system used most in
the gestation facility, by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Waste Management System

Pit-holding

Percent

23.9

Stan.
Error

(4.1)

West Central
Percent

14.6

Stan.
Error

East Central
Percent

(2.8)

Stan.
Error

20.3

Southern
Percent

(2.3)

14.6

Stan.
Error

(2.4)

All Sites
Percent

19.4

Stan.
Error

(1.6)

Mechanical scraper/tractor

41.3

(5.8)

10.1

(2.1)

41.9

(3.9)

3.7

(0.8)

32.5

(2.6)

Hand cleaned

14.6

(3.3)

20.0

(3.8)

21.2

(3.4)

12.0

(4.3)

19.1

(2.1)

3.9

(1.0)

5.8

(1.0)

3.3

(0.6)

37.2

(4.3)

5.9

(0.5)

Flush-under slats
Flush-open gutter

1.7

(1.3)

3.0

(0.9)

0.7

(0.3)

7.8

(1.4)

1.8

(0.4)

Other

5.3

(2.9)

12.4

(3.2)

6.1

(1.7)

2.7

(0.6)

7.2

(1.3)

9.3

(2.8)

34.1

(4.2)

6.5

(1.5)

22.0

(5.9)

14.1

(1.5)

None
Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Swine 2000 Study Regions
Northern

East

USDA:APHIS:VS

39

Swine 2000

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

For the farrowing phase, a holding pit and hand cleaning were commonly used waste management
Over 78 percent of sites were visited by a veterinarian for some purpose during the year prior to the
Swine 2000 study. Larger sites commonly used an on-staff veterinarian, followed by a local practitioner.
Smaller sites used a local practitioner or none at all. During the previous year, 7.6 percent of sites were
visited by a state or federal Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO). VMOs visited a higher proportion of
larger sites than smaller sites.
systems. In Southern states, flush under slats predominated.
b. For sites that had a farrowing phase, percent of sites by type of waste management system used most in
the farrowing facility, by region:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Waste Management System

Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

East Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

Pit-holding

37.3

(5.1)

22.6

(3.2)

40.9

(3.5)

16.0

(2.4)

34.7

(2.2)

Mechanical scraper/tractor

19.9

(5.8)

6.5

(1.7)

14.2

(3.1)

3.3

(0.8)

13.0

(2.1)

Hand cleaned

26.2

(5.1)

30.7

(4.3)

21.0

(3.6)

10.1

(3.0)

23.6

(2.3)

Flush-under slats

10.5

(2.5)

17.8

(3.0)

12.7

(2.1)

45.9

(4.9)

15.3

(1.4)

Flush-open gutter

4.2

(1.7)

4.2

(1.8)

4.6

(1.9)

4.6

(1.1)

4.4

(1.1)

3.6

(0.9)

5.4

(1.1)

Over one-third (34.5 percent) of sites had a local practitioner visit at least three times a year.
Other
None
Total

0.4

(0.3)

1.5

(0.8)

100.0

6.6

(2.6)

11.6

(2.8)

100.0

3.7

(1.3)

2.9

(1.5)

100.0

1.7

(0.5)

18.4

(5.9)

100.0

100.0

A holding pit was the predominant waste management system used for the nursery phase in all but the
Southern region, where flush under slats was the most commonly used method.
c. For sites that had a nursery phase, percent of sites by type of waste management system used most in
the nursery facility, by region:

Swine 2000

40

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates
D. Grower/finisher Productivity

Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Waste Management System

Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

East Central
Percent

Southern

Stan.
Error

Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

Pit-holding

53.2

(4.8)

31.2

(3.7)

62.3

(3.5)

18.7

(2.6)

51.6

(2.3)

Mechanical scraper/tractor

13.7

(3.8)

10.4

(2.5)

9.9

(2.4)

2.4

(0.7)

10.4

(1.6)

Hand cleaned

17.3

(4.3)

21.9

(4.2)

8.0

(2.5)

10.5

(4.5)

12.9

(1.8)

Flush-under slats

9.8

(2.0)

21.2

(2.9)

12.2

(1.9)

46.6

(5.1)

15.5

(1.3)

Flush-open gutter

4.4

(1.8)

3.6

(1.8)

0.8

(0.3)

3.3

(0.9)

2.3

(0.6)

Other

0.6

(0.3)

4.8

(2.4)

1.6

(0.8)

1.7

(0.4)

2.0

(0.7)

None

1.0

(0.6)

6.9

(2.2)

5.2

(1.9)

16.8

(6.4)

5.3

(1.2)

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Percent of Sites that Used a Veterinarian’s Services
for the Following Purposes
Purpose
62.6

Drugs, medications, or vaccines

58

Ind'l treatment/surgery/diagnostics

USDA:APHIS:VS

41

Swine 2000

G. Biosecurity

Section I: Population Estimates

Biosecurity to prevent introduction of disease into a swine site is an effective management practice.
About two-thirds of sites restricted entry to the premises to employees only. Smaller sites generally were
more restrictive regarding entry by visitors than larger sites.

d. For
sites that
had a
grower/finisher phase, percent of sites by type of waste management system used

most, by region:

Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Waste Management System

Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central

East Central

Stan.
Error

Percent

Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

Pit-holding

59.9

(4.2)

33.6

(3.4)

48.3

(2.8)

27.7

(2.5)

47.1

(1.9)

Mechanical scraper/tractor

28.0

(4.3)

18.5

(2.9)

33.7

(2.9)

4.1

(0.7)

28.4

(2.0)

Although larger sites were more apt to allow non-employees on site, they were nevertheless more likely
to require special sanitation procedures prior to entry. Overall, 52.1 percent of sites required clean boots
and coveralls, and 23.6 percent required a 24-hour “no-swine-contact” period prior to entering the
premises. Only 9.3 percent of sites required showers prior to entry.
Hand cleaned
Flush-under slats
Flush-open gutter

5.6

(1.7)

14.2

(3.1)

9.9

(2.0)

0.5

(0.2)

Waste Management System

7.7

Other

1.8

(0.9)

8.2

None

2.0

(1.0)
Pit-holding

10.9

(1.7)

1.4

(2.3)

2.2

19.4

34.7

(2.5)

2.3

(0.8)

(0.8)
(1.0)
51.6

47.1

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

32.5

13
10.4

Mechanical scraper/tractor

28.4
19.1

Hand cleaned
9.6
5.9

Flush-under slats
5.1

Flush-open gutter

Swine 2000

6.6

(2.9)

Percent
of Sites*6.9by Type
of Waste
Management
System
2.2
(0.5)
(1.2)
2.2
(0.4)
44.5
(3.4)
Used Most by Production Phase

12.9

9.6

(1.3)

5.1

(0.4)

2.5

(0.5)

4.4

(1.1)

1.7

(0.4)

3.1

(0.6)

11.0Gestation
(3.5)

4.2

(0.8)

Farrowing

100.0Nursery

100.0

Grower/finisher

23.6

15.3
15.5

1.8
4.4
2.3
2.5

42

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases
1. Disease prevention
Nearly all swine sites practiced some type of disease prevention strategy. The most common preventive
measure taken for piglets was to administer iron, though this was less likely to be done on smaller
operations or where pigs farrow outside. For weaned, growing pigs, antibiotics in the feed and
deworming were the primary treatments.
a. For sites with the specified pig type, percent of sites reporting regular use of preventive practices from
December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000, by pig type:
Percent Sites
Pig Type
Piglets Before or
at Weaning
Practice

Percent

Standard
Error

Pigs from Weaning
to Market
Percent

Standard
Error

Sows/Gilts
Percent

Boars

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Deworm

31.8

(2.3)

56.3

(1.7)

83.0

(1.9)

76.8

(2.1)

Mange/lice treatment

29.0

(2.2)

37.5

(1.8)

67.9

(2.3)

65.0

(2.3)

Iron (oral or injection)

75.4

(2.2)

N/A

(--)

N/A

(--)

N/A

(--)

Antibiotics (injection)

44.2

(2.3)

44.3

(1.8)

38.5

(2.4)

25.6

(2.0)

Antibiotics in feed

56.1

(2.4)

80.1

(1.5)

43.5

(2.5)

33.6

(2.4)

Antibiotics in water

10.7

(1.3)

26.6

(1.4)

2.5

(0.6)

2.5

(0.6)

Antibiotics (oral)

14.6

(1.7)

6.6

(1.0)

3.2

(0.8)

1.9

(0.6)

USDA:APHIS:VS

43

Swine 2000

G. Biosecurity

Section I: Population Estimates

b. Percent of animals on sites reporting regular use of preventative practices from December 1, 1999,
through May 31, 2000, by pig type:

Percent Pigs
Pig Type
Piglets
Practice

Percent

1.

2.

Sows/Gilts3.

Pigs

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Percent

Boars4.

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

Deworm

13.7

(1.6)

28.4

(1.8)

83.1

(2.3)

70.3

(8.0)

Mange/lice treatment

12.0

(1.4)

15.5

(1.3)

36.9

(2.9)

46.6

(5.8)

Iron (oral or injection)

90.6

(2.2)

N/A

(--)

N/A

(--)

N/A

(--)

Antibiotics in feed

37.6

(3.4)

87.6

(1.5)

51.3

(3.7)

28.0

(3.9)

Antibiotics in water

18.1

(4.3)

61.5

(2.2)

3.0

(0.7)

1.9

(0.6)

Antibiotics (oral)

25.1

(4.1)

8.6

(1.1)

2.4

(0.6)

1.7

(0.6)

Antibiotics (injection)

69.1

(2.8)

69.7

(1.9)

62.8

(3.2)

43.6

(6.8)

1. Percent of pigs weaned December 1999-May 2000
2. Percent of June 1, 2000, market pig inventory
3. Percent of June 1, 2000, sow and gilt inventory
4. Percent of June 1, 2000, boar inventory

Percent of Sites by Distance to the Nearest
Known Swine Site
5.0 or more miles
8.9%
3.0 - 4.99 miles
9.3%

Less than 0.25 miles
5.2%
0.25 - 0.49 miles
23.1%

1.0 - 2.99 miles

Swine 2000

44

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases

2. Vaccination
About three-fourths of sites routinely administered one or more vaccines against the common diseases of
swine. Mycoplasma vaccine was the most frequently used vaccine in large and medium sites. Over 28
percent of all sites regularly administered vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory virus
(PRRS). The use of swine influenza virus (SIV) vaccine was underestimated because over 7 percent of
respondents did not know the specific type of SIV vaccine used. Pseudorabies was the most commonly
cited “other” disease for which vaccine was used. Streptococcus and salmonella were also mentioned.
a. Percent of sites that regularly used vaccinations against the following diseases, regardless of age of pigs,
by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Disease

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome (PRRS)

27.3

(1.8)

33.5

(1.9)

31.7

(4.4)

28.3

(1.6)

Erysipelas

51.1

(2.1)

42.1

(2.0)

37.5

(5.0)

49.5

(1.8)

Escherichia coli scours

36.7

(2.1)

33.7

(1.8)

33.4

(4.8)

36.2

(1.8)

Parvovirus

48.1

(2.1)

37.5

(1.9)

38.3

(5.3)

46.3

(1.8)

Leptospirosis

49.7

(2.1)

37.9

(1.9)

42.0

(5.2)

47.8

(1.8)

New swine influenza (H3N2)

6.0

(0.8)

26.0

(1.9)

37.7

(7.1)

9.6

(0.8)

Traditional swine influenza (H1N1)

8.0

(1.1)

25.2

(1.9)

40.5

(6.8)

11.1

(1.0)

Rhinitis (Pasteurella, Bordetella)

37.5

(2.1)

25.0

(1.6)

13.9

(3.1)

35.2

(1.7)

Mycoplasma (pneumonia)

33.0

(1.9)

59.1

(2.0)

62.9

(5.2)

37.5

(1.6)

Other diseases

23.2

(1.8)

32.8

(2.0)

15.3

(3.3)

24.6

(1.5)

Any vaccine

74.8

(1.8)

81.9

(1.6)

86.3

(3.3)

76.0

(1.5)

Percent of Sites that Regularly Used Vaccinations
Against the Following Diseases
(Regardless of Age of Pigs)

Disease

49.5

Erysipelas

USDA:APHIS:VS

45

Swine 2000

H. General Management

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Use of a veterinarian

a. Percent of sites where a veterinarian visited for any purpose during the previous 12 months, by type of
veterinarian and by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Type of Veterinarian

Percent

Local practitioner

Standard
Error

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

69.2

(1.8)

57.5

(1.9)

37.3

(5.3)

66.9

(1.5)

Consulting practitioner

8.3

(1.0)

21.0

(1.6)

24.5

(4.4)

10.5

(0.9)

On-staff veterinarian

4.7

(0.8)

33.4

(1.8)

62.9

(5.9)

9.9

(0.8)

State or Federal veterinarian

6.5

(1.2)

12.0

(1.2)

20.7

(5.4)

7.6

(1.0)

Other

1.2

(0.4)

4.0

(1.0)

12.3

(7.0)

1.8

(0.4)

Any

75.4

(1.6)

90.7

(0.8)

97.9

(0.8)

78.1

(1.3)

Percent
where a
rian
for any
by
of visits
during
s 12
and by
veterinari

Swine 2000

Percent of Sites that Conducted Environmental
Sampling in the Previous 3 Years by Number and
Type of Tests Conducted
Percent Sites
100

15

21.1

3.9
3.6
92.5

22.9
11.6

75

67.3
62.1

50

46

Number Tests
2 or More
1
0

b.
of sites
veterina
visited
purpose,
number
made
the
previou
months
type of
an:

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

F. Disease Prevention and Vaccination - All Phases

Percent Sites
Number Visits
0

1

2

3-4

Type of Veterinarian Percent

Stan.
Error

Percent

Stan.
Error

Stan. ErPercent
ror
Percent

Local practitioner

33.1

(1.5)

19.1

(1.6)

13.3

(1.2)

Consulting
practitioner

89.5

(0.9)

3.6

(0.6)

2.3

On-staff
veterinarian

90.0

(0.8)

4.3

(0.5)

1.5

5-6

7 or More

Stan. Error
Percent

Stan.
Error

Total

Stan.
Error

Percent

10.6

(1.1)

11.0

(1.3)

12.9

(1.1)

100.0

(0.4)

2.2

(0.3)

0.7

(0.2)

1.7

(0.3)

100.0

(0.3)

1.7

(0.3)

0.6

(0.1)

1.9

(0.4)

100.0

Percent

State or Federal
veterinarian

92.4

(1.0)

4.8

(0.9)

1.5

(0.4)

0.6

(0.2)

0.2

(0.1)

0.5

(0.1)

100.0

Other

98.2

(0.4)

0.4

(0.2)

0.1

(0.1)

0.5

(0.2)

0.1

(0.0)

0.7

(0.3)

100.0

Any veterinarians

21.9

(1.3)

19.5

(1.5)

15.7

(1.3)

12.4

(1.1)

11.1

(1.2)

19.4

(1.3)

100.0

The service most often furnished by veterinarians was traditional medical care, such as providing drugs,
vaccines, diagnostic assistance, and treatment. Non-traditional veterinary services, such as production
record analysis, quality assurance, and environmental consultation were also utilized. Blood testing was
the most commonly reported “other service.”
c. For sites that had at least one veterinary visit during the previous 12 months, percent of sites that used a
veterinarian’s services for the following purposes:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Purpose

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Individual pig treatment or surgery,
including diagnostic services

57.0

(2.5)

62.3

(2.0)

62.6

(5.2)

58.0

(2.1)

Nutritional consultation

14.9

(1.7)

22.6

(1.9)

28.8

(4.7)

16.6

(1.4)

Vaccination consultation

42.9

(2.4)

55.8

(2.1)

68.3

(4.8)

45.6

(2.0)

9.9

(1.4)

20.0

(1.9)

30.6

(5.5)

12.1

(1.2)

60.7

(2.5)

68.6

(2.2)

87.6

(2.5)

62.6

(2.0)

Environmental consultation
Providing drugs, medications, or
vaccines
Providing nutrient premixes

5.0

(1.0)

7.3

(0.9)

7.4

(2.1)

5.5

(0.8)

Slaughter checks

6.6

(1.0)

23.3

(1.6)

34.3

(4.9)

10.1

(0.9)

Artificial insemination, breeding
evaluations

5.4

(1.0)

12.8

(1.4)

22.5

(6.3)

7.1

(0.9)

Production record analysis

7.6

(1.2)

30.0

(1.9)

54.2

(5.6)

12.4

(1.1)

Employee training/education

5.0

(1.0)

21.0

(1.7)

51.4

(5.9)

8.7

(0.9)

Quality assurance

28.9

(2.2)

55.2

(2.2)

87.2

(2.8)

34.7

(1.8)

Other

23.1

(2.3)

15.5

(1.5)

6.4

(1.6)

21.5

(1.9)

USDA:APHIS:VS

47

Swine 2000

H. General Management

Section I: Population Estimates

55.9
12.7
12.1

Renderer pick up off operation

15.4
12.7

Composting
2
1.8

Other

0

25

50

75

Percent Deaths

#4419

G. Biosecurity
1. Restrictions for entry
Several types of records can be maintained on swine sites. Most sites kept records measuring breeding
productivity, feed intake, and drug usage. Approximately one-third of sites did not have breeding
animals. Of those sites with breeding animals, 76.2 percent kept breeding records.
a. Percent of sites where entry to swine facilities was restricted to employees only, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Percent

65.8

Standard
Error

(2.0)

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

65.0

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

(1.7)

46.4

Standard
Error

(6.1)

All Sites
Percent

65.5

Standard
Error

(1.7)

b. For sites that did not restrict entry to employees only, percent of sites where visitors were required to
take the following measures, by size of site:

Swine 2000

48

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

G. Biosecurity

Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Preventive Measure

Shower before entering site

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

4.1

(1.1)

30.0

(2.7)

57.7

(7.4)

9.3

(1.2)

Change to clean boots and coveralls

43.2

(3.5)

92.3

(1.2)

98.3

(1.3)

52.1

(3.0)

Wait 24 hours or longer after visiting
another swine site

15.3

(2.0)

60.5

(2.8)

71.8

(6.8)

23.6

(1.9)

USDA:APHIS:VS

49

Swine 2000

A. Needs Assessment
Section I: Population Estimates

2. Trucking
Outside trucks entering the site can be a serious biosecurity risk. Overall, 56.8 percent of sites allowed
trucks to enter the site perimeter. Smaller sites were more restrictive than larger sites.
a. Percent of sites that allowed trucks or trailers transporting livestock to enter the pig site, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Percent

Standard
Error

52.0

(2.2)

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

79.6

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

(1.5)

All Sites

Standard
Error

86.8

Percent

(2.5)

Standard
Error

56.8

(1.8)

The biosecurity risk presented by trucks can be reduced by thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting the
vehicles. Most sites cleaned trucks before they entered the pig site, particularly the inside of trailers.
However, fewer sites disinfected trucks. For sites that allowed trucks on the premises, smaller sites were
less likely than larger sites to clean or disinfect trucks.
b. For sites that allowed trucks or trailers transporting livestock into the pig site, percent of sites that
required the following cleaning and disinfecting practices for livestock trucks or trailers before entry to the
pig site, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 2,000
Required Practices

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
2,000-9,999
Percent

Large
10,000 or More

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Animal area inside truck be cleaned

58.2

(3.0)

87.7

(1.3)

96.3

(1.5)

65.4

(2.4)

Animal area inside truck be
disinfected

37.2

(2.8)

77.1

(1.7)

90.5

(2.9)

47.0

(2.3)

Outside of truck be cleaned

46.9

(3.0)

77.0

(1.8)

91.4

(2.3)

54.4

(2.3)

Outside of truck be disinfected

25.6

(2.5)

59.2

(2.2)

68.9

(7.0)

33.8

(2.0)

Swine 2000

50

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section II: Methodology

G. Biosecurity

3. Proximity to other swine sites
Increased distance between swine sites reduces the risk of disease spread between locations. More than
half (53.9 percent) of sites were within one mile of the nearest swine site. Only 18.2 percent were at least
three miles from the nearest swine site.
a. Percent of sites by distance in miles to the nearest known swine site:
Percent Sites
Region
Northern
Distance (in Miles)

Less than 0.25

Percent

Stan.
Error

West Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

East Central
Percent

Stan.
Error

Southern
Percent

Stan.
Error

All Sites
Percent

Stan.
Error

7.5

(2.0)

2.2

(0.9)

5.5

(1.2)

3.0

(0.6)

5.2

(0.8)

0.25 - 0.49

18.1

(3.4)

17.7

(2.9)

24.1

(2.3)

44.7

(2.7)

23.1

(1.5)

0.5 - 0.99

26.9

(3.2)

17.7

(2.7)

29.8

(2.5)

9.2

(1.4)

25.6

(1.6)

1.0 - 2.99

24.1

(2.9)

33.0

(3.1)

28.9

(2.4)

18.4

(2.2)

27.9

(1.5)

3.0 - 4.99

10.4

(2.1)

17.2

(2.5)

6.4

(1.2)

8.7

(2.0)

9.3

(0.9)

13.0

(2.4)

12.2

(1.9)

5.3

(1.1)

16.0

(1.7)

8.9

(0.9)

5.0 or more
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

100.0

100.0

51

100.0

100.0

Swine 2000

G. Biosecurity

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Rodent control
Rodents are frequently associated with disease spread. Almost all farms regularly used some type of
rodent control. Baits or poison were the most common methods (88.5 percent of sites). Although cats are
also associated with disease spread, they were nevertheless used for rodent control at 68.0 percent of
smaller sites.
a. Percent of sites that regularly used the following rodent control methods, by size of site:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
(Less than 2,000)
Method

Percent

Standard
Error

Large
(10,000 or More)
Percent

5.2

All Sites

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

(1.6)

60.6

(1.7)

Cats

68.0

(1.9)

25.9

(1.7)

Dogs

38.3

(2.1)

13.5

(1.4)

0.0

(--)

33.9

(1.8)

Traps

19.3

(1.7)

20.9

(1.6)

20.9

(4.3)

19.6

(1.5)

Bait or poison

86.9

(1.5)

96.1

(0.7)

98.6

(0.8)

88.5

(1.2)

Professional
exterminator

3.2

(0.6)

9.7

(1.1)

16.8

(4.0)

4.4

(0.5)

Cats and bait or poison

Swine 2000

Percent

Standard
Error

Medium
(2,000-9,999)

57.0

(2.1)

25.1

(1.7)

5.2

(1.6)

51.4

(1.8)

Other

2.8

(1.1)

1.6

(0.3)

1.9

(0.8)

2.6

(0.9)

None

1.0

(0.4)

0.7

(0.2)

0.9

(0.8)

1.0

(0.3)

52

USDA:APHIS:VS

Section I: Population Estimates

H. General Management

H. General Management
1. Environmental testing
Some sites conducted environmental monitoring during the previous 3 years to assess environmental
quality, most often for ground water contaminants (37.9 percent of sites) and nutrient content of manure
(32.7 percent). Just over 21 percent of sites tested for nutrient content of manure more than once
in 3 years.
a. Percent of sites that conducted environmental sampling in the previous 3 years, by number and type of
tests conducted:
Percent Sites
Number of Tests Conducted
0

1

Percent

Stan.
Error

Groundwater (for nitrates or
bacteria)

62.1

Nutrient content of manure

67.3

Air quality (such as
ammonia or hydrogen
sulfide)

92.5

Test Conducted

USDA:APHIS:VS

2

3

Percent

Stan.
Error

Percent

(1.7)

22.9

(1.6)

5.6

(0.8)

7.8

(1.6)

11.6

(1.2)

4.6

(0.5)

10.1

(0.8)

3.6

(0.6)

0.8

(0.2)

2.4

53

Stan.
Error

Percent

4 or More
Stan.
Error

Total

Percent

Stan.
Error

Percent

(0.7)

1.6

(0.3)

100.0

(0.9)

6.4

(0.5)

100.0

(0.5)

0.7

(0.2)

100.0

Swine 2000

H. General Management
Section I: Population Estimates

2. Carcass disposal
Death losses in preweaned or grower/finisher pigs can create a logistics problem as well as a disease risk
for swine operations. Nearly one-fourth (23.2 percent) of sites composted dead preweaned pigs. Burial
(37.8 percent) and rendering (45.5 percent) were the most common methods of carcass disposal for larger
pigs (see Table I.H.2.b).
a. For sites that specified at least one preweaned piglet had died from December 1, 1999, through May 31,
2000, percent of sites (and percent of preweaned deaths on these sites) that used each method of carcass
disposal:
Percent

Measure
Sites with at Least
One Preweaned Death
Method of Carcass Disposal

Standard
Error

Percent

Preweaned Deaths
Percent

Standard
Error

Burial on operation

45.3

(2.6)

15.0

(2.3)

Burning on operation

15.4

(1.7)

14.5

(2.3)

Renderer pick up on operation

17.2

(2.0)

40.4

(5.6)

4.8

(0.8)

12.7

(3.4)

23.2

(2.1)

15.4

(2.1)

4.4

(1.1)

2.0

(0.6)

Renderer pick up outside of operation
Composting
Other
Total

--

100.0

b. For sites that specified at least one weaned or older pig that died from December 1, 1999, through May
31, 2000, percent of sites (and percent of weaned or older pig deaths on these sites) that used each method
of carcass disposal:
Percent
Measure
Sites with at Least One
Weaned Pig Death
Method of Carcass Disposal

Percent

Weaned Pig Deaths
Percent

Standard
Error

Burial on operation

37.8

(1.8)

11.5

(1.1)

Burning on operation

11.6

(1.2)

6.0

(0.8)

Renderer pick up on operation

34.4

(1.7)

55.9

(3.0)

Renderer pick up outside of operation

11.1

(1.1)

12.1

(1.8)

Composting

18.0

(1.3)

12.7

(1.2)

2.5

(0.5)

1.8

(0.7)

Other
Total

Swine 2000

Standard
Error

--

54

100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS

Appendix II:

U.S. Populations & Operations

3. Records

a. Percent of sites that kept records by topic:
Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Small
Less than 250
Topic

Percent

Medium
250-499

Standard
Error

Percent

Large
500 or more

Standard
Error

Percent

Standard
Error

All Sites
Percent

Standard
Error

Feed intake

50.0

(2.1)

76.0

(1.5)

73.7

(4.4)

54.4

(1.8)

Drug usage

63.6

(2.1)

89.3

(1.0)

98.6

(0.8)

68.1

(1.8)

1

72.2

(2.6)

96.3

(1.1)

96.8

(1.2)

76.2

(2.2)

Waste disposal

29.3

(1.8)

79.9

(1.5)

87.4

(4.0)

38.0

(1.6)

Feed equipment maintenance

18.7

(1.6)

33.5

(2.0)

46.5

(6.1)

21.4

(1.4)

Rodent control

11.5

(1.4)

26.7

(1.9)

49.0

(5.9)

14.3

(1.2)

Breeding

1

For sites with gestation or farrowing phases

4. Marketing
Pork producers utilized a variety of business arrangements to market their pigs. Few sites (2.3 percent)
marketed their pigs via a cooperative. Most sites operated either independently (74.7 percent) or under
contract (22.1 percent).
a. Percent of sites (and percent of total inventory on those sites) by business and marketing arrangement:
Business and Marketing Arrangement

Percent
Sites

Standard
Error

Percent
Standard
Total Inventory
Error

Contract producer - site is contractor
or contractee

22.1

(1.2)

41.8

(1.9)

Independent producer - marketing on
their own

74.7

(1.3)

52.3

(2.2)

Independent producer - marketing
through a cooperative

2.3

(0.3)

3.4

(0.9)

Other

0.9

(0.3)

2.5

(1.0)

Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

100.0

100.0

55

Swine 2000

b. Percent of sites that sold or moved at least one pig off-site between December 1, 1999, through
May 31, 2000:
Percent
Sites

97.3

Standard
Error

(0.6)

Pigs were sold or moved off-site at different ages or stages of production for several purposes.
i. For sites that sold or moved at least one pig off-site, percent of sites (and percent of pigs sold or
moved off-site from December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000) by type of pigs sold or moved:

Type

Percent
Sites

Percent
Pigs Sold or
Moved

Standard
Error

Slaughter market pigs

86.2

(1.0)

57.1

(2.3)

Feeder pigs

18.1

(1.1)

37.5

(2.4)

Replacement stock
Culled breeding stock

4.0

(0.5)

1.1

(0.2)

34.3

(1.6)

1.0

(0.1)

5.2

(0.7)

3.3

(0.5)

Other
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

Standard
Error

--

56

100.0

Swine 2000

Section II: Methodology
A. Needs Assessment
Objectives were developed for the Swine 2000 study from input obtained over a period of several months, via a
number of focus groups and individual contacts. Participants included representatives of producer and
veterinary organizations, academia, state and federal government and private business. Topics identified for the
Swine 2000 study were:
1) Research respiratory diseases such as porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), Mycoplasma,
and swine influenza virus (SIV).
2) Add to a national swine serum bank established through NAHMS’ 1990 National Swine Survey and
Swine ‘95 study to ensure this resource is available for future research on domestic swine diseases and
emerging pathogens.
3) Collect on-farm information about food-borne pathogens, such as Salmonella, Toxoplasma, and Yersinia.
4) Describe the adoption level of good production practices and provide information on the decision-making
process related to antibiotics.
5) Assess industry progress on environmental practices and target future efforts for developing guidelines
and educational programs for producers.

B. Sampling and Estimation
1. State selection
Initial selection of states to be included in the study was done in February 1999, using the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) December 1, 1998, Hog and Pig Report. A goal for NAHMS’ national studies is to
include states that account for at least 70 percent of the animal and producer population in the U.S. The NASS
hog and pig estimation program collects data quarterly from producers in 17 states and annually in all states.
The 17 states accounted for 92.6 percent of the December 1, 1998, swine inventory in the U.S. and 73.7 percent
of operations with swine in the U.S.
A workload memo identifying the 17 states in relation to all states in terms of size (inventory and operations)
was provided to the USDA:APHIS:VS Regional Directors. Each Regional Director sought input from their
respective states about being included or excluded from the study. By midyear 1999, 17 states were chosen:
Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. These states coincided with the states in
the NASS quarterly reporting program, which now included the western states of Colorado, Oklahoma, and
Texas, and excluded the southeastern states of Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The
western states
were undergoing rapid growth, whereas in many of the southeastern states populations of pigs and producers
were declining. As of December 1, 2000, the 17 states accounted for 93.6 percent (56,035,000 head) of pigs in
the U.S. and 76.4 percent (65,500) of the operations in the U.S. (See Appendix II for respective data on
individual states.)

2. Operation Selection
An evaluation of the total inventory and number of operations showed that the 1-99 size group (in 15 of
the 17 states where estimates were available) contained 41.0 percent of the operations but only 1.5
percent of the inventory. Therefore, operations
with fewer than 100 pigs were declared ineligible for the
study so that the number of participants could be concentrated in the larger size groups.
Due to the rapid decline in number of producers in the U.S., and therefore the likelihood that many
randomly
selected producers would
be out of the swine business, a large screening sample was selected. NASS chose a
stratified random sample, with stratification based on state and herd size, of 13,000 operations
from a list of individual and corporate producers as well as contractors. Contractor-only arrangements
(contractors who did not own any pigs) were not eligible for selection. Operations identified via the
screening process that had 100 or more pigs were eligible to be contacted for an on-site interview. A
randomly selected sample of these eligible operations was chosen for participation in the on-site
interview. At the first interview, if operations had multiple production sites under different day-to-day
management, a maximum of three sites were randomly selected (1 with breeding animals and 2 with
weaned pigs).

3. Population Inferences
Inferences cover the population of swine operations with 100 or more total pigs in the 17 states, since these
operations were the only ones eligible for sample selection. These states accounted for 92.3 percent of
operations with 100 or more pigs in the U.S. and 93.6 percent of the U.S. pig inventory as of December 1,
2000. All respondent data were statistically weighted to reflect the population from which it was selected.
The inverse of probability of selection for each operation was the initial selection weight. This
selection
weight was
adjusted for non-response within each state and size group to allow for inferences back to the
original population from which the sample was selected.

C. Data Collection
1. General Swine Farm Report - Screening, April - May 2000
NASS’ telephone interviewers administered the screening questions, which took approximately 10 minutes.
Participation in this interview is summarized in Table 2 in the Response Rate section.

2. General Swine Farm Report, June 1 - July 14, 2000
NASS’ enumerators administered the General Swine Farm Report in person to each selected producer. The
interview took approximately 1 hour. NASS’ enumerators asked permission for Veterinary
Medical
Officers
(VMOs) to contact the producer and discuss additional phases of data collection (results to be
reported in subsequent reports).

D. Data Analysis
1. Validation and estimation

Section II: Methodology

D. Data Analysis

Initial data entry and validation for both the General Swine Farm Report screening form and General Swine
Farm Report (results reported in Swine 2000 Part I) were performed in individual NASS state offices. Data
were entered into a SAS data set. NAHMS national staff performed additional data validation on the entire
data set after data from all states were combined.

2. Response rates
a. General Swine Farm Report - Screening questionnaire.
A total of 11,138 operations (85.8 percent) completed the screening survey. Of these, 7,156 operations had
100 or more total pigs and, thus, were eligible for the next phase of data collection. The next survey, the
General Swine Farm Report (GSFR) was completed approximately 2 months later via personal interview.
Response Category

Number
Percent
Operations Operations

Eligible

7,156

55.1

Not eligible

3,189

24.6

Out of business

537

4.1

Out of scope
(prison farms, research farms, etc.)

256

2.0

Refusal
Inaccessible
Total

1,040

8.0

810

6.2

12,988

100.0

Given an expected response rate of 60 percent, the 7,156 eligible operations would result in more than the
2,500 planned respondents. Therefore, 2,407 names were dropped (via random selection) from the
respondent list in each state. The final number of operations eligible for the GSFR was 4,749.
Most operations were independent, single-site enterprises, or contract nursery or finisher sites. For larger
operations with multiple production sites, up to three production sites were randomly selected to complete
the GSFR (one site with sows and two without sows).
b. General Swine Farm Report
Response Category

Number
Percent
Operations Operations

Number
Sites

Percent
Sites

Survey complete and VMO consent

1,208

25.4

1,316

26.7

Survey complete, refused VMO
consent

1,120

23.6

1,183

24.0

No pigs on June 1, 2000

181

3.8

181

3.7

Out of business

67

1.4

67

1.4

Out of scope (prison and research
farms, etc.)

29

0.6

29

0.6

1,736

36.6

1,736

35.3

Refusal
Inaccessible
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

408

8.6

408

8.3

4,749

100.0

4,920

100.0

62

Swine 2000

A. Responding Sites

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile
A. Responding Sites
1a. Total inventory
Size of Site
(Total Inventory)

Number
Responding Sites

Less than 2,000

1,378

2,000 - 9,999

1,019

10,000 or more
Total

102
2,499

1b. Sow Inventory
Size of Site
(Total Sows and Gilts
on Operation)

Less than 250

Number
Responding Sites

1948

250 - 499

227

500 or more

324

Total

2499

2. Type of site
Type of Site

Contract producer

Number
Responding Sites

994

Independent-market own pigs

1,381

Independent - market through
cooperative

94

Other

30

Total

2,499

3. Number of responding sites by region:
Region

Number
Responding Sites

Northern

507

West Central

544

East Central

901

Southern

547

Total

2499

Swine 2000

63

USDA:APHIS:VS

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding Sites

4. Number of responding sites with the following production phases:
Production Phase

Number
Responding Sites

Farrow to finish

786

Feeder pig producer

124

Weaned pig producer

176

Nursery site

202

Finisher site

914

Nursery and finisher site

187

Other phase
Total

USDA:APHIS:VS

110
2,499

64

Swine 2000

A. Responding Sites

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations
Number of Pigs on December 1, 2000, and Number of Operations in 19991
Number Pigs
(Thousand Head)
Region

East Central

State

Operations with 100
or More Head

4,200

4,158

5,100

3,300

3,400

3,366

4,400

2,700

15,400

15,369

12,300

10,400

1,510

1,435

5,200

2,200

24,510

24,328

27,000

18,600

950

936

2,200

800

Minnesota

5,800

5,742

7,300

5,300

Pennsylvania

1,040

1,009

3,000

900

620

577

2,700

800

8,410

8,264

15,200

7,800

840

836

500

90

Kansas

1,570

1,554

1,600

720

Missouri

2,900

2,871

3,600

1,800

Nebraska

3,100

3,053

4,000

2,600

South Dakota

1,360

1,333

1,900

1,100

9,770

9,647

11,600

6,310

Total
Michigan

Wisconsin
Total
West Central Colorado

Total

685

671

1,100

440

North Carolina

Arkansas

9,400

9,372

3,600

1,700

Oklahoma

2,340

2,305

2,700

300

Texas
Total
Total (17 states)
Total U.S. (50 states)

1

All Operations

Illinois

Ohio

Southern

Operations with 100 or
More Head

Indiana
Iowa

Northern

All Operations

Number Operations in 1999

920

874

4,300

110

13,345

13,222

11,700

2,550

56,035
(93.6% of U.S.)

55,461
(93.6% of U.S.)

65,500
(76.4% of U.S.)

35,260
(92.3% of U.S.)

59,848

59,250

85,760

38,200

Source: NASS Hogs and Pigs, December 28, 2000. An operation was any place having one or more head of pigs on hand at any time
during the year.

Swine 2000

65

USDA:APHIS:VS

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations

USDA:APHIS:VS

A. Responding Sites

66

Swine 2000

A. Responding Sites

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations

Swine 2000 Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1) Research respiratory diseases such as porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome (PRRS),
Mycoplasma, and swine influenza virus (SIV).
• Info sheets and interpretive reports, expected Fall 2001- 2002
2) Add to a swine serum bank established through NAHMS 1990 National Swine Survey and
Swine
‘95 study to ensure this
resource is available for future national research on domestic swine
diseases and emerging pathogens.
• Collected sera banked July, 2001
3) Collect on-farm information about food-borne pathogens, such as Salmonella, Toxoplasma,
Yersinia.
Part I: Reference of
Swine Health and Management in the United States, 2000,
August 2001
and

• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and
Health Management in the United States, 2000,
expected Winter 2001
• Info sheets and interpretive reports,
expected 2001-2002
4) Describe the adoption level of good production practices and provide information on
the
decision-making process related to antibiotics.
• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management in the United States, 2000,
expected Winter 2001
• Changes in the U.S. Pork
Industry, 1990-2000, expected Spring 2002
• Info sheets, expected Fall 2001
5) Assess industry progress on environmental issues and target future efforts for developing
guidelines and educational programs for producers.
Part I: Reference of Swine Health
and Management in the United States, 2000,
August 2001
• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management in the United States, 2000,
expected Winter 2001

Swine 2000

67

USDA:APHIS:VS

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations

A. Responding Sites

• Part III expected Winter 2002
• Changes in the U.S. Pork Industry, 1990-2000, expected Spring 2002
• Info sheets, expected Winter 2002

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
USDA:APHIS:VS, attn. NAHMS
555 South Howes
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 490-8000
[email protected]

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm
#N338.0801

USDA:APHIS:VS

68

Swine 2000

A. Responding Sites

Swine 2000

Appendix II: U.S. Population & Operations

69

USDA:APHIS:VS

March 2002

Preventive Practices in Swine:
Administration of Iron and
Antibiotics

The percentage of sites that administered iron to
Figure 1.

Percent Sites Administering Iron to Piglets, by Region

Northern - 72.1 Percent

Almost all swine operations have some type of disease
prevention program, which often includes administration of
iron to baby pigs and/or the administration of antibiotics to
swine during various stages of the production cycle.
The USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System
(NAHMS) collected data on swine health and management
practices from a random sample of swine production sites in
17 states1 as part of the Swine 2000 study. These sites
represented 94 percent of the U.S. pig inventory and 92
percent of U.S. pork producers with 100 or more pigs.
Overall, 2,499 swine production sites participated in the
study’s first interview from June 1, 2000, through July 14,
2000. A second interview was completed by 895 of these sites
between August 21, 2000, and November 3, 2000. For
estimates in this report, small, medium, and large sites refer to
sites with less than 2,000, 2,000 to 9,999, and 10,000 or more
pigs in total inventory, respectively, unless otherwise
specified. Animal-level estimates reported here are based on a
June 1, 2000, inventory.

Iron
Swine 2000 results indicated that the administration of iron
(to prevent anemia) was the most common preventive
measure used for piglets. For swine raised in confinement
facilities, the standard practice is to inject pigs with 100 to
200 mg of iron dextran within 3 days after birth. The study
indicated that iron was given either orally or by injection on
75.4 percent of sites, which accounted for 90.6 percent of all
piglets. For sites with indoor farrowing facilities, 83.7
percent administered iron to pigs, compared to only 36.7
percent of sites with pasture farrowing. On sites that used a
pasture for farrowing young pigs may have obtained their
required iron from the soil. The percentage of sites that
administered iron to piglets was lower in the west central
region than in other regions of the U.S. (Figure 1).
1

West Central 57.0 Percent

East Central 84.3 Percent

Southern - 78.1 Percent
Shaded states participated in
NAHMS Swine 2000 study

piglets was lower for sites with less than 250
breeding females (72.2 percent) than on sites with
250 to 499 (91.1 percent) or 500 or more breeding
females (94.0 percent). Both the percentage of sites
that administered iron to piglets and the percentage
of piglets that received iron were similar to that
found in the NAHMS Swine ’95 study.

Antibiotics
Antibiotics are frequently given to swine in one or
more stages of production for disease prevention and
growth promotion. Most sites (92.0 percent) indicated
that some swine were given antibiotics during the
6-month period of December 1, 1999, through May
31, 2000. Overall, more sites used feed rather than
drinking water or injection as the method of antibiotic
delivery.
Antibiotics were given to grower/finisher pigs in feed
on 88.5 percent of sites. These sites accounted for 95.9
percent of all grower/finisher pigs. Sites in the
southern region were more likely to administer
antibiotics to pigs from weaning through market age
in water, orally, or by injection than were sites in other
regions. More large sites (10,000 or more pigs) gave
antibiotics in feed, by injection, or in water to weaning
through market age pigs than did sites with less than
10,000 pigs (Table 1).

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvani a, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin

Table 3.

The Five Most Common Antibiotics Given to Grower/Finisher
Pigs In Feed, by Injection, and in Water

Table 1.

Percent Sites that Gave Antibiotics to Weaned Pigs as a
Preventive Practice from December 1, 1999, Through May 31,
2000, by Route of Administration and Size of Site

Percent Sites
Size of Site (Total Inventory)
Route
Feed
Injection
Water
Orally

Small
(Less than
2,000)
78.4
38.7
18.8
5.9

Medium
(2,0009,999)
87.6
69.8
62.5
10.2

Large
(10,000 or
more)
94.1
82.9
81.3
7.1

All Sites
80.1
44.3
26.6
6.6

Participants were asked specifically about antibiotic use
for growth promotion in nursery pigs. Responses
indicated that 82.7 percent of sites with nursery pigs fed
antibiotics for growth promotion, with chlortetracycline
the most common antibiotic given on 30.1 percent of
sites. The next most common antibiotics given in feed to
nursery pigs for growth promotion were tylosin (23.2
percent of sites), carbadox (22.8 percent of sites),
tiamulin (14.6 percent of sites), and a
chlortetracylcine/sulfamethiazole/penicillin combination
(11.5 percent sites).
Participants were asked what was the primary reason for
giving antibiotics to grower/finisher pigs by various
routes. Responses indicated that the most common reason
for giving antibiotics to grower/finisher pigs in feed was
growth promotion, followed by disease prevention. The
most common reason for giving antibiotics to grower/
finisher pigs in water or by injection was to treat
respiratory disease (Table 2).
Table 2.

Percent Sites That Gave Antibiotics or other Feed Additives
to Grower/Finisher Pigs, by Primary Reason and
Route of Administration

Percent Sites
Route of Administration
Primary Reason
Growth promotion
Treat respiratory
disease
Disease prevention
Treat enteric
disease
Treat other disease
Any reason

Feed

Water

Injection

Any
Route

63.7
27.4

0.0
25.2

0.0
57.2

63.7
61.9

37.9
15.2

4.0
7.5

6.4
15.4

42.8
27.5

0.2
88.5

1.0
31.2

14.1
64.5

14.7
92.6

The most common antibiotics given to grower/finisher
pigs in feed, water, and by injection (for any reason) were

Feed
Antibiotic
Tylosin

Injection
Percent
Sites
56.3

Chlortetracycline

48.0

Tylosin

30.7

Bacitracin

35.0

Ceftiofur

18.2

Oxytetracylcine
Penicillin

18.1

Antibiotic
Oxytetracyclin
e
Chlortetracyclin
e
Sulfadimethoxine
Neomycin

15.5

Tylosin

Lincomycin

8.6

Carbadox

6.3

Antibiotic
Procaine
Penicillin G

Water

Percent
Sites
40.0

Percent
Sites
8.8

6.7

5.6
4.3
4.1

tylosin, oxytetracycline, and procaine penicillin G,
respectively (Table 3).
Maintaining good antibiotic-use records is important to
help prevent drug residues and to produce quality pork.
More large and medium sites maintained antibiotic
treatment records than small sites. Seventy-eight percent
of large sites recorded drug name and date of treatment
for antibiotics given to grower/finisher pigs, compared
to just over 40 percent of small sites.
About 15 percent of respondents reported that
veterinarians were the primary decision-makers regarding
which antibiotics to use in weaned market pigs. However,
veterinarians were the primary decision-makers on a
greater percentage of large herds (over two-thirds of sites
with a total inventory of 10,000 or more)1. For sites with
less than 2,000 swine, operation owners were the primary
decision-makers when choosing which antibiotics were
used for growth promotion or to treat sick weaned market
pigs.
1

See Swine 2000 Part II for more specific estimates regarding
nonowner decision-makers.

For more information, contact:
Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
USDA:APHIS:VS, attn. NAHMS,
555 South Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 490-8000 1
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm
1

Begining May 20, 2002, our new address and phone number
will be: 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. B., Fort Collins, CO 80526 -(970) 494-7400
N349.0302

March 2000

Topics Identified for
NAHMS Swine 2000
The USDA's National Animal Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS) plans national studies of U.S.
animal populations around key information gaps
identified by people working in various aspects of
the targeted industry.
NAHMS is a nonregulatory program that seeks to
meet the needs of various livestock and poultry
groups for animal health information at the national
level. NAHMS obtained national snapshots of the U.S.
pork industry through the 1990 National Swine Survey
and the Swine ’95 study. For a third study, the Swine
2000, representatives of producer and veterinary
organizations, academia, state and federal government
and private business participated in interviews and
various focus groups to identify the topics of interest
for the study. Since NAHMS is a voluntary program
that relies on producers to provide data, concerns of
individual producers, and of producers collectively,
were carefully considered to ensure they have
incentives to participate in the NAHMS Swine 2000
study.
Before concerns about pressing
health issues can be addressed,
researchers must assess the levels
and impacts of infection within the
population and identify factors
associated with each pathogen. NAHMS often collects
blood samples to obtain disease prevalence rates. By
adding management data to the analyses, we can
identify factors that affect the spread of disease along
with good production and preventive practices that can
help producers minimize the spread of disease on the
farm.

PRRS
Mycoplasma
SIV

ƒ

NAHMS Swine 2000 needs assessment efforts
found that respiratory diseases are of greatest
concern to pork producers and more knowledge on
several key pathogens is needed. The Swine 2000

study will research respiratory diseases such as
porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome
(PRRS), Mycoplasma, and swine influenza virus
(SIV).
ƒ

Individual test results for PRRS will be returned to
producers as a direct benefit for allowing blood
samples to be taken from breeding sows and late
finishers. Collectively, test results on these
respiratory diseases will allow NAHMS to
determine disease prevalence rates on a national
basis.

Through NAHMS’ 1990 National
Serum bank Swine Survey and Swine ’95
for the future study, a serum bank was
established at the National
Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for
collaborative projects. To date, researchers have used
the serum bank to determine a baseline national
prevalence of the PRRS virus, to further understand
Trichinae and Toxoplasma infection in U.S. pigs, to
measure the level of finishing hog and breeding animal
exposure to Lawsonia intracellularis, and to research
the natural history of emerging diseases, such as the
new swine flu (swine influenza virus H3N2).
ƒ Blood samples collected during the Swine 2000

study will add to the serum bank, thereby ensuring
this resource is available for future national research
on domestic swine diseases and emerging pathogens.

On-farm information about
food-borne pathogens is of high
interest to consumers, the pork
industry, and various government
agencies. Almost no information
exists for some pathogens, while we know enough
about others to begin planning voluntary certification
programs. These planners need on-farm information to
identify good production practices. By using such
practices, producers can minimize risks associated with
eating pork and maintain consumer confidence.
Representatives of producer groups, veterinarians,
academia, and the government requested that NAHMS
find out: How many producers have adopted practices
known to ensure safe pork? What effects have their
efforts had on the food-borne pathogens in the U.S.
swine population? What other practices can help
minimize the spread of these pathogens?

Salmonella
Toxoplasma
Yersinia

ƒ

ƒ

Swine 2000 will provide an industry score card on
reduction of Salmonella on the farm since
requirements for reducing this pathogen were
implemented in the packing industry. The national
prevalence of Yersinia is unknown, and a measure
is needed. Toxoplasma was included in the study
because the perception of this disease as a public
health concern is increasing.
Prevalence information on these pathogens will
help advance cooperative disease control efforts,
describe current use of good production practices
that will enhance research on risk factors, and assist
the industry in targeting producer education efforts
to improve adoption of good production practices.

Information on antibiotic use is a priority for people
working in pork production due to
Antibiotic regulatory pressures and consumer
demand. Knowledge of the level and
use
pattern of antibiotic use, particularly
for growth promotion, is critical to assess the pros and
cons of antibiotic use on farm. Principles for judicious
use of antibiotics have been identified to offset the
associated risks.
ƒ

1

Swine 2000 will describe the adoption level of good
production practices related to antibiotics. The
study will also provide information on the
decision-making process - who has the greatest
influence regarding use of drugs and medications
on the farm - an area which has changed drastically
in the U.S. pork industry in recent years. Swine

2000 information related to antibiotics will assist
industry and animal health officials in establishing
judicious use campaigns and benefit public health.
Nutrient management and odor reduction are both
pressing issues for U.S. pork
Environmental producers. NAHMS Swine
2000 results will assist national
issues
education programs and guide
policy development with objective information on use
of environmental practices.
ƒ

NAHMS will capture data on adoption of
environmentally sound production practices related
to nutrient management plans, manure storage and
application, and carcass disposal. Also, NAHMS
will describe how many operations use a host of
odor-reduction technologies currently being
researched which may lead to recommendations in
areas such as diet manipulation, waste treatment,
and facility modifications. Goals are to assess
industry progress on environmental issues and
target future efforts for developing guidelines and
educational programs for producers.

Say YES to NAHMS Swine 2000!
In the spring of 2000, the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) will contact eligible pork
producers about participating in this NAHMS national
study. NASS statistically selected swine operations to
represent over 90 percent of the U.S. swine population
on operations with a total inventory of 100 or more.
This population is located in 17 states. 1
NASS data collectors will begin interviews with
producers in June 2000. At that time, full benefits will
be discussed and producers will be offered the
opportunity to participate in the biological sampling
portion of the study.
As always, links between NAHMS data and the
operations on which the data were collected are
confidential and are not included in national data bases.
For more information on NAHMS swine studies:
Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
USDA:APHIS:VS, attn. NAHMS
555 South Howes
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 490-8000 [email protected]
www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm
#N329.0300

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

September 2002

Proper feed management is important to all U.S. swine
operations. Feed procurement, safe storage, optimum diet
preparation, and timely distribution are management
decisions that strongly influence the financial health of
operations. On modern swine operations, feed
management is used not only to optimize pig
performance, but also to prevent and treat swine disease,
reduce nutrient excretions and objectionable odors, and
reduce the risk of Salmonella in the final pork product.
The USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS) collected data on swine health and
management practices from a random sample of swine
production sites in 17 States1 as part of the Swine 2000
study. These sites represented 94 percent of the U.S. pig
inventory and 92 percent of U.S. pork producers with
100 or more pigs. Overall, 2,499 swine production sites
participated in the first interview from June 1, 2000,
through July 14, 2000. A second interview was
completed by 895 of these sites between August 21,
2000, and November 3, 2000. A final interview was
completed by 799 of these sites between December 1,
2000, and February 28, 2001. For estimates in this
report, small, medium, and large sites refer to sites with
less than 2,000, 2,000 to 9,999, and 10,000 or more pigs
in total inventory, respectively. Some comparisons in
this report are made to findings from the NAHMS Swine
’95 study conducted five years previously.

Phase Feeding
To optimize growth and efficiency, swine producers
change diet contents frequently during the grower/
finisher phase. In this report, phase feeding is defined as
the feeding of four or more different diets during the
grower/finisher phase. The Swine 2000 study indicated
that 24.0 percent of sites fed two different diets during
the grower/finisher period, while 26.2 percent fed three,
and 40.1 percent fed four or more. The percentage of
sites using phase feeding in 2000 (40.1 percent)
increased slightly since 1995 (34.9 percent). In both
1995 and 2000, the percentage of sites using phase
feeding increased as site size increased (Figure 1).
1

Figure 1.
Generally, as site size increased so did the number of
diets. Small sites, on average, fed 3.3 diets during the
Percent of Sites Using Phase Feeding
(in 1995 and 2000) by Size of Site
1995

2000

100
Percent sites

Feed Management of Swine

82.2 80.6

80

69.1

60
40

54
34.9

33.1 34.5

40.1

20
0
Small (<2,000)
Large (10,000+)
Medium (2,000-9,999)
All Sites

Size of Site

grower/finisher period, whereas medium and large sites,
on average, fed 4.7 and 5.0 diets, respectively. More
large (73.7 percent) and medium (76.0 percent) sites kept
records on feed intake than did small sites (50.0 percent).

Split-Sex Feeding
Split-sex feeding is a common management practice
where different diets are fed to gilts and barrows. The
study showed that more large (45.6 percent) and medium
(56.0 percent) sites practiced split-sex feeding than did
small sites (15.2 percent). While the percentage of small
and medium sites using split-sex feeding has remained
fairly constant since 1995 (14.0 percent and 55.4 percent,
respectively), the percentage of large sites using split-sex
feeding has greatly decreased from 78.2 percent of sites
in 1995 to 45.6 percent of sites in 2000. This decrease
may be due to leaner genetics, the logistics of
implementation on large sites, or a lack of economic
benefit. In 2000, pigs, on average, were 9.0 weeks of age
when split-sex feeding was initiated. This age did not
vary significantly among the different sized sites.

Feed Additives

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pe nnsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin

Odor Control Through Diet Manipulation
Producers were asked about the various diet
manipulation strategies they used to control odor. Half
(50.2 percent) reported using some sort of diet
manipulation to reduce odor. The most common methods
were: finely-ground grain; vegetable oil or fat (to control
dust); and synthetic amino acids. Each of the previous
was practiced more commonly on large sites than small
sites. While use of low-phytate corn is rare, more than 10
percent of sites used phytase in feed.
Table 1. Feed-Related Odor Reducing Strategies
Percent
Sites
Diet Manipulation Strategy
Finely-ground grain
Vegetable oil or fat to control dust
Synthetic amino acids and/or low crude
protein
Pelleting
Phytase
Other feed additives for odor control (e.g.,
Microaid)
Add 10-percent fiber
Low phytate corn
Other diet manipulations

27.3
24.0
19.8
15.3
11.0
10.1
8.5
0.4
1.4

There are several feed-related intervention strategies that
may be used to reduce Salmonella shedding by
grower/finisher pigs. These include withdrawal of feed
before shipping to slaughter (3.2 percent of sites) and
testing feed for Salmonella (1.7 percent of sites). Both of
these intervention strategies were used more commonly
as site size increased (Figure 2).
Figure 2.

Only 1.0 percent of all sites fed probiotics, and 0.5
percent of sites fed a competitive exclusion product to
reduce shedding of Salmonella by grower/finisher pigs.
Feed-Related Salmonella Reducing
Strategies for Grower/Finisher Pigs

F
o
r
Percent Sites

Antibiotics, dewormers, and parasiticides are added
frequently to pigs’ diets, primarily to control disease and
promote growth. During the 6 months prior to the Swine
2000 survey, antibiotics were included in grower/finisher
diets (for any reason) on 88.5 percent of sites with
grower/finisher pigs. Antibiotics were administered in
grower/finisher feed to treat respiratory diseases on 27.4
percent of sites, enteric diseases on 15.2 percent of sites,
and for growth promotion on 63.7 percent of sites.
Dewormers were administered in grower/finisher feed on
39.7 percent of sites.

30

24.7

20

15.7
11.8

10
0

6.9
1

3.2 1.7

0.4

Small (<2,000)
Large (10,000+)
Medium (2,000-9,999)
All Sites

Size of Site
Withdraw feed before shipping
Test feed for Salmonella

more information, contact:
USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B., Mail Stop 2E7
2150 Centre Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117
970.494.7000
E-mail: [email protected]
www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm

Protein and Fat Sources in the Diet
N353.0902

Several ingredients are available as protein and fat
sources for grower/finisher diets. Soybean meal or other
vegetable proteins were by far the most common protein
sources used (97.6 percent of sites) regardless of site
size. Animal and/or vegetable fat were the most common
fat sources used (35.6 percent of sites). Large sites were
much more likely to add animal and/or vegetable fats to
grower/finisher diets than small sites (71.1 percent
compared to 30.0 percent, respectively).

Salmonella Reduction
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, colo r, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons wi th disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-26 00 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint
of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202)
720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service

Veterinary
Services

September 2002

•

Highlights of NAHMS’
Swine 2000: Part III

•

In 2000, the USDA’s National Animal
Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)
conducted a study of swine operations
within the top 17 pork-producing States.1
These operations represented 94 percent of
the U.S. swine herd on operations with 100
or more pigs on December 1, 1999.

•

The following highlights were excerpted
from a report released in September 2002:
Swine 2000 Part III: Reference of Swine
Health and Environmental Management in
the United States, 2000:
•
•

•

•

•

The annual removal rate of breeding-age
females via death loss and culling was
45.9 percent.
Overall, 10.9 pigs were born per litter,
of which 10.0 were born alive and 8.8
were weaned (June 1, 2000, through
November 30, 2000).
From June 1, 2000, through November
30, 2000, a higher percentage of pigs
died in grower/finisher units (3.0
percent) than in nurseries (2.4 percent).
Of pigs entering the grower/finisher
unit, 2.1 percent were removed as
lightweight pigs.
Fewer small sites (less than 25 percent)
constructed and maintained all swine
facilities to keep out birds than large
sites (more than 85 percent).
Of sites using baits around the outside
of gestation buildings, about half placed
baits more than 50 feet apart, which is
too far to be effective for rats and mice.

•

•

Large sites were more likely to place
baits inside gestations buildings than
outside, and placed baits outside feedstorage facilities more often than inside.
The majority of U.S. swine production
sites had the following animals on their
operations: cats (73.1 percent of sites);
dogs (70.9 percent of sites); and cattle
(51.7 percent of sites).
Almost 60 percent of U.S. swine
production sites in the southern region
reported the presence of feral swine in
their county, compared to less than 6
percent of sites in the other regions.
Regardless of herd size, the three most
important sources of food safety
information were: veterinarians (76.1
percent); pork industry magazines (71.9
percent); and industry programs (69.7
percent).
Lagoons were used more commonly in
the southern region (75.4 percent of
sites) and west central region (42.6
percent of sites), compared to the other
regions, where less than 20 percent of
sites used a lagoon. The northern and
east central regions were more likely to
use below-ground slurry storage, such as
deep pits (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percent of Sites that Used the Following
Waste Storage Systems, by Region
Any Lagoon

Below Ground Slurry

Percent

100
80

75.4
68.2
58.1

60

42.6

40

30.1
18.2

20
7.7

13.2

0
Northern

West Central

East Central

Southern

Regions
1
Northern Region: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. West Central Region: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and
South Dakota. East Central Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio. Southern Region: Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas.

•

Almost 85 percent of sites with lagoons
used compact clay liners.
Most often, lagoons on large sites were
newer (just 17.3 percent were over 10years old) than lagoons on small sites
(62.7 percent were over 10-years old).
More than 90 percent of large sites had a
formal, written nutrient management
plan (NMP), compared to less than 20
percent of small sites. Sites in the west
central region were least likely to have
an NMP (14.6 percent), while sites in
the southern region were most likely to
have an NMP (79.5 percent).
For sites that had an NMP, agricultural
extension was the most important source
for creating the plan. Other important
sources included certified crop
consultants, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS)
engineers, and agronomists.
The predominant method of manure
application in the southern region was
irrigation, a practice rarely implemented
in the other regions.
Small sites applied most often solid
manure using broadcast spreaders.
Medium-sized sites applied slurry via
surface application or subsurface
injection. Large sites applied manure
most commonly in liquid via irrigation
(Figure 2).

•

•

•

•

•

•

Almost one-third (31.1 percent) of small
sites did no soil fertility testing during
the previous 3 years (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Percent of Sites that Tested Soil Fertility (Before
Applying Waste Manure), by Number of Times
Tested in the Last 3 Years and by Site Size
Percent

Figure 2.

80

60
Size of Site
41.3

40

39.3

36.1
31.1

29.8

Small
Medium
Large

29.6

20.1

20

17.2
13.2 12.3
9.3
5.2

0

Zero

5.8 5.1

4.6

One

Two

Three

4 or More

Number of Times Soil Tested

•

•

Numerous strategies were used for
controlling odor from swine production
sites, including diet manipulation (50.2
percent of sites); manure management
(28.9 percent of sites); and air quality
(28.2 percent of sites). Diet
manipulation was the strategy used most
commonly.
Adding chemical or biological additives
to manure to control odor was practiced
on 3.6 percent and 12.4 percent of sites,
respectively.

Percent of Sites that Used the Following
Methods of Manure Application,
by Size of Site

Percent

100

77.3

80

70.3

Size of Site

60

57.0

51.1
42.1

40

32.1

29.5
21.1 22.4

20

21.3

21.6

5.6

0

For more information, contact:

Irrigation

Broadcast/
Surface
Subsurface Injection
Solid Spreader Application Slurry
of Slurry

Small
Medium
Large

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH
NRRC Building B., M.S. 2E7
2150 Centre Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117
970.494.7000
E-mail: [email protected]
www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm
N379-0902

Application Method

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital status or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


File Typeapplication/pdf
File TitleC:\Users\DOCS\SWINE\Sw2K\DESCRIPTIVE REPORTS\SW00des1.vp
Authorbdoty
File Modified2006-10-03
File Created2006-08-03

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy