Download:
pdf |
pdfUnited 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
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).
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).
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
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.
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.
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 Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | C:\Users\DOCS\SWINE\Sw2K\DESCRIPTIVE REPORTS\SW00des1.vp |
| Author | bdoty |
| File Modified | 2006-10-03 |
| File Created | 2006-08-03 |