Sow Herd Assessments

Sow Herd Assessments 13 th Discover Conference on Food Animal Agriculture: Sow Productive Lifetime September 9-12, 2007 The Brown County Inn Nashville, Indiana Dr. Paul Yeske Dr. Paul Yeske Swine Vet Center, P.A. St. Peter, MN USA

Swine Vet Center Veterinary Consultants Tim Loula Paul Yeske Darwin Reicks Mike Eisenmenger Ross Kiehne Jeff Feder Brad Leuwerke Laura Bruner Swine Vet Center Swine Vet Center St. Peter, Minnesota

Sow Herd Assessments Why do we need to do sow herd assessments How to do the Assessments ISO 9000 PQA Plus What do you do with results of the What do you do with results of the assessments

Sow Herd Assessments What do we need to Assess Animal well being Consumer perceptions New crate laws Florida Arizona Oregon What state will be next

Sow Herd Assessments What do we need to Assess Animal well being Crate ban Smithfield Wendy s Etc.

What is an Audit? The evaluation of a person, organization, system, process, project or product. Are we doing what we say we are doing? Are there areas that can be improved? What areas are we excelling in?

Auditing Procedures Not commonly done in agriculture Frequently done in manufacturing business Part of continuous quality improvement Make sure the process is working properly Does the system need to change Are the employees following the system

ISO 9000 Process verification Continuous quality improvement

Ultimate in auditing ISO 9000

ISO 9000 Certification

ISO 9000 Documentation

ISO 9000 Documentation

ISO 9000 Certification

Areas of Improvement

Non Compliance

Reporting Problems or Discrepancies

Reporting Problems or Discrepancies

ISO 9000 Documentation

ISO 9000 Documentation

ISO 9000 Documentation

ISO 9000 Documentation

Practical Assessment in the Field Reproductive Benchmarking SWAP program PQA PLUS

Assessment in the Field Reproductive Benchmarking Reproductive performance can be a reflection of an animal s well being. Conception rate Farrowing Rate Total Born Stillborn % Lactation length Wean to Service interval

Benchmarking Numbers Mean SD Median Upper 10% Lower 10% Total Born/ Litter 12.15 0.993 12.23 13.22 11.09 Born Alive/ Litter 11.35 5.665 11.02 12.02 9.85 Weaned/ Litter 9.54 0.908 9.65 10.3 8.06 Pigs/Mated Female/ Year 22.87 3164 3.164 23.15 25.9 17.86 Wean Age 19.15 1.831 19.3 20.95 17.05 Stillborn per litter 0.98 0.496 0.9 1.4 0.6 Stillborn Percent 8.1% 0.5% 7.6% 10.6% 5.4% Mummies Percent 2.0% 0.2% 1.6% 3.3% 3.0% Preweaning Mortality 12.2% 4.8% 11.8% 17.3% 6.9% Pig CHAMP Benchmarking USA 2007 1 st Quarter Summary 420 Farms

Benchmarking Numbers Danish Production 2005 Mean Upper 25% Lower 25% Total Born/ Litter 14.9 15.3 14.4 Born Alive/ Litter 13.2 13.7 12.7 Weaned/ Litter 11.3 12.11 10.6 Pigs/Mated Female/ Year 24.3 27.3 21.1 Wean Age 31.4 30.1 33.0 Stillborn per litter 1.7 1.6 1.7 Stillborn Percent 11.4% 10.4% 11.8% Preweaning Mortality 14.4% 11.7% 16.5%

Benchmarking Numbers Difference in Average Production USA vs. Danish Mean Total Born/ Litter -2.75 Born Alive/ Litter -1.85 Weaned/ Litter -1.76 Pigs/Mated Female/ Year -1.43 Wean Age -12.25 Stillborn per litter 0.72 Stillborn Percent 3.3% Preweaning Mortality 2.2%

Typical system All Farms 10 year Production Average Total Born Pigs / Litter 12.4 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.6 # 11.4 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.6 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 year

Lactation Length vs. Total Born & Born Alive TOTALBORN BORNALIVE Linear (TOTALBORN) Linear (BORNALIVE) 12.5 12 y = 0.1273x + 10.558 R 2 = 0.9285 11.5 11 10.5 10 y = 0.1062x + 9.5729 R 2 = 0.8862 9.5 9 8.5 8 10.43 10.81 11.1 11.12 11.26 11.43 11.45 11.55 11.72 11.87 11.8 695 2680 4892 6451 9542 8728 6666 4349 3530 1283 531 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Lactation Length & Number of Sows

Lactation Length vs. Farrowing Rate 90% y = 0.0091x + 0.764 R 2 = 0.7542 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 688 2652 4630 5936 9043 8191 6340 4214 3505 1310 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Lactation Length & Number of Sows

12.5 Parity 1 Performance Average Totalborn Pigs per Litter Begin 12 Crate Breaking 11.5 11 10.5 Begin Heat Checking In Iso and Crate Breaking 10 Poly. (Average total pigs per litter) 9.5 Feb-03 Apr-03 Jun-03 Aug-03 Oct-03 Dec-03 Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Date

Stillborns vs. Total Born Total Born 2005 2006 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 13.21 13.79 14.06 12.41 11.91 11.1616 14.36 14.57 12.8 13.67 11.49 12.32 0 1 2 3 4 Total Average Stillborn/ Litter

Stillborn vs. Born Alive Total Born - Stillborn 2005 2006 12 11.5 11.16 11.41 11.21 11.14 11 10.79 10.5 10 9.5 9 11.8 11.49 11.67 11.36 10.06 11.51 10.57 0 1 2 3 4 Total Average Stillborn/ Litter

WPI Breeding Audit Forms Gilt Breeding 1 Gilts age at breeding >240 days Tattoo checked 2 Gilts >300 lbs at breeding 3 Gilts fed 2 or 3 times per day Method of feeding hand fed Drop on feed line Feed available at all times to gilts 4 Heat checking in isolation (7 days a week) Minimum of 10 minutes per pen boar in the pen with gilts V-Boar used for heat checking is serviced 2 times per week Record of V-boar service Gilts in heat are tagged with week color and day of week Heats are recorded as HNS (number per week recorded on farm) 5 Gilts bred after 10 days crate breaking Gilts bred on 2nd or 3rd heat (HNS on first 6 service's)) Sow Breeding 1 Open females fed 2 or 3 times per day Hand fed Feed line drops Yes No Comments Yes No Comments Feed available at all times to open females 2 First service in pen Time of stimulation at the service > 3 min. 3 Sows bred AM/AM/AM 4 Sows moved to snake after 1st service 5 Times 2 and 3 services in the snake Time of stimulation at the service > 3 min. Belts or AI Buddies used 6 Boar present at the time of service 7 Trailer boar present after the service 8 V-Boars serviced a minimum of 2 times per wk Record of V-Boar services

Breeding Audit Forms Lactation Feeding Prefarrow feeding 4 lbs of feed per day starting at day 112 (weather in the farrowing 1 or gestaion) Fed 2 times a day in farrowing No feed day of farrowing (unless sow 2 farrows and demands feeding) 3 Feeding after farrowing 2 times a day until the room is farrowed out and litters are 2 days of age All other sows fed 3 times per day (snack feeding as needed) 2 lbs per feeding the first week 4 lbs per feeding the second week Percent of empty feeders in the room after snack feeding 4 Feeder management Feeders are checked at each feeding for mold or contaminated feed Feeders are cleaned if problems found Moldy or contaminated feed disguarded in the pit Sows have a working source of water and 5 know how to work it Flow rate is at least 2 liters/minute Water pressure is controled so that the nipple doesn't spray water into the crate area 6 Off feed sows Walked to see if this will help to ge them back on feed Manager has been consulted for proper diagnosis of the sows off feed and treatment plan if nec Yes No Comments

Wean Age Audit FARM (All) 1200 Sum of COUNTS 1000 800 600 400 200 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Plus Month Apr 03 Apr 04 Sept 04 AGE

SWAP Why not more of the industry participation in the program Wasn t required Time to do the process

Auditing Diagram

AWAP Adoption Eminent NCCR and FMI developed AWAP, an audit program for all farms Fall 2004, momentum was growing, introduction ti eminent AWAP cost to the industry was estimated by ISU and the University of Minnesota at over $100 million per year.

Swine Welfare Assurance Already in Place Work began in 2000 2003 SWAP introduced Science-based Education and assessment program No audit component Customers believed SWAP lacked credibility and the pork industry believed AWAP was unworkable abe and unaffordable. dabe

Progress Before Guarded dialogue with customers. Audit as tool to manage industry welfare challenge. AWAP was gaining momentum. Activists i t driving i the agenda. 100 % farm audit at a cost of over $100 million per year. Purpose of audit to discover out-of-compliance farms. Now Effective dialogue and agreement with customers. Education and assessment is the tool to manage welfare issue. AWAP is off the table. Solution designed d for the mainstream consumer. Audit of stratified sample with reasonable costs. Audit designed to continuously improve the system.

The Workable / Affordable Component What s New and What s Not 1. PQA Plus Certification for producer 2. PQA Plus certification and status lasts for 3 years 3. PQA and SWAP are merged 4. All PQA Plus Advisors must be trained 5. SWAP (GPP 10) assessment is streamlined and focused 6. Care and well-being audits of a statistical sample of sites 7. PQA Plus Status for site premise ID

The Credibility Component The goal of audits should be to measure the effectiveness of the welfare assurance system/program, not to find farms not in compliance. Audit farms to achieve a 99% confidence level that at least 95% of farms are in compliance Pending USDA approval, Pork Checkoff would pay for audits

Objective Continuous Improvement Use the aggregate assessment data to identify areas for additional education and training in pork production

GPP # 10 Provide proper swine care to improve swine well-being.

Introduction PQA Plus Site Assessment An on-farm educational site assessment tool for pork producers to objectively assess the well-being of their pigs.

Introduction PQA Plus GPP #10 consists of twelve care and well-being principles. i Ten of these principles are assessed through all phases of production: Gilts, sows, boars, neonatal pigs Nursery and finisher pigs Three animal care and well-being areas will be reviewed during the site assessment: Records Animals Facilities

Preparation Checklist General Premises identification Animal inventory by phase and housing type Site map (if necessary)

Preparation Checklist Records Evidence of VCPR Medication and treatment records Daily animal observation records Caretaker training program documentation Emergency action plan Euthanasia plan

Preparation Checklist Materials PQA Plus Education Book PQA Plus Assessment Workbook PQA Plus Assessment Guide Equipment Thermometer NH 3 gas diffusion tubes Marking stick/spray Clipboard Ink pen Duct tape Measuring bucket Watch or stopwatch for timing

What is a Site? Defined by National Premises Identification Number Premises ID registration occurs at the state level http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/premis hi d / i / i es_id/register.shtml

Use the table in the Assessment Guide or Assessment Workbook Selecting Animals

Ex. 1 Selecting Animals Fill in table to determine number of animals in each phase and housing type to assess.

Assessment Form Assessment Points should be marked either: Acceptable Develop and implement an action plan

Assessment Form Some Assessment Points will require a calculation result and/or measurement to be filled in.

Benchmarking Appendix Some data is not mandatory but should be Some data is not mandatory but should be recorded for benchmarking purposes.

Recordkeeping Does the site have documentation of caretaker training? i Yes- Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. No Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. Documentation should include: Trainee name Trainer name Date

Emergency Support Does the site have a written emergency action plan? Yes- Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. No Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. Written action plan Covers various emergencies fire, weather, power outage, etc... Telephone numbers for owner, veterinarian, fire and police posted near telephone

Emergency Support Does the site have an operational emergency backup system? Yes- Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. No Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. Emergency backup system Backup system for mechanical ventilation failure Manual procedures in place Automated intervention

Daily Observation Does the site have daily observation records? Yes- Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. No Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. Date, caretaker name or initials, building ID Records should be kept for 12 months Examples of daily observation Log, calendar, water usage, high/low temperatures, sow cards

Body Condition Score (BCS) Is the body condition score for healthy animals in the Breeding Herd 1% or less BCS 1? Review the table and make appropriate marking on the Assessment Form. Is the BCS calculation: Mark this: Less than 1% BCS 1 Acceptable Greater than 1% BCS 1 Develop and implement action plan Is the body condition score for healthy animals in the Non-Breeding Herd 3% or less BCS 1? Review the table and make appropriate marking on the Assessment Form. Is the BCS calculation: Mark this: Less than 3% BCS 1 Acceptable Greater than 3% BCS 1 Develop and implement action plan

Body Condition Score (BCS) Indicator of management and animal well-being 1 2 3 4 5 Detection of ribs, back bone, Score Condition H bones, and pin bones 1 Emaciated Obvious 2 Thin Easily detected with pressure 3 Ideal Barely felt with firm pressure 4 Fat None 5 Overly fat None

Body Condition Score (BCS) Example calculation (breeding herd): #1 Number of pigs with BCS 1 = 3 #2 Total pigs observed = 63 (#1 #2) x 100 = 4.8% OPTIONAL: Repeat calculations for BCS 2 5 animals in the Breeding Herd only and record in the Benchmarking Appendix.

Body Space Do 90% of pigs in the breeding herd have adequate body space? Is the Body Space calculation result: Mark this: Greater than 90% meeting space requirements Acceptable Less than 90% meeting space requirements Develop and implement action plan

Body Space Adequate space to accommodate a pig s body requires that the pig can: Easily lie down fully on its side (full lateral recumbency) without having to lie on another pig and easily stand back up; Lie down without the head having to rest on a raised feeder; Additionally, a sow housed in a stall must be able to lie down fully on its side (full lateral recumbency) without the head having to rest on a raised feeder and the rear quarters coming in contact with the back of fthe stall at tthe same time.

Body Space Complete the calculation and record on the Assessment Form. Example: #1 Number of pigs not meeting space requirements = 5 #2 Total pigs observed = 63 (#1 #2) x 100 = 7.9%

Euthanasia Doesthesitehaveawritten site have a euthanasia action plan? Yes- Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. No Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. Written euthanasia plan which conforms to AASV guidelines Available to all caretakers

Ventilation Do the majority of the pigs display physical signs consistent with exposure to poor air quality? Yes- Take a 2 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) measurement. No Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. Signs of poor air quality Watery and mattery eyes Bloodshot eyes Difficulty breathing Does the 2 hour TWA measurement exceed 25 ppm? Yes- Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. No Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form.

Ventilation 2-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Ammonia reading Record ammonia measurements at pig height ht (approximately 1ft above the floor) in the center (center from side-to-side) at one-third intervals down the length of the barn. Record the start time and snap off the end of each gas diffusion tube. Secure them out of reach of any pigs nearby.

Willful Acts of Abuse Did you observe any Willful Acts of Abuse? Yes- Mark Develop and Implement an Action Plan on the Assessment Form. No Mark Acceptable on the Assessment Form. Willful abuse is defined as acts outside of normally accepted production practices that intentionally ti cause pain and suffering including, but not limited to: Applying prods to sensitive areas like: eyes, ears, nose, rectum Malicious hitting/beating Purposeful failure to provide minimal i food, water and care that results in significant harm or death to animals

Animal Evaluation Production Performance Average Daily Gain Farrowing Rate Mortality

Animal Evaluation Physical Evaluation Lameness Skin lesions (abscesses, wounds) Rectal prolapses Complete the calculations l and record in Benchmarking Appendix. Example: #1 Number of pigs pg lame = 25 #2 Total pigs observed = 63 (#1 #2) x 100 = 39.7%

Animal Evaluation Swine Behavior Animals reaction to you or someone else can indicate how they are being handled

Pen maintenance Facilities In good repair so as not to cause injury Pens and flooring Feeders and waterers Feeder space Ample space for daily ration consumption and prevention of unnecessary fighting and competition Feeders located to allow for unobstructed feed delivery Water availability Sufficient flow rate Waterers located to allow for unobstructed water delivery

Facilities Complete the calculations and record in Benchmarking Appendix. Example (flooring): #1 Number of pens with damaged flooring that could injure animals = 2 #2 Total pens observed = 30 (#1 #2) x 100 = 6.7%

Final steps Complete the Assessment Form and Benchmarking Appendix Work with a PQA Plus Advisor to develop action plans as needed Implement the action plans

Auditing Diagram

Summary Auditing is in all of our futures PQA Plus Other programs will also require this Good method of process control Allows for measurable events for continuous improvement

Summary If you measure it will change Make sure the swine industry has a say in what we measure