Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:55:35.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

M. Hernández-Jover ,
N. Schembri ,
J.-A. L. M. L. Toribio  and
P. K. Holyoake
M. Hernández-Jover*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
N. Schembri
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
J.-A. L. M. L. Toribio
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
P. K. Holyoake
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
*
E-mail: mhernandez_jover@usyd.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

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

Keywords

Australiaidentification systempigstattootraceability
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 11 , November 2008 , pp. 1692 - 1699
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammendrup, S, Barcos, LO 2006. The implementation of traceability systems. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 25, 763–773.Google Scholar
Artmann, R 1999. Electronic identification systems: state of the art and their further development. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 24, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005. Australian demographic statistics: December quarter 2005. ABS, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Australian Government 2005. About the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.mincos.gov.au/about_pimc.htmGoogle Scholar
Australian Pork Limited 2006. Australian Pig Annual 2005 (Canberra, Australia, Australian Pork Limited). Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.australianpork.com.au/pages/images/AustralianPigAnnual.pdfGoogle Scholar
Australian Pork Limited 2008. The Australian Pork Industry Quality Program (APIQ). Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.australianpork.com.au/pages/page93.aspGoogle Scholar
Barcos, LO 2001. Recent developments in animal identification and the traceability of animal products in international trade. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 20, 640–651.Google Scholar
Bourn J 2002. The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General (London, National Audit Office). Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102939.pdfGoogle Scholar
Caja, G, Ribó, O, Nehring, R, Conill, C, Prió, P 1996. Electronic identification in sheep, goat and cattle using ruminal bolus. In Performance recording of animals – state of the art 1996, EAAP Scientific Series no. 87 (ed. J Renaud and J van Gelder), pp. 355–358. European Association Animal Science, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Caja, G, Hernández-Jover, M, Ghirardi, JJ, Garin, D, Mocket, J-H 2002. Aplicación de la identificación electrónica a la trazabilidad del ganado y de la carne. In Seguridad alimentaria de la carne y los productos cárnicos (ed. Fundación Ibérica para la Seguridad Alimentaria), pp. 147–167. FUNDISA, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Caja, G, Ghirardi, JJ, Hernández-Jover, M, Garín, D 2004. Diversity of animal identification techniques: from ‘fire age’ to ‘electronic age’. In Development of animal identification and recording systems for developing countries, Technical Series no. 9 (ed. R Pauw, S Mack and J Maki-Hokkonen), pp. 21–39. The International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Caja, G, Hernández-Jover, M, Conill, C, Garín, D, Alabern, X, Farriol, B, Ghirardi, JJ 2005. Use of ear tags and injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of pigs from birth to the end of the slaughter line. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2215–2224.Google Scholar
Cutler, RS, Holyoake, PK 2007. The structure and dynamics of the pig meat industry. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Disney, WT, Green, JW, Forsythe, KW, Wiemers, JF, Weber, S 2001. Benefit–cost analysis of animal identification for disease prevention and control. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 20, 385–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, I, Martin, W, Stryhn, H 2003. Veterinary epidemiologic research. Atlantic Veterinary College, Inc., Charlottetown, Canada.Google Scholar
Geers, R, Puers, R, Goedseels, V, Wouters, P 1997. Electronic identification, monitoring and tracking of animals. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK; New York, USA.Google Scholar
Gordon, W, Langmaid, R 1988. Qualitative market research: a practitioner’s and buyer’s guide. Gower Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, UK; Brookfield, USA.Google Scholar
Hernández-Jover M 2006. Application of the electronic identification for swine traceability. PhD, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Hernández-Jover, M, Wu, M, Schembri, N, Holyoake, PK, Toribio, J-ALM 2007. Technical note: evaluation of the official identification system for pigs for sale in New South Wales. Journal of Animal Science 86, 472–475.Google Scholar
Holm, DM 1981. Development of a national electronic identification system for livestock. Journal of Animal Science 53, 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, J 1995. Introducing focus groups (qualitative research, part 5). British Medical Journal 311, 299–303.Google Scholar
Krueger, RA 1998. Analyzing and reporting focus group results: focus group kit, vol. 6. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, RA, Casey, MA 2000. A practical guide for applied research, 3rd edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Madec, F, Geers, R, Vesseur, P, Kjeldsen, N, Blaha, T 2001. Traceability in the pig production chain. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 20, 523–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, MJ, Roger, PA, Bashiruddin, JB 2006. Making better use of technological advances to meet stakeholder needs. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 25, 233–251.Google Scholar
McKean, JD 2001. The importance of traceability for public health and consumer protection. Revue Scientifique et Technique – Office International des Épizooties 20, 363–371.Google Scholar
Morgan, DL 1995. Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research 5, 516–523.Google Scholar
Morgan, DL, Spanish, MT 1984. Focus groups: a new tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology 7, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray AH 2006. Livestock saleyards and parameters for the spread of infectious animal diseases, particularly foot-and-mouth disease, in New Zealand. Master of Veterinary Public Health Management, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries 2005. Pig branding in NSW. Primefact 116. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/___data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47939/Pig-branding-in-nsw---primefact-116-final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2007. Body tattoo branding of pigs in Queensland. Queensland DPI&F Note. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/cps/rde/xchg/dpi/hs.xsl/4790_5226_ENA_HTML.htmGoogle Scholar
Schembri, N, Sithole, F, Toribio, JA, Hernández-Jover, M, Holyoake, PK 2007a. Lifetime traceability of weaner pigs in concrete-based and deep-litter production systems in Australia. Journal of Animal Science 85, 3123–3130.Google Scholar
Schembri, N, Toribio, JA, Sithole, F, Holyoake, T 2007b. Review of identification and traceability legislation for pigs in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 85, 255–260.Google Scholar
Thrusfield, MV 2005. Veterinary epidemiology, 3rd edition. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Victorian Department of Primary Industries 2007. Pig identification systems: tattoo branding and ear tagging. Agriculture note. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/v/6279275FA14BDC0ECA25740F00789A04/$file/Pig_Identification_Systems_Tattoo_Branding_and_Ear_Tagging.pdfGoogle Scholar