Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T10:13:26.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pig housing and human health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. D. Watson  and
J. A. R. Friend
R. D. Watson
Affiliation:
396 King Street, Aberdeen AB2 3BY
J. A. R. Friend
Affiliation:
Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen
Get access

Abstract

Studies in the USA, Sweden and the Netherlands have shown that workers in enclosed piggeries have high levels of respiratory injury, apparently caused or exacerbated by inhaled factors in their working environment. Three types of airborne hazard are known in piggeries — gases, dusts and infectious agents such as bacteria.

Of the gases that accumulate in enclosed piggeries, carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide, are asphyxiating, while dihydrogen sulphide and ammonia are irritant and toxic. The long-term effects of exposure to subclinical concentrations of these gases and their rôle in producing chronic respiratory effects in workers are unknown.

Studies have shown that organic dusts occur in enclosed piggeries at undesirably high concentrations and that a relatively high proportion of this dust is respirable. The components of these dusts consist mostly of fractions of foodstuffs and pig faeces but with significant amounts of pigskin and pig gut epithelial cells. Also microbes, especially fungi and bacteria, have been found to be numerous. Different components of piggery dust could be irritant, toxic, allergenic, inflammatory or infectious, and a single component could have more than one of these effects. Studies suggest that bacterial endotoxins are present in the dust of enclosed piggeries at concentrations that could induce respiratory diseases in workers.

It is recommended that in designing piggeries more attention should be given to the health and comfort of piggery workers and that a survey be carried out immediately to assess the level of respiratory disease in British piggery workers. Also a greater effort should be put into the health education of piggery workers and managers and of those involved in piggery design. Practical and effective systems for the control of dust and gas levels in piggeries, and appropriate management techniques, need to be developed for new piggeries and for already constructed buildings, and the financial cost of poor control of dust and gas contaminants brought home to producers. Overall, a watching brief needs to be maintained on trends in the design and management of pig rearing systems for their likely impact on workers' health.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 11: Pig Housing and the Environment , January 1987 , pp. 41 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1987

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

REFERENCES

American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists. 1986a. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work Environment Adopted by ACGIH — With Intended Changes for 1986–87, pp. 1–9American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists. 1986b. Documentation of the Thresh-hold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 5th ed., p. 27. American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Attwood, P., Versloot, P., Heederik, D., Wit, R. De and Boley, J. S. 1986. Assessment of dust and endotoxin levels in the working environment of Dutch pig farmers: a preliminary study. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 30: 207–208.Google ScholarPubMed
Bongers, P., Houthuijs, D., Remijn, B. and Biersteker, K. 1986. [Lung function and airway obstruction in pig farmers.] Tijdshrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 64: 81–86.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R. 1986. Prevalence, control and prevention of non-specific lung disorders among pig farmers in the Netherlands. CEC Meeting on the Environmental Aspects of Respiratory Diseases in Intensive Pig and Poultry Houses Including the Implications for Human Health. (In Press).Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., Biersteker, K., Bongers, P., Remijn, B., and Houthuijs, D. 1986. Respiratory symptoms, lung function and Ig G4 levels against pig antigens in a sample of Dutch pig farms. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cermak, J. P. and Ross, P. A. 1978. Airborne dust concentrations associated with animal housing tasks. Farm Building Progress 51: January, pp. 11–15.Google Scholar
Clark, S. 1986. Report on prevention and control. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 267–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, S., Rylander, R. and Larsson, L. 1983. Airborne bacteria, endotoxin and fungi in dust in poultry and swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 44: 537–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuthbert, O. D., Jeffrey, I. G., McNeill, H. B., Wood, J. and Topping, M. D. 1984. Barn allergy among Scottish farmers. Clinical Allergy 14: 197–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darke, C. S., Knowelden, J., Lacey, J. and Melford, W. A. 1976. Respiratory disease of workers harvesting grain. Thorax 31: 294–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J. 1986. Hazardous agents in agricultural dusts and methods of evaluation. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 205–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J. and Gustafson, K. E. 1982. Human occupational hazards from swine confinement Annals of American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 2: 137–142.Google Scholar
Donham, K. J., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y. and Rylander, R. 1986a. Environmental and health studies in swine confinement buildings. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 289–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J. and Leineiger, J. 1984. Animal studies of potential chronic lung disease of workers in swine confinement buildings. American Journal of Veterinary Research 45: 926–931.Google ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J. and Popendorf, W. J. 1985. Ambient levels of selected gases inside swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 46: 658–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J., Popendorf, W., Paligren, U. and Larsson, L. 1986b. Characterisation of dusts collected from swine confinement buildings. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 294–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J., Rubeno, M., Thedall, T. D. and Kammermeyer, J. 1977. Potential health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine, Baltimore 19: 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J., Yeggy, J. and Dague, R. R. 1985. Chemical and physical parameters of liquid manure from swine confinement facilities: health implications for workers, swine and the environment. Agricultural Wastes 14: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donham, K. J., Zavala, D. C. and Merchant, J. A. 1984a. Respiratory symptoms and lung function among workers in swine confinement buildings. A cross-sectional epidemiological study. Archives of Environmental Health 39: 96–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donham, K. J., Zavala, D. C. and Merchant, J. 1984b. Acute effects of the work environment on pulmonary functions of swine confinement workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 5: 367–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilham, R. A. 1977. Reaction of farm workers to environmental factors on some North East of Scotland pig housing units. Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit Internal Report.Google Scholar
Grant, I., Blyth, W., Wardrop, U., Gordon, R., Pearson, J. and Mair, A. 1978. Prevalence of farmer's lung in Scotland. A pilot survey. British Medical Journal 1: 530–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haglind, P. and Rylander, R. 1987. Occupational exposure and lung function measurements among workers in swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine. In press.Google Scholar
Katila, M. J., Mäntyjärvi, R. A. and Ojanen, T. H. 1981. Sensitisation against environmental antigens and respiratory symptoms in swine workers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 38: 334–338.Google ScholarPubMed
Morgan, D. C., Smith, J. J., Lister, R. W., Pethybridge, R. J., Gilson, J. C., Callaghan, J. C. and Thomas, G. O. 1975. Chest symptoms in farming communities with special reference to farmer's lung. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 32: 228–234.Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, J. F. and Wilson, D. 1986. Respiratory diseases in pigs — housing interactions. Interim Report CSA 672 to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Rylander, R. 1986. Lung diseases caused by organic dusts in the farm environment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 221–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rylander, R., Donham, K. J. and Peterson, Y. 1986. Health effects of organic dusts in the agricultural environment. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Skokloster, Sweden, April 23–25, 1985. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 193–340.Google Scholar
Thedell, T. D., Mull, J. C. and Olenchock, S. A. 1980. A brief report of gram–negative bacterial endotoxin levels in airborne and settled dusts in animal confinement buildings. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, R. D. 1986. Prevention of dust exposure. American Journal Of Industrial Medicine 10: 229–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, R. D., Friend, J. A. R.Legge, J. S. and Bruce, C. E. 1986. The causes, detection and control of respiratory dust diseases of farm workers in northern Scotland. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10: 331–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed