Effect of Pig Synthetic Pheromones and Positive Handling of Pregnant Sows on the Productivity of Nursery Pigs.

Weaning is one of the most important stress events in the life of pigs, increasing the risk for health problems and reduced performance. The release of pheromones in pig stables can be considered an environmental enrichment and alleviate the negative effects of weaning stress in nursery pigs. The present study investigated the effect of synthetic pheromones on the performance of nursery pigs. The effect of positive handling of sows in the farrowing house on the performance of the offspring in the nursery was also investigated. The study was performed in a commercial pig farm and included 24 batches of weaned piglets (216 piglets per batch). Half of the batches originated from sows exposed to positive handling. This implied that music was played from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. from the moment the sows entered the farrowing house until weaning and that they were subjected to backscratching from the day they entered the farrowing unit the day of farrowing. During the nursery period, half of the batches were treated, and half served as controls. Piglets of treated groups were exposed to a synthetic analog of the maternal pig appeasing pheromone (PAP) (SecurePig®, Signs, Avignon, France). The product consisted of a gel block from which the pheromones were slowly released into the room. Different performance parameters were measured during the nursery period. Neither the sow treatment nor the treatment with pheromones significantly influenced the performance of the piglets during the nursery period (p > 0.05). The median values (95% confidence interval) of average daily gain, namely 318 (282-338) vs. 305 (272-322) g/day, feed conversion ratio, namely 1.64 (1.51-1.71) vs. 1.70 (1.57-1.75), and number of antimicrobial treatment days, namely 16.9 (9.6-25.0) vs. 17.3 (9.5-25.0) days, were numerically better in the nursery pigs exposed to the pheromones compared to the control groups. Mortality however was numerically higher in the treated groups, namely 4.4 (2.8-6.8) vs. 3.2 (0.9-4.2)%. Under the conditions of the present production system, pigs exposed to the pheromone treatment during the nursery did not show a significant performance increase.

Supporting Measures to Improve Biosecurity within Italian Poultry Production.

This paper describes the selection and validation of supporting measures (SMs) aimed at enhancing biosecurity compliance within Italian poultry farms. A tailored methodology, based on a stakeholders' survey involving farmers and advisors, included a virtual farm tour, group discussion, and farmer coaching. Virtual farm tours and group discussions were delivered during two meetings targeting meat and egg production stakeholders, separately. Coaching was validated in 26 pilot farms (PFs) by assessing farmers' attitudes towards change (i.e., ADKAR®) and farms' biosecurity score (i.e., Biocheck.UgentTM) before and after a minimum six-month period. A total of 20 out of 26 farmers agreed to implement at least one action plan (AP). Full implementation of the agreed APs was observed in ten farms, while others only partially implemented (n = 7) or did not implement (n = 3) the improvement. Most APs focused on enhancing house hygiene locks (n = 7), followed by bacterial auto-control after cleaning and disinfection (n = 4). Scoring tools indicated minimal or no variations in farmers' attitudes towards change and farm biosecurity. Virtual farm tours and group discussions were found to be effective in fostering interaction and facilitating the exchange of experiences and knowledge among farmers and stakeholders of poultry production. Coaching indicated that farmers might prefer implementing minor changes possibly influenced by time and cost constraints associated with structural interventions. These limitations could have also impacted the scores of the farmer/farm. The findings of this study provide a foundation for further application of SMs to improve biosecurity in Italian poultry farms.

Factors Affecting Poultry Producers' Attitudes towards Biosecurity.

Poultry producers' attitudes towards biosecurity practices were assessed by using the ADKAR® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) behavioral change model. Conventional poultry producers (n = 155) from different production types including broilers (n = 35), layers (n = 22), breeders (n = 24), turkeys (n = 19), ducks (n = 23), free-range broilers (n = 11), free-range layers (n = 11), and hatcheries (n = 10) from seven European countries were scored for each ADKAR element (1 = total absence to 5 = perfect fulfilment). Each country performed selected interventions (e.g., coaching, participatory meetings, etc.) to improve biosecurity compliance. After the interventions, significant change was observed in three of the four attitude elements. The overall mean scores (x¯ ± SD) obtained during the initial assessment (n = 130) were 4.2 ± 0.6 for Awareness, 4.1 ± 0.7 for Desire, 3.8 ± 0.8 for Knowledge, and 4.0 ± 0.7 for Ability, whereas after intervention, the scores were A = 4.3 ± 0.6, D = 4.2 ± 0.7, K = 4.1 ± 0.7, and Ab = 4.1 ± 0.7. The Reinforcement component was only evaluated after the change and obtained a score of 3.7 ± 0.7 on average. Identifying the elements influencing poultry producers and their behavior related to farm management decisions was useful in guiding our educational interventions to effectively change their behavior.

Development and use of Biocheck.UGent™ scoring system to quantify biosecurity in conventional indoor (turkey, duck, breeder) and free-range (layer and broiler) poultry farms.

To assess and enhance the application of biosecurity measures in poultry farming, an objective measurement tool (Biocheck.UGent™) was already available for broiler and layer. This study describes the development, validation and application of a risk-based weighted scoring tool for breeder, turkey, duck, free-range layer and free-range broiler production. In collaboration with an expert panel (n= 38), five different questionnaires were developed, following the format of the existing Biocheck.UGent scoring tools. Weights were attributed to external (7-9 subcategories) and internal (3-4 subcategories) biosecurity categories, as well as to the corresponding individual questions within each subcategory. The biosecurity measures were prioritized and weighed based on their relative importance in preventing disease transmission. Upon completion of the questionnaire, and upload of all answers to the Biocheck.UGent website, the algorithm generates a biosecurity score varying between ''0'' which equals the total absence of any biosecurity measure up to ''100'' which refers to full application of all biosecurity measures. The final scoring systems are available online (https://biocheckgent.com/en) for free and have been used to assess biosecurity in 70 breeders, 100 turkeys, 23 ducks, 16 free-range broilers, and 15 free-range layer farms originating from 12 countries so far. On average, the overall biosecurity score (mean ± std. dev) was 78 ± 7 % for breeders, 73 ± 11 % for turkeys, 71 ± 8 % for ducks, 73 ± 8 % for free-range layers and 70 ± 13 % for free-range broilers. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in biosecurity (both at the overall and subcategory levels) across different poultry types. The overall farm biosecurity score for breeders was significantly higher than that for turkey (p <.001) and duck production (p = 0.001). External biosecurity levels were highest in breeders in comparison to turkeys (p < 0.001), ducks (p = 0.008) and broiler free-range (p = 0.005). There was a notable difference in internal biosecurity levels between duck and turkey (p = 0.041) production as well. The study contributed to the poultry biosecurity database which allows benchmarking of the biosecurity levels of the users' farm results to national or international averages, indicating room for improvement and aiding to motivate stakeholders to enhance their biosecurity levels.

Biosecurity implementation on large-scale poultry farms in Europe: A qualitative interview study with farmers.

Biosecurity is an essential tool for rearing healthy animals. Biosecurity measures (BMs) are well known in poultry production, but it is difficult to assess actual implementation on farms. The aims of this qualitative study were (1) to provide an overview of biosecurity implementation according to poultry farmers in Europe; and (2) to better understand the reported reasons and potential obstacles for not implementing the measures. In seven European Union Member States, 192 farmers (118 under contract with a company and 68 independents) working in seven different categories of poultry production were interviewed on 62 BMs to determine the frequency of implementation and the reasons for non-implementation. Most of the replies (n = 7791) concerning BM implementation were reported by the farmers as "always" implemented (81%), statistically higher for breeders (87%) and layers (82%) and lower for independent farms versus farms under contract with a company (79.5% and 82.5%, respectively). Regardless the poultry production category, the most frequently implemented BMs declared by the farmers were daily surveillance of birds, rodent control and feed storage protection. Standard hygiene practices were also mentioned as high-implementation measures for most production categories, with some deficiencies, such as rendering tank disinfection after each collection and, for meat poultry, disinfection of the feed silo and bacterial control of house cleaning and disinfection between each cycle. The entry of vehicles and individuals onto poultry farms, especially during critical points of eggs collection for breeders and layers, as well as the presence of other animals, such as the "all in/all out" practice, particularly in layers and ducks, were also reported as the least commonly practiced measures. The main reasons for not implementing the measures (n = 1683 replies) were low awareness and poor knowledge of the expected benefits of biosecurity ("no known advantages" 14%, and "not useful" 12%), the lack of training ("not enough training" 5% and "advice" 7%), lack of time (19%), and financial aspects (17%). Despite the good overall biosecurity mentioned by the farmers, these findings highlight certain deficiencies, suggesting room for improvement and the need for targeted and tailored support of poultry farmers in Europe.

Monitoring biosecurity in poultry production: an overview of databases reporting biosecurity compliance from seven European countries.

Compliance with required on-farm biosecurity practices reduces the risk of contamination and spread of zoonotic and economically important diseases. With repeating avian influenza epidemics in the poultry industry, the need to monitor and improve the overall level of biosecurity is increasing. In practice, biosecurity compliance is assessed by various actors (e.g., academic, private and public institutions), and the results of such assessments may be recorded and gathered in databases which are seldom shared or thoroughly analyzed. This study aimed to provide an inventory of databases related to the assessment of biosecurity in poultry farms in seven major poultry-producing European countries to highlight challenges and opportunities associated with biosecurity data collection, sharing, and use. The institutions in charge of these databases were contacted and interviewed using a structured questionnaire to gather information on the main characteristics of the databases and the context of their implementation. A total of 20 databases were identified, covering the gamut of poultry species and production types. Most databases were linked to veterinary health authorities or academia, and to a lesser extent interbranch organizations. Depending on the institutions in charge, the databases serve various purposes, from providing advice to enforcing regulations. The quality of the biosecurity data collected is believed to be quite reliable, as biosecurity is mostly assessed by trained farm advisors or official veterinarians and during a farm visit. Some of the databases are difficult to analyze and/or do not offer information concerning which biosecurity measures are most or least respected. Moreover, some key biosecurity practices are sometimes absent from certain databases. Although the databases serve a variety of purposes and cover different production types, each with specific biosecurity features, their analysis should help to improve the surveillance of biosecurity in the poultry sector and provide evidence on the benefits of biosecurity.