year Individual Pig Care (IPC) The best swine management system to increase profitably while optimizing the medicines use.

Transcription

1 year Individual Pig Care (IPC) The best swine management system to increase profitably while optimizing the medicines use.

2 Since the moment this thesis started, some improvements have been made to the system and its components. The actual IPC users may therefore realize that some details are not exactly the same as per their version of the program. Individual Pig Care is a service developed by Zoetis International Services. IPC is Zoetis property. The only involvement of Zoetis in the thesis work has been the provision of the IPC software tool. Study conduct, treatment decisions, observations made and data generated are the sole responsibility of the author.

3 Individual Pig Care (IPC) Summary of data from IPC pilots and 1 year of field use Design and production: ADONIS Création Printed in France

4 A Answering all customers needs Innovative & differentiating service to increase vets added value towards producers Early treatment = higher chances of recovery Minimization of looses: Reduction of mortality Better homogeneity & ADG AIF only used when needed, where needed = on-field proofs for AIF choice Maximization of efficacy Clinical scoring info Full value pig at abattoir -> diagnostic tool Responsible use of anti-infective Veterinarians Producers Vets & producers A Early detection & mortality reduction IPC helps identifying the pigs at the earliest stages of the disease thus reducing mortality Results from the metanalysis of real on-field data (1 year animals) bite other lame brain gut lung Results from the metanalysis of real on-field data (1 year animals)

5 B C B C IPC improves weight gain in nursery IPC improves weight gain in nursery Results from pilots -> publication in ESPHM 2012 & IPVS 2012 Weight evolution by treatment *** *** IPC = IPC methodology and anti-infectives already in use IPC + = IPC methodology with Zoetis anti-infectives Results from pilots -> publication in ESPHM 2012 & IPVS 2012 Herd homogeneity is improved through IPC Herd homogeneity is improved through IPC Homogeneity evolution by treatment IPC hab = IPC methodology and anti-infectives already in use IPC plus = IPC methodology with Zoetis anti-infectives H = 100-CV Results from pilots -> publication in ESPHM 2012 & IPVS

6 D E Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis IPC helps reducing mortality % D IPC helps reducing mortality % Mortality evolution in growing/fattening farm Mortality rate per per batch Historical data without IPC % 1.75% With IPC 1.40% Results from pilots -> publication in ESPHM 2012 & IPVS 2012 IPC helps optimizing the responsible use of AIF Without IPC With IPC Nursery batches Animals Scored animals = sick animals (30%) 653 (22%) Treated animals Treatment per animal 0,22 0,27 INJECTAB LE AIF Amoxi-promicine 6.2 Amoxi-promicine 5.9 Curadine 0.9 Lincospectin 0.6 Treatments Trimazin 11.1 Trimazin 4.2 Doxyveto 5.2 (Molecules and days average 10 batches) Moxapulvis 10.3 Moxapulvis 5.9 ORAL AIF Tylan 5 % of live days under treatment with oral medication 60% 39% Mortality (natural, euthanasia, runts) 2,6% 2,4% Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis

7 E Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis E Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis TI IPC helps optimizing the responsible use of AIF ADD vs UDD in real farm conditions ADD = "Animal Daily Dose". Expected average dosage used per day per molecule for the most common indication. The values for ADD are established based on the producer prescribed dosage. UDD = "Used Daily Dose", the actual administered dose per day per kg of pig of a molecule. ADD vs UDD in real farm conditions ADD without IPC UDD without IPC ADD with IPC UDD with IPC Batches Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis while maintaining a good health index Health index comparison between different batches With IPC and injectable medication Without IPC and full oral medication

8 F G Results from in-field IPC usage (BL) -> publication doctoral thesis F IPC helps reducing the economical investment in AIF IPC helps reducing the economical investment in AIF Costs Cost of AIF medication ( /pig) Cost of AIF medication ( /pig) 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 without IPC 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 with IPC 0, Batches IPC enhances the positive economical results of the farm Analysis of the economical impact of IPC compared to traditional farming standards (with and without Zoetis AIF) IPC + AIF usually in Farm IPC + Zoetis AIF Extra Cost E per pig out (owing to IPC) - E 2.71 E 4.64 E Incomes E per pig out (owing to IPC) - E 5.29 E E Benefits E per pig out - E 2.58 E 5.85 E ROI E/E invested ROI as % of extra IPC return in one cycle 95.3 % % Simple Annualized ROI % 205 % 271 % Results from pilots -> under publication

9 GHENT UNIVERSITY - FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE year INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC) Applied on a Belgian pig farm By Filip VAN LOOVEREN Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dominiek Maes > Co-supervisor: Dr. André Dereu Thesis submitted for the obtaining of the Veterinary pig specialist diploma

10 CONTENTS SUMMARY p. 16 INTRODUCTION p. 17 THE STUDY p MATERIALS AND METHODS p WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? p Early identification of the sick pigs p Quantifying the symptoms p Severity of the diseases p Characterising diseases p Communication p The electronic pen p The IPC form p The classical grid p The AIF grid p The smartphone p The IPC dashboard p APPLICATION OF IPC ON THE FARM p The farm p Application of IPC p Antibiotic consumption p Influence of IPC on antibiotic consumption p RESULTS p RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 p The A / (A+B+C+D) ratio p The treated/scored ratio p The health index p Distribution of diseases by type and severity p Mortality p Individual treatments per animal p PRODUCTION PARAMETERS p TREATMENT INCIDENCE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS p DISCUSSION p APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 p EARLY DETECTION OF SYMPTOMS p TREATMENT INCIDENCE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS p Comparison of batches with IPC and batches without IPC p Comparison of individual treatment versus group treatment p MONITORING OF ANTIBIOTIC CONSUMPTION p CONCLUSION p. 60 REFERENCES p Quantification of antibiotic consumption p. 32

11 SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to test and evaluate a new management system for the pig sector known as Individual Pig Care (abbreviated to IPC ). IPC is based on the observing and treating of individual animals and on the collection of data which can then be consulted on a web based dashboard. The system was implemented and applied on a Belgian pig farm. The first part of this thesis explains what IPC is. It then sets out the experiences on the farm and what the farmer and veterinarian were able to see as a result of the data collected by the farmer. It also examines whether IPC can contribute to a better health management and hence to a more responsible use of antibiotics. The use of antimicrobials in intensive pig production is under scrutiny due to the emergence of resistant bacteria. Antibiotic use was monitored in five pens during two rearing cycles. This was followed by another two cycles in the same five pens, this time using the IPC protocol, and the consumption of antibiotics was compared. In the pens following the IPC protocol, antibiotic use was significantly lower than in the pens working with the traditional method commonly used on the farm. The average TI ADD and TI UDD values were and for the traditional pens and and for the IPC pens. The cost of antibiotics fell, as a result, from EUR 1.33 to EUR 0.71 per animal. The decrease in antibiotic use did not have an adverse effect on the animals health status or on production parameters such as growth and mortality. Finally, the thesis assesses the possibilities offered by IPC with regard to monitoring antibiotic consumption and presents the conclusions of this pioneering project. 1 6

12 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In modern pig farming, the use of antimicrobials is of vital importance in order to maintain the good health and welfare of the animals (Mateu and Martin, 2001; McEwen and Fedorka-Cray, 2002). Bacterial infections are prevented and controlled by the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics are usually administered via the feed or drinking water (Phillips et al., 2003). However, the use of antibiotics is under scrutiny due to its possible involvement in selection for resistant bacteria and the spread of resistance genes (Schwarz et al., 2001). The use of antibiotics in food-producing animals is assumed to play a role in the development of antimicrobial resistance (Aarestrup, 1999; Dang et al., 2011). Due to evidence that the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals can contribute to the presence of bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in pigs and other species (Van Duijkeren et al, 2008; Haesebrouck et al., 2006), and to the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli in chicken meat (Horton et al., 2011), public concern about the use of such drugs in intensive pig farming has increased greatly in recent years (Holmberg et al., 1987; Marshall and Levy, 2011). Controlling antimicrobial resistance in pigs should therefore be a priority (Timmerman et al., 2003), which is why reliable monitoring of antibiotic use is essential (Callens et al., 2012; Regula et al., 1999). On the one hand, responsible antibiotic use and its monitoring are one of the greatest challenges faced by the modern pig sector. On the other hand, the fierceness of competition and the regulations on animal welfare demand that diseases are controlled effectively and responsibly. Individual Pig Care (IPC) was developed to achieve both of these objectives. IPC is a management system for monitoring groups of post-weaning pigs and it is based on regular, individual observation of pigs so as to permit both early detection of management and health problems and a rapid and appropriate response (Pineiro et al., 2012). Detecting symptoms at an early stage of disease is very important. Failure to treat infections in time can have extremely adverse effects on the animals health and lead to poorer production parameters and reduced profitability (Smart et al., 1989; Opriessnig et al., 2007; Byra et al., 2011). IPC is based on the fast and effective collection and processing of data (Pineiro et al., 2012). In this study, IPC was applied and developed on a Belgian pig farm. The study investigated the possibilities offered by the system with regard to the monitoring and control of antibiotic use and the impact of an individual approach to treating animals on total antibiotic consumption and disease dynamics of the farm. It also tested whether IPC can be used as a tool for monitoring contract farms more effectively. IPC allows farms to be monitored in real time. The first section explains how IPC works and how it was implemented and applied on the Belgian farm. The results section summarises what the farmer and veterinarian surgeon are able to see as a result of the farmer s input and examines the influence that individual monitoring and treatment of animals can have on antibiotic consumption. The results and findings are examined in the discussion and, finally, the conclusion reports the experiences gained in this pioneering project and the possibilities that IPC offers with regard to better individual monitoring of farms and responsible use of medication

13 THE STUDY 1 Materials and methods 2 0

14 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual Pig Care or IPC is a management system for monitoring groups of pigs after their weaning. The system assumes regular, accurate and consistent observation of the animals. Several environmental parameters such as water consumption, feed consumption and pen climate are assessed. The pigs are also assessed individually, focusing on the symptoms displayed. The findings are recorded, collected and entered into the database of the IPC/PigCHAMP* Internet website and can be consulted on this cloud by the farmer and his veterinarian. The IPC concept is based on 3 pillars. The first pillar is the early identification of the sick pigs. The second is the quantification of the symptoms. Effective communication is the third pillar EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE SICK PIGS The basic principle of IPC is that the earlier a disease can be identified, the greater the likelihood of a full clinical recovery. In order to identify specific problems or specific situations early and to respond to them if possible, it is necessary to observe the pigs individually in a structured manner. An animal s outward appearance and behaviour say a great deal about its health. Daily observation of the animals can therefore help to detect certain health problems. The IPC programme follows a specific method. In each pen where IPC is applied, the first step is to assess the general situation in the pen and the climate conditions. Factors examined include the minimum and maximum temperature, the availability of water and feed and the wetness of the floor. The general condition of the animals in the pen is then assessed by evaluating their behaviour. Animals usually stand up quickly when someone enters the pen. Animals that remain lying or are quick to lie down again may be suspects. Next, the distribution, position, closeness and uniformity of the pigs are considered. If animals are lying far apart, this may indicate that it is too warm in the pen. On the other hand, if it is too cold, they often start to huddle together. During observation, the general condition of the animals is taken as a reference point for assessing the individual animals. After assessing the general situation in the pen, the individual animals are evaluated. To allow the effective individual quantification of symptoms, a standardised protocol is followed under which the following items are evaluated: the head (focusing on the snout, eyes and ears), the state of hydration, body condition and weight of the individual animal and, lastly, its behaviour. Each individual pig is observed for a short period, working pen by pen. Animals are assessed from large to small and from head to tail. When examining pigs it is useful to start at the snout. Symptoms that can be noted include the presence of scratches, tear stains and nasal discharge and whether the snout is straight or crooked. The eyes and ears can then be examined. Deep-set eyes may point to a poor hydration status and ears flattened against the neck are usually a sign of poor health. After examining the head, the rest of the body and the limbs are evaluated, finishing with the tail. * PigCHAMP Pro Europa S.L. is a Spanish consultancy company that develops software for collecting and processing data in relation to farm animals, with a focus on the pig sector. PigChamp has been involved into the development of the IPC program. MATERIALS AND METHODS QUANTIFYING THE SYMPTOMS Severity of the diseases During the observation round, all non-healthy pigs in a pen are assigned a score according to the severity of the disease. All non-healthy pigs are recorded on the IPC form according to the ABCD scale. This means that all non-healthy animals are scored A, B, C or D depending on the symptoms observed in these animals. The farmer is trained to use this classification during the start-up period. Fig. 1. Photo of a piglet scored "A" (appears sick but does not yet display any loss of body condition) Fig. 2. Photo of a piglet with scored "B" (piglet already has a slightly hollow abdomen, should definitely be treated) Fig. 3. Photo of a piglet scored "C" (piglet seriously ill, should be moved to infirmary pen, small chance of recovery) 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? An animal scored as A (see Figure 1) gives the impression of being sick or about to become so. Such animals are slightly listless, their ears lack expression or their eyes are dry, red or watery, but they show little to no loss of body condition. Animals scored "A" should be treated or monitored closely. If treated, they stand a good chance of recovery. An animal scored as B (see Figure 2) shows clear symptoms of disease and should definitely be treated. Animals "B" may have clearly hollow flanks, they may adopt an antalgic position or have difficulty breathing. Animals with a rough, dirty coat or black rings around the eyes are also scored "B". Animals "B" score often show some loss of body condition and stand an average chance of recovery if treated. A pig that is clearly sick is scored as "C" (see Figure 3). Such pigs have very hollow flanks and show a marked loss of body condition. A pig with a C score should be moved to a separate part of the pen or to the infirmary pen and stands a small chance of recovery if treated. On this farm, these animals are moved to the infirmary pen

15 MATERIALS AND METHODS MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? Animals with a very low chance of recovery are scored "D" (see Figure 4) and should be humanely euthanised COMMUNICATION To record the environmental parameters and the results of the observations and classifications, to store and process the recorded data and to enable communication with the veterinarian and any other persons involved, the following tools are used: an electronic pen, the IPC form and lastly a smartphone The electronic pen Fig. 4. Photo of a piglet scored "D" (should be euthanised) Characterising diseases Besides awarding a score depending on the severity of the disease, the IPC protocol also classifies sick animals based on six parameters for the purpose of characterising disease. These six parameters are lung (respiratory problems), gut (digestive problems), brain (nervous symptoms), lame (locomotor issues), bite (injuries) and finally other (if the disease cannot be characterised according to the first five criteria). Animals with a cough or increased respiration rate are classed under lung. Animals with diarrhoea or a clearly soiled rump come under the category gut ). Animals with a lopsided head, meningitis or a stagger are classified under brain. Animals with inflamed joints (see Figure 5) or lameness come under the category lame and animals with bite injuries under bite. An animal without a full belly, for example, or that displays obvious anorexia or a rough coat but no other specific symptoms can be classified under the category other. The IPC user records the data on the IPC form using an electronic pen (see Figure 6). The data written on the IPC form using the pen are stored in the pen. The pen can be charged via the provided charger. The pen comes with a protective cap that is removed during use and charging. It has an «on/off» indicator that lights up green when the cap is removed if the pen is charged. It also has a data transmission indicator. This flashes green when the pen is sending data or red if transmission has failed. The pen also has another light that indicates whether the battery is charged. The light flashes red if the pen needs to be charged and green while charging is in progress. The pen vibrates when the IPC form is opened. When the send box is ticked and the form closed, the pen vibrates and the data transmission indicator flashes green. The data are sent to the smartphone via Bluetooth. Fig. 6. Photo of the electronic pen The IPC form Fig. 5. Photo of a B piglet (moderately sick) with inflamed joints The data are recorded on the IPC form. The form is made up of boxes. It is a grid that is used for electronic data recording. Two types of grid are available. The classical grid can be used to score the animals and to collect data on the use of injectable antibiotics. The AIF grid can additionally collect information about antibiotics administered via the feed or drinking water. AIF stands for anti-infectives. The form has a fine grain structure

16 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? that enables the electronic pen to recognize which box the user is writing in. A separate form is completed per batch and per observation round. The form is opened by ticking the open box in the top left-hand corner and, once all the data have been entered, the form is closed by ticking the send box in the bottom right-hand corner. Provided the form has not yet been closed, data recording can be cancelled by ticking the invalidate form box in the bottom left-hand corner. The form must be completed in capital letters The classical grid MATERIALS AND METHODS Several general details are entered in the heading of the form, such as the date, farm code, batch number (batch ID) and number of animals. The farm code consists of five letters, the first two of which refer to the country. For example, the code for the Belgian farm used in this study is BEAAA. A batch is a group of animals to be monitored during a given period. The animals belonging to a batch can be in several different locations. On the Belgian farm, a batch corresponds to a pen. Each batch is assigned a code number; the same code cannot be reused within a given year. The age must also be entered, but only once, in the first observation round (see figure 9). After that, the system itself keeps count. The age is entered in weeks. On the new forms, the age will be entered in days. The number of the pen or house, feed consumption, water consumption and the minimum and maximum temperature can also be recorded optionally in the heading of the form (see Figure 7). MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? After completing the heading, the observation results for the individual animals can be entered according to the type of disease and its severity (see Figure 8). The types of diseases are stated in rows (Figure 8), one under the other: 1. Lung, 2. Gut, 3. Brain, 4. Lame, 5. Bite and 6. Other. The first five rows (types) are subdivided, in turn, into four columns and row 6 ( other ) is divided into four subrows according to the severity of the disease (A = mild, B = moderate, C = severe and D = irrecoverable). This gives four fields for each disease type. For the first five types, the fields are arranged vertically side-by-side (Figure 8); for type 6 ( other ), they are arranged horizontally (blue), one under the other: for example, lung A, lung B, lung C and lung D. The four fields obtained in this way for each type can be divided in turn, for fields A, B and C, into four zones (Figure 8) which are arranged vertically side-by-side. The first zone contains boxes where the farmer can record for himself how many animals he has scored and possibly treated by injection. If he scores an animal, he enters a diagonal line in the box. If he also treats the animal, he enters a cross in the box. This information is not conveyed to the IPC dashboard and is optional. A second zone contains boxes where the farmer can effectively record the number of scored or treated animals by entering a figure obtained by adding up the number of lines and crosses from the first zone. A third zone contains boxes for recording which antibiotic was used to inject the animal. A three-figure IPC product code is used to record the antibiotic. Each antibiotic has its own code, containing information about the active ingredient and its concentration, the recommended dose (mg/kg bodyweight) and the method of administration. The codes can be consulted on the IPC dashboard. Finally, in a fourth zone the farmer can record how many ml of product were injected per animal. The category other also has a fifth zone with space for comments, since the animals in this category do not display any symptoms that can be specifically classified under the first five types. The D field for each disease type only has space to record the number of animals scored. Space for recording animal losses is provided at the bottom right-hand side of the form. This area contains boxes in which figures can be entered to record the type of loss, the number of animals lost and the cause. Animal losses are differentiated according to type. If the animal simply died, the figure entered is 1; if the animal was euthanised, the figure is 2; if it was culled due to wasting, the figure is 3. The cause of loss is identified using the numbers 1 to 6, corresponding to the type of disease. The Animal losses section also has space for recording comments. Finally, at the bottom of the IPC form is a box where the farmer can enter any general comments. If group medication is administered, this can be recorded here. Fig. 7. Classic grid

17 MATERIALS AND METHODS MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? Fig. 9. Example of a request form Fig. 8. Three piglets are scored on this classical grid. Two of them were treated with cefquinome (279 is the IPC product code for cefquinome), for lung graded with severity A. They received 1 ml of product each. One piglet was scored for other with severity A. It had a rough coat and was also treated with cefquinome. Two piglets lost were sold as runts (3). The cause was other (6) and the piglets were pale and thin. All of the animals were treated with amoxicillin via the drinking water The AIF grid If the AIF grid is used*, a form should be completed in advance in order to notify the intention to start a new batch. This request form is opened and closed in the same way as the classical grid and the information entered is then sent. The farm code, number of the batch to be monitored, intended starting date (day/month), initial number of animals, initial age in days and batch type (nursery or fattening) are entered on this request form (see Figure 9). * Batch request form to be used for both the classical grid and the AIF grid (September 2013) The heading of the AIF grid is completed in the same way as for the classical grid. The farm code, batch ID and date must be entered at each observation round. Feed and water consumption and minimum and maximum temperature can also be entered as optional information. The AIF grid allows the option of scoring by pen. The pen number is entered in column 1. If scoring by batch, as normal, column 1 is not completed. The type (1 = Lung, 2 = Gut, 3 = Brain, 4 = Lame, 5 = Bite and 6 = Other) of disease and its severity (A-B-C-D) are entered in columns 2 and 3, respectively. The number of scored and treated animals is recorded in columns 4 and 5. If all of the animals are treated, this can be indicated by ticking the box in column 6. Columns 7 to 10 are used (optionally) to collect information about antibiotic use. The IPC product code is entered in column 7 and the total quantity of feed that was medicated is entered in column 8. If antibiotics were administered by injection or via the drinking water, this column is left blank. The total quantity of product administered is entered in column 9 and the unit of administration in column 10, with 1 standing for kilogram, 2 for gram, 3 for litre and 4 for millilitre. Column 11 is used to record mortality, if any. In the case of euthanasia, the box in column 12 is ticked. If both death and euthanasia occur in the same pen, a separate line is used for each. Specific comments can be entered in column 13. Column 14 is for recording the number of animals that were transferred to the infirmary pen, or possibly sold or moved. As on the classical grid, space for general comments is provided at the bottom of the form (see Figure 10)

18 MATERIALS AND METHODS MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? 1.1. WHAT IS INDIVIDUAL PIG CARE (IPC)? The IPC dashboard The data sent via the smartphone to the IPC database are converted automatically into tables, graphs and diagrams and are presented on the IPC dashboard (see Figure 11). A personal login and password are required to access this dashboard. Silverlight software (available as a free download) must be installed in order to connect to the dashboard. The following Internet browsers can be used: Internet Explorer, Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. The dashboard has a drop-down list of language options. In the top right-hand corner is the button that is used to select the farm (in the case of the veterinarian) and/or the batch (in the case of the veterinarian and the farmer) whose data are to be consulted. The dashboard also contains a number of graphs and other buttons. Clicking on these brings up more detailed information. Fig. 10. On this AIF grid, three animals were scored for gut (2) and graded with severity B. They were treated with marbofloxacin (product code 231) and each received 2 ml of product (6 ml in total). All the animals were treated with tylosin (product code 269) via their feed. They received 1 tonne of feed with 5 kg of tylosin per tonne. One animal died of gastrointestinal causes and one was euthanised due to lung problems The smartphone When the IPC form is closed, the information stored in the electronic pen is sent via Bluetooth to the smartphone. For this to happen, it is important that the smartphone is close to the pen. The data are then sent via the Internet connection or the SIM card of the mobile phone to the Internet database. If it is not possible to connect to the Internet immediately at a particular location, the data recorded are stored in the phone s router. The farmer can also use the smartphone to take photos that are transmitted to the central database as well. Fig. 11. The dashboard The ratio A / (A+B+C+D) indicates the relationship between the number of animals scored A and the total number of animals scored. The ratio treated/scored indicates how many of the scored animals were also treated by the farmer. The percentage of

19 1.2. APPLICATION OF IPC ON THE FARM MATERIALS AND METHODS animals that were not scored and were therefore regarded by the farmer as healthy is given by the health index. The disease distribution presents the scored animals according to the disease type, and the severity distribution presents the scored animals according to the disease severity. The dashboard also contains information about mortality, the number of individual treatments per animal and the ratio UDD/ADD. The latter is only available if using the AIF grid*. The husbandry indicators button provides information regarding the number of animals, feed and water consumption and temperature. Under benchmarking, the results of the farm can be compared (anonymously) with those of other farms (at a national and international level) also using IPC. Under comparisons, different batches can be compared in terms of disease dynamics, mortality rates and products used. There is also a button that can be used to perform an economic analysis and a final button for consulting the product list THE FARM In this study, IPC was applied and tested on a Belgian pig farm. The farm in question is a piglet rearing unit that is part of a multi-site production system. Piglets are supplied weekly from a sow farm in the Netherlands. The piglets are four weeks old when supplied, and weigh an average of 7 kg. They leave the rearing unit when they reach around 23 kg liveweight and are subsequently fattened in various grower/finisher units where they remain until slaughter. The rearing unit can hold 5,000 piglets and also has space to finish 1,000 pigs. There are a total of 19 nursery pens and two pens for finishers. The piglets are vaccinated against mycoplasma and PCV2 on entry to the farm and are treated preventively with amoxicillin and colistin via their feed for a week in order to avoid problems with diarrhoea and Streptococcus suis. The technical performance of the farm is fairly good. Average mortality has been below 2 % for years, and the average daily weight gain from 7 to 23 kg liveweight is close to 400 g. To maintain the level of technical performance, the animals are given fairly frequent prophylactic and metaphylactic medication APPLICATION OF IPC Starting in November 2012, five nursery pens were monitored through four cycles. The pens in question were nos. 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18. The pens were stocked to approximately the same level each time. Each pen represented a separate batch, with the first figure of the batch number referring to the cycle number and the second and third figures to the pen number. During the first two cycles (batch nos. 107, 108, 116, 117 and 118; 207, 208, 216, 217 and 218) the traditional method used on this farm was followed and antibiotic consumption was monitored. In the meantime, intensive training was given to familiarise the farmer with IPC. During cycle 3 (batches 307, 308, 316, 317 and 318) and cycle 4 * In the actual version of IPC, the ratio UDD/ADD is available with the IPC classical grid as well. (September 2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS (batches 407, 408, 416, 417 and 418), the IPC protocol as described above was followed. The animals were scored daily using the classical grid. The AIF grid was not yet available at that time. In addition to the animals individual scores, the minimum and maximum temperature APPLICATION OF IPC ON THE FARM and water consumption in the different pens were measured daily and recorded on the form. The results of cycles 3 and 4 are presented in the following section and explained in the discussion, in order to give an idea of the possibilities offered by IPC in the field of data processing ANTIBIOTIC CONSUMPTION The monitoring of the first two cycles, without IPC, showed that antibiotic consumption on this farm was, as expected, fairly high. Due to the piglets age on arrival (Schwarz et al., 2001) and the continuous inflow of piglets after transport (Roldan-Santiago et al., 2013), the farm is predisposed to high antibiotic consumption. The animals were frequently treated prophylactically and/or metaphylactically via their feed or drinking water to guarantee good technical performance and financial results. In intensive pig farming, it is common to treat an entire group of animals if clinical symptoms of disease are observed in some members of the group, in order to prevent further spread of the infection (Schwarz et al., 2001). The use of antibiotics in this way is termed metaphylactic use (Aarestrup, 2005). Prophylaxis means treating healthy animals on a prevention-only basis, under specific circumstances or at critical life stages such as weaning, or when pen changes are carried out or when vaccinations are administered, with a view to warding off infection (Schwarz et al., 2001) Influence of IPC on antibiotic consumption To evaluate antibiotic consumption before and after IPC was introduced, the ten batches from cycles 1 and 2 which had followed the traditional method were compared with the ten batches from cycles 3 and 4 which had used IPC. It was also agreed that the pigs in pen 18 (batches 318 and 418) would be treated only individually during cycles 3 and 4. Medication in feed and/or drinking water would be used in these batches only after consultation with the veterinarian Quantification of antibiotic consumption To quantify the antibiotic use, the treatment incidence (TI) was calculated. Treatment incidence is defined as the number of pigs per 1,000 animals that are treated daily with one daily dose of antibiotic (Callens et al., 2012), and can be calculated on the basis of the animal daily dose pig (ADDpig) or on the basis of the used daily dose pig (UDDpig)

20 MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.2. APPLICATION OF IPC ON THE FARM THE STUDY The ADDpig is the nationally defined average dose per day per kg of pig of a drug used for its main indication (Jensen et al., 2004; Chauvin et al., 2008) and relates to the prescribed use. The UDDpig is the actual administered dose per day per kg of pig of a drug (Timmerman et al., 2006). In this study, the TI was calculated using the UDDpig and ADDpig in accordance with the formula as used by Timmerman et al. (2006) and Callens et al. (2012): Quantity of antibiotic administered (mg) TI = X 1000 ADDpig or UDDpig (mg/kg) x periode at risk (days) x kgs of animal 2 RESULTS The period spent by the piglets in the farrowing pen was included when calculating the treatment incidence, such that the TI obtained covered both the lactation and nursery periods. The total period was standardised at 70 days. All animals received an injection of amoxicillin in the farrowing pen at the time of castration. The calculation was based on an average weight of 2 kg at the time of the treatment in the farrowing pen. Regarding the treatments in the nursery period (both for individual treatments and for group treatments via feed or drinking water), the weight of the pigs was estimated using a growth table developed by Aveve Veevoeding that presents the pigs weight as a function of age. The quantity of each drug used was recorded by the farmer at the time of administration. Statistical data processing was performed using Statistica 7.0 software (StatSoft Inc., USA). The following null hypotheses were tested using a t-test (two-sided, level of significance 5 %): TI ADD without IPC = TI ADD with IPC TI UDD without IPC = TI UDD with IPC Cost AIF without IPC = Cost AIF with IPC

21 RESULTS 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC 2.1. IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 RESULTS RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND THE A / (A+B+C+D) RATIO The A / (A+B+C+D) ratio indicates the relationship between the number of animals scored A and the total number of animals scored. For cycles 3 and 4, this ratio varies between 0.7 and 1 (see Diagram 1). The A / (A+B+C+D) ratio must be considered in combination with the number of scored animals THE TREATED / SCORED RATIO The treated/scored ratio indicates how many of the scored animals were also treated (see Diagram 2). As the diagram shows, the farmer does, in fact, treat the majority of the animals scored. It is only at the start of the cycle (about a week after the stocking), and at the end, that we see animals that were scored but not treated. Regarding the animals that were scored but not treated, those that were scored ten days after stocking but were not treated were animals with diarrhoea (gastrointestinal problems) and those that remained untreated during the final stages of the cycle were mainly bitings, as shown in Diagram 2. Diagram 1. A / (A+B+C+D) ratio ( ), number of treated animals ( ),number of scored animals ( ) as a function of the age of the animals (out of a total of 2,950 animals) Diagram 2. After filtering by gut and bite, the untreated animals are found to be mainly bitings and animals with gastrointestinal problems

22 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 RESULTS RESULTS 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 The animals scored were mainly As (see Diagram 3) with a small number of Bs (see Diagram 4) THE HEALTH INDEX The following diagram (Diagram 5) shows the health indexfor cycles 3 and 4. The health index shows the percentage of animals that were regarded by the farmer as healthy, and that, consequently, were not scored. The health index ranged from % to 100 %. Diagram 3. Number of scored and/or treated A animals (out of a total of 2,950 animals) Diagram 5. Health index as a function of the age of the animals. Diagram 4. Number of animals that scored B. All animals scored as B were also treated

23 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 RESULTS RESULTS 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND DISTRIBUTION OF DISEASES BY TYPE AND SEVERITY The distribution of diseases by type and severity confirms that animals were mainly scored for gastrointestinal problems during the first ten days after stocking and for bites towards the end of the cycle (see Diagram 6). It also shows that mainly A animals were scored (see Diagram 7). Faeces samples were taken in response to the gastrointestinal problems and haemolytic Escherichia coli was detected. The faeces samples tested negative for Salmonella, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and endoparasites. The E-test for colistin gave a figure of 3 ųg/ml. This means that the bacterium showed intermediate susceptibility to colistin ( 2 ųg/ml = susceptible; 8 ųg/ml = resistant). Table 1 shows the antibiotic sensitivity test. Table 1. Antibiotic sensitivity test for haemolytic Escherichia coli Antibiotic sensitivity test enrofloxacin apramycin gentamicin flumequine lincospectin trimethoprim/sulfonamides amoxicillin + clavulanic acid Haemolytic Escherichia coli susceptible resistant intermediate susceptibility susceptible intermediate susceptibility resistant susceptible Diagram 6. Distribution of scored and treated animals by type of disease (out of a total of 2,950 animals) Diagram 8 shows the number of scored and treated animals by severity of the disease. Diagram 7 shows the percentage of scored animals by type of disease. Diagram 7 Distribution of scored diseases by type Diagram 8. Scored animals by severity of the disease (out of a total of 2,950 animals)

24 RESULTS RESULTS 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 The number of scored and/or treated animals as a function of age is shown in Table RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 Age of animals scored A treated A scored B treated B in days mild symptoms - no loss of condition moderate symptoms - some loss of condition , MORTALITY The average mortality in cycles 3 and 4 was 1.05 %. The diagram below shows the distribution of the animal losses by type. Most of the animals lost were classified as other (26 animals). Three animals were lost due to diarrhoea and three animals were lost (one for each disease type) due to lung, brain and bite symptoms (see Diagram 9). Diagram 9. Distribution of animal losses by type of disease

25 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 RESULTS The following diagram (Diagram 10) shows the distribution of the animal losses by age. Most of the losses occurred during the first three weeks after weaning. RESULTS 2.1. RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 Diagram 12 shows that the majority of animals were treated in the first three weeks after stocking. Diagram 10. Distribution of the animal losses by age (out of a total of 2,950 animals) INDIVIDUAL TREATMENTS PER ANIMAL Most of the (individual) treatments were administered to animals classed as other (468 treatments). There was also a fairly high treatment rate for gastrointestinal problems (315 treatments) (see Diagram 11). Diagram 12. Number of treatments as a function of age of the animals An average of 0.27 injections per animal were administered on this Belgian farm. The drugs used most often were cefquinome, enrofloxacin and procaine. Table 3 contains a list of the injectable drugs used. Table 3. Injectable products used Product Number of treatments % compared to total number of treatments Amoxicillin trihydrate 50% Cefquinome (sulfate) (25 mg/ml) Enrofloxacin (50 mg/ml) Florfenicol Marbofloxacin (100 mg/ml) Procaine benzylpenicillin Tulathromycin Diagram 11. Number of treatments applied per disease (out of a total of 2,950 animals)

26 RESULTS 2.2. PRODUCTION 2.3. PARAMETERS RESULTS TREATMENT INCIDENCE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS The production parameters (see Table 4) could only be measured per cycle. Table 4. Production parameters during cycles 1, 2, 3 and 4 Production parameters Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Without IPC With IPC Daily growth (g/day) Mortality (%) Payment per piglet delivered (EUR) In order to compare antibiotic use and cost between the batches with and without IPC, the treatment incidence on the basis of ADD (TI ADD) and the antibiotic cost per animal housed were calculated both for the ten batches without IPC (107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 207, 208, 216, 217 and 218 = group without IPC ) and for the ten batches with IPC (307, 308, 316, 317, 318, 407, 408, 416, 417 and 418 = group with IPC ). Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation for TI ADD, TI UDD and antibiotic cost per animal housed. Both TI ADD and TI UDD and the cost of antibiotics per animal stocked were significantly lower in the group with IPC than in the group without IPC. The mean TI ADD was ± 66.0 in the group without IPC and ± 68.0 in the group with IPC. The mean TI UDD was ± 53.3 in the group without IPC, compared with ± 84.3 in the group with IPC. The average cost of antibiotics per animal housed was EUR 1.33 ± 0.19 in the group without IPC and EUR 0.71 ± 0.18 in the group with IPC. The TI ADD, TI UDD and cost per piglet stocked were lower in the group with IPC (51.7 %, 49.0 % and 46.6 % lower, respectively) than in the group without IPC. The treatment incidence was lowest in the two batches (318 and 418) where the animals had been treated solely by individual injection. Table 5. TI ADD, TI UDD and cost of antibiotics per animal housed, with or without IPC Batch Treatment TI ADD TI UDD Cost of antibiotics (EUR/animal stocked) 107 without IPC 790,52 636,54 1, without IPC 806,87 645,66 1, without IPC 748,81 652,50 1, without IPC 837,59 759,06 1, without IPC 887,36 755,42 1, without IPC 773,79 657,80 1, without IPC 781,19 659,31 1, without IPC 907,40 740,65 1, without IPC 947,76 763,82 1, without IPC 786,87 667,81 1,22 Mean ± Std. Dev. without IPC 826,8 ± 66,0 693,9 ± 53,3 1,33 ± 0, with IPC 434,44 393,64 0, with IPC 479,24 397,38 0, with IPC 376,47 327,55 0, with IPC 534,02 454,28 1, with IPC 276,52 223,24 0, with IPC 351,07 339,23 0, with IPC 344,23 337,26 0, with IPC 502,83 482,33 0, with IPC 392,57 357,22 0, with IPC 303,83 229,02 0,71 Mean ± Std. Dev. with IPC 399,5* ± 86,0 354,1* ± 84,3 0,71* ± 0,18 *: p < 0.05 (t-test)

27 2.3. TREATMENT INCIDENCE AND COST OF ANTIBIOTICS RESULTS THE STUDY Diagram 13 shows the TI ADD and TI UDD in the batches with and without IPC. 3 DISCUSSION Diagram 13. TI ADD and TI UDD in the batches with and without IPC Diagram 14 shows the cost of antibiotics per animal stocked in the batches with and without IPC. without IPC Diagram 14. Cost of antibiotics in the batches with and without IPC "( /animal)"

28 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 3.1. APPLICATION OF IPC 3.1. IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 APPLICATION OF IPC IN CYCLES 3 AND 4 The more the A / (A+B+C+D) ratio approaches to 1, the more pigs are scored as 'A' in proportion to the total number of animals scored. If farmers score a lot of As, this means they are detecting signs of potential illness in the pigs at an early stage. The A / (A+B+C+D) ratio must always be considered in relation to the total number of animals in the batch and in relation to the number of animals scored. This means that the A / (A+B+C+D) ratio must always be evaluated together with the health index. If only a few animals are scored, a low (or lowish) ratio would not be a problem. The ratio becomes more significant as more animals are scored. A low A / (A+B+C+D) ratio combined with a low health index (few healthy animals) may indicate that the farmer is spotting problems late and that the problems are on a large scale. This can be a sign for the veterinarian that it is necessary to intervene or at least to initiate a discussion with the farmer on the basis of the data processed by the IPC system. Of course, it should be borne in mind that, despite the method followed in the IPC management system, scoring by the farmer remains somewhat subjective. The A / (A+B+C+D) ratio remains high on this farm. The farmer scores mainly A scores (see Diagram 3) and a small number of Bs (see Diagram 4), and nearly every animal that is scored is also treated (see Diagram 1). On this farm, therefore, the farmer detects problems early and controls them effectively. Most of the scores were given for gut problems, and mainly during the first ten days after weaning. This means that diarrhoea still occurred despite the use of colistin on arrival. Based on the antibiotic sensitivity test (see Table 3), the decision was taken to treat the scored animals with enrofloxacin 5 % (Pittman J.S., 2009). Despite the fact that 38 % of the animals graded were scored for gastrointestinal problems (see Diagram 15), only two animals (or 6 % of the total mortality) actually died of gastrointestinal problems (see Diagram 8). This is an indication that the animals responded well to the treatment. Diagram 15 confirms that the gut problems resolved quickly following treatment. Diagram 15. Distribution of scored diseases by type (out of a total of 2,950 animals) Diagram 16 shows the number of treatments with enrofloxacin 5 % as a function of the age of the animals. After interpreting this diagram together with Diagram 15, it is clear that the animals responded well to the treatment with enrofloxacin 5 %. Diagram 16. Number of treatments with enrofloxacin 5% as a function of the age of the animals