Republic of Serbia Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection VETERINARY DIRECTORATE Biosecurity on pig farms and holdings in Serbia Dr. Budimir Plavšić Head of Animal Health and Welfare Department Multi Country Workshop, ''Biosecurity fundament for animal health''
Topics Pig production Veterinary servicein Serbia Identification and Registration of pigs Biosecurity on pig holdings (2010-2014) Categorization Classification Risk Analysis Regionalization, Zoning and Compartmentalization
Pig production in Serbia 200.000 pig holdings, mainly backyard type 3.2 million of pigs, dominantly produced on big farms Pigs production is mostly limited to small, family owned farms There is heterogenity between the regions During last two decades, a number of high health and biosecurity status commercial farms have been established, with increased capacities to produce live pigs A part of livestock production is conducted at farms mainly owned by large companies but most of the pig holdings are still rural (backyard) ;
Pig production in Serbia
Pig production in Serbia The rate of growth in meat production compared to the world average 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% Serbia CEFTA NMS EU15 Spain France Germany 1.0% 0.0% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4%
Pig production in Serbia The structure of meat production in Serbia, EU and the world
Pig production in Serbia The average unit value of exports of pork
Veterinary Services 1. CA: Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental protection, Veterinary Directorate 1) Animal Health, Welfare and Traceability Department i. Animal Health/Epidemiology Unit ii. Animal Welfare Unit iii. Animal I&R Unit 2) Veterinary Inspection Department i. Unit for Animal Health and Welfare (I&R) 3) Unit for registration of veterinary organizations 2. Veterinary Institutes (in total 12) Laboratory investigations Veterinary epidemiology centers Rapid response teams (12) Advanced emergency veterinary teams (4 in Serbia) 3. Private and public veterinarians 1. 298 authorized vet. stations delegated activities 2. 904 in total vet. stations/clinics/ambulances
Identification and registration of pigs Identification of pigs started in 2006 Central database developed (from 2006, redesigned in 2012) Ear tags management individual IDs All pigs older than 45 days must be identified with the single ear tag Identification is compulsory in any case prior to departure from holding (if younger than 45 days) Notification must be done by farmer 7 days after birth Identification is done with individual ear tag, no batch numbers
Central database
Improvement of Biosecurity in Serbia (2011-2015) The recent veterinary legislative relating to food safety, identify a specific role for each producers to have a primary responsibility in providing guarantees of health to the product that reaches the consumer's table Farmers are obliged to review and improve their production system in order to optimize the quality, security and safety of product. Farmers need to establish appropriate level to biosecurity defined as: The implementation of measures that reduce the risk of the introduction and spread of disease agents; it requires the adoption of a set of attitudes and behaviors by people to reduce risk in all activities involving domestic, captive/exotic and wild animals and their products (FAO/OIE/World Bank, 2008).
Biosecurity Biosecurity: technical procedures related to: prevent introduction of pathogens inside farms or establishment (territory as well) Precaution (Prevention is better then cure) reduce to minimal levels any possibility to spread infective diseases within the farm Animal Welfare prevent infective disease spreading from farm to farm (and then from territory to territory) Social Duty (Biocontainment)
Biorisks? Identification of potential biorisk is a complex and responsible task It is difficult to anticipate all potential biorisks, but knowing the epizootic situation in the region and biological features in reproduction and pig breeding, many factors can be predicted, protective measures designed and implemented. Biorisk factors: uncontrolled trade of pigs; uncontrolled entrance of humans into the buildings for pigs; free entrance of vehicles and humans, as well as introduction of equipment and tools in the premises for growing pigs, without previous sanitizing; pigs are not separated according to categories, so in the same premises pigs are raised with other animals; dogs, cats, rodents, insects and birds have free access.
The main objective of biosecurity project in Serbia Eradication of Classical Swine Fever And control of tother animal diseases
Cosequences of CSF outbreaks
Biosecurity in Serbia The aim of this presentation is to demonstrate: Results of categorization and classification of pig holdings Risk analysis of pig farms, based on capacity and production goal of pig breeding relations between pig production and market level of hygiene defined criteria on application of biosecurity measures through usage of especially designed questionnaires.
I. Categorisation of pig holdings Criteria for categorization: implementation of general hygiene measures, movement control of pigs, people, feed for pigs, equipment ; pest control, preventing entrance of other mammals, birds, rodents, wild animals implementation of health measures Categories of pig holdings (assessment by veterinarians): 1. Commercial farm; 2. Family farm type A; 3. Family farm type B; 4. Backyard holding; 5. Free range pig holding.
Results of Categorization Categorization of holdings based on capacity and application of biosecurity measures Number of % No. Holding categorization holdings 1 Commercial farm 359 0,18 2 Family farm type A 449 0,22 3 Family farm type B 37.251 18,30 4 Rural (backyard) 165.280 81,21 5 Holding where pigs are kept in open space 183 0,09 Total 203.522 100% March, 2015
Production of piglets per type of farm/ category of holding Majority of pig production is on farms (more than 90%) Big, commercial farms produce appr. 45% of piglets Holding/new born 2014 Holdings (up to 100) 235,552 8,15 % Small farms (101-500) 829,489 28,69% Middle farms (501-1.000) 461,969 15,98% Big farms (101+) 1,363,918 47,18% Total 2,890,928 100% March, 2015
II. Classification e-questionnaire Evaluation carried out by Veterinarians, evidence based, on spot checks, 119.232 holdings in total Following parameters were evaluated: 1. Collaboration with VS (notifications, services ), 2. regular implementation of animal health program measures, 3. veterinary surveillance of the holding, 4. pig vaccination, 5. records on treatments and deaths, 6. pig identification and registration, 7. issuance of certifications on health condition, 8. notification on suspect of disease, 9. analysis of deaths and miscarriages, 10. fencing of holding and sanitary measures, 11. distance from waste depot (landfills), 12. Swill feeding, 13. holding animals in contained space, 14. records of diseases and deaths, hygienic and biosecurity measures and 15. contact with wild boars.
Classification Based on these parameters three classes of holdings are established: 1. Class I: holdings where all parameters were positive; 2. Class II: holdings where all parameters were positive, except for one or more questions under 5., 9., 10. 13., and 14., where answers were negative (so called "softer" criterion); 3. Class III: holdings where all parameters were positive except for one or more questions under 1., 2., 3., 4., 6., 7., 8., 11., 12. and 15., where answers were negative ("stricter" criterion); Class I Class II Class III Total N % N % N % N % Total 893 0,78 20.300 17,56 94.366 81,66 115.559 100 * Data refer to time period until October 12 2012.
III. General evaluation of health condition The same e-questionnaire General evaluation on implementation of Animal Health surveillance and monitoring programs (including vaccinations, treatment, identification and traceability of pig movement and general level of hygiene measures) Veterinarians (evidence based, related to history and personal experience) 1. Non-satisfying holding conditions (NS), 2. Partially satisfying holding conditions (PS), 3. Satisfying holding conditions (SA) and 4. Good holding conditions (GO) Year GO SA PS NS Total N % n % N % n % N % Total 2.131 1,84 43.298 37,47 60.632 52,47 9.498 8,22 115.559 100 * Data refer to time period until October 12, 2012
3. Risk Analysis on pig farms (2012) Specially designed check-list Detail written instructions Risk assessment on 1) commercial and family 2) farms type A and 3) B 4) Backyard and 5) free range holdings already considered as high risk holdings The checklist is organized in 6 distinct items: Classic swine Fever Profile (score points = max. 27) Farm Typology and Size (score points = max. 59) Location (score points = max. 42) Herd Facilities (score points = max. 45) Movements (score points =max. 48) Management (score points = max. 103)
Risk analysis (pig farms) ITEM Checklist score max Weight in the formula % FARM SCORE (adjusted) 1 CSF 27 7 1,89 2 Farm Typology 59 20 11,8 3 Location 42 18 7,56 4 Herd facilities 45 17 7,65 5 Movements 48 22 10,56 6 Management 103 10 16,48 FARM SCORE 324 100 56,0 Final assessment of farms RISK LEVEL SCORE LOW up to 25 MEDIUM 26 35 HIGH 36-56
3. Risk Analysis on pig farms Check lists filled by veterinarians, during helath controls Data directly inserted into Central Database Scoring automaticaly carried out, depending of values and data Results: Low risk farm Middle risk farm High risk Total N % N % N % N % Total 2.127 8,90 20.649 86,35 1.135 4,75 23.911 100
Intensive Education and Awareness Raising
4. Further activities Regionalization, zoning Update of CSF (animal diseases) strategy Mapping of the risk Parameters Land area N.s of holdings Categorization Animal population Pig density Hunting ground Movement og animals Livestock markets Carcass disposal managenent
5. Regionalization Surveillance in the Wild boar population
5. Regionalization (2015) Territorial distribution of risk
Zone A Zoning hypothesis Zone B Zone C
Discussion: usage of results Results of categorization, classification, evaluation and particularly risk analysis to be used for: general improvement of biosecurity measures in Serbia. Particularly, advanced farms could be motivated and stimulated for: development of compartmentalization (OIE) channeling system (EU) Role of Veterinary services is crucial namely: Disease surveillance Animal health control Education of farmers and awereness. In addition, risk assessment would be used for Zoning, based on general level of biosecurity in specific region, Evaluation of quality of veterinary activities (e.g. vaccination, active and passive surveillance), Improvement of national structure of pig holdings, Analysis of pig density, habits in movement and trade of animals etc. Distribution of risk of animal diseases
Conclusion Protecting the health of pigs on farms in Serbia is the key to successful national and international trade of pigs and pork products. To become highly competitive, producers in Serbia will be constantly looking for ways to improve their activities, including activities to protect the health of pigs. Farmers need to be aware that many of the biosecurity measures are simple and do not impose significant costs. Need to create detailed written biosecurity plans (as well as GFP guidelines) (In progress)
Conclusion The score index system offers several advantages: objectivity of assessment; easier interpretation of the risk level of each pig farm; consequent objective assessment of the territory (Municipality, District, Region, Country,..) the model can be exported to other livestock species; the model can also be shared with other countries and regions
Thank you very much for your attention!