See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273702106

Biosecurity level and health management practices in 60 Swedish farrow-to-

finish herds

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · December 2015

DOI: 10.1186/s13028-015-0103-5 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

21 204

4 authors:

Annette Backhans Marie Sjölund

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences National Veterinary Institute, Sweden
50 PUBLICATIONS 575 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 448 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ann Lindberg Ulf Emanuelson

National Veterinary Institute, Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
111 PUBLICATIONS 2,782 CITATIONS 235 PUBLICATIONS 4,606 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Epidemiology of canine atopic dermatitis View project

Swedish dairy farmers decision making, attitudes, and motives to work preventively towards mastitis for improved animal welfare View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulf Emanuelson on 25 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14
DOI 10.1186/s13028-015-0103-5

RESEARCH Open Access

Biosecurity level and health management

practices in 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds
Annette Backhans1*, Marie Sjölund1,2, Ann Lindberg3 and Ulf Emanuelson1

Abstract
Background: Biosecurity measures are important tools to maintain animal health in pig herds. Within the MINAPIG
project, whose overall aim is to evaluate strategies to raise pigs with less antimicrobial use, biosecurity was evaluated in
medium to large farrow-to-finish pig herds in Sweden. In 60 farrow-to-finish herds with more than 100 sows, the
biosecurity level was evaluated using a previously developed protocol (BioCheck). In a detailed questionnaire,
internal and external biosecurity was scored in six subcategories each. An overall score for biosecurity was also
provided. Information regarding production parameters as well as gender and educational level of personnel
working with the pigs was also collected. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the recorded data.
Results: The median scores for external and internal biosecurity were 68 and 59, respectively, where 0 indicates
total absence of biosecurity and 100 means maximal possible biosecurity. The subcategories for external and
internal biosecurity that had the highest scores were “Purchase of animals” (external) and “Nursery unit”/“Fattening unit”
(internal), while “Feed, water and equipment supplies” (external) and “Measures between compartments and
equipment”/“Cleaning and disinfection” (internal) received the lowest scores. A female caretaker in the farrowing
unit, a farmer with fewer years of experience and more educated personnel were positively associated with
higher scores for some of the external and internal subcategories. In herds with <190 sows, fattening pigs were
mixed between batches significantly more often than in larger herds.
Conclusions: The herds in this study had a high level of external biosecurity, as well as good internal biosecurity.
Strong biosecurity related to the purchase of animals, protocols for visitors, the use of all-in, all-out systems, and
sanitary period between batches. Still, there is room for improvement in preventing both the introduction of disease to
herds (external) and the spread of infections within herds (internal). Systems for animal transport can be improved and
with respect to internal biosecurity, there is especially room for improvement regarding hygiene measures in and
between compartments, as well as the staff’s working procedures between different groups of pigs.
Keywords: Pig production, Biosecurity, Health management

Background the development of resistant bacteria has grown. In

In pig herds, biosecurity is an important aspect of order to improve biosecurity, with the aim to minimize
preventing the transmission of diseases, thus improving AM use in individual herds and at a national level, we
health and reducing the need for antimicrobials (AMs) need to assess biosecurity in detail, so as to find weak-
[1]. External biosecurity aims to keep transmissible path- nesses where there is potential for improvement. Several
ogens out of the herd, while internal biosecurity studies in different countries have been published
prevents the spread of disease, mainly from older to describing biosecurity measures in pig farming [3-9],
younger animals within the herd [2]. The interest in im- and one previous study describes biosecurity in Swedish
proving biosecurity in pig production has increased as livestock farms including pig herds [10]. To date how-
awareness about the need for AM reduction to prevent ever, there is no detailed description of how biosecurity
is implemented in Swedish pig production.
* Correspondence: [email protected] Sweden, situated in Scandinavia in northern Europe,
1
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, produces around 2.5 million slaughter pigs yearly, corre-
SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article sponding to 1% of EU production [11]. Most of the

© 2015 Backhans et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 2 of 11

industry is concentrated in the south and southwest of Subcategories regarding external biosecurity are: “Pur-
the country. Pig production in Sweden has undergone chase of animals and semen”; “Transport of animals and
major structural changes during the last decades, result- removal of manure and dead animals”; “Feed, water and
ing in a substantial reduction in the number of holdings equipment supplies”; “Personnel and visitors”; “Vermin
with sows and boars while during the same period, herd and bird control”; and “The environment and region”.
sizes have increased 3.5 times [12]. In Swedish pig pro- Subcategories related to internal biosecurity are:
duction, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters has “Disease management”; “The farrowing and suckling
been banned since 1986, sows have been kept in loose period”; “The nursery unit”; “The fattening unit”; “Biose-
housing during all production stages including lactation curity measures between compartments and the use of
since 1996 [13] and tail docking has never been prac- equipment”; and “Cleaning and disinfection”.
tised. As these practices apply to pig production in Briefly, points were allotted for questions within the
Sweden but not necessarily in other countries, differ- subcategories, with each given a weighting factor de-
ences in practices imply that results on health and biose- pending on its estimated importance for the introduc-
curity measures from other countries are not necessarily tion and spread of infectious diseases, as defined by
applicable to the Swedish situation. Laanen et al. [1,7]. The weights of the questions were
Within MINAPIG (www.minapig.eu), an EU project subsequently combined into scores for each subcategory,
with the overall aim to evaluate strategies to raise pigs which were further weighted and combined into scores
with less AM use, a cross-sectional study was conducted between 0 and 100 for internal and external biosecurity,
to assess the level of biosecurity in farrow-to-finish respectively, where 0 corresponded to “total absence of
herds in four European countries with different levels of biosecurity” and 100 to “perfect biosecurity”, i.e. max-
AM use. The aim of this study was to describe biosecur- imal possible biosecurity [1]. Finally, the mean of the
ity and health management practices in Swedish farrow- scores for external and internal biosecurity was calcu-
to-finish herds using an established scoring system, lated as a whole-herd score.
based on interviews with the farmers. All questions in the BioCheck form were translated
from English into Swedish and questions about produc-
Materials and methods tion parameters, preventive measures such as vaccin-
Selection of participating herds and herd visits ation routines, and the educational level, gender and
Information on and an invitation to participate in the years of experience of the staff member responsible for
study was sent out to 100 Swedish farmers with farrow- pig management were also included. The questions were
to-finish herds consisting of at least 100 sows. The answered by the manager of the pig farm and the inter-
source population were either herds affiliated to the views were conducted in Swedish. After the visit, the
Swedish Animal Health Service AB (SvDHV), i.e. herds results were manually registered using the online tool,
in which veterinarians from the SvDHV served as herd modified for the MINAPIG project.
veterinarians, or herds with previous contact with
researchers at the National Veterinary Institute, in Data analysis
Uppsala. In total, a convenience sample of 60 herds was The distribution of responses was examined with de-
recruited from across Sweden. Recruited herds were vis- scriptive statistics. Correlations between total or subcat-
ited once during the period April to September 2013, egory scores and herd size, number of weaned piglets
either by the herd veterinarian (48 herds) or by the first per sow per year, or years of pig farming experience was
or second author (12 herds). Herd veterinarians (n = 15) evaluated. Secondly variables were categorized, using
were instructed on how to perform the visit/interview medians as the breakpoint, into smaller (range 96–185
before the start of the study. The farmer was interviewed sows) and larger herds (190–1200 sows), and farms
about biosecurity measures and a tour around the farm where farmers had <23 (range 5–22) versus ≥23 (23–41)
was conducted. An amount of approximately EUR330 years of experience, and differences in overall scores and
was paid in compensation to each participating farm at subcategory scores were compared between the groups.
the end of the study. Also, differences in overall scores and subcategory scores
between farms with female versus male workers respon-
Herd practices related to biosecurity sible for piglet and sow care were studied, between farms
To evaluate the biosecurity in the herds, a pre- with basic – lower versus higher – university education
established protocol, BioCheck (available at www. level of responsible person, and between conventional
biocheck.ugent.be), was used. BioCheck was originally farms and outdoor herds, satellite herds and SPF herds
developed by Laanen et al. [1,7] and consists of a total respectively. The significance of the differences between
of 109 questions grouped into six subcategories for ex- groups was assessed by Mann–Whitney test. Microsoft
ternal and six subcategories for internal biosecurity. Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 3 of 11

Minitab 16 (Minitab Inc., Harrisburg, PA, USA) were was lower agricultural education 38%, university educa-
used for data handling and statistical analyses. tion 27%, higher agricultural education 17%, not speci-
fied 13% and basic school education 5%. The gender
Results and discussion distribution was 48% female and 52% male in the far-
Description of the herds, production parameters rowing and nursing units, and 30% female, 67% male
Nineteen (32%) of the 60 herds in the study were satel- and 3% not stated in the finishing units. The results sug-
lites in a sow pool, a system whereby pregnant sows are gest that the educational level of the farming personnel
leased from a central herd unit to several other herds is appropriate for the task on the majority of farms and
(“satellite” herds). The sows are transported to the satel- that there is a gender balance, at least among persons in
lite herds before farrowing, and return to the central charge of pigs, on Swedish pig farms. A median number
unit after weaning. Three (5%) were specific pathogen- of three persons (range two to 15) worked regularly in
free (SPF) herds and three (5%) had outdoor production. the pig barns.
For Swedish herds altogether, the corresponding figures
are 25% sow pool herds, 4% SPF and 1% organic herds, Biosecurity level
which in Sweden stipulates outdoor production [14,15]. Overall scores and subcategory scores
Seventy per cent of the herds reported using a sow man- The average score for external biosecurity was 68
agement programme. In Table 1, production parameters (median 68) and for internal 59 (median 61), while the
for the herds in this study are compared with national average total score was 64 (median 65). Distributions of
production data for 2013. The latter were provided by the scores for each subcategory are shown in Figure 1.
the sow management programme PigWin (www.svens- The external biosecurity subcategory that received the
kapig.se) and are based on reports on 59,000 sows (39% highest score was “Purchase of animals and semen”,
of the total Swedish sow population for that year). The while the subcategory with the lowest score was “Feed,
average herd size of herds participating in this study water and equipment supplies”. For internal biosecurity,
was considerably lower than the mean figures from the subcategories “Nursery unit” and “Fattening unit”
PigWin data, but production numbers, mortality scored the highest mean scores, while “Biosecurity mea-
figures and age at weaning were comparable. Our herd sures between compartments and the use of equipment”
size (see Table 1) was, however, approximately the and “Cleaning and disinfection” scored the lowest. A de-
same as the average herd size (190 sows) reported by tailed description of separate questions is given in the
the Swedish Board of Agriculture [12]. Taken together, next section.
the participating herds seemed to represent Swedish The average score for internal biosecurity in the
pig herds reasonably well regarding production types, present study was slightly higher compared with Belgian
herd size and production results. herds (average 52, median 53) described in a recent
study by Laanen et al. [1] using the same scoring system,
Information on the pig farm manager and other staff while our average scores for external biosecurity were
On the farms included, the person who made biosecurity similar to the Belgian scores (65, median 66). The alloca-
decisions and who was mainly responsible for the pigs tion of scores for the different subcategories was similar,
(also referred to as “pig farm manager”) had a median of except for “The environment and region” where our
23 years (range 5–41 years) of relevant experience in pig population scored higher in relation to other subcategor-
farming. The educational level of the pig farm managers ies compared with the study by Laanen et al. [1]. This is

Table 1 Production data and other parameters (mean PigWina figures) for 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds
Production data and other parameters Min Median Max Mean SD Mean PigWin, 2013
Sows (n) 96.0 188 1200 243 179 309
Litters/sow/year 1.60 2.20 2.40 2.20 0.14 2.21
Weaned piglets/sow/year 14.1 23.6 28.3 23.2 2.3 24.0
Mortality till weaning (%) 2.3 17.8 36.5 17.9 0.05 17.9
Age at weaning (days) 28.0 35.0 49.0 35.1 3.7 33.1
Time in battery (weeks) 4.0 7.0 12.0 6.9 1.5 6.7
Time in fattener unit (weeks) 12 15 19 14.8 1.4 n.s.
Daily weight gainb (g/day) 800 901 1007 912 57.1 913
n.s. = not specified; SD = standard deviation.
a
Figures are based on 2013 data from www.pigwin.se/medeltal-sugg,/medeltal-slakt, accessed on 14 October 2014. bDaily weight gain was specified for 38
herds only.
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 4 of 11

Figure 1 Box-and-whisker plot of scores for external and internal biosecurity subcategories for 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds. The
boxes show first quartiles (light grey), median, third quartiles (dark grey); whiskers show highest and lowest scores.

not surprising considering how the two countries differ better on the latter two subcategories The reasons for
with regard to pig density. these differences cannot be concluded from this material
There were no significant correlations between total or and should be subject to further study. The underlying
subcategory scores and herd size, number of weaned reasons for the gender differences observed cannot be
piglets per sow per year, or years of pig farming experi- determined from our data, but similar differences have
ence (Figure 2). Larger herds did not score significantly been observed by others and may apply to various extent
better for any subcategory in contrast to the Belgian re- also to our context. For example, a generally higher em-
sults where larger herds scored significantly higher on pathy towards animals has previously been shown in
external biosecurity [1]. However, pig herds are generally females [16]; a characteristic which could influence the
larger in Belgium than in Sweden. A closer look at the higher scores seen for disease management. Female
results showed that one aspect that differed between lar- farmers have also been shown to have a higher per-
ger and smaller herds was the mixing of fattening pigs ceived disease knowledge level and to be more
between batches which occurred significantly more often confident that they can influence if infections are intro-
in herds with 96–185 sows than in herds with 190–1200 duced or not [17]. These differences are also reflected
sows (P < 0.01; data not shown). In Table 2, total and in studies showing how females tend to have higher
subcategory scores between herds with different charac- medical compliance, a higher degree of preventive
teristics are compared. The total score for biosecurity, as health behavior and beliefs that indicate a lower level of
well as the subtotal external score, was significantly health risk-taking [18]. This may reflect differences in
higher in herds where the staff member responsible for attitudes that could also affect the extended health be-
piglets and sows was female. The subcategories that dif- havior directed towards animals.
fered significantly between the gender groups were “Dis- There were no significant differences in internal, exter-
ease management”, “Biosecurity measures between nal or total biosecurity scores when comparing conven-
compartments and the use of equipment” and “Vermin tional farms with farms with outdoor production, but
and bird control”, where herds managed by a female only a few outdoor herds participated. Satellite herds
farm worker had higher scores. Likewise, herds where had borderline significantly higher internal biosecurity
farmers had <23 years of experience scored significantly scores than conventional farms. Not surprisingly, SPF
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 5 of 11

Figure 2 Correlation between internal and external biosecurity scores and herd size, number of weaned piglets per sow per year, and
relevant years of experience for pig farm manager.

herds had significantly higher score for external biose- of the herds did not have a rodent control programme
curity than conventional farms but not for internal and 75% had placed grids in front of air intakes to stop
biosecurity. A higher education level for the person wild birds from entering their stables (“Vermin and
responsible for the animals was associated with a signifi- bird control”, median 80). This could be compared with
cantly higher internal biosecurity score, and the subcat- a Spanish study where only 54.7% of pig breeding farms
egories that were significantly different was the “Nursery applied control programmes for rodents [4]. See
period” and “Cleaning and disinfection”. Additional file 2 for details.
A weak point with the farms included in this study
Detailed description of external biosecurity was that 95% of farms answered that feed transports
Of 19 herds that purchased breeding pigs, 17 used a used the clean road, which can be interpreted as a gen-
quarantine stable where a strict all-in, all-out routine eral lack of distinction between clean and dirty roads on
was applied in all cases. The mean minimal length of the Swedish farms. Also, 95% of herds did not have specific
quarantine period was 23 days. It should be noted that measures for pass-through of material supplies (Figure 3).
the satellite herds (n = 19) receive sows that could have Moreover, about 50% of the farms tested their water
spent the previous farrowing period in another satellite quality only once per year. In Sweden, water is generally
herd, without quarantine. However, sows from different of good quality but for those herds that have a well of
satellites will spend the dry period together in the cen- their own, more frequent testing should be recom-
tral unit. Therefore, sow pools are considered to be one mended. The subcategory “Transport of animals,
single epidemiological unit. Only five herds purchased removal of manure and dead animals” received a median
piglets, so these were not investigated further. Forty-two score of 54 (Figure 4). At the majority of farms (83%), it
of the herds purchased semen (19 herds were satellite was not possible for the pigs to return to the stables
herds to a sow pool, in which the central unit purchases after being in the transport vehicle, nor was the driver
semen; however, two of the satellite herds reported own able to enter to the stables while loading animals (82%).
purchase of semen), but of these, 100% acquired semen However, the transport was not empty at arrival for
from boar stations with a higher or equal health status. transport of sows in 50% of herds and for fattening pigs
For details see Additional file 1. The overall low density in 60% of herds. This could be problematic considering
of pig farms in Sweden explains the high scores for the that a separate loading area was only available at 50%
subcategory “The environment and region” (median 90), of the farms.
but as many as 65% of herds answered that wild boars The subcategory “Personnel and visitors” received a
had been spotted within 10 km of their farm. Swedish median score of 65. About 90% of herds provided
farmers seem to be aware of the risks that rodents, birds visitors with boots and clothing, and about 85% obliged
and companion animals in the stable can pose. Only one visitors to check in before entering the farm. A hygiene
 Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14
Table 2 Difference in biosecurity scores according to herd characteristics
Gender of person Herd size: smaller Years of Conventional herd Conventional herd Conventional herd Responsible person
responsible for (upper row) or experience: less (upper row) or (upper row) or (upper row) or SPF education level
biosecurity in larger (lower row) (upper row) or outdoor satellite herd herd (lower row) basic – lower (upper
farrowing unit: more (lower row) production (lower (lower row) row) or higher –
female (upper row) than 23 years row) university (lower row)
or male (lower row)
Biosecurity category M IQR P-value M IQR P-value M IQR P-value M IQR P-value M IQR P-value M IQR P-value M IQR P-value
Purchase of animals and semen 100 18 0.93 100 17 0.79 100 18 0.8 100 18 0.67 100 18 0.36 100 18 a 100 20 0.47
100 17 100 15 100 15 7 88 20 100 16 100 0 100 15
Transport of animals, removal of 62 30 0.09 52 28 0.45 54 25 0.89 55 25 0.58 56 25 0.32 56 25 0.03 58 30 0.47
manure and dead animals
50 23 59 27 54 28 50 42 50 31 78 26 53 25
Feed, water and equipment supply 40 20 0.22 40 15 0.34 40 20 0.39 40 20 0.78 40 20 0.55 40 20 0.03 40 20 0.86
40 20 40 20 40 20 30 27 40 10 73 40 40 20
Personnel and visitors 74 40 0.10 62 49 0.25 71 43 0.56 68 41 0.93 68 41 0.14 68 41 0.01 59 38 0.25
59 41 71 41 65 50 76 94 59 40 100 6 71 46
Vermin and bird control 90 18 0.02 80 30 0.11 90 13 0.01 80 30 0.64 80 30 0.06 80 30 a 80 20 0.89
80 30 90 30 80 30 70 10 90 18 90 0 80 23
Environment and region 90 20 0.82 90 23 0.63 90 30 0.8 90 20 0.91 90 20 0.18 90 20 a 85 30 0.08
90 30 90 22 90 20 6 90 80 90 28 90 0 90 30
Subtotal external biosecurity score 71 10 0.01 67 14 0.21 70 13 0.5 68 14 0.82 68 14 0.75 68 14 0.00 67 14 0.35
64 14 71 14 67 17 8 70 27 65 14 86 10 6 70 13
Disease management 80 40 0.03 60 60 0.25 80 45 0.4 60 60 0.20 60 60 0.59 60 60 0.20 60 40 0.29
40 60 80 60 80 60 2 100 40 80 50 100 40 80 60
Farrowing and suckling period 54 33 0.41 61 23 0.64 54 30 0.8 64 21 0.18 64 21 0.05 64 21 0.59 57 23 0.64
64 21 61 36 64 28 5 79 15 47 26 64 28 64 36
Nursery unit 86 20 0.59 86 15 0.86 86 15 0.3 86 15 0.21 86 15 0.98 86 15 0.65 71 19 0.02
86 15 86 15 86 15 6 93 * 86 15 71 15 86 11
Fattening unit 79 14 0.13 79 24 0.40 86 14 0.35 79 31 0.09 79 31 0.08 79 31 0.18 86 31 0.64
93 14 90 14 79 29 93 14 93 14 93 21 83 14
Measures between compartments 54 22 0.002 39 20 0.24 54 19 0.01 38 22 0.98 38 22 0.03 38 22 0.53 43 22 0.36
and the use of equipment
39 21 50 14 39 17 39 25 52 14 47b np 45 26
Cleaning and disinfection 50 24 0.81 55 29 0.55 55 21 0.1 45 36 1.0 45 36 0.09 45 36 0.69 37 35 0.03
48 20 47 23 45 20 0 45 7 55 17 55 20 55 16

Page 6 of 11
Subtotal internal biosecurity score 62 15 0.09 58 14 0.31 62 12 0.0 55 16 0.28 55 16 0.05 55 16 0.44 55 14 0.03
 Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14
Table 2 Difference in biosecurity scores according to herd characteristics (Continued)
55 13 62 20 54 15 7 64 19 62 10 62 21 62 12
Total score 68 11 0.01 64 12 0.25 66 8 0.1 64 14 0.80 64 14 0.36 64 14 0.03 63 14 0.12
63 10 67 14 63 17 8 64 15 65 11 73 7 66 13
Overall scores and subcategory scores between herds with a female versus male caretaker of piglets and sows (female n = 28, male = 31), smaller (96–185 sows, n = 30) and larger herds (190–1200 sows, n = 29),
farmers with <23 years (range 5–22 years, n = 30) of experience and farmers with ≥23 years (range 23–41 years, n = 29) of experience, conventional herds (n = 34) and outdoor production (n = 3), satellite herds (n = 19)
and SPF herds (n = 3) and lower (n = 26) and higher education level (n = 30) for personnel among 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds. The significance of differences between groups was assessed by Mann–Whitney test.
Significant P-values are indicated by bold characters.
M = medians, IQR = Interquartile range, a = statistical analysis not possible due to data missing, b = n is 2, np = not possible to calculate IQR.

Page 7 of 11
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 8 of 11

Figure 3 Answers to questions regarding the subcategory “Feed, water and equipment supplies”.

Figure 4 Answers to questions regarding the subcategory “Transport of animals, and removal of manure and dead animals”. The low
bars indicate that the question was not answered by all the herds; it was skipped when not relevant according to the answer to previous question.
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 9 of 11

lock was used, washing and disinfection of hands was “Cleaning and disinfection” scored overall low scores be-
done and a quarantine period of more than 12 hours cause of the limited use of foot baths (5%), a measure
after visiting other farms was applied for visitors in more that was given considerable weight in this subcategory.
than half of the farms. However, these measures were It could be argued that measures such as cleaning and
carried out by farmers and staff themselves on only 32% disinfection of stables and compartments, implemented
of farms, which reduced the score for this subcategory. by 78%, and a mean sanitary period of 5.33 days between
Further details are presented in Additional file 3. To batches, in 92% of herds, are at least as important for
summarize, the results of this study show that improve- biosecurity as are foot baths and that the poor score for
ments in external biosecurity can be made regarding the subcategory is not of major concern. See Additional
transport of animals and feed, e.g. by arranging a separ- file 7 for more details.
ate loading area and implementing a stricter policy for Scores for “Disease management” varied the most be-
farmer and staff entering the farm. tween herds, but were based on four questions only.
Strengths within the subcategory were that 97% of the
Detailed description of internal biosecurity herds had a plan for vaccination and treatments that
An all-in, all-out system in the fattening unit was prac- was complied with, and that the disease status of the
tised in 90% of herds, for all compartments. In the nur- herd was regularly checked (Figure 6). Weaknesses were
sery unit, a strict all-in, all-out protocol was practised at that only half of the herds performed isolation of runts
a pen level in 95% of the herds, but the situation at the and sick animals and consistently handled sick animals
compartment level was not covered by the question- only after handling healthy ones. Based on the results
naire. In the nursery, 77% of herds achieved the max- above, improvements in internal biosecurity should
imum score for a pig density of three or fewer pigs per focus on establishing stricter hygiene measures for
m2, and in the fattening unit 80% of herds had >0.6 m2 personnel, between compartments.
per pig, which is larger than the space requirement To the authors’ knowledge, only one previous study,
stipulated by the EU (Council Directive 2008/120/EC) conducted in 2006, describes biosecurity measures in
[13]. See Additional files 4, 5 and 6 for details. What Swedish pig herds, although that also included special-
contributed to the overall low score for the subcategory ized fattening farms [10]. The study protocols were com-
“Biosecurity measures between compartments” (Figure 5) pletely different so comparisons between the 2006 and
was that only 8% of farms required their staff to always the present study are difficult to make. Nevertheless,
change clothing and footwear and only 5% got them to some biosecurity measures were found to be better in
always wash their hands between compartments. the current study than in the previous one. For example,

Figure 5 Answers to questions regarding the subcategory “Measurements between compartments and the use of equipment”.
Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 10 of 11

Figure 6 Answers to questions regarding the internal biosecurity subcategory “Disease management”.

transporters were allowed to enter the stables in fewer Belgium, which differs from Sweden regarding infectious
herds in our study (28% compared with 44% in the pre- diseases in pigs. However, the advantage of using this
vious study), and there was more use of quarantine for tool is that it allows for detailed comparisons between
purchased animals (89% versus 74%) and of providing herds and also between countries, which is the overall
farm-specific clothes for visitors (90% versus 85%) and aim of MINAPIG.
less sharing of equipment with other farms (28% versus
57%). Part of the difference may be attributable to im- Conclusions
provements that have evolved over time, but sampling It can be concluded that middle-sized to large Swedish
differences may also be part of the explanation. Also, farrow-to-finish systems have a high level of external
many pig herds have closed down since 2006 as a result biosecurity, and a good internal biosecurity. Good rou-
of the difficult economic situation facing the pig indus- tines for purchase of animals and protocols for visitors
try, and it cannot be excluded that the herds that have are applied in the majority of herds. Furthermore, there
closed down were to a greater extent herds with old are low stocking densities and an all-in, all-out protocol
facilities, perhaps with a reduced possibility for good is applied in most herds. The external biosecurity can be
biosecurity practices. improved regarding transports for animals and feed. For
internal biosecurity, there is room for improvement es-
Limitations of the study pecially regarding hygiene measures such as washing of
The source population were mainly herds affiliated to hands and changing of clothes and boots in and between
the SvDHV’s full service programme, which excludes compartments and the order in which work is carried
herds with herd veterinarians outside this organization. out between different groups of pigs. A female caretaker
To be able to make cross-country comparisons within in the nursery unit or a farmer with <23 years of experi-
the MINAPIG project, the inclusion criterion for herd ence was positively associated with higher scores for cer-
size was set to >100 sows. In Sweden, more than half of tain external and internal biosecurity scores, and a
farrow-to-finish herds are smaller [12], and therefore the higher level of education was likewise associated with
results should be viewed as representative only of higher scores for internal biosecurity.
medium-sized and large herds. Furthermore, it cannot
be excluded that there was an overrepresentation of Additional files
farmers with a general interest in questions regarding
AM use among those who agreed to participate, consid- Additional file 1: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to
ering the overall aim of the study, as farms with a low questions regarding the external biosecurity subcategory “Purchase of
animals and semen”. The low bars indicate that the question was not
level of biosecurity or a high level of AM use may have answered by all the herds; it was skipped when not relevant according to the
been more reluctant to join. Furthermore, it can be dis- answer to previous question.
cussed whether the weights given to different factors in Additional file 2: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to
BioCheck are entirely relevant and applicable under questions regarding the external biosecurity subcategory
“Environment and region”.
Swedish conditions since the tool was developed in
 Backhans et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica (2015) 57:14 Page 11 of 11

Additional file 3: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to and veterinarians of the most important biosecurity measures. Prev Vet
questions regarding the external biosecurity subcategory “Personnel Med. 2013;110:223–31.
and visitors”. 6. Julio Pinto C, Santiago Urcelay V. Biosecurity practices on intensive pig
production systems in Chile. Prev Vet Med. 2003;59:139–45.
Additional file 4: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to 7. Laanen M, Beek J, Ribbens S, Vangroenweghe F, Maes D, Dewulf J.
questions regarding the internal biosecurity subcategory Biosecurity on pig herds: Development of an on-line scoring system and
“Farrowing and suckling period”. the results of the first 99 participating herds. Vlaams Diergen Tijds.
Additional file 5: Answers by 57 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to 2010;79:302–6.
questions regarding the internal biosecurity subcategory “Nursery 8. Sahlström L, Virtanen T, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T. Biosecurity on Finnish cattle,
unit”. Three of the 60 herds did not have a separate nursery unit. pig and sheep farms -results from a questionnaire. Prev Vet Med.
Additional file 6: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to 2014;117:59–67.
questions regarding the internal biosecurity subcategory “Fattening 9. Boklund A, Alban L, Mortensen S, Houe H. Biosecurity in 116 Danish
unit”. fattening swineherds: descriptive results and factor analysis. Prev Vet Med.
2004;66:49–62.
Additional file 7: Answers by 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish herds to 10. Nöremark M, Frössling J, Lewerin SS. Application of routines that contribute
questions regarding the internal biosecurity subcategory “Cleaning to on-farm biosecurity as reported by Swedish livestock farmers. Transbound
and disinfection”. Emerg Dis. 2010;57:225–36.
11. Marquer P. Pig farming in the EU, a changing sector. In Eurostat Statistics in
focus. vol. 8;2010.
Abbreviations
12. Swedish Board of Agriculture. Livestock in June 2013. Final Statistics, vol.
AM: Antimicrobials; EU: European Union; SPF: Specific pathogen-free, i.e. a
JO20SM 1401. SCB; 2014. http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/
herd free of infection with swine influenza virus, Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Publishing-calendar/Show-detailedinformation/?publobjid=23598+
Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Sarcoptes scabiei, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, 13. SFS 1988, Swedish Code of statues 1988. 539 Animal Protection Ordinance
toxin-producing Pasteurella multocida; SvDHV: Swedish Animal Health Service.
(in Swedish).
14. Wallenbeck A. Pigs for organic production. Studies of sow behaviour,
Competing interests piglet-production and GxE interactions for performance. PhD thesis.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
and Animal Science, Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics; 2009.
Authors’ contributions 15. Sjölund M. Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae - A major respiratory pathogen
UE and AL compiled the initial draft of the study and all authors were in pigs. PhD thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of
involved in the planning. MS coordinated and together with AB managed Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences; 2011.
the data collection. AB performed the analysis and drafted the manuscript. 16. Eckardt Erlanger A, Tsytsarev S. The relationship between empathy and
UE supervised the analysis of the data. All authors reviewed, edited and personality in undergraduate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animals.
approved the final manuscript. Society & Animals. 2012;1:21–38.
17. Frössling J, Sternberg-Lewerin S, Nöremark M. Livestock farmers’ perception
Acknowledgements and opinions on biosecurity. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
We would like to thank the MINAPIG consortium that participated in the the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (SVEPM).
planning of the study (in alphabetic order): Catherine Belloc, Lucie Collineau, Dublin; 2014.
Jeroen Dewulf, Elisabeth Grosse-Beilage, Bernd Grosse-Liessner, Denise Iten, 18. Courtenay W, Mccreary D, Merighi J. Gender and ethnic differences in
Svenja Lösken, Elisabeth Okholm, Merel Postma, Hugo Seemer and Katarina health beliefs and behaviors. J Health Psychol. 2002;7:219–31.
Stärk. We would also like to thank all farmers who participated in the study.
Marie Sjölund provided the cover photo.
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas.

Author details
1
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. 2Department of Animal Health and
Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, SE-751 89 Uppsala,
Sweden. 3Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, National
Veterinary Institute, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden.

Received: 12 November 2014 Accepted: 24 February 2015

References
1. Laanen M, Persoons D, Ribbens S, de Jong E, Callens B, Strubbe M, et al.
Relationship between biosecurity and production/antimicrobial treatment
characteristics in pig herds. Vet J. 2013;198:508–12. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World and take full advantage of:
Organisation for Animal Health/World Bank. Good practices for biosecurity
in the pig sector – Issues and options in developing and transition
• Convenient online submission
countries. Rome: FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 169; 2010.
3. Alawneh JI, Barnes TS, Parke C, Lapuz E, David E, Basinang V, et al. • Thorough peer review
Description of the pig production systems, biosecurity practices and herd • No space constraints or color figure charges
health providers in two provinces with high swine density in the
• Immediate publication on acceptance
Philippines. Prev Vet Med. 2014;114:73–87.
4. Casal J, De Manuel A, Mateu E, Martín M. Biosecurity measures on swine • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
farms in Spain: Perceptions by farmers and their relationship to current • Research which is freely available for redistribution
on-farm measures. Prev Vet Med. 2007;82:138–50.
5. Simon-Grifé M, Martín-Valls GE, Vilar MJ, García-Bocanegra I, Martín M, Mateu
E, et al. Biosecurity practices in Spanish pig herds: Perceptions of farmers Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit

View publication stats