NCSU Extension Swine Husbandry
A more printable version of Swine News in Adobe Acrobat.
March, 2004 . Volume 27, Number 02
A LESSON IN ANIMAL WELFARE FROM AUSTRALIAN LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS
Recently, I had the opportunity to watch firsthand as a major animal welfare issue unfolded, one that highlights the difficulties in trying to increase farmer income while maintaining reasonable animal welfare standards. The problem was live animal shipments and mortalities, specifically the fate of 57,000 Australian-sourced, but Saudi-owned, live sheep stranded at sea in the Middle East aboard the Dutch vessel the MV Cormo Express. Though sheep were the animal in question, the situation resonates for all animal producers, from swine to any other farm animal.
The incident occurred while I was visiting Australia on sabbatical leave, working on animal welfare issues. The live-animal trade has long been a source of anguish for the welfare lobby, if only because of mortality rates, which can approach 2 percent.
The current saga started when the boatload of sheep was initially rejected by Saudi authorities. The reason given was that the on-board prevalence of scabby mouth exceeded an agreed-upon threshold of 5 percent (2,800 animals), a disease level disputed by an Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)-approved veterinarian. The Australian Federal Government countered that no laboratory tests were conducted and that the Saudi assessment was based on a visual inspection of one deck of the vessel. Some speculate that the rejection was more for political games-playing than anything to do with scabby mouth.
Although Australian government officials stated that only 1,100 sheep (1.9 percent) had died, those figures were debated, and some people claimed at least 6.5 percent (3,700 of 57,000) of the sheep died after their six-week sea journey. Given the reported high humidity and temperatures approaching 450 C (1130 F) or more, this higher figure was understandable. Compounding the problem was the fact that the sheep had been rejected at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, at Al Aqabah in Jordan, and by the United Arab Emirates. The latter, only at the eleventh hour, gave permission for the ship to dock to take on more fodder, but expressly not to unload.
To alleviate the situation, Ms. Glenis Oogjies, executive director of Animals Australia (a major animal welfare advocate), demanded that all the sheep be euthanized to ease their suffering. The owners reportedly considered simply giving them away to anyone who would take them.
At this stage, one could only hope that some nation would accept the sheep (at whatever price), as one could only guess at the logistical nightmare of having to humanely euthanize that many animals on a ship in foreign waters. Our experience with mass euthanasia trials with pigs in North Carolina made me think that carbon dioxide could have been employed if the sheep pens could have been sealed off and made airtight with plastic or other material. But where would one find enough carbon dioxide?
The other alternatives might have included gunshot, blunt trauma, or captive-bolt pistol. Electrocution or injectibles might have been added to the list but most likely would have been impractical. One would have to question the wisdom of firing 57,000 bullets on a ship, but perhaps something could have been constructed to make it safe for the operators and the ship. For animals the size of sheep, blunt trauma would have been inhumane, and so it seemed that the owners would be looking at securing lots of captive-bolt pistols to get the job done. Reportedly, there was only one captive-bolt gun and one veterinarian on board.
However the euthanasia was accomplished, I wonder how they would have disposed of that many carcasses? My guess is that the owners would have liked to have dumped them overboard, but public opinion would probably have prevented that action.
Another option considered was returning to Australia with the sheep, for which they would have needed an import document. Given Australia's closed-door policy, I doubt if this would ever have occurred, and if it had, it is another indication of the seriousness of the situation.
As it turned out, the sheep were finally accepted by Eritrea—but only after the little country was given the sheep and a boatload of feed and money.
Although the situation above pertains to only a very specific sector of our animal industry and only to live shipment, it highlights the potential problems when a highly lucrative trade clashes with animal welfare issues and when an unforeseen/low-probability event (rejection of the shipment) turns into a welfare problem and a public relations disaster. Opponents of this type of trade counter that these problems are inevitable and so the practice must be banned. Banning the trade would be a serious blow to farmers' income, unless alternatives could be found. Live sheep export is a major source of income for Australian sheep farmers. Year-to-date exports to Saudi Arabia alone were 1.42 million sheep, and the total trade is valued at $1 billion per year.
Slaughtering stock close to where they are grown has economic and welfare advantages as well as the potential to improve meat quality. Initially, however, the live sheep trade developed because the importing countries lacked the infrastructure (especially refrigeration) to handle imported meat. However, times have changed, and now it seems that most of the live imported sheep are frozen after processing, thus weakening the argument for the necessity of live exports. Unfortunately, that would not result in an equivalently priced product, as there would still be the higher cost associated with slaughter and processing in Australia, compared to lower costs in the Middle East.
This unfortunate incident highlights the difficulties in trying to increase farmers' income while maintaining reasonable animal welfare standards. If we assume that animals suffer before they die, then mortalities should be minimized. It is unrealistic to assume that no animals will die in transit, so the debate must center on finding that magic number that is the level of acceptable mortalities, balanced against the very real increase in farmers' income. Of course, this argument is not restricted to live sheep exports but is just as valid to sow mortalities or any farm animal enterprise.
—W.E. Morgan Morrow
In response to growing concern by consumers about the prevalence of antibiotic use in feed animals, the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA) recently approved a resolution to encourage producers to limit or halt antibiotic use during the finishing stages of hog production.
The action from the nation's largest swine-producing state focuses on the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics.
The resolution specifically does not limit antibiotics during the nursery stage (50-pound pigs or lighter). It also allows antibiotics to be used to treat diagnosed disease. Sick pigs should always be treated with the best medicine available; to do otherwise (withhold treatment) would be a welfare issue.
However, given that about 50 percent of the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are used in food animals, decreasing the amount of sub-therapeutic use should be an achievable goal.
Information presented at the 2003 meeting of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians outlines some easy steps that producers can take to reduce antibiotic resistance on hog farms.
According to Dr. Alan Mathew, Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, "A number of strategies might be effective in reducing the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria without exclusion of antibiotics from swine-production systems. Our results indicate that the prevalence of E. coli (organisms) resistant to antibiotics is significantly increased upon exposure to various stressors, and these organisms may persist following withdrawal of antibiotics from feed." He also said, "It is not clear from our study how stressors applied to animals might affect resistance patterns of the fecal microflora."
In one 149-day study, Mathew's group exposed pigs to a variety of stressors and measured the resistance of E. coli fecal isolates to apramycin, which had been fed at 150g/ton for 14 days. Whereas control pigs (not fed apramycin) maintained the lowest resistance for the duration of the study, pigs exposed to cold stress (a temperature reduction of 6o C) had significantly higher minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) up to 64 days after the introduction of apramycin. Heat stress (a temperature increase of 6o C) had a similar effect at 14 days but not thereafter. This difference in response is good news for North Carolina producers, as it is harder to cool pigs in summer than it is to keep them warm in winter.
The next most adverse effect was from overcrowding. A 40 percent reduction in floor space resulted in a significantly higher MIC up to 64 days after the introduction of apramycin. This response is similar to the adverse effect of cold stress, as detailed above. Feeding Oxytetracycline at 100g/ton (plus the apramycin) for 14 days also resulted in a significantly higher MIC up to 64 days, indicating the problem of feeding low levels of antibiotics.
In another trial, the investigators allowed manure to accumulate on the floors of the pens, and this resulted in a significantly higher MIC at 14 days but not thereafter. I doubt that this effect was caused by the continual access to the manure and the resistant organisms therein, but may be serving as a surrogate for the increased exposure to noxious gases (ammonia, etc.) that are associated with dirty pens.
From these results, it is clear that apart from the improved production gained from minimizing temperature fluctuations and avoiding overcrowding, there are real opportunities for decreasing antibiotic resistance through some simple management steps.
In other studies, Mathew's group demonstrated that rotation of similar antibiotics (apramycin for 5 days, then gentamycin for 5 days, then neomycin for 4 days) produced the greatest resistance to all 3 antibiotics. By contrast, pulse feeding (cycling apramycin for 3 days, then 3 days without, for 14 days) produced the least resistance and at a level similar to the control group. This provides another opportunity for smaller pork producers to cut costs and antibiotic resistance problems on the farm.
In larger operations served by big in-house feed mills, this option would be harder to implement because of the difficulty of managing a variety of farm-specific rations. One option would be to "pulse" the whole system, regardless of the pigs' stages of growth in the finishing barns.
In a final study, Mathew's group was able to show that short-term exposure of sows to feed-based, sub-therapeutic antibiotics increases the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their piglets. Thus, by reducing the amount of antibiotics fed to sows (a doubtful practice in my mind anyway), the producer may be able to further limit overall resistance in pigs destined to be pork.
In summary, amid the growing trend by consumers to worry about how their food is produced, the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production is bound to decrease as farmers respond to demands. An outright ban on any use would be inhumane to animals needing antibiotic treatment. Managing stocking density, controlling temperature, and pulsing antibiotics offer real opportunities to reduce these materials' use. More research is needed to understand completely how bacteria acquire resistance in the field and how to manage it on the farm, but Mathew and his group have made notable progress.
—W.E. Morgan Morrow
The second annual Alumni Reunion of the NC State University Animal Science Club and the NC State Animal Science Department will be held Friday, April 2, at the Beef Educational Unit on Lake Wheeler Road in Raleigh.
The social event features a pork BBQ dinner for all attendees at 6 p.m. and an opportunity to visit old friends, faculty, and staff from the department. No formal program is planned. Last year's event, held in conjunction with Animal Science Club Day activities, attracted more than 325 people.
Members of the Animal Science Club organize the reunion and are the primary sponsor. Other sponsors last year included Carolina Farm Credit, The Bull Chute of Raleigh, the Alumni Society of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Population Health and Pathobiology Department of the College of Veterinary Medicine.
If you are an Animal Science graduate or a former member of the NCSU Animal Science Club and wish to attend this year's event, send an email to anscclubalumni@excite.com for details. If you do not have e-mail access, contact Dale Miller at (919) 515-7772.
The Beef Educational Unit is located just off Lake Wheeler Road, about 1 mile south of Tryon Road. The easiest access is from Interstate 40/440 on the south side of Raleigh. Take Exit 297 and travel south on Lake Wheeler Road, crossing Tryon Road after about 1.5 miles. Continue on Lake Wheeler Road another mile and turn right on Mid-Pines Road. The Beef Unit driveway is on the right, and the building is visible from Lake Wheeler Road.
Information about the Animal Science Club is available on the Web at:
http://www.ncsuanimalscience.com/
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/student_orgs/ansci/ans_club.html
—Dale Miller
| Breeder | Address | Breeds |
| Bob Ivey* | 314 N.C. 111 S, Goldsboro 27530 | L, D, H, Y, CW, X |
| Wesley Looper* | 4695 Petra Mill Rd., Granite Falls 28630 | L, D, H, Y, X |
| Thad Sharp, Jr., & Sons | 5171 N.C. 581 Hwy., Sims 2788030 | D, Y, X |
| Tidewater Research Farm* | 207 Research Station Road, Plymouth 27962 | D, Y, L |
| Thomas Farms | 8251 Oxford Rd., Timberlake 27583 | X |
| *Real-Time Ultrasound | ||
—Frank Hollowell and David Lee
Last modified February 17, 2004.