Microbiological air quality in free-farrowing housing systems for sows

Risk factors for antimicrobial use in Dutch pig farms: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial use (AMU) has decreased significantly in Dutch pig farms since 2009. However, this decrease has stagnated recently, with relatively high AMU levels persisting mainly among weaners. The aim of this study was to identify farm-level characteristics associated with: i) total AMU and ii) use of specific antimicrobial classes.

METHODS

In 2020, cross-sectional data from 154 Dutch pig farms were collected, including information on AMU and farm characteristics. A mixed-effects conditional Random Forest analysis was applied to select the subset of features that was best associated with AMU.

RESULTS

The main risk factors for total AMU in weaners were vaccination for PRRS in sucklings, being a conventional farm (vs. not), high within-farm density, and early weaning. The main protective factors for total AMU in sows/sucklings were E. coli vaccination in sows and having boars for estrus detection from own production. Regarding antimicrobial class-specific outcomes, several risk factors overlapped for weaners and sows/sucklings, such as farmer's non-tertiary education, not having free-sow systems during lactation, and conventional farming. An additional risk factor for weaners was having fully slatted floors. For fatteners, the main risk factor for total AMU was PRRS vaccination in sucklings.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors found here to be associated with AMU. Some were known but others were novel, such as farmer's tertiary education, low pig aggression and free-sow systems which were all associated with lower AMU. These factors provide targets for developing tailor-made interventions, as well as an evidence-based selection of features for further causal assessment and mediation analysis.

Characteristics of aerosols from swine farms: A review of the past two-decade progress

With the rapid development of large-scale and intensive swine production, the emission of aerosols from swine farms has become a growing concern, attracting extensive attention. While aerosols are found in various environments, those from swine farms are distinguished from human habitats, such as residential, suburban, and urban areas. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of aerosols from swine farms, this paper reviewed relevant studies conducted between 2000 and 2022. The main components, concentrations, and size distribution of the aerosols were systematically reviewed. The differences between aerosols from swine farms and human living and working environments were compared. Finally, the sources, influencing factors, and reduction technologies for aerosols from swine farms were thoroughly elucidated. The results demonstrated that the concentrations of aerosols inside swine farms varied considerably, and most exceeded safety thresholds. However, further exploration is needed to fully understand the difference in airborne microorganism community structure and particles with small sizes (<1 μm) between swine farms and human living and working environments. More airborne bacterial and viruses were adhered to large particles in swine houses, while the proportion of airborne fungi in the respirable fraction was similar to that of human living and working environments. In addition, swine farms have a higher abundance and diversity of potential pathogens, airborne resistant microorganisms and resistant genes compared to the human living and working environments. The aerosols of swine farms mainly originated from sources such as manure, feed, swine hair and skin, secondary production, and waste treatment. According to the source analysis and factors influencing aerosols in swine farms, various technologies could be employed to mitigate aerosol emissions, and some end-of-pipe technologies need to be further improved before they are widely applied. Swine farms are advised not to increase aerosol concentration in human living and working environments, in order to decrease the impact of aerosols from swine farms on human health and restrain the spread of airborne potential pathogens. This review provides critical insights into aerosols of swine farms, offering guidance for taking appropriate measures to enhance air quality inside and surrounding swine farms.

Particulate Matter in Swine Barns: A Comprehensive Review

Particulate matter (PM) represents an air quality management challenge for confined swine production systems. Due to the limited space and ventilation rate, PM can reach relatively high concentrations in swine barns. PM in swine barns possesses different physical, chemical, and biological characteristics than that in the atmosphere and other indoor environments. As a result, it exerts different environmental and health effects and creates some unique challenges regarding PM measurement and mitigation. Numerous research efforts have been made, generating massive data and information. However, relevant review reports are sporadic. This study aims to provide an updated comprehensive review of swine barn PM, focusing on publications since 1990. It covers various topics including PM characteristics, sources, measurement methods, and in-barn mitigation technologies. As PM in swine barns is primarily of biological origins, bioaerosols are reviewed in great detail. Relevant topics include bacterial/fungal counts, viruses, microbial community composition, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, antibiotic resistance genes, endotoxins, and (1→3)-β-D-glucans. For each topic, existing knowledge is summarized and discussed and knowledge gaps are identified. Overall, PM in swine barns is complicated in chemical and biological composition and highly variable in mass concentrations, size, and microbial abundance. Feed, feces, and skins constitute the major PM sources. Regarding in-barn PM mitigation, four technologies (oil/water sprinkling, ionization, alternation of feed and feeders, and recirculating air filtration) are dominant. However, none of them have been widely used in commercial barns. A collective discussion of major knowledge gaps and future research needs is offered at the end of the report.