Carriage of Clostridium difficile and other enteric pathogens among a 4-H avocational cohort.

Clostridium difficile (CD), Salmonella, Campylobacter and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) are major causes of morbidity in a variety of enteric diseases in humans and animals, but subclinical carriage in both is probably more common than are clinical cases. Little is known regarding the prevalence of these pathogens in animals raised for exhibit at Michigan county fairs or the frequency with which Michigan citizens raising these animals may have been subclinically colonized. To address these issues, 361 fecal specimens from 158 humans and 203 of their farm animals were cultured for CD, Salmonella and Campylobacter. Additionally, 50 people and their cattle were tested for EHEC. No EHEC, Salmonella or Campylobacter were detected. However, 16 specimens (4.4%) were positive for CD: 13 humans, two horses and one pig. None of the farm animal specimens submitted by any of the 13 CD-positive humans were positive for CD. Strain characterization [toxinotype, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)] demonstrated that the human CD isolates were similar to what has been reported previously in the general US population. We conclude that horses and farm animals (cattle, sheep, goats and swine) at 1-2 months before market weight showed no evidence of wide-spread carriage of the common enteric pathogens, including the recently reported CD toxinotype V. These results provide no support to the hypothesis that 4-H members or others visiting county fair animal husbandry projects in these counties may be at increased risk for acquisition of CD, Salmonella, Campylobacter or EHEC from animals.

Effects of season and distance moved during loading on transport losses of market-weight pigs in two commercially available types of trailer.

This study evaluated effects of trailer design and season on physical indicators of stress during loading and unloading and transport losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) in market-weight pigs (BW = 129.6 +/- 0.40 kg). A total of 109 trailer loads of pigs (n = 17,256 pigs) from 1 farm were used in a randomized complete block design with a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) trailer design (potbelly vs. straight-deck) and 2) season (spring vs. summer vs. fall vs. winter). A subset of loads (n = 42) was used to examine effect of distance pigs were moved during loading [short (<24 m) vs. long (47 to 67 m)] on physical indicators of stress and transport losses. This study was conducted on 7 d per season at 1 farm with 4 loads (2 on potbelly and 2 on straight-deck trailers) being transported each day to 1 commercial packing plant. Pigs from different farm groups were mixed on the trailer and provided with 0.45 m(2)/pig floor space during an approximately 4-h journey to the plant. The percentage of pigs exhibiting open-mouth breathing, skin discoloration, and muscle tremors was recorded during loading and unloading. Additionally, dead pigs on arrival at the plant and nonambulatory pigs at the farm and at the plant were recorded. Effects of trailer design on open-mouth breathing and skin discoloration during unloading were dependent on season (trailer design x season interaction; P < 0.05). Pigs unloaded from potbelly trailers had a greater (P < or = 0.05) incidence of open-mouth breathing in the spring and summer and a greater (P < 0.05) incidence of skin discoloration in the spring, summer, and winter than pigs unloaded from straight-deck trailers. The incidence of total nonambulatory pigs at the plant was greater (P < 0.05) in the winter than in the spring and summer. The long compared with short distance moved treatment resulted in a greater (P = 0.001) incidence of open-mouth breathing and skin discoloration during loading and tended (P = 0.06) to increase the incidence of nonambulatory pigs at the farm. However, there was no effect of trailer design, season, or loading distance on total losses at the plant. In summary, physical indicators of stress (open-mouth breathing and skin discoloration) were increased with the long distance moved during loading treatment and were greater during unloading for potbelly than straight-deck trailers; however, trailer design, season, and loading distance had minimal effects on total transport losses.

Effects of distance moved during loading and floor space on the trailer during transport on losses of market weight pigs on arrival at the packing plant.

Effects of distance moved during loading and floor space on the trailer during transport on the incidence of transport losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) on arrival at the packing plant were evaluated in a study involving 42 loads of pigs (average BW = 131.2 kg, SD 5.05). A split-plot design was used with a 2 x 6 factorial arrangement of the following treatments: 1) distance moved from the pen to the exit of the building [short (0 to 30.5 m) vs. long (61.0 to 91.4 m)] and 2) transport floor space (0.396, 0.415, 0.437, 0.462, 0.489, or 0.520 m(2)/pig). Loading distance treatments (sub-plots) were compared within transport floor space treatments (main plot). Pigs were loaded at the farm using sorting boards and, if necessary, electric goads, transported approximately 3 h to a commercial packing plant and unloaded using livestock paddles. The number of nonambulatory pigs during loading and the number of dead and nonambulatory pigs at the plant were recorded. Nonambulatory pigs were classified as fatigued, injured, or injured and fatigued. In addition, the incidence of pigs exhibiting signs of stress (open-mouth breathing, skin discoloration, and muscle tremors) during loading and unloading was recorded. There were no interactions (P > 0.05) between distance moved and transport floor space treatments. Moving pigs long compared with short distances during loading increased (P < 0.001) the incidence of open-mouth breathing after loading (24.9 vs. 11.0 +/- 1.03%, respectively) and tended to increase the incidence of nonambulatory pigs during loading (0.32 vs. 0.08 +/- 0.09%, respectively; P = 0.09) and of nonambulatory, injured pigs at the plant (0.24 vs. 0.04 +/- 0.07%, respectively; P = 0.06). However, distance moved did not affect other losses at the plant. Total losses at the plant were greater (P < 0.05) for the 3 lowest floor spaces compared with the 2 highest floor spaces, and pigs provided 0.462 m(2)/pig during transport had similar transport losses to those provided 0.489 and 0.520 m(2)/pig (total losses at the plant = 2.84, 1.88, 1.87, 0.98, 0.13, and 0.98 +/- 0.43% of pigs transported, for 0.396, 0.415, 0.437, 0.462, 0.489, and 0.520 m(2)/pig, respectively). These data confirm previous findings that transport floor space has a major effect on transport losses and suggest that these losses are minimized at a floor space of 0.462 m(2)/pig or greater.

Effect of floor space during transport of market-weight pigs on the incidence of transport losses at the packing plant and the relationships between transport conditions and losses.

Data on 74 trailer loads of finishing pigs (mean BW = 129.0, SEM = 0.63 kg) from wean-to-finish buildings on 2 farms within 1 production system were collected to investigate the effect of amount of floor space on the trailer (0.39 or 0.48 m2/pig) during transport on the incidence of losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) at the packing plant and to study the relationships between transport conditions and losses. Pigs were loaded using standard commercial procedures for pig handling and transportation. Two designs of flat-deck trailers with 2 decks were used. Floor space treatments were compared in 2 similarly sized compartments on each deck of each trailer type. Differences in floor space were created by varying the number of pigs in each compartment. The incidence of nonambulatory pigs at the farm during loading and at the plant after unloading, average load weight, load number within each day, event times, and temperature and relative humidity in the trailer from loading to unloading were recorded. Of the 12,511 pigs transported, 0.26% were non-ambulatory at the farm, 0.23% were dead on arrival, and 0.85% were nonambulatory at the plant. Increasing transport floor space from 0.39 to 0.48 m2/pig reduced the percentage of total nonambulatory pigs (0.62 vs. 0.27 +/- 0.13%, respectively; P < 0.05), nonambulatory, noninjured pigs (0.52 vs. 0.15 +/- 0.11%, respectively; P < 0.01), and total losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) at the plant (0.88 vs. 0.36 +/- 0.16%, respectively; P < 0.05) and tended to reduce dead pigs (0.27 vs. 0.08 +/- 0.08%, respectively; P = 0.06). However, transport floor space did not affect the percentage of nonambulatory, injured pigs at the plant. Nonambulatory pigs at the farm were positively correlated with relative humidity during loading and load number within the day (r = 0.46 and 0.25, respectively; P < 0.05). The percentage of total losses at the plant was positively correlated to waiting time at the plant, unloading time, and total time from loading to unloading (r = 0.24, 0.51, and 0.36, respectively; P < 0.05). Average temperature during loading, waiting at the farm, transport, waiting at the plant, unloading, and average pig weight on the trailer were not correlated to losses. These results suggest that floor space per pig on the trailer and transport conditions can affect transport losses.

Effects of proportion of pigs removed from a group and subsequent floor space on growth performance of finishing pigs.

The effects of the proportion of pigs removed from an established group and subsequent floor space on growth performance during the final 19 d of the finishing period were evaluated using 28 pens of mixed-sex crossbred pigs (mean initial BW = 113.4 +/- 0.57 kg; n = 1,456; approximately 52 pigs per pen). A randomized block design was used with four pig-removal treatments: 1) 0% of pigs removed [Control], 2) approximately 25% of pigs removed, 3) approximately 50% of pigs removed, and 4) approximately 50% of pigs removed and floor and feeder spaces/pig decreased to equal those of Control. A block consisted of four pens with the same number of pigs and sex ratio per pen and with similar initial BW. Pens within blocks were randomly allocated to treatment, and the heaviest animals were removed from Treatments 2, 3, and 4 at the start of the study. Group size and floor space/pig for Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 52 and 0.65 m(2), 39 and 0.87 m(2), 26 and 1.30 m(2), and 26 and 0.65 m(2), respectively. Each pen contained a six-place feeder that provided 212 cm of total trough space; however, only three-places were accessible to pigs on Treatment 4. Compared with Controls, removing 25 or 50% of pigs resulted in increased (P < 0.001) ADG by 20.6 and 21.0%, ADFI by 10.8 and 7.9%, and G:F by 7.7 and 14.3%, respectively. Average daily gain by pigs on Treatment 4 (50% removal rate and decreased floor and feeder spaces) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of the Controls, but lower (P < 0.05) than that of Treatment 3 pigs (50% removal rate, no adjustment in floor or feeder spaces). No differences were observed among treatments for either morbidity or mortality. These results indicate that removing 25 or 50% of the heaviest pigs from groups of finishing pigs increased growth rate of the remaining pigs, and that the improved performance was only partly due to increased floor and feeder spaces.

Effect of restricted postweaning growth resulting from reduced floor and feeder-trough space on pig growth performance to slaughter weight in a wean-to-finish production system.

The effect of reduced pig growth rate postweaning as a result of restricted floor space and feeder trough space on subsequent growth to slaughter was investigated in a wean-to-finish system. Crossbred pigs (n = 1,728) were used in a randomized block design with a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) floor space (high [0.630 m2/pig] vs. low floor space [0.315 m2/pig]), 2) feeder trough space (unrestricted [4 cm/pig] vs. restricted feeder trough space [2 cm/pig]), and 3) period of imposing floor- and feeder-trough-space treatments (12 vs. 14 wk postweaning). Growth performance was measured from weaning (5.5 +/- 0.01 kg of BW; 17 d of age) to slaughter (the end of wk 25 postweaning). From the end of the treatment period to the end of wk 25, pigs on all treatments had the same floor and feeder trough space. Pigs with low floor space had lower (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and gain:feed ratio than those with high floor space, and were therefore lighter (P < 0.05) at the end of the postweaning treatment period. Pigs given the restricted feeder trough space had lower (P < 0.05) ADFI, similar (P > 0.05) ADG, and higher (P < 0.01) gain:feed ratio than those with unrestricted feeder trough space during the treatment period. Pigs in the 14-wk treatment period had higher (P < 0.01) ADG and ADFI, but lower gain:feed than those in the 12-wk treatment during that period. In the subsequent period, from the end of treatment to wk 25, there was an interaction (P < 0.05) between floor space and treatment period; the difference in ADG and gain:feed for pigs on low vs. high floor space was greater for the 14-wk than the 12-wk treatment period. However, low-floor-space pigs tended (P = 0.06) to be lighter than high-floor-space pigs at the end of wk 25 postweaning. Neither feeder trough space nor treatment period affected pig growth performance during the period from the end of treatment to wk 25. Carcass backfat and longissimus depths at the end of wk 25 were not influenced (P > 0.05) by treatment. In summary, pigs with restricted growth due to low floor space until either 12 or 14 wk postweaning had increased growth and feed efficiency in the subsequent period to wk 25 postweaning, with only a slight effect on BW and no effect on carcass measures.

Impact of early postweaning growth rate as affected by diet complexity and space allocation on subsequent growth performance of pigs in a wean-to-finish production system.

The objective was to evaluate the effect of restricted early postweaning growth rate due to diet complexity, pen space, or both on subsequent growth to market in a wean-to-finish system. Pigs (n = 1,728) were used in a randomized block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: 1) diet complexity (Complex vs Simple) and 2) space allocation (Unrestricted vs Restricted). Treatments were imposed for the first 8 wk after weaning (period 1) and growth was measured from weaning (5.0 +/- 0.01 kg body weight; 15 d of age) to the end of wk 23 postweaning. The Simple diet was based on corn-soybean meal with minimal inclusion of milk products, processed cereals, and animal protein-based ingredients compared to the Complex diet. Floor and feeder-trough spaces were 0.63 m2 and 4 cm and 0.21 m2 and 2 cm per pig for Unrestricted and Restricted space treatments, respectively. From the end of wk 8 to end of wk 23 (period 2), pigs on all treatments had the same floor and feeder spaces and were fed common diets. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between diet and space treatments. In period 1, Simple diets resulted in similar average daily feed intake (ADFI; 639 vs 650 +/- 5.4 g; P > 0.05), but lower average daily gain (ADG; 408 vs 424 +/- 3.8 g; P < 0.01) and gain:feed ratio (0.64 vs 0.65 +/- 0.002; P < 0.001), and lighter body weight (2.8%; P < 0.01) compared to the Complex diets. In period 2, growth was not affected (P > 0.05) by previous diet complexity, and pig body weight was similar (114.4 vs 114.4 +/- 0.37 kg, P > 0.05) at the end of wk 23. In period 1, pigs with Restricted space had lower ADG (398 vs 434 +/- 3.8 g; P < 0.001), ADFI (621 vs 668 +/- 5.4 g; P < 0.001), and gain:feed ratio (0.64 vs 0.65 +/- 0.002; P < 0.01), and were lighter at the end of wk 8 (6.5%; P < 0.001) than those with Unrestricted space. However, in period 2, pigs with Restricted space had higher (P < 0.01) ADG (3%), ADFI (2%), and gain:feed ratio (3%) than those with Unrestricted space, and body weight was similar (114.5 vs 114.3 +/- 0.37 kg; P > 0.05) at end of wk 23. Carcass backfat and loin-eye depth at market body weight were influenced by neither diet nor space treatment. Using a simple diet program and restricted space allowance immediately postweaning resulted in a lower early growth rate, but had no impact on pig body weight or carcass measures at market.

Effects of double stocking and weighing frequency on pig performance in wean-to-finish production systems.

Two studies were carried out in different wean-to-finish barns to determine the effects of double stocking on pig growth performance. In Study 1, pigs (n = 1,560) were used in a randomized complete block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: initial stocking treatment (Single [52 pigs/pen] vs Double [104 pigs/pen] stocked for 10 wk after weaning) and weighing frequency (High [12 times during the study] vs Low [3 times]) on pig performance from weaning (5.9+/-0.01 kg BW; 17 d of age) to harvest (114+/-0.67 kg BW). Floor and feeder space per pig were 0.650 m2 and 4 cm and 0.325 m2 and 2 cm for the single- and double-stocked treatments, respectively. In Study 2, pigs (n = 1,458) were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate two initial stocking treatments (Single [27 pigs] vs Double [54 pigs] stocked for 10 wk after weaning) on pig performance from weaning (4.8+/-0.01 kg BW; 15 d of age) to harvest (24 wk after weaning). Floor and feeder space per pig were 0.640 m2 and 3.4 cm and 0.320 m2 and 1.7 cm for single- and double-stocked pens, respectively. In both studies, double-stocked pigs were split at the end of wk 10 into two equal-sized groups of similar mean BW and CV of BW, and one group was moved to a different pen in the same building. In Study 1, performance was not affected (P > 0.10) by frequency of weighing. For the first 10 wk after weaning, the Double compared to the Single treatment had lower ADG (7.7 and 7.9%, for Studies 1 and 2, respectively; P < 0.001) and lighter pigs at wk 10 (6.8 and 7.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). During the first 10 wk in Study 1, Double compared to the Single pigs had lower ADFI (7%; P < 0.001) but similar gain:feed (P > 0.10). From wk 11 to harvest, pigs on Double and Single treatments had similar (P > 0.10) ADG in both studies and, in Study 1, ADFI was unaffected by initial stocking treatment, but double-stocked pigs had greater gain:feed (4%, P < 0.01). Double-stocked pigs required an additional 2 d to reach a fixed harvest BW (P < 0.05) in Study 1 and were lighter (4%; P < 0.05) at 24 wk after weaning in Study 2. Carcass measures were similar (P > 0.10) for double- and single-stocked pigs. Double-stocked pigs that were moved at the end of 10 wk had growth performance similar (P > 0.10) to those that remained in the original pen. In summary, double stocking reduced growth rate to 10 wk after weaning but subsequently had no effect on growth rate and improved feed efficiency.

The effect of birth weight and feeding of supplemental milk replacer to piglets during lactation on preweaning and postweaning growth performance and carcass characteristics.

The effects of piglet birth weight and liquid milk replacer supplementation of piglets during lactation on growth performance to slaughter weight was evaluated in a study carried out with 32 sows (PIC C-22) and their piglets (n = 384; progeny of PIC Line 337 sires). A randomized block design with a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments was used. Treatments were birth weight (Heavy vs Light) and liquid milk replacer (Supplemented vs Unsupplemented). The study was divided into two periods. At the start of period 1 (birth to weaning), pigs were assigned to either Heavy or Light (1.8 [SD = 0.09] vs 1.3 kg [SD = 0.07] BW, respectively, P < 0.001) litters of 12 pigs and half of the litters were given ad libitum access to supplemental milk replacer from d 3 of lactation to weaning (21 +/- 0.2 d). In period 2 (weaning to 110 kg BW), a total of 308 pigs were randomly selected from within previous treatment and sex subclasses and placed in pens of four pigs. Pigs were given ad libitum access to diets that met or exceeded nutrient requirements. Pigs in heavy litters were heavier at weaning (6.6 vs 5.7 kg BW; SE = 0.14; P < 0.001) and tended to have more pigs weaned (11.4 vs 10.9 pigs/litter; SE = 0.21; P = 0.10). After weaning, pigs in the Heavy litter had greater ADG (851 vs 796 g; SE = 6.7; P < 0.001) and ADFI (1,866 vs 1,783 g; SE = 17.6; P < 0.001), similar gain:feed (0.46 vs 0.45; SE = 0.003; P > 0.05), and required seven fewer days (P < 0.001) to reach slaughter weight compared to pigs in the Light treatment. Feeding supplemental milk replacer during lactation produced heavier pigs at weaning (6.6 vs 5.7 kg BW; SE = 0.14; P < 0.001) and tended to increase the number of pigs weaned (11.4 vs 10.9 pigs/litter; SE = 0.21; P = 0.10) but had no effect (P > 0.05) on growth performance from weaning to slaughter. However, pigs fed milk replacer required three fewer days (P < 0.01) to reach 110 kg BW. Sow feed intake and BW loss during lactation were not affected (P > 0.05) by either birth weight or milk replacer treatment. In conclusion, birth weight has a substantially greater impact on pig growth performance after weaning than increasing nutrient intake during lactation.