Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on November 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Paper
Paper Husbandry, health and biosecurity of the smallholder and pet pig population in England A. V. Gillespie, D. H. Grove-White, H. J. Williams
Three hundred and thirteen pet and smallholder pig owners in England responded to an online questionnaire regarding husbandry and healthcare of their pigs. There was a lack of knowledge of the legislation regarding Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) registration, animal movements and feeding of domestic food waste. Only 83.8 per cent of respondents had registered their pigs with DEFRA, while 17.7 per cent were not familiar with the movement regulations, and 23.9 per cent were feeding their pigs with household scraps. Contact with veterinary surgeons may be positively associated with DEFRA registration, legal feeding practices and knowledge of vaccination. Furthermore, the veterinary surgeon was considered to be the primary source of husbandry and healthcare knowledge. This paper identifies the pet and smallholder pig population as a potential risk for the incursion and spread of infectious disease, while highlighting the need for improved owner education. Introduction There is a paucity of information on the husbandry of pet and smallholder pigs in England. It was estimated in 1998 that one-third to half of commercial farmers had gained further or higher educational qualifications in agriculture or related subjects (Gasson 1998). Farmers supplying the main UK supermarkets are obligated to comply with the Red Tractor farm assurance scheme (Red Tractor Assurance 2012), which stipulates that staff must be competent and appropriately trained (Red Tractor Assurance for Farms 2013). Therefore, compared with commercial farmers, it is probable that people keeping a small number of pigs as a hobby are less likely to have formal training in their husbandry, which may result in poorer knowledge and understanding of the health and welfare requirements and legislation. A study of backyard poultry flocks in Greater London demonstrated a knowledge deficit in owners regarding health problems and relevant legislation (Karabozhilova and others 2012). Despite the existence of published guidelines from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, it is likely that the same state of affairs regarding knowledge of basic husbandry and health will pertain to pet pig owners. Veterinary care of pigs in the UK is highly specialised, and directed mainly towards commercial enterprises. Many veterinary surgeons attending pet and smallholder pigs are not specialised in this species, and may treat pigs infrequently (Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) Pig Expert Veterinary Record (2015) A. V. Gillespie, BVMS, MSc, MRCVS, D. H. Grove-White, BVSc, MSc, DBR, DLSHTM, DipECBHM, PhD, FRCVS, H. J. Williams, BVSc, CertCHP, DipECBHM, MRCVS, Livestock Health and Welfare, School of Veterinary Science, University of
doi: 10.1136/vr.102759 Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK E-mail for correspondence: [email protected] Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Accepted June 4, 2015
Group 2013). Although they are physiologically the same as commercial pigs, the spectrum of health problems encountered in pet pigs may differ. As pigs age, conditions akin to those seen in geriatric pets may be encountered, including progressive age-related osteoarthritis, diabetes, tumours and oral disease (Carr and Wilbers 2008). At present, there is no information regarding the structure of the pet and smallholder pig population in England in terms of sex and age. Compared with traditional domestic pets, such as cats and dogs, additional legal regulations apply to the keeping of pigs since they are classified as food-producing animals, regardless of whether the owner views them as such. Regulations include those governing identification, registration and movements (Council Directive 2008/71/EC), reporting of notifiable diseases (Council Directive 82/894/EEC), feeding (Regulation (EC) 1069/ 2009 774/2002) and medicine use (Directive 2001/82/EC). These are in place primarily to reduce the risk of disease incursion and spread, and to allow tracing in the event of a disease outbreak. There are several routes by which introduction of exotic diseases into the UK pig population may occur. The UK classical swine fever outbreak in 2000 was attributed to illegal feeding of infected meat and meat products (Gibbens and others 2000, Hartley 2010). The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak was thought to have started as a result of infected illegally imported meat becoming a component of pig swill (Anderson 2002). In order to mitigate this risk, swill feeding was banned in the UK in 2001, and extended to the rest of the EU in 2003 (Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, 1774/2002). Swill feeding encompasses all feeding of domestic kitchen waste to pigs. It is unknown whether people keeping pigs as a hobby are aware of the law regarding animal feeds. In addition, failure to register food-producing animals and unrecorded movements can lead to dissemination of disease and difficulty in implementing disease-control measures. While disease-risk awareness and the role of biosecurity are well recognised by those working in the commercial-pig sector, this may not be the case in smallholder and pet pig owners. The June survey of agriculture carried out by DEFRA in 2012 recorded 7900 holdings in England with pigs; of which, 3200 July 11, 2015 | Veterinary Record
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on November 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Paper (40 per cent) had 1–9 pigs (DEFRA 2012). Therefore, small herds are common, and could be important in disease transmission and national biosecurity. This study has gathered data via an online questionnaire on this pig population, providing basic demographic data and identifying management practices that may constitute a risk for disease incursion and spread.
Materials and methods The study was approved by the University of Liverpool Veterinary Research Ethics Committee (reference VREC105).
Association were emailed information and a link to the questionnaire; they were requested to forward the link to their members. Smallholder societies in England were identified by an internet search, and a similar email was sent. Feed merchants and country stores in England were contacted by post, and asked to display leaflets containing information about the survey and the website address. The study was advertised in the winter edition of the magazine ‘Practical Pigs’, and a letter was published in the Veterinary Record asking veterinary surgeons to bring the study to the attention of any clients with pet and smallholder pigs.
Data analysis
Questionnaire design A web-based questionnaire was designed using SelectSurvey.Net V.4.089.001 (ClassApps). The questionnaire was developed by the authors to gather information considered relevant based on clinical experience. The questionnaire was piloted by veterinary surgeons in the Department of Livestock Health and Welfare at the University of Liverpool and by pig-keeping clients of the Leahurst Farm Animal Practice. Amendments were made before distribution. The questionnaire comprised a maximum of 37 questions, although nine were conditional on the answer to the previous question. Twenty-eight questions were of a closed multiplechoice format (10 of these had a free text box allowing other answers to be given), six were open questions and three questions required the respondent to choose a rating on scale. The broad topics covered in the questionnaire were: demographic information about the owner (age, pig-keeping experience, postcode area), general information about the pigs (number, age, sex, breed, purpose), their environment and husbandry (housing, feeding, other species kept, pig movements, handling, identification) and their health and healthcare (vaccinations, anthelmintic treatment, veterinary treatment and advice, diseases present). A copy of the survey is available in the online supplementary material. The opportunity to be entered for a prize draw for £40 Amazon vouchers was offered to all participants as an incentive to complete the questionnaire. Although the survey was anonymous, respondents who selected the options for entering the prize draw or being contacted about future research were asked to provide an email address. This was not used to identify participants.
The answers to the questionnaire were exported into a spreadsheet (Excel 2010, Microsoft). Data analysis was performed using STATA V.13 (StataCorp, Texas, USA). Binary outcomes were analysed using the chi-squared test and logistic regression where applicable. Following initial exploratory analysis, three separate multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for the following outcomes: ‘herd registration with DEFRA’ (model 1), ‘feeding household scraps’ (model 2) and ‘correct vaccine knowledge’ (model 3). All potential explanatory variables (Table 1) were offered to the three initial models. Collinearity between variables was investigated using Cramer’s ɸ statistic. If present, one of the two collinear variables would be excluded taking biological plausibility into account. For each model, a backwards, stepwise model-building strategy (Kirkwood and Sterne 2003) was employed whereby a full model was built and then each variable removed in turn, a likelihood ratio test performed and the resultant P value noted. The variable with the highest P value was then omitted, and the process was repeated. This process was repeated until only variables with P25 years) Owner experience (each increase in category) Baseline odds: not registered with VS or BS, owning 1 pig, male owner,
Paper
Paper Husbandry, health and biosecurity of the smallholder and pet pig population in England A. V. Gillespie, D. H. Grove-White, H. J. Williams
Three hundred and thirteen pet and smallholder pig owners in England responded to an online questionnaire regarding husbandry and healthcare of their pigs. There was a lack of knowledge of the legislation regarding Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) registration, animal movements and feeding of domestic food waste. Only 83.8 per cent of respondents had registered their pigs with DEFRA, while 17.7 per cent were not familiar with the movement regulations, and 23.9 per cent were feeding their pigs with household scraps. Contact with veterinary surgeons may be positively associated with DEFRA registration, legal feeding practices and knowledge of vaccination. Furthermore, the veterinary surgeon was considered to be the primary source of husbandry and healthcare knowledge. This paper identifies the pet and smallholder pig population as a potential risk for the incursion and spread of infectious disease, while highlighting the need for improved owner education. Introduction There is a paucity of information on the husbandry of pet and smallholder pigs in England. It was estimated in 1998 that one-third to half of commercial farmers had gained further or higher educational qualifications in agriculture or related subjects (Gasson 1998). Farmers supplying the main UK supermarkets are obligated to comply with the Red Tractor farm assurance scheme (Red Tractor Assurance 2012), which stipulates that staff must be competent and appropriately trained (Red Tractor Assurance for Farms 2013). Therefore, compared with commercial farmers, it is probable that people keeping a small number of pigs as a hobby are less likely to have formal training in their husbandry, which may result in poorer knowledge and understanding of the health and welfare requirements and legislation. A study of backyard poultry flocks in Greater London demonstrated a knowledge deficit in owners regarding health problems and relevant legislation (Karabozhilova and others 2012). Despite the existence of published guidelines from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, it is likely that the same state of affairs regarding knowledge of basic husbandry and health will pertain to pet pig owners. Veterinary care of pigs in the UK is highly specialised, and directed mainly towards commercial enterprises. Many veterinary surgeons attending pet and smallholder pigs are not specialised in this species, and may treat pigs infrequently (Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) Pig Expert Veterinary Record (2015) A. V. Gillespie, BVMS, MSc, MRCVS, D. H. Grove-White, BVSc, MSc, DBR, DLSHTM, DipECBHM, PhD, FRCVS, H. J. Williams, BVSc, CertCHP, DipECBHM, MRCVS, Livestock Health and Welfare, School of Veterinary Science, University of
doi: 10.1136/vr.102759 Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK E-mail for correspondence: [email protected] Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Accepted June 4, 2015
Group 2013). Although they are physiologically the same as commercial pigs, the spectrum of health problems encountered in pet pigs may differ. As pigs age, conditions akin to those seen in geriatric pets may be encountered, including progressive age-related osteoarthritis, diabetes, tumours and oral disease (Carr and Wilbers 2008). At present, there is no information regarding the structure of the pet and smallholder pig population in England in terms of sex and age. Compared with traditional domestic pets, such as cats and dogs, additional legal regulations apply to the keeping of pigs since they are classified as food-producing animals, regardless of whether the owner views them as such. Regulations include those governing identification, registration and movements (Council Directive 2008/71/EC), reporting of notifiable diseases (Council Directive 82/894/EEC), feeding (Regulation (EC) 1069/ 2009 774/2002) and medicine use (Directive 2001/82/EC). These are in place primarily to reduce the risk of disease incursion and spread, and to allow tracing in the event of a disease outbreak. There are several routes by which introduction of exotic diseases into the UK pig population may occur. The UK classical swine fever outbreak in 2000 was attributed to illegal feeding of infected meat and meat products (Gibbens and others 2000, Hartley 2010). The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak was thought to have started as a result of infected illegally imported meat becoming a component of pig swill (Anderson 2002). In order to mitigate this risk, swill feeding was banned in the UK in 2001, and extended to the rest of the EU in 2003 (Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, 1774/2002). Swill feeding encompasses all feeding of domestic kitchen waste to pigs. It is unknown whether people keeping pigs as a hobby are aware of the law regarding animal feeds. In addition, failure to register food-producing animals and unrecorded movements can lead to dissemination of disease and difficulty in implementing disease-control measures. While disease-risk awareness and the role of biosecurity are well recognised by those working in the commercial-pig sector, this may not be the case in smallholder and pet pig owners. The June survey of agriculture carried out by DEFRA in 2012 recorded 7900 holdings in England with pigs; of which, 3200 July 11, 2015 | Veterinary Record
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on November 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Paper (40 per cent) had 1–9 pigs (DEFRA 2012). Therefore, small herds are common, and could be important in disease transmission and national biosecurity. This study has gathered data via an online questionnaire on this pig population, providing basic demographic data and identifying management practices that may constitute a risk for disease incursion and spread.
Materials and methods The study was approved by the University of Liverpool Veterinary Research Ethics Committee (reference VREC105).
Association were emailed information and a link to the questionnaire; they were requested to forward the link to their members. Smallholder societies in England were identified by an internet search, and a similar email was sent. Feed merchants and country stores in England were contacted by post, and asked to display leaflets containing information about the survey and the website address. The study was advertised in the winter edition of the magazine ‘Practical Pigs’, and a letter was published in the Veterinary Record asking veterinary surgeons to bring the study to the attention of any clients with pet and smallholder pigs.
Data analysis
Questionnaire design A web-based questionnaire was designed using SelectSurvey.Net V.4.089.001 (ClassApps). The questionnaire was developed by the authors to gather information considered relevant based on clinical experience. The questionnaire was piloted by veterinary surgeons in the Department of Livestock Health and Welfare at the University of Liverpool and by pig-keeping clients of the Leahurst Farm Animal Practice. Amendments were made before distribution. The questionnaire comprised a maximum of 37 questions, although nine were conditional on the answer to the previous question. Twenty-eight questions were of a closed multiplechoice format (10 of these had a free text box allowing other answers to be given), six were open questions and three questions required the respondent to choose a rating on scale. The broad topics covered in the questionnaire were: demographic information about the owner (age, pig-keeping experience, postcode area), general information about the pigs (number, age, sex, breed, purpose), their environment and husbandry (housing, feeding, other species kept, pig movements, handling, identification) and their health and healthcare (vaccinations, anthelmintic treatment, veterinary treatment and advice, diseases present). A copy of the survey is available in the online supplementary material. The opportunity to be entered for a prize draw for £40 Amazon vouchers was offered to all participants as an incentive to complete the questionnaire. Although the survey was anonymous, respondents who selected the options for entering the prize draw or being contacted about future research were asked to provide an email address. This was not used to identify participants.
The answers to the questionnaire were exported into a spreadsheet (Excel 2010, Microsoft). Data analysis was performed using STATA V.13 (StataCorp, Texas, USA). Binary outcomes were analysed using the chi-squared test and logistic regression where applicable. Following initial exploratory analysis, three separate multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for the following outcomes: ‘herd registration with DEFRA’ (model 1), ‘feeding household scraps’ (model 2) and ‘correct vaccine knowledge’ (model 3). All potential explanatory variables (Table 1) were offered to the three initial models. Collinearity between variables was investigated using Cramer’s ɸ statistic. If present, one of the two collinear variables would be excluded taking biological plausibility into account. For each model, a backwards, stepwise model-building strategy (Kirkwood and Sterne 2003) was employed whereby a full model was built and then each variable removed in turn, a likelihood ratio test performed and the resultant P value noted. The variable with the highest P value was then omitted, and the process was repeated. This process was repeated until only variables with P25 years) Owner experience (each increase in category) Baseline odds: not registered with VS or BS, owning 1 pig, male owner,
