The goal of this study is to describe the current use of antibiotics in the European pig industry based on an extensive literature review. To achieve this, an overview of results from national (n = 15) and multi-country (n = 2) cross-sectional and longitudinal (n = 2) surveys, which describe antimicrobial use in pigs, is presented. Results are further linked to the outcome of the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) project. Overall, it was found that weaned piglets received the most antibiotics, followed by suckling piglets resulting in over 80% of the treatments being administered to animals before 10 weeks of age. Furthermore, it was observed that antibiotic use (ABU) was significantly associated across age categories, indicating that farms with a high use in piglets also used more antibiotics in their finishers. This may, among other things, be explained by farmers’ habits and behavior. However, above all, the studies showed surprisingly large differences in ABU between the countries. These differences may be related to the differences in disease prevalence and/or differences in the level of biosecurity. However, they may also reflect variations in rules and regulations between countries and/or a difference in attitude towards ABU of farmers and veterinarians that are not necessarily linked to the true animal health situation. Furthermore, it was observed that already a substantial proportion of the European pig production is able to successfully raise pigs without any group treatments, indicating that it is possible to rear pigs without systematic use of antibiotics. Based on the ESVAC data, a decline of 43.2% was observed in sales of antibiotics for animals in Europe between 2011 and 2020. To enable efficient antimicrobial quantification and stewardship, 15 European countries have already established systems for herd level monitoring ABU in pigs.

Background: The breeding population is very important in pig herds, for productivity, health and profitability. Replacement of breeding animals can be accomplished by own rearing of breeding gilts or by purchasing them. Purchasing breeding gilts is a hazardous event in terms of biosecurity and introduction of pathogens into a farm. However, in literature, little is known about gilt introduction in a herd. The present study investigated the introduction procedures of purchased breeding gilts in Belgian pig herds, and the compliance of these herds to the optimal introduction procedures. A questionnaire consisting of twenty questions related to farm characteristics (n = 2), purchasing policy (n = 6), quarantine period (n = 5), and acclimation practices (n = 7) was designed, and 68 farms completed the questionnaire during an on-farm interview.Results: The median (min. – max.) number of sows on the farms was 300 (85–2500). Fifty-seven per cent of the farms purchased breeding gilts, and there was a lot of variation in the frequency of purchase and the age at which gilts are purchased. On 95 % of those farms, a quarantine unit was used, and on most of these farms the quarantine was located on the farm itself (internal quarantine). The median (min. – max.) duration of the quarantine period was 42 (14–140) days. The most common acclimation practice was vaccination against Porcine parvovirus (96 %) andErysipelothrix rhusiopathiae(94 %), although in some farms exposure of gilts to farm-specific micro-organisms was done by providing faeces from suckling piglets (18 %) and bringing gilts in contact with sows that will be culled (16 %). Only 10 % of the farms complied with the optimal introduction procedures, i.e. purchasing policy, quarantine building and quarantine management.Conclusions: This study showed that in many farms, practices related to purchasing, quarantine and acclimation could be improved to maintain optimal biosecurity.

For internal biosecurity, it is important to separate different age groups in a pig farm and to stick to specific working lines when visiting the barns. Currently, there is no research on the movements of farm staff on pig farms. The objectives of this observational study were to assess movements of farm staff on pig farms, to assess risky movements and to investigate whether movements differ according to time (week of the batch farrowing system (BFS) and weekday vs. weekend) and unit (farrowing, gestation/insemination, nursery, and fattening unit). Five commercial sow farms participated and on each farm, an internal movement monitoring system was installed. Detection points were installed throughout the farm and workers had to wear a personal beacon. Movement data were collected from 1 December 2019 until 30 November 2020. The following sequence of movements was considered as safe: (1) dressing room, (2) farrowing, (3) gestation/insemination, (4) nursery, (5) fattening, (6) quarantine, and (7) cadaver storage. Movements in the opposite direction were considered as risk, unless a dressing room was visited in between. The total number of movements differed according to week of the BFS, and was highest in insemination and farrowing week. The percentage of risky movements was influenced by week of the BFS for two farms, and was highest around weaning. The percentage of risky movements varied between farms and ranged from 9 to 38%. There were more movements on a weekday compared to a weekend day. There were more movements towards the farrowing and gestation/insemination unit in insemination and farrowing week compared to other weeks of the BFS, but week of the BFS had no impact on movements towards nursery and fattening unit. This study showed that there were a lot of (risky) movements on pig farms and that these movements varied according to week of the BFS, day of the week, and unit. This study creates awareness, which could be a first step in optimizing working lines. Future research should focus on why certain risky movements occur and how these can be avoided to achieve better biosecurity and higher health status on farms.

Reduced and responsible antimicrobial use leads to a lower risk of developing antimicrobial resistance. Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA) is a certification label that is recognized in only a few countries, and it is often unclear what the specific criteria and characteristics of RWA farms are. The objectives of this study were to describe the criteria for a Belgian RWA program; to coach farms towards reduced antimicrobial usage (AMU); to assess if it was possible to obtain and maintain the RWA status; and to determine differences between RWA and conventional pig farms. Pig farms (n = 28) were visited three times for the following reasons: (1) data collection, (2) farm-specific coaching (2 months later), and (3) evaluation (7 months later). AMU was followed from before the start of the study up to one year after the last visit. AMU, biosecurity (Biocheck.UGent^TM), and farm characteristics of (non-)RWA farms were compared. RWA was defined as no antibiotics from birth until slaughter. Pigs requiring individual treatment received a special ear tag and were excluded from the program. The status of the farms varied over time, and the distribution of RWA vs. non-RWA was 10–18, 13–15, and 12–16, before intervention, after coaching, and after one year, respectively. For the non-RWA farms, there was a reduction in AMU of 61%, 38%, and 23%, for the suckling piglets, fattening pigs, and sows, respectively, indicating that they were moving toward the RWA status. There were no significant differences in biosecurity status between RWA and non-RWA farms, but biosecurity improved in all farms throughout the study. RWA farms were smaller (median 200 sows) compared to non-RWA farms (median 350 sows). The 4-week system was used more in non-RWA farms, while the 3- and 5-week systems were used most often in RWA farms. This study showed that farmers could achieve and maintain the RWA status through farm-specific coaching related to prudent AMU and improved biosecurity.

For internal biosecurity, it is important to separate different age groups in a pig farm and to stick to specific working lines when visiting the barns. Currently, there is no research on the movements of farm staff on pig farms. The objectives of this observational study were to assess movements of farm staff on pig farms, to assess risky movements and to investigate whether movements differ according to time (week of the batch farrowing system (BFS) and weekday vs. weekend) and unit (farrowing, gestation/insemination, nursery, and fattening unit). Five commercial sow farms participated and on each farm, an internal movement monitoring system was installed. Detection points were installed throughout the farm and workers had to wear a personal beacon. Movement data were collected from 1 December 2019 until 30 November 2020. The following sequence of movements was considered as safe: 1) dressing room, 2) farrowing, 3) gestation/insemination, 4) nursery, 5) fattening, 6) quarantine, and 7) cadaver storage. Movements in the opposite direction were considered as risk, unless a dressing room was visited in between. The total number of movements differed according to week of the BFS, and was highest in insemination and farrowing week. The percentage of risky movements was influenced by week of the BFS for two farms, and was highest around weaning. The percentage of risky movements varied between farms and ranged from 9 to 38%. There were more movements on a weekday compared to a weekend day. There were more movements towards the farrowing and gestation/insemination unit in insemination and farrowing week compared to other weeks of the BFS, but week of the BFS had no impact on movements towards nursery and fattening unit. This study showed that there were a lot of (risky) movements on pig farms and that these movements varied according to week of the BFS, day of the week, and unit. This study creates awareness, which could be a first step in optimizing working lines. Future research should focus on why certain risky movements occur and how these can be avoided to achieve better biosecurity and higher health status on farms.