DOI: 10.5433/1679-0359.2020v41n2p587 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities, management, feeding, and performance Panorama brasileiro do setor de reprodução de suínos: um estudo transversal sobre aspectos específicos de biosseguridade, instalações, manejo, alimentação e desempenho Marco Aurélio Callegari1; Carlos Rodolfo Pierozan1*; Cleandro Pazinato Dias2; Kelly Lais de Souza3; Luciana Foppa1; Josep Gasa4; Caio Abércio da Silva5 Highlights: More than half of the farms were independent producers, over 15 years. Three suppliers of sows and one supplier of male lineage predominated. More than 60% of the farms housed pregnant sows in pens for at least one period. Generally animals purchased were not quarantined. Many farms did not intervene in colostration and cut the teeth of suckling piglets. Abstract The objective of this study was to identify the degree of adoption of different production factors in commercial pig breeding farms in Brazil. Data were collected from 150 farms, totaling 135,168 sows, including general information, labor, genetics, biosecurity, facilities, management, feeding and productive performance for the year 2015. The farms were located in the South (42%), Southeast (45.3%) and Midwest (12.7%) of Brazil. The amplitude of the herds varied between 100 and 6,360 productive sows, with an average of 901. Their predominant profile was independent production with hired labor, an average of 88 sows per employee, facilities with more than 15 years and no reform in the last decade, and located less than 5 km from other units. Animal replacement was performed mainly by purchase and without adoption of a quarantine period. Predominated farms housed the sows in crates in the pre-mating period and in pens or crates/pens during gestation. Both solid and slatted floors were used in these phases, predominantly using concrete as material; the use of slatted floors (either concrete, metal, or plastic) predominated in the farrowing facilities. Gutter-type feeders that also operated as water drinkers were predominant in the pre-mating and gestation periods; in farrowing facilities wet-dry feeders were widespread. Two-thirds of th e farms did not have a cooling system in farrowing facilities. For the piglets, the heating system above the animal (lamps and bell rings) prevailed to the detriment of heat floors. More than 60% of farms make their own feed and feed gestating sows once a day. Only 1 Discentes de Doutorado, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, UEL, Londrina, PR, Brasil. E-mail: marcoacallegari@gmail.com; carlospierozan@hotmail.com; lufoppa@yahoo.com.br 2 Médico Veterinário Dr., Akei Animal Research, Fartura, SP, Brasil. E-mail: cleandropazinato@uol.com.br 3 Discente de Graduação, Faculdades Integradas de Ourinhos, FIO, Ourinhos, SP, Brasil. E-mail: kelly_lais11@hotmail.com 4 Prof. Dr., Departamento de Ciência Animal e dos Alimentos, Universidade Autónoma de Barcelona, UAB, Bellaterra, Espanha. E-mail: josep.gasa@uab.cat 5 Prof. Dr., Departamento de Zootecnia, CCA, UEL, Londrina, PR, Brasil. E-mail: casilva@uel.br * Author for correspondence Received: May 02, 2019 - Approved: Nov. 07, 2019 587 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. 29.33% of the farms perform echography for diagnosis of gestation. Birth attendance was routine; however, one-third of the farms did not have attendance through the night. Batch weaning was practiced by 15.44% of the farms. More than half of the farms reported that they did not intervene in the colostrum supply of piglets born weak or small, but 95.33% piglets were transferred among litters considering their size and quantity. Teeth resection, tail docking, and surgical castration procedures were routine. The performance indexes were consistent with what is perceived by national surveys. Key words: Ambiance. Breeding facilities. Gestation crates. Isolation. Piglet management. Resumo Com este estudo objetivou-se identificar o grau de adoção de diferentes fatores de produção em granjas comerciais de reprodução de suínos no Brasil. Foram coletadas informações de 150 granjas, totalizando 135.168 matrizes, incluindo informações gerais, mão de obra, genética, biosseguridade, instalações, manejo, alimentação e rendimentos produtivos referentes ao ano 2015. As granjas estavam localizadas nas regiões Sul (42%), Sudeste (45,3%) e Centro-Oeste (12,7%) do Brasil. Os rebanhos variaram entre 100 e 6.360 matrizes produtivas, com média de 901. Seu perfil predominante era de produção independente, com mão de obra contratada, e média de 88 matrizes por funcionário. Predominaram instalações com mais de 15 anos e sem reforma na última década, localizadas a menos de 5 km de outras unidades. A reposição de animais era realizada principalmente por compra e sem adoção de período de quarentena. Predominaram granjas que alojavam matrizes em celas no período pré-gestação e em baias ou celas/baias durante a gestação. Tanto pisos sólidos como ripados eram utilizados nessas fases, predominantemente de concreto; na maternidade predominou o uso de pisos ripados, seja de concreto, metal ou plástico. Comedouros tipo calha, que também operam como bebedouros, eram os mais utilizados na pré-gestação e gestação; na maternidade comedouros com água incorporada eram bastante difundidos. Dois terços das granjas não possuíam sistema de refrigeração na maternidade. Para os leitões, prevaleceu o sistema de aquecimento acima do animal (lâmpadas e campânulas) em detrimento a pisos aquecidos. Mais de 60% das granjas fabricava sua própria ração e fornecia alimento uma única vez ao dia para matrizes gestantes. Apenas 29,9% das granjas utilizava ecógrafo para diagnóstico de gestação. O manejo de acompanhamento dos partos era rotina, contudo, um terço das granjas não observava partos durante a noite. O desmame em bandas era praticado por 15,44% das granjas. Mais da metade das granjas relatou não fazer qualquer intervenção na colostragem de leitões nascidos fracos ou pequenos, porém, 95,33% praticava a transferência de leitões entre leitegadas considerando seu tamanho e quantidade de nascidos vivos. Manejos de aparagem de dentes, caudectomia e castração cirúrgica eram rotina. Os índices zootécnicos dos rebanhos avaliados condizem com o que é percebido por levantamentos nacionais. Palavras-chave: Ambiência. Celas de gestação. Instalações de reprodução. Manejo de leitões. Quarentena. Introduction the same period (Coordenação-Geral de Estudos e Análises, 2017). Brazil occupies the fourth world position as a producer of pork, with 3% of the total, being the This framework endorses the intense changes fifth largest consumer of this protein (Associação that our national pig industry is going through. Brasileira de Proteína Animal [ABPA], 2018). The increasing prevalence of large pig complexes The Brazilian market in the next decade (2017/18 as a substitute for small pig farmers imposes their to 2027/28) is expected to have a 29.3% growth investment power, and their responses are better than in production and 38.9% pork exports. Domestic those of more limited resources (Silva, Agostini, & consumption is projected to grow by 25.4% over Gasa, 2015). This picture is very well represented 588 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... by what happened in the last decade (2007 to 2017), Material and Methods where there was a reduction of 14.5% in the number A cross-sectional study was conducted involving of housed females (2,362,374 to 2,019,501 sows) a sample of 150 commercial pig farms in Brazil, and an increase in meat production of 25% (2.99 to representing a total population of 135,168 sows. 3.75 million tons of meat) (ABPA, 2018), pointing The selection criteria were that the farm represented to evolution of productivity of the Brazilian squad. a reproduction unit, including the replacement, Large models of organization (cooperatives and pre-gestation (pre-mating period), gestation, and integrations) favor and determine benefits by lactation phases, and had at least 100 productive designing economies of scale and facilitating crucial sows. The farms were located in the main swine biosecurity procedures. producing regions of Brazil (Neves et al., 2016), However, the pig complex in the country still South (42%), Southeast (45.3%) and Central West lives, even in a context where the organizational (12.7%). model becomes more business-like and linked to The sample included independent farms (60.7%), industry, with important differences in procedures, company/cooperative farms (32%), and integrated structure, management, and food and nutrition farms (7.3), which were farrow-to-weaning, farrow- programs. With regard to housing issues, given the to-feeder, or farrow-to-finish pig farms. Some of concern over European changes determined to ensure the largest Brazilian pig integrations, especially animal welfare, new investments and decisions the three largest, which together comprise of large complexes in the sector, in the collective approximately 50% of the country’s breeding stock, housing of pregnant sows, are also highlighted, and did not participate in this study (Neves et al., 2016). implementation should be realized in the coming years (C. P. Dias, Silva, & Manteca, 2015). A questionnaire was presented in two different formats in order to facilitate the work of completing Recognizing the productive characteristics of and returning information from the technical staff farms is essential to establish action strategies of the participating farms and collaborators. The and investments. Generally, studies that have analyzed variables were obtained from piglet been conducted in this direction are very scarce producing farms, which can be filled-in directly on and limited, usually considering a limited number paper forms or through a spreadsheet using Excel of factors (Silva et al., 2015). A broader scenario, software. encompassing a large number of factors, may highlight a situation that is closer to the real one The choice of variables was made based on and contribute to the joint improvement of animal scientific and technical articles, as well as the welfare and performance in farms. In addition, it can experience accumulated by the research team and favor the more efficient use of available physical the technicians of the participating companies. and human resources in farms, contributing to The information corresponded to the productive improving the cost of production. and reproductive performance of the herds during 2015 (from January 1st to December 31st), as well The objective of this study was to identify the as information about the production characteristics degree of adoption of a wide range of aspects that the farms had or practiced. inherent to the facilities, management, genetics, biosecurity, and feeding in the pig breeding stages The collected variables corresponded to a set in farms located in the main producing regions of of information grouped according to the following Brazil, besides recognizing the reproductive status criteria: I) identification (farm name, city, state, perceived in these units. number of sows); II) general information (business 589 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. type, farm type, farm age, last reform, type of days, weaning-estrus interval, weaning-conception workforce, number of employees by sector, genetic interval, number of abortions, farrowing rate, live female and male lines, age and live weight of entry born piglets, stillbirths, mummified piglets, total of the sow in replacement, and duration of lactation); weaned piglets, feed intake per sow, and piglet III) independent variables: a) biosecurity aspects weight at weaning). (presence of double fence, origin of replacement, Moreover, from the data obtained two variables management of rooms in the farrowing barn, type were created: kilograms of piglets weaned per sow and distance of the nearest farm, destination of per year, consisting of the product of “piglets weaned dead pigs, location, distance, and management of per sow per year” by “piglet weight at weaning”, the dead pigs deposit, periodicity of removal of and feed conversion of the sow, representing the cadavers, farm pest control, presence of manure average quotient of the “total feed intake per sow” pond, management, periodicity of withdrawal, and per kilogram of weaned piglets per year. destination of manure, presence of biodigester, water source and treatment, water tank location, The variables were divided into numerical and maternity disinfection, active ingredient used in categorical variables, and data were subjected to disinfection, use of quarantine, and distance from univariate analysis using the SAS statistical program quarantine); b) replacement, pre-mating, gestation, (SAS® University Edition, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, and farrowing facilities (housing type, floor type, NC, USA). All variables were analyzed at farm floor material, roof type, lining, ventilation type, level. For the categorical ones, the frequency within humidification system, water cooler, type of feeder, each category (Proc Freq from SAS) was calculated, feeding system, number of animals per pen, type of while for the numerical ones, measures of central partition between pens, and cooling, isolation, and tendency (mean and median) and dispersion heating system of piglets in the farrowing barn); (standard deviation, quartiles, and amplitude) were c) management in the replacement, gestation and calculated (Proc Mean Univariate of SAS). farrowing phases (adaptation of gilts, hormonal treatments, age and live weight of entry into Results and Discussion production, type of insemination, estrus observation, echography, routine and follow-up of births, farrow The farms evaluated had a minimum of 100 and a synchronization, type, day and management maximum of 6,360 productive sows, with an average of weaning, iron/coccidiostatic/vitamins of 901 animals. Although farms were sampled administration in suckling piglets, colostrum supply, for convenience, their distribution according to use and initiation of creep feeding, teeth resection, the number of sows (Figure 1) corroborates the tail docking, navel management, surgical castration, data from the Annual Pig Production Performance and transfer management of piglets); d) feed (source, Report (Agriness, 2018), which evaluated 1,316 physical form, and type of feed storage, amount of farms, totaling 1,045,490 sows. For example, it was daily feed, and energy and nutritional composition found that 52% of the farms in the present study of feed); IV) productive data in the year 2015: (age at were in herds between 100 and 500 sows, while first birth, annual replacement, average cycle of cull in this report, a similar percentage of farms (53%) sows, sows mortality, farrowing per sow per year, were in the same size range. farrowing-to-farrowing interval, non-productive 590 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... Figure 1. Distribution (%) of farms by number of productive sows. Figure 1. Distribution (%) of farms by number of productive sows. Regarding the type of business and type of profile. Most farms were found to be over 15 years Regarding farm, the type independent of business producers andand type of farm, farrow-to- old, independent producers which, in principle, and that indicates farrow-to-finish they require farms finish farms (60.67% were predominant were predominant (60.67% and 51.68%, and adaptation respectively) to the (Table 1). In new this animal welfare context, the standards. manpowerIn used in 51.68%, respectively) (Table 1). In this context, this sense, it was found that less than half of the Brazilian the pig farmingused manpower is predominantly in Brazilian pigcontracted farming is(85.23%), indicating producers that the farms (48.12%) underwent in general some type are large of reform and of predominantly industrial profile. Most farms contracted were found (85.23%), to be inover indicating their15 years old, facilities in thewhich, last ten in principle, indicates that years. that the farms in general are large and of industrial they require adaptation to the new animal welfare standards. In this sense, it was found that less than half of the producers (48.12%) underwent some type of reform in their facilities in the last ten years. Table 1 Relative frequencies in each category of variables related to the general characteristics of pig breeding farms Table 1 Relative Variable frequenciesNin each category of variables related Categories to the general characteristics of pig breeding farms Business 150 Independent (60.67%); FFPF belonging to the company (32%); pork producer (7.33%) Variable type N Categories Business Farm type type 149 150 FFF (51.68%); Independent (60.67%); FFPF (32.21%); FFPF belonging to theFWF (16.11%) company (32%); pork producer (7.33%) Farm typeFarm age 147 149 >15 years (63.95%); ≤15 years (36.05%) FFF (51.68%); FFPF (32.21%); FWF (16.11%) Farm ageLast reform 147 106 Without reform (36.79%);>15 yearsyears 2005 (63.95%); ≤15 years to 2010 (15.09%); years(36.05%) 2011 to 2015 (48.12%) Last reformLabor 106 149 Without reform Contracted (85.23%); family or family and contractedyears (36.79%); years 2005 to 2010 (15.09%); 2011 to 2015 (48.12%) (14.77%) Labor Female 149 Contracted (85.23%); 100% Agroceres PIC® (22.67%); family or family 100% DanBred® (35.33%); and contracted 100% Topigs(14.77%) Norsvin® 150 100% Agroceres PIC ® (22.67%); 100% DanBred ® (35.33%); 100% Topigs Norsvin® lineage Female lineage 1 1 150 (21.33%); 100% others and with more than one lineage (20.67%) 2 (21.33%); 100% others and with more than one lineage2 (20.67%) Male lin- 100% Agroceres PIC® (63.09%); ® 100% DanBred® (10.07%); ® 100% Topigs Norsvin® 1 1 eage 149 100% Agroceres PIC (63.09%); 100% DanBred (10.07%); (10.74%); 100% others and with more than one lineage3 (16.11%)100% Topigs Norsvin® Male lineage 149 3 (10.74%); 100% others and with more than one lineage (16.11%) FFF = farrow-to-finish farm; FFPF = farrow-to-feeder pig farm; FWF = farrow-to-weaning farm. FFF = farrow-to-finish farm; FFPF = farrow-to-feeder pig farm; FWF = farrow-to-weanling farm. 1 1 We consider that 90% or more of breeding sows/boars of the same genetic line in the farm is equal to 100%. 2More than 10% 2of We consider that 90% or more breeders of two or more oflines genetic breeding sows/boars in the farm. 3 More thanof10% theofsame malesgenetic of two orline morein the farm genetic is the lines in equal farm.to 100%. More 3 than 10% of breeders of two or more genetic lines in the farm. More than 10% of males of two or more genetic lines in the farm. 591 The sow line Semina: used Ciências in the farmsAgrárias, Londrina, is divided v. 41, n. 2, between p. 587-606, three geneticmar./abr. 2020 companies, unlike the male lineage that is effectively dominated by a single company, considering that one of the main indicators used to Callegari, M. A. et al. The sow line used in the farms is divided between Among the biosecurity characteristics (Table three genetic companies, unlike the male lineage 2), it is observed that most of the evaluated farms that is effectively dominated by a single company, (69.05%) were close to farrow-to-finish or finisher considering that one of the main indicators used to farms at ≤5 km (51.05%), characteristics that may evaluate sow productivity is the number of weaned represent health risk (Rosa et al., 2018). In this piglets per year (Bell, Urioste, Barlocco, Vadell, & context, more than two-thirds of the farms (68.43%) Clariget, 2015), which depends on the genetic merit did not have a double fence, which consists of an for maternal ability (Uitdehaag, Ekkel, Kanis, & external fence as the first barrier to the entry of Knol, 2008), these results allow us to assume that vehicles and an internal fence surrounding the entire the differences in productivity between sow line perimeter where the barns are located, with entrance from different supplier companies are not so evident of people usually by changing rooms. Fences at the in comparison to male line. However, it should be perimeter of the barns should prevent humans, wild considered that a farm, when analyzed individually, animals, and domestic animals from entering. In the has breeders with modern genotypes from a given case of high biosecurity farms, they should protect company, it may have better results over a farm with the area below the fence for at least 30 cm (Rosa et lagged breeders. al., 2018). Table 2 Relative frequencies in each category of variables related to the biosecurity characteristics of pig breeding farms Variable N Categories Double fence 149 No (68.46%); yes (31.54%) Origin of gilts 147 Direct purchase (62.27%); self-replacement (36.73%) Management in the far- 150 All-in all-out (76.67%); uninterrupted (23.33%) rowing barn Nearest farm type 126 Farrow-to-finish farm or finishing farm (69.05%); FFPF (30.95%) Distance from nearest 143 ≤5 km (51.05%); >5 km (48.95%) farm Destination of dead pigs 90 Compost (86.67%); incineration/septic tank/greasy (13.33%) Location of DPD 150 Outside the farm (68.67%); inside the farm (31.33%) 0–100m (79.61%); 110–200m (9.71%); 201–300m (3.88%); 301–400m Distance from DPD 103 (0.97%); >400m (5.83%) DPD management 144 Own farm (94.44%); external company (5.56%) Withdrawal of dead pigs 102 Daily (97.06%); weekly (1.96%); does not perform (0.98%) Distance from waste la- ≤100m (54.22%); 101–200m (28.92%); 201–300m (10.84%); 301–400m 83 goon (2.41%); >400m (3.61%) Waste management 140 Own farm (95.71%); external company (4.29%) Crops (77.32%); pasture (17.53%); coffee (2.06%); eucalyptus (1.03%); Destination of waste 97 sugar cane (1.03%); compost (1.03%) Daily (29.69%); weekly (28.13%); monthly (14.06%); bimonthly (6.25%); Withdrawal of waste 128 quarterly (10.94%); semiannual (5.47%); yearly (0.78%); constant (0.78%); does not perform (3.91%) Pest controls 150 Yes (88.67%); no (11.33%) continue 592 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... continuation Biodigester in the farm 149 No (63.09%); yes (36.91%) Artesian well (66.67%); well (14.67%); water mine (12.67%); river Origin of water 150 (5.32%); lagoon (0.67%) Water treatment 148 No (50.68%); yes (49.32%) Water tank location 150 Outside the barn (79.33%); inside the barn (20.67%) Farrowing barn disinfec- 150 Yes (98%); no (2%) tion Active principle of disin- Phenols (35.61%); glutaraldehyde (31.82%); quaternary ammonia 138 fectant (21.97%); other1 (10.61%) FFPF = farrow-to-feeder pig farm. DPD = dead pigs deposit. 1 Benzols; phenol and ammonia; phenol and cresol; iodine; orthodichlorobenzene; blowtorch. The breeding sows were replaced mainly intended mainly for agriculture, with withdrawals by direct purchase (62.27%) from the breeding made each month most of the time. According companies, to the detriment of self-replacement. to Kummer, Laskoski, Perondi, Krajeski and The direct purchase of animals has the advantage Baroncello (2018), the period of stay of the manure of constantly updating the breeding genetics; in the lagoon should be between 60 to 180 days, however, there is a greater risk of introducing new depending on the crop that will be fertilized. pathogens to the detriment of self-replacement. However, many farms (36.91%) used a biodigester The all-in-all-out management was predominantly as a waste treatment system, a resource that at the adopted in the farrowing phase (76.67%), pointing same time can supply a consumption of 4 kW h-1 out its importance for the categories involved, and, of electricity for each piglet produced (Kummer et according to Amaral and Mores (2008), involves a al., 2018). period of seven days of downtime. Two-thirds of the farms (66.67%) use water from As for the management of dead pigs, composting artesian wells, but half of the units evaluated did not was the most used method (86.67%), and the most perform their treatment, a procedure considered of the deposits was outside the perimeter of the essential (Pissaia, Manfroi, Kemper, & Zeni, 2016). farm (68.67%), ranging from 0 to 100 m (79.61%). The results corroborate with Rosa et al. (2018) who The deposit of dead pigs was managed by the evaluated farms in the state of Paraná and observed farm itself (94.44%), and 97.06% of the farms a predominance of artesian well water. performed the daily removal of dead animals. This In almost all farms (98%), maternity disinfection conduct is identified with the Brazilian scenario, was performed, mainly using disinfectants based on which generates 110,631.80 tons of dead pigs per phenols, glutaraldehyde, or quaternary ammonia. year (Mores, 2018), being, according to Gwyther, Another widespread approach was pest control Williams and Golyshin (2011), one of the most (flies, rats, or both) (88.67% of farms performed), effective procedures for resolving the problem. a factor of great relevance to biosecurity (Sesti, With regard to waste treatment, the distance from 2005). These results indicate farmers’ awareness of the aerobic settling pond to the farm facilities was essential management to minimize the contaminant predominantly less than 200 m. The management load and the spread of disease in farms. of this facility proved to be the responsibility of It was observed in the evaluated farms that in the the farms themselves (95.71%), with biofertilizers pre-gestation phase the individual crate is still the 593 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. most adopted model to house the sows (86.02%) to such as high prevalence of stereotypes, unresolved the detriment of the collective pens (Table 3). This aggressive interactions, urinary diseases, and practice continues to identify with what is practiced deprivation of exercise. On the other hand, housing in North America (Koketsu & Iida, 2017). In the in collective pens, when properly implemented and gestation phase, in contrast to Cunha, Magnabosco managed, allows for greater positive social contact and Menezes (2018) who point out that the crate and reduces stress, while maintaining similar housing system is predominantly the most used for zootechnical performance (C. P. Dias & Calvo, gestating sows, in this study it was observed that the 2016). The results obtained indicate that Brazil, majority of the farms (60.97%) house the sows in even without official regulations on the subject of pens or associating pens and crates. animal welfare, is heading towards a possible ban on continuous accommodation in gestation crates (C. P. The crates allow individualized feeding, better Dias, Silva, Foppa, Callegari, & Pierozan, 2018). animal supervision, and help avoid fighting; however, they offer problems to animal welfare, Table 3 Relative frequencies in each category of variables related to the facilities of pig breeding farms Variable N Categories Type of housing Pre-gestation 93 Crates (86.02%); pens (13.98%) Gestation 150 Crates (39.33%); pens or both (60.97%) Type of floor Replacement 123 100% compact in 100% of the farm (72.36%); compact/ slatted and both1 (27.64%) Pre-gestation 109 100% compact in 100% of the farm (43.12%); compact/ slatted and both1 (56.88%) Gestation 150 100% compact in 100% of the farm (28%); compact/ slatted (56%); both1 (16%) Farrowing 150 <50% slatted (31.33%); >50% slatted (40%); 100% slatted (26.0%). all (2.67%) Floor material Replacement 122 Cement (96.72%). metal (0.82%); plastic (0.82%); cement and metal (1.64%) Cement (88.79%); metal (2.8%); plastic (2.8%); cement and metal (3.74%); slate Pre-gestation 107 (1.87%) Gestation 150 Cement (93.33%); metal (4.67%); plastic (0.67%); slate (1.33%) Farrowing/sow 149 Cement (35.57%); metal (18.22%); plastic (24.16%); two types (22.15%) Farrowing/piglet 150 Cement (8.67%); metal (19.33%); plastic (46.67%); metal and plastic (25.33%) Type of roof Replacement 124 Fiber cement (49.19%); clay (40.32%); others2 (10.48%) Gestation 148 Fiber cement (52.7%); clay (35.14%); others3 (12.16%) Farrowing 150 Fiber cement (45.33%); clay (38.67%); others2 (16%) Lining presence Replacement 124 No (89.52%); yes (10.48%) Gestation 148 No (85.81%); yes (14.19%) Farrowing 148 No (58.11%); yes (41.89%) continue 594 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... continuation Ventilation Replacement 122 Natural (92.62%); forced (7.38%) Pre-gestation 109 Natural (78.9%); forced (10.09%); others4 (11.01%) Gestation 149 Natural (69.8%); forced (12.08%); others5 (18.12%) Farrowing 150 Natural (58%); forced positive (18.67%); forced negative (10.67%); others (12.67%) Humidification Pre-gestation 107 No (71.96%); yes (28.04%) Gestation 149 No (70.47%); yes (29.53%) Farrowing 143 No (71.33%); yes (28.67%) Type of drinker Replacement 123 Nipple (82.93%); gutter (9.76%); others6 (7.32%) Pre-gestation 108 Nipple (57.41%); gutter (42.59%) Gestation 149 Nipple/ bowl (49.66%); gutter (38.93%); both (11.41%) Farrowing/ sow 150 Nipple (60.67%); own feeder (22.67%); bowl (18.67%) Farrowing/ piglet 143 Nipple (85.31%); bowl (14.69%) Type of feeder Replacement 121 Gutter (60.33%); fattening feeder (28.1%); others7 (11.57%) Pre-gestation 109 Gutter (86.24%); individual (13.76%) Farrowing/ sow 150 Trough type without built-in water (64%); with built-in water (36%) Other/ gestation Feeding system 149 Manual (46.31%); other automatic or semi-automatic systems8 (53.69%) Animals per pen 88 ≤9 animals (54.55%); >9 animals9 (45.45%) Other/ farrowing Refrigeration 150 No (61.33%); yes10 (38.67) system Isolation system 150 Curtain (92%); window (8%) Piglets heating Warming on the piglet (70.67%); warming under the piglet11 (25.33%); no heat or 12 150 system paper (4%) Partitions between 150 Solid (50%); hollow bars (32.67%); both (17.33%) pens 1 Farms with pens with 100% compact floor but also with pens with compact/slatted floor. 2Zinc/aluminum, isothermal, more than one type. 3Zinc/aluminum, more than one type. 4Forced positive, natural automatic. 5Forced positive, natural, natural and forced, more than one type. 6Shell/bowl; flow and nipple in the same farm. 7Individual, on the floor, machine. 8Drops; self locked crate; slow fall; Fitmix; electronic feeding system; box. 9The farms had pens between 10 and 25 animals. 10Cooling; fan duct; negative pressure; evaporative cooling system; turbine. 11Thermal plate; thermal mat. 12Lamp; electrical resistance; gas bell. Sows in collective pens can be kept in groups as well as the level of aggression and injuries of six to 500 animals in a wide variety of systems observed (Hemsworth, 2018). Housing in collective (Spoolder & Vermeer, 2015). It was found that in pens is efficient, but for its proper functioning it is most farms the animals were housed in groups with necessary to have qualified and trained labor, well- less than nine sows. Studies of the effects of group built facilities, planning, information on the daily size on sows performance remain contradictory feed intake of sows, and commitment to participate (Bench, Rioja-Lang, Hayne, & Gonyou, 2013), in the daily regulation of the system (Morais, 2017). 595 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. Regarding the types of floors used, in the technology strategy but with high efficiency (Rohr replacement, the compact floor was predominant et al., 2016). Its use could reduce heat transfer (72.36%), mainly consisting of cement (96.72%). inside the barn (Piffer et al., 1998). In the gestation phase, the compact/slatted floor Ventilation systems can be natural, forced, or (56%) of cement (96.33%) was the most used. a combination of both (Nääs & Justino, 2014). These factors are of great relevance as they may Natural ventilation was the most found in all phases. be responsible for locomotor problems and impair Humidification systems were not widely used in any performance results (Jang et al., 2015). Using of the sectors of the farms evaluated. Nebulization slatted flooring without bedding increases the associated with forced ventilation should be the risk of lameness in group-housed pregnant sows, most commonly observed composition (A. C. probably because it affects the health of the hoof Dias et al., 2011), a mixture that provides effective (Maes, Pluym, & Peltoniemi, 2016). Materials that improvement in the thermal comfort of pregnant make floors abrasive, slippery, and likely to cause sows (Nääs & Justino, 2014). The results found injury due to lack of maintenance should be avoided during pregnancy can be explained by the fact that (Rohr, Dalla Costa, & Dalla Costa, 2016). air quality in collective housing is generally better In the farrowing sector, predominantly, the farms than in individual accommodation (Maes et al., adopted the partially slatted floor with an area above 2016), since 67% of the variation in the internal 50% of the total farrowing pen, corroborating the temperature of the house depends exclusively one described by Vosough Ahmadi, Stott, Baxter, on the external temperature (Banhazi, Seedorf, Lawrence and Edwards (2011), who evaluated 86 Rutley, & Pitchford, 2008). Thus, this system, studies involving farrowing crates, found that the being dependent on external climatic conditions, slat floor typically occupied more than half (75%) of is not always sufficient for heat dissipation and air the pen’s floor space, with the remaining percentage renewal of the installation (A. C. Dias et al., 2011). being solid floor, generally intended for the piglet It was also observed that in farrowing sector most movement area. farms do not have a cooling system, with the use Regarding the roof, it was observed in the of curtains being the most used insulation system. replacement, gestation, and farrowing phases that This feature is usually sufficient to reduce thermal fiber cement was the most used material (49.19%, variations during the day (Rohr et al., 2016). 52.7%, and 45.33%, respectively). This is critical The accessory heat source for the piglets can be from the point of view of thermal insulation, as made by using heated plates or floors, electrically fiber cement is very limited in this effect (Piffer, resistive hoods, or infrared or incandescent lamps. Perdomo, & Sobestiansky, 1998; A. C. Dias In this work, the largest percentage of the farms et al., 2011). On the other hand, clay tiles, the used lamps, heating system that have an advantage second type of material most used in the breeding over the heated floor by attracting piglets to the sectors in the evaluated farms, offer better thermal interior of the creep due to the clear environment, insulation since they are superimposed allowing which is essential in the early days of life (Rohr et the permeability of air and water vapor, decreasing al., 2016). the temperature of the tile and ensuring air flow through the attic (air chamber between liner and Regardless of the type of housing, pen, or crate, roof) (Piffer et al., 1998). The lining was a little the environment after weaning should maximize the used resource in the three phases (replacement, intake of water and feed by the sow to mitigate the gestation, and farrownig), being considered a low weight loss that occurs in lactation. In this sense, the 596 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... present study identified that the gutter-type feeders nutrients, as low feed intake during early gestation was the most used in pre-gestation (86.24%) and may reduce the fertility of the sows (Spoolder, the drinker in the same trough as the feeder was Geudeke, Van Der Peet-Schwering, & Soede, 2009), also widely used (42.59%), indicating opportunities and besides, throughout the pregnancy, they do not for possible improvements, as gutter feeders that allow disputes for food (Levis & Connor, 2013; also operate as drinkers are undesirable since it is Calvo, 2016). common for water release to occur without the sow The inherent characteristics of management in having finished ingesting its food (Pig Improvement each phase show that, in the replacement sector, Company, 2015). 96.67% of the farms pay attention to sow adaptation In gestation and farrowing sector (for both sows (Table 4). This management may reflect the earlier and piglets) nipple drinkers were the most used. use of gilts. The application of hormones for estrus Allowing sows free access to water and food, with stimulation was performed sporadically in 92.37% freedom to decide when and how much water and of the farms. food they want to ingest and to what extent they In the gestation phase it was observed that the want to mix water with feed during consumption, largest percentage of the farms used intrauterine can increase their intake of feed and improve insemination and only one farm did not perform litter growth (Peng, Somes, & Rozeboom, 2007). the management of observation of return to estrus. Equipment that allows the mixing of water and feed According to Bortolozzo et al. (2015), this practice, can contribute to the improvement of the welfare conducted in the morning, is a rational opportunity to of the sows due to the lower weight loss they use manpower, with no drop-in results. In farrowing give and also to the environment, by reducing the sector, accompanying the farrowing was routine in amount of waste (Peng et al., 2007). This type of the vast majority of farms (96%); however, one-third equipment should be adjusted to avoid excessive of farms performed this management only during water addition to the feed, in which case the sow the daytime. A small portion of the farms (14%) will have to drink excess water to be able to ingest practiced hormonal synchronization of farrowings the feed (Pig Improvement Company, 2015). in all pre-farrowing sows; however, more than As for feeding systems, during gestation it was half of farms (55.33%) managed in a portion of observed that the semi-automatic and automatic sows. According to Bortolozzo et al. (2015), with models already surpass the manual ones (53.69% accompanuing and induction of farrowings there is versus 46.31%), indicating that the farms are moving a better chance of piglet uniformity, with more births towards the automation of feeding. An important occurring concurrently. However, synchronization aspect that feeding systems must fulfill in order to is only economically viable if, after induction, ensure good reproductive performance of the sow is births occur within one day (Lima, 2018). to ensure that she consumes the necessary amount of 597 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. Table 4 Relative frequencies in each category of variables related to the management conditions in pig breeding farms Variable N Categories Replacement Care with adaptation 150 Yes (96.67%); no (3.33%) Periodicity of hormonal application 131 Sporadic (92.37%); systematic (7.63%) Gestation Intrauterine (52%); cervical (34%); cervical e intrauterine (13.33%); Type of insemination 150 natural mounts (0.67%) Observes estrus return 149 Yes (99.33%); no (0.67%) Observation frequency 36 Once (80.56%); twice (19.44%) Day of estrus observation after 28º (39.39%); 30º (27.27%); 35º (12.12%); 21º e 42º (6.06%); 25º e 33 insemination 50º (3.03%); 35º e 42º (9.09%); 35º e 80º (3.03%) Ultrasound diagnostic 150 No (70.67%); yes (29.33%) Farrowing/sow Frequency of farrowing monitoring 150 Routine (96%); sporadic (4%) Monitoring period 150 Day and night (66.67%); day only (33.33%) Farrowing synchronization 150 Partial (55.33%); total (14%); does not perform (30.67%) Weaning 143 Fixed (95.8%); fractioned (4.2%) Sunday or Monday or Tuesday (16.33%); Wednesday or Thursday Weaning day 147 (74.83%); Friday or Saturday (1.36%); more than one day a week (7.48%) Weaning management 149 Weekly batch (84.56%); periodic batch (15.44%) Farrowing/piglets Iron application 150 Yes (100%) Coccidiostatic application 150 Yes (89.33%); no (10.67%) Vitamin application 150 No (82%); yes (18%) Colostrum supply 149 Natural (57.72%); intervention (42.28%) Colostrum intervention 56 Weak animals (85.71%); smaller animals (14.29%) By number and size (95.33%); by number only (2.67%); does not Litter uniformization 150 perform (2%) Creep-feeding 148 Yes (90.54%); no (9.46%) Start of creep-feeding 123 2º-7º day (52.85%); 8º-15º day (47.15%) Teeth resection 150 Yes (83.33%); no (16.67%) Type of teeth resection 106 Abrasion (65.09%); cut (34.91%) Tail docking 150 Yes (100%) Type of tail docking 127 Cutting followed by cauterization (75.95%); cut only (24.41%) Navel management 150 Yes (90%); no (10%) Surgical castration 150 Yes (76%); no (24%) 598 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... Weaning on a fixed day of the week was (2014), has been little adopted by large integrations widely adopted (95.8% of farms), most farms and cooperatives, which opt for immunocastration. practiced on Wednesdays and Thursdays, thus Most farms produced their own feed (62.67%) avoiding farrowings on weekends. Among the (data not shown in table) and provided specific feeds piglets’ management, all farms applied iron and for the replacement (97.78%), gestation (98.63%), 89.33% applied coccidiostatic. However, vitamin and lactation (98.63%) phase. In all phases the administration was less frequent (18%). Intervention most used physical form of feed was mash. In the in colostrum supply was also not a widely established replacement and pre-gestation phases, about half of management (57.72% of the farms did not perform the farms performed two to three daily feedings, and any intervention), but when put in place, it was during gestation, the majority (63.27%) provided directed primarily to animals perceived as “weak” only one feed daily, which is data that corroborates to the detriment of smaller animals. As for creep- Bortolozzo et al. (2015), who recommend a daily feeding for suckling pigs, although some farms have deal for this category, taking into account that, when not yet reported management, it was very common it comes to the optimization of farm labor, a daily (90.54%), starting within the first week of life. feed early in the morning allows the direction of The main criteria used for uniformity of litter some gestation sector employees to farrowing sector were size and number of piglets per sow (95.33% to assist in the monitoring of farrowings. During of farms), and few farms did not uniform litter. lactation, more than half of the farms provide four According to Heim et al. (2011), litter uniformity to five feedings a day to the sows. The storage of should occur within six to 24 hours after farrowing gestation, lactation and suckling pig feeds was so that the piglets absorb as much immunoglobulin predominantly in silos, to the detriment of sacks. as possible from their biological mother’s colostrum, Table 5 shows the data of continuous variables but also to avoid the definition of the sow teats by that include general aspects, labor, biosecurity, and the piglets, which occurs after this period. nutrition. Regarding the workforce, considering all The management of teeth resection was still the employees in the different sectors of the farm, widely used (85.33%), being abrasion more used a ratio of 88 sows was verified for each employee. than cutting. Decreasing tooth size may increase Exclusively in the gestation sector, the ratio was the risk of injury, local and systemic illness, and 297 sows per employee, while in the farrowing poor wellfare (Ricci, 2015). Tail docking was sector it was 167 sows per employee. In farms adopted by all farms, with cutting with subsequent where employees serve more than one sector, a cauterization being the most used method. The ratio of 73 sows per employee was identified. It tail docking procedure has been widely contested, can be observed that when the farm has employees as it is recognized that tail-biting behaviour has for specific sectors, the number of head office per a multifactorial character (C. P. Dias, Silva, & employee increases. According to Bortolozzo et Manteca, 2014). Navel cutting and disinfection al. (2015), a ratio of 250 sows to each employee management was also widely performed (90% within the farm is a bold way to streamline macro of farms) and was endorsed for preventing blood actions and reduce piglet production costs. Farm loss and reducing the risk of infection (Mores, automation, although also a reality, still requires Sobestiansky, Wentz, & Moreno, 1998). Surgical many actions to be performed by employees, castration, although identified as prevalent (76% of requiring an always trained and motivated team farms performed), corroborating with C. P. Dias et al. (Bennemann & Gonçalves, 2013). 599 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. Table 5 Descriptive values of continuous variables related to the general characteristics, biosecurity and feeding of pig breeding farms Variable N Mean SD Minimum Median Maximum Total of sows 143 1018 1196 100 533 6360 Total of productive sows 150 901 1087 100 482 6360 Sows/total employees 137 88 39 24 87 200 Sows/gestation sector employees 77 297 135 76 269 700 Sows/farrowing sector employees 80 167 67 51 159 400 Sows/employee from more than one sector 35 73 32 24 78 129 Replacement entry age (day) 93 134 30 70 150 180 Length of adaptation (day) 20 22 14 10 15 60 Age at reproduction (month) 142 7.4 0.6 5.3 7.5 9.3 Reproduction input weight (kg) 141 136,4 11,8 100 140 235 Lactation duration (day) 149 23.8 2.5 18.4 23.1 29.8 Quarantine distance (m) 20 1962 1717 0 2000 5000 Quarantine duration (day) 17 26 10 15 30 40 Metabolizable energy/ replacement (kcal kg-1) 105 3199 88,1 2815 3204 3649 Crude protein/ replacement (%) 105 15.9 1.4 13 15.7 19 Lysine/replacement (%) 103 0.86 0.1 0.7 0.85 1.2 Metabolizable energy/ gestation (kcal kg-1) 129 3098 140,6 2800 3155 3400 Crude protein/ gestation (%) 129 14.7 1.0 12.4 14.9 18 Lysine/gestation (%) 127 0.84 0.23 0.6 0.77 1.76 Metabolizable energy/ farrowing (kcal kg-1) 129 3409 104.6 3200 3400 3800 Crude protein/farrowing (%) 129 18.7 1.0 15.5 18.99 22 Lysine/ farrowing (%) 127 1.15 0.12 0.9 1.13 1.4 The average age of entry of females at of lactation was 23.8 days, identifying with most replacement was 134 days, with an adaptation period farms that wean the piglets between 21 and 28 days of 22 days, which corresponds to the period required of age (Sousa Júnior et al., 2011) and surpassing a to be incorporated into the new environment and its paradigm of weaning at 21 days. “microbiota” (Bortolozzo et al., 2015). The average Only 20 farms indicated isolation of the age of entry of the sow in the reproductive life, first replacement females, and these units are generally mating, was 7.4 months, with an average weight of positioned at an average distance of 1962 m from 136 kg. Yield and longevity are related to the timing the farm (ranging from zero to 5000 m), keeping the of mating, which should occur in estrus in which future sows on average 26 days under observation the sow weighs between 135 and 150 kg, reducing (ranging from 10 to 40 days). This is identified with differences in farrowing rates and piglets born until the data of Podda (2014), which states that isolation the third birth (Kummer, Amaral Filha, Wentz, & is still little used in independent pig farming. Bortolozzo, 2006). Low or high body weight mated gilts can be discarded early, impairing reproductive Regarding diet, we observed that the average performance (Mellagi, Bortolozzo, Bernardi, metabolizable energy, crude protein, and lysine in Kummer, & Wentz, 2009). The average duration the replacement diet were, respectively, 3199 kcal 600 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... kg-1, 15.9% and 0.86%. In gestation, in the same The descriptive values of the production sequence the averages of metabolizable energy, parameters indicate that the average age of the sows crude protein and lysine were 3098 kcal kg-1, 14.7% at first birth was 353 days, and the average annual and 0.84%. The levels found during gestation are replacement corresponded to 48.8% of the herd (Table within the recommended by Rostagno et al. (2017). 6). This latter rate can have a direct impact on non- During lactation, the average levels in the same productive days, as annual replacement rates close order were 3409 kcal kg-1, 18.7% and 1.15%, with to 45% represent that 18–20% of farrowings will be the protein level being lower than that recommended from primiparous sows (Bortolozzo & Wentz, 2006). by Rostagno et al. (2017). The average cycle of sow cull was 6.3 farrowings, an average value considered within the normal range without negative repercussions on performance. Table 6 Descriptive values of the production parameters of pig breeding farms Variable N Mean SD Minimum Median Maximum Age at first farrowing (day) 147 353 17 313 352 436 Annual replacement (%) 140 48.8 14.6 0 47 100 Cull rate cycle 132 6.3 1.4 2 7 10 Total mortality of sows (%) 146 6.9 3.6 0.6 6.4 20.3 Mortality of sows in gestation barn (%) 91 4.1 2.2 0.4 3.9 12 Mortality of sows in farrowing barn (%) 89 2.2 1.7 0 1.8 8 Farrowing per sow per year 150 2.4 0.1 1.9 2.4 2.6 Farrowing-to-farrowing interval (day) 145 147 6 115 146 166 Non-productive days (day) 139 15.6 8.0 6.1 13.5 59.1 Interval weaning-estrus (day) 148 6.1 2.6 3.9 5.8 30 Interval weaning-conception (day) 116 7.4 2.4 3 6.8 16.4 Abortion rate (%) 149 1.8 1.1 0 1.5 5.7 Farrowing rate (%) 150 89.2 4.6 70.4 90 98.3 Total born piglets 150 13.8 1.0 10.9 13.9 16.3 Live born piglets 150 12.7 0.9 10.2 12.8 14.6 Stillborn piglets (%) 150 0.7 0.3 0 0.8 1.7 Stillbirths on total births (%) 150 5.4 2.5 0 5.6 14.4 Mummified piglets (%) 150 0.4 0.2 0 0.3 1.7 Mummified of total births (%) 150 2.7 1.6 0 2.4 10.9 Total weaned piglets per farrowing 150 11.6 0.9 9.1 11.6 13.5 Total weaned piglets per sow/ year 150 27.6 2.7 19.1 27.71 33 Total feed intake/year (kg) 104 1113 186 678 1098 1779 Sow feed intake during gestation (kg) 95 637 148 215 618 966 Sow feed intake during farrowing (kg) 95 464 146 140 428 883 Piglet weight at weaning (kg) 150 6.34 0.70 4.84 6.12 8.41 Weight of weaned piglets per sow/ year (kg) 150 175.18 24.25 113.66 177.54 233.46 Sow feed conversion (kg kg-1)1 104 6.46 1.24 3.88 6.34 11.21 It corresponds to the total feed intake per sow in the year divided by the number of kilograms of weaned pigs per sow in the year. 1 601 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. The average total sow mortality was 6.9%, and & Iida, 2017), which allow more feedings per day. the gestation sector presented the highest percentage The average weight of piglets at weaning was (4.1%). In the lactation phase, the average was 2.2%. 6.34 kg, totaling 175.18 kg weaned piglets per sow The peripartum period (four weeks before to four per year. This last value, together with the feed weeks after farrowing), especially after farrowing, intake per sow, allowed the calculation of feed has been shown to concentrate the majority of sow conversion of the sows, which corresponded to deaths (Iida & Koketsu, 2014), around 70%, which 6.46 kg of feed for each kilogram of weaned piglet. has required changes in facilities (Iida & Koketsu, In this respect, one of the main factors that can 2014; Koketsu & Iida, 2017) favoring the ambience affect the number of kilograms produced per sow for this animal category. per year is the mortality of suckling piglets, which There was a mean of 2.4 farrowings per sow also represents an animal welfare problem (Muns, per year, 15.6 non-productive days, weaning-estrus Nuntapaitoon, & Tummaruk, 2016). Unfortunately, interval of 6.1 days, weaning-conception interval of maternal mortality of piglets was not made available 7.4 days, 1.8% abortion rate, 89.2% farrowing rate, by the farm data management system evaluated in 13.8 total born pigs per farrowing and 12.7 live born this study. pigs per farrowing. The average stillbirth rate was Finally, as shown, more than half of the farms 0.7%, and the average percentage of stillbirths over were from independent producers over 15 years of total born pigs was 5.4%. Mummified piglets were age which have not undergone structural reforms at an average of 0.4%, and the average percentage of in recent years. These characteristics, coupled mummified piglets of total born was equal to 2.7%. with the fact that the sample does not include units With these indices, we observed averages belonging to the three largest pork producers in the of 11.6 weaned piglets per farrowing and 27.6 country, could indicate the need for modernization weaned piglets per sow per year. All these values of facilities in order to meet better animal welfare were strictly close to those reported in 1145 farms and productivity requirements. However, the in Brazil in 2015 (Agriness, 2016). The Agriness performance data of the herds are consistent with Annual Report reported an average of 27.1 weaned what is perceived by national surveys, and therefore, piglets per sow per year (Agriness, 2017). In recent it is necessary to analyze each factor individually, years there has been a significant improvement in as many of the evaluated conditions point towards the productive indexes of the farms, but there is the implementation or direction to best production still possibility for improves when the values of practices. This was evidenced, for example, by the present study are compared with the Agriness the widespread adoption of housing systems for TOP 10 figures (e.g., 7.5 non-productive days, 1.2% pregnant sows in pens or pens/crates, even though abortion rate, 15.6 total born pigs per farrowing, the country currently has no legal requirement in 14.4 live born pigs, and 33.8 weaned piglets per sow this regard. per year) (Agriness, 2017). Other factors also appear widely established, Regarding feed intake, it was observed that the such as farrowing house disinfection. However, average feed consumed per sow throughout the there seems to be possibility for improvement, such production phases was 1113 kg in the year, with 637 as a need to reduce the teeth resection management kg referring to consumption in gestation and 464 kg and increase interventions in colostrum supply; this in lactation. Seemingly high intake values during is in addition to worrying about aspects of external lactation may be due to longer lactation durations biosecurity, such as increased quarantine adoption and the use of modern automatic feeders (Koketsu and better perimeter isolation of units, especially 602 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... at a time when pathogens causing economically Agriness. (2018). Relatório anual do desempenho da and serious diseases such as PRRS and African produção de suínos - 10ª edição/2017. Florianópolis, SC: Agriness. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2WhQhan and Classic Swine Fever to enter or spread through national herds. Amaral, A. L., & Mores, N. (2008). Planejamento da produção de suínos em lotes com vazio sanitário. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae 36(Supl 1), s143-s154. Conclusion Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal (2018). Relatório anual 2018. São Paulo: ABPA. Recuperado Three companies predominate in the supply de https://bit.ly/2PxRDh3 of genetic material to the sow lineage and one Banhazi, T. M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D. L., & Pitchford, predominates to the male lineage. Punctual aspects W. S. (2008). Identification of risk factors for sub- of biosecurity, such as farrowing house disinfection, optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: Part 3. Environmental parameters. Journal of are well applied at national level; however, external Agricultural Safety and Health, 14(1), 41-52. doi: biosecurity requirements (e.g., isolation, animal 10.13031/2013.24121 replacement, and quarantine) deserve greater Bell, W., Urioste, J. I., Barlocco, N., Vadell, A., & attention. There is widespread adoption of the Clariget, R. P. (2015). Genetic and environmental housing systems in pens or crates/pens for pregnant factors affecting reproductive traits in sows in an sows, but there is possibility for greater adoption of outdoor production system. Livestock Science, 182, 101-107. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2015.10.025 facilities that favor the thermal comfort of the sows. Some management practices (e.g., onset of creep Bench, C. J., Rioja-Lang, F. C., Hayne, S. M., & Gonyou, H. W. (2013). Group gestation sow housing with feeding, intervention in colostrum supply, teeth individual feeding – II: how space allowance, resection and tail docking) could be optimized to group size and composition, and flooring affect sow improve animal welfare conditions and reproductive welfare. Livestock Science, 152(2-3), 218-227. doi: performance. The performance data of the herds are 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.12.020 in line with the results obtained at national level Bennemann, P. E., & Gonçalves, M. A. D. (2013). during the evaluation period. Desafios para otimizar a mão de obra na maternidade sem comprometer a lucratividade. Anais do Simpósio Internacional de Suinocultura - SINSUI, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 8. Acknowledgements Bortolozzo, F. P., & Wentz, I. (2006). Importância das This study was conducted during the period leitoas no sistema de produção de suínos. In F. P. of support of PhD scholarships funded by the Bortolozzo & I. Wentz (Eds.), Suinocultura em ação: a fêmea suína de reposição (pp. 15-21). Porto Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Alegre: Palotti. Education Personnel (CAPES) and by the CAPES/ Bortolozzo, F. P., Faccin, J. E. G., Laskoski, F., Mellagi, A. Araucária Foundation Agreement to students P. G., Bernardi, M. L., & Wentz, I. (2015). Desafios e Luciana Foppa and Carlos Rodolfo Pierozan, potencialidades para o manejo reprodutivo da fêmea respectively. suína. Revista Brasileira Reprodução Animal, 39(1), 97-103. Coordenação-Geral de Estudos e Análises. (2017). References Projeções do agronegócio: Brasil 2017/18 a 2027/28. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento Agriness. (2016). Resultados consolidados 8ª do Brasil, Secretaria de Política Agrícola. https://bit. edição/2015. Florianópolis: Agriness. Recuperado ly/2PybY2N de https://bit.ly/2DHQxbk Calvo, A. V. (2016). Estrategias para la adopción de Agriness. (2017). Relatório anual do desempenho da gestación colectiva de cerdas reproductoras. In C. produção de suínos - 9ª edição/2016. Florianópolis: Pazinato & A. V. Calvo (Eds.), Report: estratégias Agriness. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2V8gCex do SVO e setor privado para adoção de gestação 603 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Callegari, M. A. et al. coletiva de matrizes suínas (pp. 11-47). [S. l.]: [s. n.]. Jang, J. C., Jung, S. W., Juin, S. S., Ohh, S. J., Kim, J. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2Y4hEoR E., & Kim, Y. Y. (2015). The effects of gilts housed either in group with the electronic sow feeding Cunha, E. C. P., Magnabosco, D., & Menezes, T. A. system or conventional stall. Asian-Australasian (2018). Alojamento de leitoas gestantes em gaiolas, Journal Animal Science, 28(10), 1512-1518. doi: baias ou sistema misto: efeitos na performance 10.5713/ajas.14.0819 reprodutiva, lesões e peso da leitegada ao nascer. Anais do Simpósio Internacional de Suinocultura - Koketsu, Y., & Iida, R. (2017). Sow housing associated SINSUI, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 11. with reproductive performance in breeding herds. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 84(9), Dias, A. C., Carraro, B. Z., Dallanora, D., Coser, F. J., 979-986. doi: 10.1002/mrd.22825 Machado, G. S., Machado, I. P., & Rohr, S. (2011). Manual brasileiro de boas práticas agropecuárias Kummer, R., Amaral Filha, W. S., Wentz, I., & Bortolozzo, na produção de suínos. Brasília: ABCS. F. P. (2006). Aspectos a serem considerados no momento da cobertura da leitoa. In F. P. Bortolozzo & Dias, C. P., & Calvo, A. V. (2016). Report: Estratégias I. Wentz (Eds.), Suinocultura em ação: a fêmea suína do SVO e setor privado para adoção de gestação de reposição (pp. 117-127). Porto Alegre: Palotti. coletiva de matrizes suínas. [S.l.]: [s.n.]. Recuperado de http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/ boas- Kummer, R., Laskoski, F., Perondi, D., Krajeski, A., & praticas-e-bem-estar-animal/arquivos-publicacoes- Baroncello, E. (2018). Oportunidade tecnológicas bem-estar-animal/Relatoriosuinos1710 novacapa.pdf na produção de suínos: visão brasileira. Anais do Simpósio Internacional de Suinocultura - SINSUI, Dias, C. P., Silva, C. A., & Manteca, X. (2014). Bem- Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 11. estar dos suínos. Londrina: Midiograf. Levis, D. G., & Connor, L. (2013). Group housing Dias, C. P., Silva, C. A., & Manteca, X. (2015). The systems: choices and designs. Des Moines: National brazilian pig industry can adopt european welfare Pork Board. standards: a critical analysis. Ciência Rural, 46(6), 1079-1086. doi: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20141040 Lima, S. D. M. (2018). Orçamento parcial de substituição para avaliar a viabilidade económica Dias, C. P., Silva, C. A., Foppa, L., Callegari, M. A., da sincronização de partos em porcas. Tese de & Pierozan, C. R. (2018). Panorama brasileiro do doutorado, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. bem-estar de suínos. Revista Acadêmica Ciência Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2Y6hQEb Animal, 16(Ed. Esp. 1), 1-15. doi: 10.7213/1981- 4178.2018.161101 Maes, D., Pluym, L., & Peltoniemi, O. (2016). Impact of group housing of pregnant sows on health. Porcine Gwyther, A. P., Williams, P. N., & Golyshin, P. N. (2011). Health Management, 2, Article 17. doi: 10.1186/ The environmental and biosecurity characteristics s40813-016-0032-3 of livestock carcass disposal methods: a review. Waste Management, 31(4), 767-778. doi: 10.1016/j. Mellagi, A. P. G., Bortolozzo, F. P., Bernardi, M. L., wasman.2010.12.005 Kummer, R., & Wentz, I. (2009). Produtividade de matrizes suínas com diferentes taxas de crescimento Heim, G., Mellagi, A. P. G., Bierhals, T., Piucco, P., corporal. Anais do Simpósio Internacional de Souza, L. P., Gava, D., Canal, C. W., Bernardi, M. Suinocultura – SINSUI, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 4. L., Wentz, I., & Bortolozzo, F. P. (2011). Absorção de IgG via colostro em leitões biológicos e adotados Morais, V. E. (2017). ESF: desafios e oportunidades após a uniformização da leitegada. Arquivo Brasileiro [Audio]. Suinocast. Recuperado de http://www. de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, 63(5), 1073- suinocast.com.br/mp3/Suinocast68-%20ESF.mp3 1078. doi: 10.1590/S0102-09352011000500005 Mores, N. (2018). Biosseguridade para retirada e Hemsworth, P. H. (2018). Key determinants of pig transporte de suínos mortos em propriedades rurais. welfare: implications of animal management Anais do Simpósio Internacional de Suinocultura - and housing design on livestock welfare. Animal SINSUI, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 11. Production Science, 58(8), 1375-1386. doi. Mores, N., Sobestiansky, J., Wentz, I., & Moreno, A. M. org/10.1071/AN17897 (1998). Manejo do leitão desde nascimento até o Iida, R., & Koketsu, Y. (2014). Climatic factors associated abate. In J. Sobestiansky, I. Wentz, P. R. S. Silveira, with peripartum pig deaths during hot and humid or & L. A. C. Sesti (Eds.), Suinocultura intensiva: cold seasons. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 115(3- produção, manejo e saúde do rebanho (pp. 135-162). 4), 166-172. Brasília: EMBRAPA. 604 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020 Brazilian panorama of pig breeding sector: a cross-sectional study about specific aspects of biosecurity, facilities... Muns, R., Nuntapaitoon, M., & Tummaruk, P. (2016). Rosa, G., Lima, J. S., Gonçalves, A. P. P., Sposito, P. Non-infectious causes of pre-weaning mortality in H., Tieppo, J. S., Pinto, A., Neto, & Merlini, L. S. piglets. Livestock Science, 184, 46-47. doi: 10.1016/j. (2018). Assessment of biosecurity levels in pig farms livsci.2015.11.025 in the Northwestern region in the State of Parana, Brazil. Jornal Interdisciplinar de Biociências, 3(1), Nääs, I. A., & Justino, E. (2014). Sistemas de climatização 31-35. doi: 10.26694/jibi.v3i1.6173 parcial e total em granjas de suínos. In A. D. Ferreira (Ed.), Produção de suínos: teoria e prática (pp. 896- Rostagno, H. S., Albino, L. F. T., Hannas, M. I., Donzele, 905). Brasília, DF: ABCS. J. L., Sakomura, N. K., Perazzo, F. G., & Brito, C. O. (2017). Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: Neves, M. F., Lima Júnior, J. C., Sá, N. C., Pinto, M. composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. J. A., Kalaki, R. B., Gerbasi, T., Galli, R. M., & 4a ed. Viçosa, MG: UFV. Vriesekoop, F. (2016). Mapeamento da suinocultura brasileira. Brasília: ABCS, SEBRAE. Recuperado Sesti, L. A. C. (2005). Biosseguridade em granjas de de https://bit.ly/2ZLigBf produtores avícolas. In M. Macari & A. A. Mendes (Eds.), Manejo de matrizes de corte (pp. 243-322). Peng, J. J., Somes, S. A., & Rozeboom, D. W. (2007). Jaboticabal: FACTA. Effect of system of feeding and watering on performance of lactating sows. Journal of Animal Silva, C. A., Agostini, P. S., & Gasa, J. (2015). Uso de Science, 85(3), 853-860. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-474 modelos matemáticos para analisar a influência de fatores de produção sobre a mortalidade e Pig Improvement Company. (2015). Sow & gilt desempenho de suínos de terminação. Anais do management manual. Hendersonville, NC: Author. Simpósio Internacional de Suinocultura - SINSUI, Piffer, I. A., Perdomo, C. C., & Sobestiancosky, J. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 9. (1998). Efeito dos fatores ambientais na ocorrência Sousa, V. R., Jr., Abreu, P. G., Coldebella, A., Lopes, de doenças. In J. Sobestiansky, I. Wentz, P. R. S. L. S., Lima, G. J. M. M., & Sabino, L. A. (2011). Silveira, & L. A. C. Sesti (Eds.), Suinocultura Iluminação artificial no desempenho de leitões na intensiva: produção, manejo e saúde do rebanho (pp. fase de creche. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, 255-274). Brasília: EMBRAPA. 33(4), 403-408. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci. Pissaia, A. R., Manfroi, L., Kemper, R., & Zeni, E. v33i4.10828 (2016). A relação entre a qualidade da água e o custo Spoolder, H. A. M., & Vermeer, H. M. (2015). Gestation de produção na suinocultura: um estudo aplicado group housing of sows. In C. Farmer (Ed.), em propriedades rurais do município de Seara-Sc. The gestating and lactating sow (pp. 307-316). Revista Tecnológica, 4(1), 19-34. Recuperado de Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. https://uceff.edu.br/revista/index.php/revista/article/ view/127 Spoolder, H. A. M., Geudeke, M. J., Van Der Peet- Schwering, C. M. C., & Soede, N. M. (2009). Group Podda, M. C. E. (2014). Introdução e adaptação das leitoas housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of de reposição. In A. D. Ferreira (Ed.), Produção de success and risk factors. Livestock Science, 125(1), suínos: teoria e prática (pp. 249-252). Brasília, DF: 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.03.009 ABCS. Uitdehaag, K. A., Ekkel, D., Kanis, E., & Knol, E. (2008). Ricci, G. D. (2015). Aparecimento de lesões decorrentes do Sow behaviour during parturition in relation to the desgaste ou não de dentes de leitões na maternidade: observed and the genetic merit for weaning survival. efeitos no comportamento e desempenho de suínos Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(1-2), 86-92. em diferentes fases da produção. Tese de doutorado, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.005 Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brasil. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/ 2DLGHW2 Vosough Ahmadi, B. V., Stott, A. W., Baxter, E. M., Lawrence, A. B., & Edwards, S. A. (2011). Animal Rohr, S. A., Dalla Costa, O. A., & Dalla Costa, F. A. welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing (2016). Bem-estar animal na produção de suínos: systems. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 57-67. doi: toda a granja. Brasília: ABCS. 10.22004/ag.econ.61124 605 Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 41, n. 2, p. 587-606, mar./abr. 2020