Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
-
Cited by SciELO
-
Access statistics
Related links
-
Similars in SciELO
Share
Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias
On-line version ISSN 2448-6698Print version ISSN 2007-1124
Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.12 n.3 Mérida Jul./Sep. 2021 Epub Mar 14, 2022
https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v12i3.5178
Technical notes
Evaluation of disease-predisposing conditions in small-scale swine farms in an urban environment in northwestern Mexico City
a Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Departamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Cerdos, Ciudad de México, México.
The objective of the work was to develop and apply an instrument to identify the predisposing conditions to the occurrence of diseases in 12 small-scale swine farms in an urban environment. The percentage of negative points obtained in general and by type of farm was analyzed according to its production, fattening (T1) or full cycle (T2), where the highest percentage was for T1 (50 %) and for T2 (66.0 %). Likewise, the data were analyzed to compare the farms T1 and T2 in relation to the percentages of each section that makes up the survey, where only a difference in the “health state” section (P<0.0001) was found. The relationship between the population density per m2 with respect to the maximum percentage of points reached by farms showed no difference (R 2 , 0.03; P=0.854). No correlation was found between the percentage of points obtained with the number of animals (R 2 , 0.13; P=0.722). In relation to the average percentage per section by population size, only a difference in the “feeding” section (P<0.0006) was detected, indicating that farms with 10 to 40 swine obtained fewer points in this section. It is concluded that the methodology for the evaluation of conditions predisposing to diseases in this type of farms proved to be applicable. It was determined that farm size and population density are not a predisposing factor in these farms, but the predisposing conditions to the occurrence of diseases differ between full-cycle and fattening farms.
Key words Swine; Diseases; Urban swine farming
El objetivo del trabajo fue desarrollar y aplicar un instrumento para identificar las condiciones predisponentes a la presentación de enfermedades en 12 granjas porcinas a pequeña escala en un ambiente urbano. Se analizó el porcentaje de puntos negativos obtenidos de manera general y por tipo de granja en función a su producción, engorda (T1) o ciclo completo (T2), donde el mayor porcentaje fue para T1 (50 %) y para T2 (66.0 %). Del mismo modo se analizaron los datos para comparar a las granjas T1 y las T2 en relación con los porcentajes de cada sección que integra la encuesta, donde solo se encontró diferencia en la sección “estado de salud” (P<0.0001). La relación entre la densidad de población por m2 con respecto al porcentaje máximo de puntos alcanzados por granjas, no mostró diferencia (R 2 , 0.03; P=0.854). No se encontró correlación entre el porcentaje de puntos obtenidos con el número de animales (R 2 , 0.13; P=0.722). En relación al porcentaje promedio por sección por tamaño de la población, solo se detectó diferencia en la sección “alimentación” (P<0.0006), indicando que las granjas con 10 a 40 cerdos obtuvieron menos puntos en esta sección. Se concluye que la metodología para la evaluación de las condiciones predisponentes a enfermedades en este tipo de granjas resultó ser aplicable. Se determinó que el tamaño de las granjas y la densidad de población, no son un factor predisponente en estas granjas, pero las condiciones predisponentes a la presentación de enfermedades difieren entre granjas de ciclo completo y engorda.
Palabras clave Cerdos; Enfermedades; Porcicultura urbana
By way of introduction, it can be mentioned that urban and peri-urban animal production exists in different countries of the world1,2, it is a source of occupation in which interrelations between social, cultural, economic, religious and health factors are established3, within it swine farming is a strategy to mitigate poverty4, since the swine is an ideal animal for urban environments with minimum space requirements, versatility in food consumption and easy commercialization.
Many of the swine producers located in urban environments are considered small-scale swine producers, that is, those who own up to 575 animals or up to 50 sows4. These small-scale farms (SSF) in urban conditions are associated with disease transmission, environmental pollution, lack of animal welfare and causing negative effects on public health5. Although there are several factors that may predispose these types of farms to the occurrence of diseases6, little is known regarding the biosafety factors to prevent them from the presence of diseases7. This determines the importance of having a correct diagnosis of the situation in these farms, especially in health and environmental impact aspects, since, to guarantee the production of these farms, it is necessary to know the potential impact on animal health.
In the northwest area of Mexico City, there are SSFs that have been immersed in urbanization, a specific example are 14 swine producers located in the borough of Azcapotzalco, who years ago began raising their animals in a rural environment but are currently in a critical situation regarding the impact of their activity on neighbors and the authorities, who assume negative aspects in health, animal welfare and environmental impact. As an objective of this work, it is considered basic to establish a guide to carry out the process of quantitative evaluation of zootechnical, biosafety and preventive medicine practices that may be a health risk for this type of farms, in order to subsequently establish palliative measures or administrative decision-making2. The instrument has been modified for use on small-scale urban farms and is the first exercise of its kind.
The work was carried out in 12 small-scale swine farms (SSF) located in the borough Azcapotzalco of Mexico City, which represent 85 % of the total number of farms registered with the local association of swine producers. The farms selected were those where producers assumed the status of cooperators, upon request and interview, and which are registered in the International Livestock Individual Identification System (SINIIGA, for its acronym in Spanish). The units evaluated had a minimum of 10 animals and a maximum of 299 and represent a percentage of the swine population consistent with what was indicated by other authors1,8.
Initially, the information obtained was that regarding the time of operation of the farm, the space of the farm, if it adjoins houses, who cares for the farm and if it has veterinary advisory. Subsequently, one or more visits were made to each farm accompanied by the application of an in situ evaluation instrument, carried out by a single evaluator according to the methodology used in similar studies9,10. The farms were classified into fattening (T1) or full cycle (Type 2). In addition, they were classified into three groups based on the number of animals: A those with 1 to 40 animals, B from 41 to 100 and C from 101 to 300 animals10.
The instrument was applied on a farm as a test to determine its operability but was not previously validated. This was designed with seven sections with a total of 55 questions; each item was confirmed by the evaluator in the physical inspection he made on the farm; each item had a value of 0 when the response indicated a high health risk, 1 when it was intermediate and 2 low; some items, due to their characteristics, only had the options of 0 and 2. The maximum value of points obtained for each section was: biosafety (B) 12 points, preventive medicine (PM) 20, facilities (F) 12, feeding (Fe) 14, management (M) 12, health state of swine (H) 16 and environment (E) 14 points, giving a total of 100 points for T1 and 92 for T2. During the visit, the inventory of animals was checked and the population density in each farm was calculated.
Because farms could obtain a different number of points depending on their type (T1 or T2), the percentage of points obtained in general and by section was calculated for each farm. To establish the difference between the percentage of points of T1 and T2 in general and for each section, the transformation of the percentages was made obtaining the square root of the arcsine; the data thus obtained were analyzed by means of a Wilcoxon test. Similarly, the differences in percentage of points for the three population levels (A, B, C) were analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis test, and in case of finding statistical differences, a mean difference test was performed using the honest Tukey test11. Correlations between the percentage and total points obtained with the number for each farm, as well as between the population density with the percentage of points and the total points obtained, were made by means of the Spearman correlation coefficient10. Data were analyzed using the JMP.8 statistical package12.
As results, the general conditions of the farms are initially presented, which are detailed in Table 1, where it is summarized that the farms have been operating for a minimum of 18 yr, with a variable space below 600 m2, only one has workers hired, 90 % are surrounded by houses and 40 % of them do not receive any type of technical advisory.
Table 1 General conditions of farms
Farm | Years* | Space / farm m2 |
Houses | Type | Cared for | Veterinary advisory |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 50 | 49.2 | Yes | T1 | Owner | No |
2 | 70 | 200 | Yes | T2 | Family | No |
3 | 40 | 315 | Yes | T2 | Family | Yes |
4 | 30 | 63 | Yes | T2 | Family | Yes |
5 | 18 | 100 | Yes | T2 | Family | No |
6 | 20 | 11.25 | No | T1 | Family | Yes |
7 | 44 | 600 | Yes | T1 | Family | Yes |
8 | 42 | 400 | Yes | T1 | Employees | Yes |
9 | 38 | 80 | Yes | T1 | Family | No |
10 | 40 | 300 | Yes | T2 | Family | Yes |
11 | 70 | 150 | Yes | T2 | Family | No |
12 | 20 | 200 | No | T2 | Family | Yes |
*Age of the farm.
Data from five farms T1 and seven farms T2 were obtained. Table 2 presents the total points and the percentage of points obtained in general in each farm, as well as the type of farm according to its production, where it is observed that the lowest percentage of points obtained occurred in farm 6 with 31.52 and the highest in farm 12 with 66.00. By type of farm, the highest percentage of points for T1 was 50 % and for T2 66.0 %. The percentage of points obtained by each farm is shown in Table 3.
Table 2 Number of animals, points obtained and percentage of points in general by farm
Farm | Type | Animals | Points | % Points |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 19 | 37 | 37.00 |
2 | 2 | 50 | 61 | 66.00 |
3 | 2 | 45 | 48 | 48.00 |
4 | 2 | 53 | 56 | 56.00 |
5 | 2 | 33 | 45 | 45.00 |
6 | 1 | 10 | 29 | 31.52 |
7 | 1 | 299 | 46 | 50.00 |
8 | 1 | 188 | 39 | 42.39 |
9 | 1 | 28 | 46 | 50.00 |
10 | 2 | 113 | 58 | 58.00 |
11 | 2 | 86 | 44 | 44.00 |
12 | 2 | 73 | 66 | 66.00 |
Table 3 Percentage of points obtained by farm and section of the instrument
Farm | Type | B | PM | F | Fe | M | H | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 15.34 | 57.50 | 46.01 | 18.40 | 46.01 | 51.72 | 13.14 |
2 | 2 | 41.67 | 80.00 | 66.67 | 57.14 | 50.00 | 87.50 | 28.57 |
3 | 2 | 58.33 | 60.00 | 41.67 | 42.86 | 33.33 | 75.00 | 14.29 |
4 | 2 | 41.67 | 40.00 | 66.67 | 71.43 | 41.67 | 87.50 | 42.86 |
5 | 2 | 66.67 | 65.00 | 25.00 | 21.43 | 16.67 | 87.50 | 14.29 |
6 | 1 | 23.01 | 28.75 | 15.34 | 9.20 | 46.01 | 57.47 | 13.14 |
7 | 1 | 30.67 | 57.50 | 53.68 | 46.00 | 61.35 | 57.47 | 13.14 |
8 | 1 | 7.67 | 51.75 | 53.68 | 46.00 | 38.34 | 45.98 | 26.28 |
9 | 1 | 38.34 | 40.25 | 61.35 | 27.60 | 38.34 | 68.97 | 39.42 |
10 | 2 | 33.33 | 80.00 | 66.67 | 57.14 | 16.67 | 87.50 | 42.86 |
11 | 2 | 41.67 | 30.00 | 25.00 | 50.00 | 41.67 | 87.50 | 28.57 |
12 | 2 | 41.67 | 90.00 | 66.67 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 87.50 | 57.14 |
B= biosafety; PM= preventive medicine; F= facilities; Fe= feeding; M= management; H= health; E= environment.
No differences were found between farms T1 and T2 in terms of B, PM, F, Fe, M and E; however, a difference (P= 0.002) was found between farms T1 and T2 in the section focused on health state (H) (Table 4).
Table 4 Average and standard deviation of the percentages of each section of the instrument by type of farm
Section | Type 1 (5 farms) | Type 2 (7 farms) | P |
---|---|---|---|
B | 23.01 ± 12.12 | 46.43 ± 11.65 | 0.116 |
PM | 47.15 ± 12.47 | 63.57 ± 22.12 | 0.121 |
F | 46.01 ± 17.9 | 51.19 ± 20.0 | 0.361 |
Fe | 29.44 ± 16.46 | 50.00 ± 14.46 | 0.369 |
M | 46.01 ± 7.39 | 35.71 ± 19.68 | 0.367 |
H | 56.32 ± 8.53 | 85.71 ± 17.18 | 0.002 |
E | 21.03 ± 11.75 | 32.65 ± 28.11 | 0.058 |
B= biosafety; PM= preventive medicine; F= facilities; Fe= feeding; M= management; H= health; E= environment.
The relationship between the population density per m2 with respect to the total maximum points reached by the 12 farms was analyzed, without finding an effect (R 2 , 0.03; P=0.854). In the correlation between the percentage of points obtained and the number of animals existing on the farm, no effect was found both generally and by sections (R 2 , 0.13; P=0.722). In relation to the average percentage per section for each classification of population size, only a difference in section A was detected (Table 5).
Table 5 Average and standard deviation of the percentage of points in each section of the instrument in relation to the number of animals by farm size
A (n= 5) | B (n= 4) | C (n= 3) | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|
B | 35.84 ± 3.03 | 45.00 ± 0.78 | 23.89 ± 11.8 | 0.228 |
PM | 47.88 ± 22.06 | 60.00 ± 25.5 | 63.09 ± 13.06 | 0.584 |
F | 36.92 ± 15.23 | 53.33 ± 18.0 | 58.01 ± 7.9 | 0.286 |
Fe | 19.16a ± 18.06 | 54.29b ±8.75 | 49.71b ± 7.33 | 0.0006 |
M | 36.76 ± 12.51 | 43.33 ±4.17 | 38.79 ± 18.7 | 0.777 |
H | 66.42 ± 12.3 | 85.00 ± 0.13 | 63.65 ± 15.2 | 0.106 |
E | 20.00 ± 14.2 | 34.29 ±11.8 | 27.43 ± 13.46 | 0.399 |
B= biosafety; PM= preventive medicine; F= facilities; Fe= feeding; M= management; H= health; E= environment.
The items that obtained a score of 0 and 1 were considered as deficiencies in the production process of the farm, they may indicate a risk for the occurrence of diseases and are areas of opportunity for work on the farm. Table 6 shows the number of producers who have weaknesses based on each of the questions of the instrument.
Table 6 Items of the instrument by section and number of farms that presented deficiencies (1 or zero points) in each question of the instrument
Section | Question | 2 points | 1 point | 0 points |
---|---|---|---|---|
B | Location with respect to other farms | 2 | 3 | 7 |
Origin of animals | 8 | 2 | 2 | |
Quarantine area | 0 | 12 | ||
Farm visits | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
Use of work clothes | 2 | 6 | 4 | |
There is a bathroom/dressing room | 6 | 6 | ||
PM | Washing and disinfection | 6 | 5 | 1 |
Breeding stock vaccination | 5 | 2 | ||
Vaccination in weaning | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
Vaccination in fattening | 4 | 8 | ||
Breeding stock deworming | 6 | 1 | ||
Deworming in weaning | 6 | 6 | ||
Deworming in fattening | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
Preventive medications | 2 | 10 | ||
Pest control | 7 | 1 | 4 | |
Presence of other animals on the farm | 10 | 2 | ||
F | Proper farm design | 8 | 4 | |
Space per animal | 11 | 1 | ||
Suitable feeders | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
Suitable drinkers | 5 | 7 | ||
Ventilation control | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
Characteristics of the floor | 8 | 4 | ||
Fe | Type of feed (balanced, alternative) | 3 | 9 | |
Storage conditions | 1 | 6 | 5 | |
Alternative feeding treatment is used | 1 | 11 | ||
Adequate feed supply for piglets | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Food supply in maternity/females | 2 | 5 | ||
Feed supply in weaning | 7 | 1 | 4 | |
Feed supply in fattening | 7 | 2 | 3 | |
Management system in general | 1 | 11 | ||
M | Swine are regrouped | 10 | 2 | |
Grouping by size/weight | 10 | 2 | ||
There is an infirmary area | 1 | 11 | ||
Treatment is given to the sick | 1 | 11 | ||
Records are used | 3 | 9 | ||
H | General morbidity on the farm in the last month | 9 | 1 | 2 |
General mortality on the farm in the last month | 11 | 1 | ||
Presence of diarrhea | 6 | 6 | ||
Presence of respiratory signs | 2 | 10 | ||
Presence of systemic signs | 11 | 1 | ||
Presence of nervous signs | 12 | |||
Presence of locomotor or skin disorders | 10 | 2 | ||
Presence of reproductive problems | 11 | 1 | ||
E | Liquid excreta are treated | 12 | ||
Solid excreta are treated | 4 | 8 | ||
Presence of odors | 6 | 6 | ||
Noise level on the farm | 10 | 2 | ||
How is the disposal of biological waste | 12 | |||
How is the disposal of inorganic waste | 3 | 9 | ||
How is the disposal of chemical waste | 12 |
B= biosafety; PM= preventive medicine; F= facilities; Fe= feeding; M= management; H= health; E= environment.
When analyzing the items that obtained a score of 0 or 1 in B, no farm has quarantine and half of the producers do not have a bathroom or dressing room. In PM, the fact that in all farms there is the presence of other domestic species stands out. In Fe, the design, installation, quality of feeders and drinkers was considered as a planning deficiency, since only one producer has suitable feeders, and none of the farms had suitable drinkers. On no farm were the floors dry and with a finish suitable for the comfort of the animals found.
In Fe, only two farms use a combination of alternative and balanced feed for the breeders, while the rest only supply alternative feed and no producer performs a treatment of this type of feed. In M, only in a farm there is an "all-in all-out system" and an infirmary area. In H, it is a risk factor that 83 % of the farms presented respiratory signs in various areas of production and in 50 % diarrhea was observed. Finally, in E, it was observed as the main deficiency that none of the producers treats excreta and does not have an adequate disposal of biological and chemical waste. As for inorganic waste, only a quarter gives treatment, the rest is disposed of as urban garbage.
By way of discussion and based on the results presented, it is suggested that the information obtained from the application of the evaluation instrument may present biases as it happens with this type of works and as reported by other authors1,6,10. Similarly, the lack of validation of the instrument in urban and small-scale farms establishes limitations in the interpretation of the results.
Most of these farms are dedicated to the full cycle, contrary to expectations, since it is pointed out that the breeding of fattening swine requires a minimum of facilities and the cost of accommodation for the full cycle is the most expensive part of the system, since specific constructions are needed for all the biological stages of the swine13. On the other hand, these results correspond to what was presented by authors who reported that full-cycle farms have better economic returns than piglet-producing and fattening farms14.
The tasks of the farms evaluated coincide with other authors who point out that the work is carried out by family members and in most cases the breeding of animals is not the only economic activity14,15, but it was found that they were elderly people, which contrasts with what was mentioned by the same authors in other non-urban farms in central Mexico, whose owners are of economically active age and have higher schooling14.
Deficiencies in biosafety, facilities, vaccination and transport, among others, increase the risk of introduction of pathogens to the farm10, so it is necessary to detect critical points on each farm to increase biosafety and reduce disease transmission16.
The fact that no farm has quarantine increases the risk of disease transmission to the population and represents a fundamental failure in biosafety17 and is the greatest risk for the introduction of pathogens to the farm. Similarly, the absence of dressing rooms represents a break in biosafety protocols18. Although it is understood that the income of this type of farm limits investment in biosafety measures, it is important that each of them establishes practices that mitigate the risk of disease transmission; perhaps the most important thing is to raise awareness among producers to buy animals of the same origin and prevent the entry and exit of people to the farm without basic hygienic measures.
Deficiencies in the quantity and design of drinkers and feeders affect water consumption and the obtaining of nutrients, which can affect the health of animals19. The conditions of high humidity and low temperature found in 50 % of farms predispose to pneumonia, skin diseases, presence of parasites, feed consumption and hoof injuries20. Another condition that predisposes to the existence of diseases is the state of the floor, which can be a factor in the occurrence of diseases because a floor with cracks makes it difficult to wash and disinfect it21.
Another aspect that can be associated with the existence and transmission of diseases is the almost widespread use of kitchen waste in swine feeding; this type of practice increases the appearance of zoonotic diseases, a risk that is run when animals are raised near houses, especially when used without treatment22.
The low score in management aspects indicates that modern practices based on the physiology of the animals are not used in the SSFs in swine care, which is in agreement with various authors6,23; this idea is reinforced in this study, since most of the producers do not have an infirmary and the sick swine are distributed among the population.
A point in favor of the farms evaluated is that not regrouping reduces the stress that this represents and therefore the immune status of the swine could be better, which reduces the possibility that they get sick and can transmit pathogens to other populations24,25. The space required per animal in the farms evaluated was correct and does not represent a situation that predisposes to the occurrence of diseases26.
The difference in the percentage of points obtained between fattening and full-cycle farms in the section “Health state" indicates that the purpose of the farm influences the occurrence of diseases, the main disadvantage of the fattening system lies in having animals of different age and origin24, since the risks of buying from several suppliers of piglets17 are known.
Based on the results of the study, it can be thought that SSFs are a risk for disease transmission, since the absence of protocols for biological, inorganic and chemical wastes and the lack of treatment of solid or liquid excreta represents a risk to public health and other swine populations27,28. In addition, the management of waste in a small space and close to houses impacts the environment by dispersing or pouring uncontrollably22.
Although the size of the farms did not influence the score obtained in Fe, a negative difference was found in farms with less than 40 animals; this is explained by the fact that producers with few animals use alternative feed without treatment, do not invest in feeders and feed in a rationed form, which decreases the health state29.
It is concluded that the methodology for the evaluation of the conditions predisposing to diseases in SSF in an urban environment by means of a numerical score proved to be applicable to the farms. As advantages of the application of the instrument, the following can be cited: establishing an orderly structure to carry out the inspection of the farm and having basic information for the detection of areas of opportunity to mitigate these risks and implement more accurate diagnostic methods. The disadvantages of the instrument are that it can offer varying results from one farm to another and that the evaluation of the farms would have to be carried out in a higher number of farms and validate the information of the instrument. Preliminarily, it was observed that the type of production, the size of the farms and the population density are not a factor in terms of the numerical score that was obtained, but the health state differs if the farm is full cycle or fattening; it was identified that in farms with a smaller population, feeding aspects are a risk factor for the occurrence of diseases.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Literatura citada
1. Wabacha JK, Maribei JM, Mulei CM, Kyule MN, Zessin KH, Oluoch-Kosura W. Characterisation of smallholder pig production in Kikuyu Division, central Kenya. Prev Vet Med 2004;63:183-195. [ Links ]
2. Costard S, Porphyre V, Messad S, Rakotondrahanta S, Vidon H, Roger F, Pfeiffer DU. Multivariate analysis of management and biosecurity practices in smallholder pig farms in Madagascar. Prev Vet Med 2009;92:199-209. [ Links ]
3. Riethmuller P. The social impact of livestock: A developing country perspective. Animal Sci J 2003;74:245-253. [ Links ]
4. Rivera J, Hermenegildo L, Cortés J, Vieyera J, Castillo A, González O. Cerdos de traspatio como estrategia para aliviar pobreza en dos municipios conurbados al oriente de la Ciudad de México. Livest Res Rural Dev 2007;19:7. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/7/rive19096.htm. [ Links ]
5. Correia GC, Henry MK, Auty H, Gunn GJ. Exploring the role of small-scale livestock keepers for national biosecurity-The pig case. Prev Vet Med 2017;145:7-15. [ Links ]
6. Riedel S, Schiborra A, Hülsebusch C, Schlecht E. The productivity of traditional smallholder pig production and possible improvement strategies in Xishuangbanna, South Western China. Livest Sci 2014;160:151-162. [ Links ]
7. Schembri N, Hernandez-Jover M, Toribio AMLN, Holyoake PK. On-farm characteristics and biosecurity protocols for small-scale swine producers in Eastern Australia. Prev Vet Med 2015;118:104-116. [ Links ]
8. Hayes L, Woodgate R, Rast L, Toribio ALML, Hernandez-Jover M. Understanding animal health communication networks among smallholders livestock producers in Australia using stakeholder analysis. Prev Vet Med 2017;144:189-101. [ Links ]
9. Simon-Grifé M, Martin-Valls GE, Vilar MJ, García-Bocanegra I, Martín M, Mateu E, Casal J. Biosecurity practices in Spanish pig herds: Perceptions of farmers and veterinarians of the most important biosecurity measures. Prev Vet Med 2013;110: 223-231. [ Links ]
10. Alawneh J, Barnes T, Parke C, Lapuz E, David E, Basinang V, Baluyut A, Villar E, Lopez E, Blackall P. Description of the pig production systems, biosecurity practices and herd health providers in two provinces with high swine density in the Philippines. Prev Vet Med 2014;114:73-87. [ Links ]
11. Marques MJ. Probabilidad y estadística para ciencias Químico-Biológicas. México: Editorial McGraw-Hill; 1996. [ Links ]
12. SPSS Inc. Released 2009. PASW Statistics for windows, version 18.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 2009. [ Links ]
13. Padilla M. Manual de porcicultura. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería. Programa Nacional de Cerdos. Fundación para el fomento y promoción de la investigación y transferencia de tecnología agropecuaria en Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica; 2007. [ Links ]
14. Losada EN, Mercadillo SA, Martínez-Gamba RG. Costos de producción y evaluación del impacto de diversos insumos sobre la rentabilidad de unidades productoras de cerdos de traspatio en la zona metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. Livest Res Rural Dev 2014;26, Article 205. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/11/losa26205 . Consultado Nov 12, 2017. [ Links ]
15. Enríquez-Lorenzo C, Martínez-Castañeda FE. Producción porcina en pequeña escala y su aportación a la economía familiar. Ganadería y seguridad alimentaria en tiempo de crisis. UACH-CP; 2009. [ Links ]
16. Ouma E, Dione M, Lule P, Roesel K, Pezo D. Characterization of smallholder pig production systems in Uganda: constraints and opportunities for engaging with market systems. Livest Res Rural Dev 2014;26, Article 3. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/3/ouma26056.htm . Accessed Feb 15, 2018. [ Links ]
17. Morilla A. Manual de bioseguridad para empresas porcinas. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. Ciudad Universitaria. México; 2009. [ Links ]
18. Pitkin A, Otake S, Dee S. A one-night downtime period prevents the spread of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae by personnel and fomites (boots and coveralls). J Swine Health Prod 2011;19(6):345-348. [ Links ]
19. Huerta R, Gasa J. Manual de buenas prácticas de producción porcina. Lineamientos generales para el pequeño y mediano productor de cerdos. Red Porcina Iberoamericana 2012;10:1-13. [ Links ]
20. INTA. Manejo sanitario eficiente de los cerdos. Programa Especial Para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PESA). Instituto Nicaragüense de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Managua, Nicaragua. 2010. [ Links ]
21. Guatirojo Y. Manual de bioseguridad en granjas porcícolas [tesis de grado]. Jalapa, Veracruz, México. Universidad Veracruzana. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia; 2012. [ Links ]
22. Seija C. Revisión de experiencias urbanas y periurbanas de cría animal como alternativa de seguridad alimentaria. Revista de Investigación Agraria y Animal 2011;2:51-63. [ Links ]
23. Alarcón G, Camacho J, Gallegos J. Manual del participante: Producción de Cerdos. Institución de enseñanza e investigación en ciencias agrícolas México-Puebla-San Luis Potosí-Tabasco-Veracruz. Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria. Fondo de tierras e instalación del joven emprendedor rural; 2005. [ Links ]
24. Laws J, Amusquivar E, Laws A, Herrera E, Lean I, Dodds P, Clarke L. Supplementation of sow diets with oil during gestation: Sow body condition, milk yield and milk composition. Livest Sci 2008;123:88-96. [ Links ]
25. Pérez PE, Roldan SP, Trujillo OM, Martínez RR, Orozco GH, Becerril HM, Mota RD. Factores estresantes en lechones. Jornada de Estrés Animal. Centro de Enseñanza Investigación y Extensión en Producción Porcina-Jilotepec. FMVZ UNAM. 2012:15-21. [ Links ]
26. Mota D, Roldán P, Pérez E, Martínez R, Hernández E, Trujillo M. Factores estresantes en lechones destetados comercialmente. Rev Vet Méx 2014;4:37-51. [ Links ]
27. Arce B, Valencia C, Warnaars M, Prain G, Valle R. The farmer field school (FFS) method in an urban setting: A case study in Lima, Peru. En: van Veenhuizen R. editor. Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities. Leusden (Netherlands). ETC - Urban Agriculture. 2006:299-303. [ Links ]
28. Martinez R, Pradal P, Castrejon F, Herradora M, Galvan E, Mercado C. Persistence of Escherichia coli, Salmonella choleraesusis, Aujeszky´s disease virus and blue eye disease virus in ensilage base on the solid fraction of pig feaces. J Applied Microbiol 2001;91:750-758. [ Links ]
29. Campabadal C. Guía técnica para la alimentación de cerdos. Nutrición Animal. Asociación Americana de la Soya-IM. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería. 2009;(1):1-16. [ Links ]
Received: December 04, 2018; Accepted: October 22, 2020