1. Current Environmental Health Status of the
University Animal Farm of the University of
the Philippines Los Baños:
A Case Study
Environmental Animal Health
VEPI 227

2. Introduction
 Established in the 1970s
 Located at Brgy. Tuntungin, Putho,
Los Baños, Laguna
 Instructional and Research Animal
Farm
 Integrated swine & poultry farm

3. NativeF1IAS
Herds within the University Swine Farm

4. Population
CLASS NATIVE IAS F1
Sucklings 11 27
Weanlings 6 10 37
Grower 11 2
Finisher 13 3
Gilt 4
Pregnant 3 2
Lactating 2 3
Dry sows 2 5
Boar 3 1
Total 25 67 53

5. Housing facility
 13 buildings
 11 – for research/experiments (feeding
trials), production
 2 – rented by private companies

6. Gestation house Farrowing house

7. Aims & goals
1. Elucidate and present the environmental health
strategies of the USF in terms of its biosecurity,
nutrition, location, housing, water supply and waste
management;
2. Analyze the environmental health strategies of the
USF;

8. Aims & goals
3. Discuss the management practices and
environmental health practices of the USF;
4. Present some solutions and recommendations in
order to overcome the major problems observed in
the USF.

9. BIOSECURITY

10. Absence of Biosecurity Protocol: Farm’s
Entrance
 No biosecurity protocol in the farm’s main entrance.
 The farm security personnel assigned on the main gate does not lock
the gate.
 This is a risk as the farm is very near to residential houses.
 The risk of entry by unauthorized intruders to the farm is highly
possible.
 Intruders are potential carriers of pathogens.

12. Absence of Bio. Protocol: Visitors & Transient
workers
 No biosecurity protocol for visitors.
 Does not require visitors to take ‘downtime’ prior to
entering the farm.
 No visitor’s log book in the main gate to take the full
detail of the identity of the visitor.

13. Recommendations: Visitors &
Transients
 Designated specific area for visitor parking; signs to inform all
visitors of the rules.
 Protocol for essential visitors.
 Maintain records of non-service visitor names, companies,
arrival & departure times, and purpose.
 Prohibit unknown individuals to have unlimited access to the
premises.

14. Absence of Appropriate Area for Vehicles
 Lack of appropriate area for vehicle parking.
 Area designated for car parking is not recommended
because it is located within the farm itself and very
near the animal barns.

16. Recommendations: Vehicles
 Parking areas be located away from pigs and other
livestock, feed delivery areas, and manure delivery
routes.
 Only the farm’s vehicle should be allowed in housing
areas or feed storage areas.
 Parking should be outside the perimeter site.

17. Lack of Written Biosecurity Protocol
 No provision of working boots and overalls for farm
personnel.
 No provision of working boots and overalls for truck drivers
and outsiders (buyers) that enter farm premises.
 Vehicles from buyers are allowed to enter the farm facility in
order to load market hogs.

18. Lack of Written Biosecurity Protocol
 Vehicles of funding drug companies are allowed to load
and unload pigs without any disinfection on-farm.
 There is no washing, disinfection and drying of farm or
outside vehicles that enter the farm premises.

19. Recommendations (Biosecurity Protocol)
 Have a written protocol of biosecurity measures.
 Proper warning signage should be provided.
 Biosecurity procedures should be well implemented and
continuously monitored to prevent introduction of disease into
the farm.

20. Recommendations (Biosecurity Protocol)
 A written protocol is important for all personnel for them to
know and understand the biosecurity measures being taken by
the farm.
 Disinfection of vehicles is one of the most important
biosecurity protocol of a farm because vehicles have a large
surface area that can harbor pathogens.

22. Absence of Shower Area, Mess Hall, Office
 No shower area for farm personnel, visitors, etc.
 Farm personnel are not required to take a shower before entering the farm.
 No uniforms intended to be used only in the farm.
 Farm personnel are not required to wear boots.
 There is also no UV light cabinet for.
 The area where they change clothes upon arrival is located in a building
where they cook and have their meals.
 Farm personnel are allowed to cook meat.

27. Recommendations: Shower Area, Mess
Hall, Office
 Prohibit on bringing and cooking of meat within farm
premises.
 Slaughtering pigs for food within the farm not allowed.
 Provision of a mess hall that are separate from the
area where the personnel stay during break time.

28. Recommendations: Shower Area, Mess
Hall, Office
 Provision of a shower area is important because it raises the
level of awareness to the value of biosecurity.
 Taking a shower is a means to stop the spread of pathogens by
faecal material onto farms by people.
 Clothes can be heavily contaminated with pig pathogens.
 Effective shower area removes the risk of pathogen transfer
from the external clothing and boots from off-farm to on-farm.

29. Recommendations: Shower Area, Mess
Hall, Office
 Have a specific area for the removal of off-farm footwear.
 It needs to happen as soon as the person enters the farm.
 Footwear removal eliminates a major source of faecal
materials – the base of the shoe.

30. Absence of Bio. Protocol for Dogs,
Commingling
 No biosecurity protocol against pets (dogs).
 As observed, dogs are allowed inside the premises.
 The farm also allows beef cattle to be within the premises near the
pig barns.
 BAFS stipulates that stray animals should not be allowed within
farm premises.
 There is also a poultry farm adjacent to the pig farm.

33. Discussion: Dogs, Commingling
 Predators may carry disease-causing agents (leptospirosis and
others) so they should be kept out of areas where swine are housed
 Stray dogs TGE and probably other disease
 Cats also pose a biosecurity risk because they serve as the only host
of Toxoplasma gondii
 If dogs and cats are kept in the pig compound or buildings, they
should not be fed pig meat products

34. Discussion: Commingling
 Cattle is a possible risk because there are certain diseases
that are common for both cattle and pigs.
 Certain farms that do not allow commingling between pigs
and other animal species in order to prevent the infection of
one species being passed to the other.
 Feces – flies

35. Absence of Boot baths in Pig Barns
 The University Farm has a provision of facilities for
performing foot bath (boot bath) but no
disinfectant solution can be found.
 There is also no routine disinfection of pig barns.

37. Recommendation: Boot baths in Pig
Barns
 It is recommended that every barn have a functional booth
bath in order to reduce cross-contamination*
 Routine disinfection of barns is also recommended.
 Routine spraying & aerial disinfection of barns with only
the prescribed disinfectant twice or thrice a week inside
the production premises is highly recommended.

38. Continuous Pig Flow
 All-In, All-Out Production (AIAO) is not performed
Some barns have pigs having weanlings, sows and boars
all in the same barn.
 There is no time that the barn is totally empty, so that
complete cleaning, disinfection and drying of the barn can
never be done.

39. Absence of BP for Dead Pig Disposal &
PE
 No biosecurity protocol for PE and disposal of dead pigs.
 The same is true for disposal of aborted fetuses, non-viable piglets and
afterbirth.
 The pit for disposal is located in an area that is only a few steps away from the
animal barns.
 The odor from the disposal pit can easily be sensed on nearby pig barn as it is
not properly enclosed.
 There is no standard protocol on hauling dead pigs from the barn to the pit and
on PE of those dead pigs.

40. Absence of BP for Dead Pig Disposal &
PM
 According to the supervisor, the area where dead pigs are examined PM
is the same area where the pit is located.
 The examination is done by the piggery personnel.
 Problem: there can be a tendency that meat from these dead hogs
could be utilized for food.
 In addition, as dogs are allowed to roam around the animal barns, they
can act as scavengers to these dead pigs.
 All of these are a clear breach of standard biosecurity protocol and pose
a significant risk to the herd.

42. Recommendation: Dead Pig Disposal &
PM
 Pig farms need to consider developing a plan to deal with
PE and disposal of dead pigs.
 PM exam. should be performed in an area outside or
away of the farm perimeter.
 This procedure should be done by a veterinarian.

43. Recommendation: Dead Pig Disposal &
PM
 Hauling of dead pigs, AF, afterbirth be done by separate
personnel.
 Crematory pits that include concrete excavations with concrete
covers to arrest the release of ammonia from the hole.
 Cadavers are buried and covered with Industrial lime to hasten
bacterial decomposition and arrest release of foul odor.
 Push carts after usage are brought into an assigned area
restricted.

44. Absence of BP for Isolation of Incoming
Stocks
 No BP for incoming stocks*
 Isolation of incoming stock is only done for 15 days which is not
the recommended**
 There is also mixing of simultaneous isolation of hybrid pigs and
native pigs in one isolation facility***
 Facility is accessible to people and other domestic animals.
 No security fence and the facility does not practice an AIAO.

45. Recommendation: Isolation of Incoming
Stocks
 Develop a protocol of during isolation and acclimation of incomings
stocks.
 The quarantine period allows the source herd to discover any new
disease introduced into that herd.
 Acclimatization aims to expose incoming breeding stock to the
environment, and infectious diseases already present within the
current production system.

46. Discussion: Isolation of Incoming Stocks
 Incoming gilts or boars must undergo a period of isolation for 30 to 60
days.
 Isolation allows pigs to recover from the stress of transport, adapt to
new environment, and any incubating infections to become evident.
 Provides opportunity for inspection of animals by a veterinarian, lab.
analysis of blood samples, and vaccination of animals before entering
the herd.

47. Recommendation: Isolation of Incoming
Stocks
 The facility should prevent direct contact with all other pigs,
domestic livestock, and wildlife.
 Security fence should be erected around the isolation unit.
 The facility should be operated on an all-in/all-out basis.
 It should have its own manure-handling facilities.

48. Absence of Holding Facility for Market
Hogs
 No functional holding facility intended for market hogs*
 What buyers do are doing is they along with their vehicles
for transporting hogs enter the farm premises and they
select directly from among the animal barns.

50. Absence of Appropriate AI Lab.
 The Farm does have a facility for artificial insemination but it is not
acceptable.
 The facility is located near the pig barns; thus it is within the “dirty” area.
 It is adjacent to the metabolism cages unit, where the equipment for the
metabolism experiment and the feces are stored.
 There is no signage that such area is restricted and should be treated as a
“clean” area of the farm.
 It is not sanitized and hygienic to perform AI related semen extension and
analysis.

52. Recommendations: AI Laboratory
 AI facility must be located away from the animal housing facility and
be restricted within the “clean” area of the farm.
 It should be located in an area that prevent crossover of “dirty” and
“clean” traffic.
 Optimum biosecurity must be practiced in order to prevent semen
contamination and maintain its quality and viability.
 Only those personnel that are designated to work in the AI lab. is
allowed inside.

53. NUTRITION

54. Absence of Protocol for Storage of
Feeds
 No designated area per barn where used and opened feed bags
shall be properly kept or stored.
 These opened feed bags attract rodents and flies.
 Feeds can easily spoiled esp. if it gets moist when farmhands
perform washing activities in the pens.

56. Discussion: Storage of Feeds
 Rodents perpetuate infections such as salmonella, swine
dysentery, leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis and erysipelas.
 Flies can carry infections such as streptococci that cause
pig meningitis and can travel up to about 3 km between
pig herds.

57. Lack of Provision of Appropriate Feed Storage
Facility
 The Farm has a feed storage facility but it lacks the
standard protocol stipulated by BAFS.
 The feed storage facility does not have adequate ventilation
and it is not vermin-proof.
 The feeding ingredients are not well kept.

60. VACCINATION PROTOCOL

61. No Appropriate Vaccination Protocol
 The Farm does not have an acceptable vaccination
program.
 There are only three vaccines used.
 These include vaccines against HC, Mycoplasma, and APP.
 Vaccination is only done twice a year simultaneously for
all animals in the farm.

62. No Appropriate Vaccination Protocol
 There is no written protocol for vaccination and no vaccine
storage facility found on the farm itself.
 As vaccination is done only twice, the pigs are vaccinated
without considering the age.
 Preparation of the vaccines as well as disposal of vaccine vials
or bottles is not present.

63. Recommendation: Vaccination
 The farm should have a written vaccination program*
 It is recommended that vaccination be based on the diseases that
are present in the herd.
 As much as possible, serological testing should be done in order to
ascertain the presence of diseases in the farm.
 In this way, the farm can propose a vaccination program that is
suitable for its herd.

64. Recommendation: Vaccination
 The farm should also have a facility for storing vaccine
products within its premises*
 Guidelines on the appropriate preparation, dilution,
administration and disposal are should be available.

65. HOUSING

66. Presence of Rough Flooring
 Some pens of the farm do have flooring that is not
well-maintained due to its rough surfaces.
 This could be a problem especially for sows because it
can cause foot pad injuries*

68. Recommendation: Flooring
 The Code of Good Animal Husbandry Practices
recommends that floors and pathway used by the
animals should be made from non-slippery materials,
safe to prevent injury or abnormal gait to the animals.

69. Presence of Biohazard in Roofing
 Of the 13 pig barns of the University Farm, there are 11
barns with asbestos as the roofing material.
 There are efforts to condemn these roofing materials, but
it is not materialized up until now because of the lack of
funds for labor of removing and disposal of those
materials.

71. Recommendation: Biohazards
 BAFS stipulates that buildings be designed and
constructed using materials that should not cause
any injury or impart hazard to the welfare of the
animal.

72. Presence of wires in some pig pens in the University Farm.

73. Damaged locks of some pens in the University Farm.

74. The guttering system of some of the barns of the University Farm is
damaged.

75. Dummy sows utilized in the University Farm.

76. Some of the slats are not well-maintained and kept when damaged.

77. Some pens of the University Farm are not well-lighted.

78. Some of the housing barns are not maintained anymore.

79. WATER SUPPLY

80. Water Supply
 The water supply of the Farm comes from the water tank
through pumps (deep well).
 There is no evidence of water analysis being conducted.
 BAFS recommends that water quality should be tested at
least once at the beginning of production and during the
time when water quality is suspicious.

81. This photo shows a pen with a leaking water.

82. Some pens of do not have drinking nipples.

83. LOCATION

84. Residential houses are directly located across the main gate of the University Animal Farm.

85. WASTE MANAGEMENT

87. The farm has a provision of wire screens placed along the canals in order to filter
the manure from the effluent.

89. HERD HEALTH MANAGEMENT

90. Herd Health Management
 The Farm does not have a documented record of
medication, diagnosis and treatment of the herd*
 Accdg. to the supervisor, the common symptoms of
disease they have encountered include diarrhea,
respiratory disease (coughing, dyspnea) and wasting**

91. Herd Health Management
 There is no record for morbidity and mortality because
there is no full-time veterinarian assigned to the farm.
 According to the supervisor, the farmhand is the one that
opens the dead pigs.

92. Recommendations: Health
Management
 It is recommended to have a full-time veterinarian that shall
monitor the health status of the Farm.
 There is also a need to have designated farm personnel to that
will treat the sick pigs.
 It is also recommended to have a sick pens.
 Antibiotic administration should be well documented and
withdrawal period strictly followed.

93. Reproductive Management
 Breeding: the farm practices both AI and natural mating*
 According to the supervisor, the F1 and the IAS herd
cannot be ascertained as to its genetic composition
because of inbreeding problems.

94. CONCLUSION
 The University Swine Farm needs to develop its herd
health management and the various aspects of the
environmental health strategies in order to prevent the
introduction of disease and maintain the health status of
its herd.

95. GENERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Based on the findings of the case study, it is highly
recommended that the authorities that manages the
University Animal Farm look into the current status
of the farm as well as the real problems that it
encounter in order to save what is there and from
there move forward to be efficient and productive.

96. GENERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
 It is also worth to note that the farm itself needs much financial aid
in order to improve its genetic line, increase its population in
order to be more productive in terms of revenue and enhance its
manpower in order to develop their capability to work efficiently.
 It is recommended to try to understand, develop and reinforce all
aspects of management related to health management in order to
protect and save what is there before a disease outbreak could come
because of irresponsible farming management practices.

97. References
Blaken, C. (2008). Ins and Outs of Good Biosecurity. Retrieved on 6 Apr 2017 from
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2156/ins-and-outs-of-good-biosecurity/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Organization for
Animal Health/World Bank (2010). Good Practices for Biosecurity in the Pig Sector
– Issues and Options in Developing and Transition Countries. FAO Animal
Production and Health Paper No. 169. Rome, FAO.
Levis, D. G. and R. B. Baker (2011). Biosecurity of Pigs and Farm Security.
University of Nebraska. Retrieved on 5 May 2018 from
http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/ec289.pdf
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (n.d.) OSHA® Fact Sheet –
Asbestos. Retrieved on 2 May 2018 from
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3507.pdf

98. References
OIE. 2008. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 17th ed. Paris. 510 pp.
Philippine National Standard/Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (PNS/BAFS)
(2016). Code of Good Animal Husbandry Practices (draft). Department of Agriculture.
Philippines.
The Pig Site (2010). Lighting for Pig Units. Retrieved on 12 May 2018 from
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/3282/lighting-for-pig-units/
The Pig Site (2013). Biosecurity Top Tips. Retrieved on 6 Apr 2018 from
http://www.thepigsite.com/
The Pig Site (2015). Pig Health: Biosecurity. Retrieved on 6 Apr 2018 from
http://www.thepigsite.com/pighealth/article/462/biosecurity/