Students' Research Circle    
 
 
2022
2021
2020
2019
» 2018
Call for papers
The conference
Veterinary Session
Veterinary Jury
Biology Session
Biology Jury
Sponsors
Awards-list
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Home » Archive » 2018

TDK conference 2018

Installation of a digital biosecurity system on Hungarian swine farms
Tóth Csaba - year 6
University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Department of Veterinary Forensics, Law and Economics
Supervisors: Dr. Laszló Ózsvári, Dr. László Búza

Abstract:

In the intensive pig production, a reliable biosecurity protocol is essential. To promote a solid biosecurity protocol, we have installed a digital biosecurity system with cheap IT devices and common technologies on three large-scale pig farms. This system can detect the movements of the workers inside the farms. The purpose of my research is that if it is possible to reach a better biosecurity protocol and prevent the everyday routines which could jeopardize it by using the B-eSecure™ (PigCHAMP Pro Europa) digital system.

This biosecurity system was installed on three farrow-to-finish pig farms in Hajdú-Bihar county, Hungary. Before the installation there was a detailed biosecurity check on the farms in August 2017. After the installation there was a three months long learning process (from August 2017 to November 2017). During this process the system could learn the characteristic movement patterns of the workers and the role of the buildings in the everyday shifts. The system started its regular operation on the 1st of January 2018 and we collected data during six months until June 2018. The movement data were categorized in three groups regarding their risk level to the farm biosecurity: safe, unsafe and risky.

On farm “A” the maximum number of movements was detected in May (21,478), out of which 86% were safe, 11% risky and 3% unsafe, respectively. On farm “B” the maximum number of movements was registered in February (9,380), out of which 83% were safe, 12% risky and 5% unsafe, respectively. On farm “C” the maximum number of movements was observed in January (18,089), out of which 53% were safe, 19% risky and 28% unsafe, respectively.

On farm “A” the lowest number of unsafe movements (163; 1%) was detected in April and the highest one (790; 5%) in January. On farm “B” the lowest number of unsafe movements (433; 9%) was observed in June and the highest one (603; 15%) in May. On farm “C” the fewest unsafe movements (1689; 16%) was registered in January and the most (2852; 22%) in April.

On farm “A” and “B” most of the unsafe movements related to the transportation of cadavers. On farm “C” there is a water cleaning facility which became a meeting point for the workers during our investigations, causing a lot of unsafe movements. We regularly presented the results of the biosecurity movement analyses to the farm managers and after these common evaluations the biosecurity protocols were modified. The reports also revealed that which workers made the most unsafe movements, and on farm “B” and “C” the same employees did this regularly.

This digital biosecurity system could detect the risky biosecurity movements on the farms, although it is up to the farm managers that how they can control their workers’ movements from time to time. During this short period of our investigation we did not notice any improvements in this regard.



List of lectures