The scientific needs of the pig industry change on an ongoing basis, partly because needs are satisfied from time to time, and partly because crises pass. However, there is something more to it than that. Changing need can be characterised as a function of the pig industry's hierarchy of scientific need. The four layers in the hierarchy, in ascending order, can be named thus: Do no harm; Stay in business; Cost less; Charge more.

Do no harm means: don't make people ill (or worse); don't pollute the environment; and don't impair the welfare of pigs in our care. These are basic qualifiers to have the right to produce pigs at all. They tend to be absolute needs where interpretation might be necessary, but where relative positions are not likely to be acceptable (i.e. the pig industry is no worse than the rest). A failure to satisfy these needs makes the pig industry a pariah, and renders all other activity in the industry irrelevant.

The transfer and uptake of existing and new knowledge is fundamental to the survival of a sustainable pig industry and the supporting network of research and development, and it is of some concern that a wealth of useful R&D information already exists that remains largely underutilised across all livestock sectors. In an environment of ever decreasing funding for research, it is important to recognize that research is a means to an end, not an end unto itself, and strategic planning is necessary to maintain a knowledge transfer focus in all activities in this field. Adoption of technology is the desired outcome for all applied pig research and this ultimately provides those involved with a measure of success whilst providing pork producers and industry with a competitive advantage, satisfying public perception of “industry dealing with issues” and importantly facilitating feedback from industry to those conducting research.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is committed to promoting a sustainable, competitive and safe food supply chain that meets consumers’ requirements. Scientific research is commissioned to generate evidence on which policies and strategies are based, and to provide UK producers with management options that bring their livestock enterprises more in line with the needs of the consumer and regulatory requirements. The principle research programmes within the pig science portfolios have a total value of around £9.2 million. They cover the pig production sciences of nutrition, genetics, reproduction, meat quality and management systems, pig health and welfare, and ways to assess and ameliorate the environmental impact of pig farming. To facilitate uptake of the information generated by the research programmes, a range of knowledge transfer programmes are in place, including fact sheets produced for the Knowledge Transfer for Livestock initiative and the recently established Learning Skills and Knowledge programme. The aim of the Defra Science programme is to ensure soundly based policy, to prepare UK producers for longer–term changes, to make better use of risk management, and to provide the pig industry with tools to achieve improved economic and environmental sustainability.

The consumer is of prime importance when it comes to who matters in the changing market. The consumer is king, or rather queen given that the majority of food shopping is still done by women. Multiple retail accounts for 43% of consumer spend on food and drink, but it is important to acknowledge that the food market is not represented by only the multiple retailers. 28% of consumer spend on food and drink is accounted for by restaurants and catering, 12% by convenience stores, 11% by others including the discounters and markets, and the remaining 6% by co–ops.

I was a farm manager of 2,500 acres, cereals, sugar beet, vegetables, milking cows, suckling cows and outdoor sow unit producing weaners. I moved to Mells in Suffolk 26 years ago and set up a 200 sow indoor unit producing weaners before turning that into 350 sow unit, finishing half of the progeny and selling the other half as weaners.

In 1993 I set up a 600 Cotswold outdoor sow unit, producing weaners for Louis Dreyfus Livestock (LDL). My landlord was and still is a partner in the business. We have a very simple partnership, he provides the land, I run the business with no cost to each other; everything else is 50-50. After four years LDL wanted to get out of pigs altogether so we bought the herd. We then went on to finish pigs outdoors in large finishing kennels with runs, which was not brilliant in wet conditions!

The whole supply chain ‘matters’ in the changing market and it is important to involve all links in the chain when striving to achieve sustainability by reducing any conflicts between different sectors, by removing prejudices and by improving the ‘sharing’ of knowledge, costs and profits. Accordingly, to provide a comprehensive overview of who matters, consideration must be given to all of the following:

• • The producer

• • The feed manufacturer

• • The genetics supplier

• • The processor

• • The manufacturer

• • The veterinary surgeon

• • The retailer

• • The consumer

The pigmeat market has become increasingly global in the past decade and the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) Mid term review, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and WTO (World Trade Organisation) negotiations will all drive a continuation in this trend. This period has also witnessed an end of the traditional domestic pig cycle, in which UK supply and demand impact directly on price, together with a decline in the domestic herd of 37% since a peak in 1997 of 789,000 sows. The industry and our retail and food service customers are now acutely aware of EU:UK price differentials, exchange rate fluctuations and the ability to switch supply routes. One of the UK industry's key areas of differentiation is animal welfare, and this is gradually being eroded by the introduction of EU legislation – The Netherlands have introduced similar legislation to the UK which comes into effect in 2008. It is for these reasons that it is imperative for the UK industry to re-establish its competitiveness in terms of outright cost of production. It is only by closing this gap that we can secure long term stability and growth. But to achieve this we need to quantify where we are at present in relation to our competitors, and where the opportunities exist to close the gap.

For the past thirty years pig genetics has enjoyed a clear message from its end–users: reduce backfat and production costs. During that period, genetics, nutrition and health have together delivered improvements of some 60% in lean growth rate and feed efficiency. To compound the recent misfortunes of the UK industry, meat is now slipping further behind everything else on the supermarket shelf in quality, uniformity, and above all predictability. The notion of quality stretches far beyond the product into responsibility for animal welfare, human nutrition and food safety.

The industry's present dilemma arises from five factors:

1. 1. uncertain market conditions with cyclical profitability

2. 2. poor communication of what constitutes good quality

3. 3. payment systems that no longer reflect what the market requires

4. 4. independent management of the different steps in the pork value chain

5. 5. possible effects of animal health on quality and uniformity.

Meanwhile the understanding of gene function and the ability to detect potentially useful genetic variation is gathering momentum. This paper examines the role that genetics can play in adding value, reducing risk and differentiating the product, from the perspective of a large vertically coordinated pork producer.

Until the 1990s, defining and maintaining a High Health (HH) Status was relatively straightforward. Organisations such as the Pig Health Control Association were able to define and identify certain diseases such as Enzootic Pneumonia (EP), (Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae) or Swine Dysentery (SD) (Brachyspira hyodysenteriae,) and then establish, by hysterectomy or medicated early weaning (MEW), “clean” units which became the Nucleus units of the breeding companies. These produced “clean” pigs to populate Multiplication units that eventually passed on HH breeding stock to commercial customers. Relatively straightforward laboratory and abattoir monitoring could give reasonable, repeatable assurance to customers. Good biosecurity maintained this HH status and many HH commercial units were established by destocking, cleaning, and restocking with HH pigs from these breeding companies. Then the wheels started to fall off!

There has been at least a decade-long march to improve the health of the US swine industry. This coincided with rapid expansion of many farms and a tremendous change in the ownership structure of the US swine industry (fewer owners having larger sow farms and owning or controlling more pigs). Prior to 1990, the industry consisted of more typical farrow-to-finish farms that would live with chronic diseases such as atrophic rhinitis, Actinobacillus Pleuropneumonia (APP), Swine Dysentery, Mycoplasma pneumonia and a host of enteric organisms. Many of these would persist on an individual farm until either the owner became frustrated, or profitability and production were so poor that depopulation/repopulations were done. This was basically the technology of the 1980s. The late 1980s and early 1990s brought a tremendous amount of new sow farm construction or farm conversion. Nearly all of these were either farrow-to-wean or occasionally farrow-to-feeder pig (25 kg) with off-site finishing. The off-site nurseries and finishers (or recently wean-to-finishers) were built in several different configurations. Some would have 1 week’s worth of pigs on a site, some would have multiple weeks of nursery, some would have multiple weeks of finishing, or some would comingle farms and have only 1 week of nursery or 1 week of finishing on a site.

The purpose of this paper is to summarise the various means available for eliminating/eradicating disease and the economic consequences. Success rates for various diseases are discussed and summarised. A specific UK example is given to illustrate the planning and work that is required, as well as the cash flow over a twelve-month period. A typical timetable of events for eradicating/eliminating endemic diseases present in the UK and Ireland is discussed, as is the potential for regional/national eradication.

Integrated management systems (IMS) for pig production are one means by which the industry will be able to meet tight product specifications while satisfying society's demands to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production. The systems are based on modern theories of process control that have been proven in other industries but have yet to be applied to pig production. The initial application will be growth of the finishing pig but other stages of production, e.g. the gestating sow, may also be managed using an IMS. In the longer term, control of environmental processes within pig housing may also be amenable to an IMS but will undoubtedly reveal – and provide the opportunity to resolve – the conflicts between financial and environmental pressures in modern pig production. Other applications are envisaged and include active control of pig behaviour as well as disease.

The pursuit of enhanced prolificacy and fertility has been a major goal for the British pig industry for some years and throughout the 1960s to the 1990s advances were made that were generally due to better nutrition and management but genetics also played a significant role. Health status also influences reproduction and the production of faster growing pigs to slaughter. In recent years as farms have become larger and more intensive, our national health status may have been in decline to the detriment of female and male reproduction. Figures 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 illustrate the changes we have seen in 3 important reproduction characteristics, using data from MLC yearbooks, 1970 to 2003. Farrowing index improved rapidly in the 1970s due, in part, to early weaning reducing the average farrowing interval, but also increased producer awareness of mating management and heat detection procedures helped to push this upwards.

According to David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO), ‘Strengthening rules on the safety of animal feed is one of the cornerstones of the EU's food safety strategy’. The main EC developments affecting animal feed can be summarised under the following headings:

• • General Food Law Regulation

• • Proposal for Feed Additives Regulation

• • Proposal for Feed Hygiene Regulation

• • Positive List of Feed Materials

• • Official Food and Feed Controls

• • GM Food and Feed

Public concern about the welfare of farm animals has resulted in an increasing body of legislation regulating livestock production systems. In 2003, the UK implemented two new EU Directives on Pig Welfare (Directives 2001/93/EC and 2001/99/EC), and issued revised Welfare Codes for Pigs. New Council of Europe Recommendations are also at the consultation stage. The welfare issues highlighted for current consideration within the pig sector include space allowance and floor type, environmental enrichment, tail docking, weaning age and the use of the farrowing crate. With present scientific and practical knowledge, not all of these issues have a simple resolution. From an industry perspective, the major welfare issue is the level of endemic disease and, in particular, the dramatic influence of PMWS. There are also concerns regarding potential conflicts between the different policy objectives of animal welfare, environmental protection, food safety, staff health and safety, and financial sustainability that will need to be resolved.

In this context, legislation to protect the environment is taken to mean that affecting water, soil and air and excludes wildlife, habitats and bio–diversity. In practice, of course, resource protection impacts on wildlife, habitats and bio–diversity as well as on human health.

Agriculture is responsible for over 70% of nitrates and over 40% of phosphates in English waters (Defra, 2002). Elevated levels of these nutrients can contribute to eutrophication of marine and freshwater and cause ecological harm. Agriculture is also responsible for around 80% of UK ammonia emissions to air, although the contribution from pig farming is about 9% (Defra 2002). This contributes to acid rain that can damage forests, lakes and rivers; and it adds nitrogen to nutrient–poor soils (e.g. heathland) that can change the type of vegetation. And each year there are many complaints to local authorities about odours from agricultural premises (Defra 2002).

There are a number of pieces of legislation that affect or will affect pig production that seek to avoid, limit or minimise emissions to the environment: these include the Nitrates Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (larger pig units), Water Framework Directive, Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991, Animal By–products Regulation, and the proposed Waste from Mines and Quarries and Agricultural Premises (England and Wales) Regulations that will implement the Waste Framework Directive for agriculture.

The production and marketing of safe, wholesome pork, bacon, ham and other pork products is of paramount importance to British farmers, processors, retailers, food service companies and those that supply them. It is not possible to guarantee the complete absence of bacteria in meat production. Most bacteria found on meat are harmless, but some can cause foodborne disease. Control processes to reduce or eliminate food safety risks are applied to every stage of the production and marketing chain from the farm to the consumer.

Key approaches to reducing the risk of foodborne disease include: reduction of zoonotic pathogens in slaughter pigs; prevention of cross contamination during activities such as transport and slaughter; safe processing of foods underpinned by HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point); safe handling and preparation of food in the retail and catering sectors, including the adoption of HACCP principles and effective enforcement; safe handling and preparation of food in the home and enhanced surveillance of foodborne disease to monitor effectiveness of controls.