United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

March 2008

Swine 2006

Part III: Reference of Swine Health,

Productivity, and General Management in

the United States, 2006
Mention of companies or commercial products does

not imply recommendation or endorsement by the

USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither

guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product

mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to

report factually on available data and to provide

specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.usda.aphis.gov

#N478.0308

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or

part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)

720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–

3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo courtesy of National Pork Board
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS) during a study of animal health and health

management on swine operations.

The Swine 2006 study was a cooperative effort among State and Federal

agricultural statisticians, animal health officials, university researchers, extension

personnel, owners, and operators. We want to thank the industry members who

helped determine the direction and objectives of this study by participating in

focus groups.

Thanks also to the State and Federal veterinary medical officers (VMOs) and

animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the operations and collected the

data. Their hard work and dedication to the National Animal Health Monitoring

System (NAHMS) are invaluable. The roles of the producer, area veterinarian in

charge, NAHMS coordinator, VMOs, AHTs, and National Agricultural Statistics

Service enumerators were critical in providing quality data for Swine 2006

reports. Thanks also to the personnel at the Centers for Epidemiology and

Animal Health for their help in generating and distributing valuable reports from

Swine 2006 data.

All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary

efforts made this report possible.

Larry M. Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
ii / Swine 2006

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2008. Swine 2006, Part III: Reference of Swine Health, Productivity, and

General Management in the United States, 2006

USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO

#N478.0308

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Charles Haley (970)-494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Kathy Snover (970) 494-7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Sow and Gilt Management 5

1. Inventory 5

2. Culling and death loss 5

B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity 7

1. Farrowing productivity and death loss 7

2. Weaning 9

C. Nursery Productivity 11

1. Production phase 11

2. Nursery death loss 11

3. Age entering and leaving the nursery 13

D. Grower/Finisher Productivity 14

1. Production phase 14

2. Grower/finisher death loss 14

3. Age entering and leaving the grower/finisher phase 16

E. Production Phase Management 18

1. Production phases 18

2. Pigs entering production phases 19

F. Disease Prevention—All Phases 26

1. Disease prevention and treatment 26

2. Veterinary contact for mortality 29

G. General Management 30

1. Swine housing 30

2. Employee policy 34

3. Carcass disposal 35

4. Records 37

5. Feed ingredients 39

H. Movement of Swine 40

1. Swine shipments 40

2. Pig type 40

3. Destination 42

4. Distance 42

Section II: Methodology 43

A. Needs Assessment 43

1. Number of needs assessment respondents, by respondent type 43
iv / Swine 2006

B. Sampling and Estimation 44

1. State selection 44

2. Operation selection 44

3. Population inferences 45

C. Data Collection 45

1. General Swine Farm Report, July 17 – September 15, 2006 45

2. Initial VS Visit, September 5, 2006 – March 15, 2007 45

3. Second VS Visit, December 4, 2006 – March 15, 2007 45

D. Data Analysis 46

1. Validation and estimation 46

E. Sample Evaluation 46

1. General Swine Farm Report 46

Appendix I: Sample Profile 48

A. Responding Sites 48

1a. Total inventory 48

1b. Sow inventory 48

2. Type of site 49

3. Regions 49

4. Production phase 50

Appendix II: U.S. Swine Population and Operations 51

Appendix III: Swine 2006 Study Objectives and Related Outputs 52
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

In 1983, promoters of the concept that would become the USDA’s National Animal

Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) envisioned a program that would monitor

changes and trends in national animal health and management, thereby providing

periodic snapshots of the U.S. food-animal industries. With these industry

overviews, members could identify opportunities for improvement, provide changing

foundations for research and special studies, and detect emerging problems.

NAHMS’ first national study of the swine industry, the 1990 National Swine

Survey, provided a snapshot of animal health and management that would serve as

a baseline from which to measure industry changes in animal health and

management. NAHMS conducted the 1990 National Swine Survey in 18 States,

with a target population of operations with at least one sow. The sample

represented 95 percent of the U.S. swine population. National estimates

generated from this study are reported in Morbidity/Mortality and Health

Management of Swine in the United States (November 1991).

NAHMS’ second national swine study, Swine ’95, was conducted in 16 of the

Nation’s top swine-producing States. These States represented 91 percent of the

U.S. swine population. The target population for the first phase of Swine ‘95 was

producers with at least one pig. National estimates generated from this study are

reported in Swine ’95 Part I: Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices

(October 1995). The second phase of Swine ’95 was conducted on sites with at

least 300 market pigs. National estimates generated from this study are reported

in Part II: Reference of 1995 Grower/Finisher Health and Management (May 1996).

NAHMS’ third national swine study, Swine 2000, was designed to provide both

participants and the industry with information on the U.S. swine herd on

operations with 100 or more pigs. The National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS) collaborated with Veterinary Services to select a producer sample

statistically designed to provide inferences to the Nation’s swine populations on

operations with 100 or more pigs. Included in the study were 17 of the major porkproducing States, which accounted for 94 percent of the U.S. pig inventory and 92

percent of U.S. pork producers with 100 or more pigs. Results from this study are

reported in Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management, 2000 (August

2001); Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Management, 2000 (March 2002);

Part III: Reference of Swine Health and Environmental Management, 2000

(September 2002); and Part IV: Changes in the U.S. Pork Industry, 1990-2000

(August 2005).
Introduction

2 / Swine 2006

The Swine 2006 study is NAHMS’ fourth national study of the U.S. swine industry.

Seventeen States participated in the Swine 2006 study (see map). These States

accounted for 94 percent of swine operations and inventory on operations with 100

or more pigs. A random sample of 5,000 swine producers was selected to be

visited by representatives from NASS between July 17 and September 15, 2006.

An on-site questionnaire was administered by NASS enumerators during this visit.

Results from the first data collection period of this study were presented in Swine

2006 Part I: Baseline Reference of Swine Health and Management, 2006.

Producers that chose to continue in the study were visited twice by veterinary

medical officers (VMOs), who administered questionnaires and took biological/

environmental samples.

Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management in the United States,

2006 is the second of a series of reports from the NAHMS Swine 2006 study. Data

for Part II were collected from 514 swine production sites between September 5,

2006, and March 15, 2007.

Part III: Reference of Swine Health, Productivity, and General

Management in the United States, 2006 is the third of a series of reports from

the NAHMS Swine 2006 study. Data for Part III were collected from 435 swine

production sites between December 4, 2006, and March 15, 2007.

Methodology and number of respondents can be found at the end of this report.

All NAHMS swine study reports are accessible online at http://

nahms.aphis.usda.gov.
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 3

Terms Used in

This Report

Average: A site average is used to describe a site-level practice. A pig average is

used to describe an animal-level average. Unless specified as a site average,

all averages in this report are pig-level averages.

For site average—a single value for each operation summed over all operations

reporting divided by the number of operations reporting (see site average number of

animals per holding unit, p 25).

For pig average—a single operation value multiplied by the number of animals on

that operation; then values are summed across operations and divided by total

number of animals on all operations (see average age of pigs entering or leaving

the nursery, p 13).

Operation: The overall business and top-level management unit for a swinerearing facility, which might consist of one or more sites. An operation can

encompass all production phases of swine rearing (e.g., gestation, farrowing,

nursery, and grower/finisher) on one or more sites (geographic locations), each

devoted to a different production phase or combination of phases (see also “Site”).

Percent sites: The number of sites with a certain attribute divided by the total

number of sites. Percentages will sum to 100 where the attributes are mutually

exclusive (i.e., percentage of sites located within each region). Percentages will

not sum to 100 where the attributes are not mutually exclusive (i.e., the

percentage of sites using treatment methods where sites may have used more

than one method). The “percent sites” estimates primarily reflect the smaller

producers, since they make up the majority of sites.

Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of

precision called the standard error. A 95-percent confidence interval can be

approximated with bounds equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard

errors. If the only error is sampling error, the confidence intervals created in this

manner will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example

to the left, an estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to

9.5 (two times the standard error above and below the estimate). The second

estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0.

Alternatively, the 90-percent confidence interval would be created by multiplying

the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded

to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the standard error was reported (0.0). If there

were no reports of the event, no standard error was reported (—).
Introduction

4 / Swine 2006

Regions:

North: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

West Central: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota

East Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio

South: Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations and

sites from which Swine 2006 data were collected.

Separate site: This term can mean that a facility is at a completely separate

geographical location or in the same location but physically separated (no

livestock runways or paths joining to other production facilities). It also might be

managed as its own site, with separate procedures, biosecurity measures, and

workers, for example.

Size of site: Size groupings were based on total number of swine present on June

1, 2006. Size of site was categorized as small (fewer than 2,000), medium,

(2,000-4,999), and large (5,000 or more). For tables relating to sow and gilt

management, size of site was based on the number of sows and gilts on-site:

small (fewer than 250), medium (250 to 499), and large (500 or more).

Site: One geographical location or address that functions as a unit to produce one

or more production phases in swine rearing. An example would be a gestation/

farrowing site. A site can encompass more than one production phase, such as a

“farrow to finish” site, which has gestation, farrowing, nursery, and grower/finisher

hogs all at one location. A site can be a part of an operation or it can be the whole

operation, if the operation has only one site. (see also “Operation.”)

Total Inventory: All swine present on the site on June 1, 2006.
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Sow and Gilt Management

USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Sow and Gilt

Management

1. Inventory

About 40 percent of all sites had breeding-age females.

Percentage of sites that had breeding-age females from June through November

2006, by region:

2. Culling and death loss

The number of breeding-age females that died or were culled from June through

November 2006 was calculated as a percentage of the December 1, 2006, sow

and bred gilt inventory in the breeding herd. Overall, 28.7 percent of breeding-age

females (note large standard error) were culled and 4.7 percent died.

a. Breeding-age females that died or were culled from June through November

2006, as a percentage of the December 1, 2006, breeding inventory of sows and

gilts*, by size of site:

Percent Sites 

Region 

North West Central East Central South All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

36.8 (6.1) 48.7 (5.8) 39.5 (4.7) 37.3 (6.9) 40.2 (3.0) 

Percent Breeding Females 

Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 250) 

Medium 

(250-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) All Sites 

Reason 

Removed Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Died 2.5 (0.3) 2.4 (0.4) 5.0 (0.9) 4.7 (0.8) 

Culled 14.2 (1.6) 12.1 (1.9) 31.3 (9.9) 28.7 (8.5) 

*Sows and bred gilts for breeding plus unmated gilts in the breeding herd. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Sow and Gilt Management

6 / Swine 2006

Reproductive failure and performance were the two most common reasons

breeding-age females were culled (36.9 and 23.7 percent of culled females,

respectively). Reproductive failure and performance accounted for 60.6 percent of

all culled females. The most common “other reasons” included management

practices and genetic improvement.

b. Percentage of culled breeding-age females from June through November 2006,

by reason culled:

Reason Culled 

Percent Culled 

Females 

Standard 

Error 

Old age 11.1 (3.9) 

Lameness 11.2 (1.4) 

Performance* 23.7 (3.1) 

Reproductive failure 36.9 (5.1) 

Injury 4.9 (1.7) 

Other reasons 12.2 (4.6) 

Total 100.0 

*Small litter size, high preweaning mortality, or low birth weight. 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

 Section I: Population Estimates—B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

B. Farrowing and

Weaning Productivity

1. Farrowing productivity and death loss

The total number of piglets born and born alive per litter is a measure of

reproductive performance. Overall, 11.9 piglets were born per litter, of which 10.9

were born alive and 9.5 were weaned.

a. Average per-litter productivity from June through November 2006:

The number of pigs born alive per litter varied by size of site, ranging from 9.4 on

small sites to 11.0 on large sites. Large sites also averaged one more weaned

piglet per litter than small sites.

b. Average per-litter productivity from June through November 2006, by size of site:

Average Per Litter Productivity 

Measure (Per Litter) Number 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Stillbirths and mummies 1.0 (0.1) 8.1 (0.5) 

Born alive 10.9 (0.1) 91.9 (0.5) 

 Total born 11.9 (0.1) 100.0 

Preweaning deaths 1.4 (0.1) 12.9 (1.0) 

Weaned 9.5 (0.1) 87.1 (1.0) 

 Total born alive 10.9 (0.1) 100.0 

Average Per Litter Productivity 

Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer than 250) 

Medium 

(250-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

Measure 

(Per Litter) No. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stillbirths 

and 

mummies 0.8 (0.1) 8.3 (0.8) 1.0 (0.1) 9.2 (1.0) 1.0 (0.1) 8.1 (0.5) 

Born alive 9.4 (0.2) 91.7 (0.8) 10.4 (0.3) 90.8 (1.0) 11.0 (0.1) 91.9 (0.5) 

Total born 10.2 (0.2) 100.0 11.4 (0.3) 100.0 12.0 (0.1) 100.0 

Preweaning 

deaths 0.8 (0.1) 8.8 (0.8) 1.3 (0.2) 12.2 (1.6) 1.4 (0.1) 13.2 (1.0) 

Weaned 8.6 (0.2) 91.2 (0.8) 9.1 (0.2) 87.8 (1.6) 9.6 (0.1) 86.8 (1.0) 

Total 

born alive 9.4 (0.2) 100.0 10.4 (0.3) 100.0 11.0 (0.1) 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

8 / Swine 2006

Crushing by sow and starvation accounted for approximately 7 of 10 (71.7 percent)

preweaning deaths from June through November 2006. Disease-related causes

such as scours and respiratory problems led to 15.9 percent of preweaning

deaths. Low viability was the most common “other” identified cause.

c. Percentage of preweaning deaths from June through November 2006, by

producer-identified cause:

Producer-Identified Cause 

Percent 

Preweaning 

Deaths 

Standard 

Error 

Scours 13.2 (4.6) 

Crushing by sow (laid on) 42.0 (6.8) 

Starvation* 29.7 (7.9) 

Respiratory problems (e.g., PRRS, rhinitis) 2.7 (2.4) 

Other identified problems 7.2 (3.3) 

Unknown problems 5.2 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 

*Starvation implies that pigs did not eat, not that they were not fed. 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

 Section I: Population Estimates—B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

2. Weaning

The average piglet weaning age was 19.4 days.

a. Average age of piglets at weaning from June through November 2006:

Nearly 8 of 10 large sites (78.2 percent) and over 6 of 10 medium sites (64.3

percent) weaned piglets at 16 to 27 days of age, compared to approximately 4 of

10 small sites (41.4 percent). More than half of small sites (57.9 percent) weaned

at 28 or more days, compared to 35.7 and 0.0 percent of medium and large sites,

respectively. Note the large standard errors for some estimates.

b. Percentage of sites by age piglets were weaned and by size of site:

Average Age (Days) Standard Error 

19.4 (0.6) 

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Sow and Gilt Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 250) 

Medium 

(250-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) All Sites 

Weaning 

Age (Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 16 0.7 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 21.8 (9.1) 5.8 (2.7) 

16 to 20 10.5 (3.7) 52.6 (15.5) 56.3 (8.8) 24.9 (3.8) 

21 to 27 30.9 (6.3) 11.7 (7.1) 21.9 (7.0) 27.2 (4.7) 

28 to 34 19.1 (5.3) 35.7 (15.4) 0.0 (--) 15.7 (3.9) 

35 or more 38.8 (6.8) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 26.4 (5.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Farrowing and Weaning Productivity

10 / Swine 2006
USDA APHIS VS / 11

 Section I: Population Estimates—C. Nursery Productivity

C. Nursery Productivity 1. Production phase

Over half of all sites (56.1 percent) had any nursery-age pigs from June through

November 2006. Approximately one-third of sites in the South region (34.9

percent) had nursery pigs. The East Central and West Central regions had similar

percentages of sites with nursery pigs at (62.4 and 62.1 percent, respectively).

Percentage of sites with any nursery-age pigs* from June through November 2006,

by region:

Percent Sites 

Region 

North West Central East Central South All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

48.5 (5.8) 62.1 (5.7) 62.4 (5.6) 34.9 (7.6) 56.1 (3.2) 

*Pigs from weaning to approximately 60 pounds. 

2. Nursery death loss

There were no substantial differences in the percentages of nursery-pig deaths by

size of site from June through November 2006.

a. Percentage of nursery pigs that died in the nursery phase* from June through

November 2006, by size of site:

Percent Nursery Pigs 

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

3.4 (0.5) 4.1 (1.5) 4.0 (0.5) 3.9 (0.4) 

*As a percentage of pigs that entered the nursery phase. 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Nursery Productivity

12 / Swine 2006

The percentage of deaths by producer-identified cause did not differ substantially

by size of site. Respiratory problems accounted for the highest percentage of all

nursery deaths (53.7 percent).

 b. Percentage of nursery-pig deaths from June through November 2006, by

producer-identified cause and by size of site:

Percent Nursery Deaths 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

ProducerIdentified 

Cause Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Scours 7.7 (2.2) 8.1 (3.9) 13.2 (3.1) 11.4 (2.1) 

Starvation* 9.4 (3.0) 10.1 (2.9) 16.0 (5.6) 13.9 (3.7) 

Respiratory 

problems 54.6 (8.3) 48.9 (11.6) 54.9 (9.0) 53.7 (6.7) 

CNS/meningitis 13.8 (2.8) 19.5 (2.3) 11.0 (1.7) 13.1 (1.9) 

Other identified 

problems 3.7 (2.4) 1.5 (1.1) 1.6 (1.3) 1.8 (1.0) 

Unknown 

problems 10.8 (2.8) 11.9 (5.9) 3.3 (2.0) 6.1 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Starvation implies that pigs did not eat, not that they were not fed.
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Nursery Productivity

USDA APHIS VS / 13

3. Age entering and leaving the nursery

There was no substantial difference by size of site in the average age of pigs

entering or leaving the nursery phase. Piglets weaned on small sow sites do not

necessarily enter small nursery sites.

a. Average age of pigs entering and leaving the nursery, by size of site:

Average Age (Days)

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Entering nursery 21.4 (1.0) 18.7 (0.4) 20.2 (0.5) 20.1 (0.4) 

Leaving nursery 67.3 (1.9) 66.4 (1.7) 67.8 (2.3) 67.4 (1.6) 

Overall, pigs spent an average of 47.3 days in the nursery phase.

b. Average number of days pigs spent in the nursery, by size of site:

Average Number of Days

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

45.9 (1.7) 47.7 (1.8) 47.6 (2.0) 47.3 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Grower/Finisher Productivity

14 / Swine 2006

D. Grower/Finisher

Productivity

1. Production phase

Over 8 of 10 sites (82.7 percent) had a grower/finisher phase.

Percentage of sites with any grower/finisher pigs* from June through November

2006, by region:

Percent Sites 

Region 

North West Central East Central South All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

88.5 (3.8) 80.6 (5.7) 86.3 (3.8) 57.9 (7.0) 82.7 (2.4) 

*Pigs from approximately 60 pounds to market weight. 

2. Grower/finisher death loss

As with nursery-pig deaths, there was no substantial difference by size of site in

the percentage of deaths during the grower/finisher phase, when considering the

standard errors.

a. Percentage of grower/finisher pigs that died in the grower/finisher phase* from

June through November 2006, by size of site:

Percent Pigs

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

4.3 (0.7) 4.8 (0.4) 7.8 (1.3) 6.0 (0.7) 

*As a percentage of pigs that entered the grower/finisher phase. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Grower/Finisher Productivity

USDA APHIS VS / 15

The majority of grower/finisher deaths (60.1 percent) were due to respiratory

problems—as identifed by producers. Gastrointestinal problems—such as ulcers

or ileitis-related diseases— accounted for the majority of producer-identified

deaths attributed to “other” causes. For all producer-identified causes, the

percentage of grower/finisher deaths did not differ substantially by size of site.

b. Percentage of grower/finisher pig deaths from June through November 2006, by

producer-identified cause and by size of site:

Percent Deaths 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Produceridentified 

Cause Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Scours 10.9 (3.6) 8.9 (1.2) 7.0 (1.7) 8.1 (1.3) 

Lameness 4.3 (0.9) 3.3 (0.4) 4.6 (1.5) 4.3 (0.9) 

Injury or trauma 4.5 (1.1) 5.4 (1.3) 4.7 (1.5) 4.8 (0.9) 

Respiratory 

problems 55.9 (3.8) 60.6 (3.6) 61.1 (5.1) 60.1 (3.1) 

Undiagnosed 

sudden death 11.1 (3.1) 9.6 (1.9) 6.1 (1.5) 7.8 (1.2) 

Other identified 

problems 3.0 (1.2) 3.1 (0.9) 8.2 (5.6) 6.0 (3.3) 

Unknown 

problems 10.3 (1.6) 9.1 (2.0) 8.3 (2.4) 8.9 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Grower/Finisher Productivity

16 / Swine 2006

3. Age entering and leaving the grower/finisher phase

There was no substantial difference by size of site in the average age of pigs

entering or leaving the grower/finisher phase. Not all nursery-age pigs enter the

grower/finisher phase.

a. Average age of pigs entering and leaving the grower/finisher phase from June

through November 2006, by size of site:

Average Age (Days)

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

 Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Entering 

grower/finisher 

phase 

65.5 (1.6) 65.0 (1.0) 65.7 (1.7) 65.4 (0.9) 

Leaving 

grower/finisher 

phase 

180.8 (3.5) 181.9 (1.4) 187.5 (2.2) 184.1 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Grower/Finisher Productivity

USDA APHIS VS / 17

b. Average number of days pigs spent in the grower/finisher phase, by size of site:

Photo courtesy of National Pork Board

Average Number of Days

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

115.3 (3.3) 116.9 (1.7) 121.8 (2.6) 118.7 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

18 / Swine 2006

E. Production Phase

Management

1. Production phases

Only 4 of 10 sites had gestation or farrowing phases, while over 8 of 10 sites had a

grower/finisher phase.

a. Percentage of sites where any animals entered the following production phases

from June through November 2006, by region:

More than one-quarter of all sites (27.6 percent) had all four production phases

(gestation, farrowing, nursery, and grower/finisher). Only 11.6 percent of sites in

the South region had all four phases.

b. Percentage of sites by production-phase combination and by region:

 Percent Sites 

 Region 

North 

West 

Central 

East 

Central South All Sites 

Production Phase 

Combination Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All four phases 31.4 (6.0) 35.9 (6.5) 26.7 (4.8) 11.6 (6.5) 27.6 (3.0) 

Gestation, 

farrowing, and 

nursery 0.7 (0.7) 1.1 (0.7) 2.1 (1.7) 7.0 (4.4) 2.1 (1.0) 

Nursery and 

grower/finisher 7.9 (3.3) 15.4 (4.0) 28.6 (4.5) 0.0 (--) 18.6 (2.5) 

Gestation and 

farrowing 2.2 (0.9) 5.6 (2.4) 6.9 (2.5) 18.4 (4.2) 6.9 (1.4) 

Nursery only 8.5 (3.7) 9.1 (3.4) 3.0 (1.3) 16.4 (5.7) 6.7 (1.4) 

Grower/finisher 

only 46.8 (5.6) 26.8 (5.1) 28.8 (5.1) 46.3 (7.2) 34.5 (3.1) 

Other combination 2.5 (2.1) 6.1 (3.5) 3.9 (2.2) 0.3 (0.3) 3.6 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Percent Sites 

 Region 

North 

West 

Central 

East 

Central South All Sites 

Production Phase Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Gestation 36.8 (6.1) 48.7 (5.8) 37.9 (4.6) 37.3 (6.9) 39.4 (3.0) 

Farrowing 36.8 (6.1) 44.6 (5.6) 37.4 (4.5) 37.0 (6.9) 38.4 (2.9) 

Nursery 48.5 (5.8) 62.1 (5.7) 62.4 (5.6) 34.9 (7.6) 56.1 (3.2) 

Grower/finisher 88.5 (3.8) 80.6 (5.7) 86.3 (3.8) 57.9 (7.0) 82.7 (2.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

USDA APHIS VS / 19

2. Pigs entering production phases

From June through November 2006, 83.7 percent of sites with a gestation phase

brought sows and gilts already on-site into their gestation phase. Nearly two of

three sows and gilts entering the gestation phase (65.6 percent) originated from

on-site.

a. For sites where sows or gilts entered the gestation phase from June through

November 2006, percentage of sites that brought sows and gilts into the gestation

phase, and percentage of sows and gilts entering the gestation phase, by source

of sows and gilts:

Source

Percent 

Sites 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Pigs 

Std. 

Error 

On-site (e.g., gestation units 

on same site) 83.7 (3.4) 65.6 (10.5) 

Another site belonging 

to same operation 12.1 (4.7) 4.1 (1.6) 

Other pig producers 

(e.g., farm-to-farm, 

contract, noncontract) 19.2 (3.9) 22.3 (8.8) 

Auction, sale barn, or 

livestock market 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Another source 3.6 (2.2) 8.0 (4.9) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

20 / Swine 2006

The majority of sites with a farrowing phase (89.3 percent) obtained sows from onsite. Over 8 of 10 sows and gilts entering the farrowing phase (82.4 percent)

originated from on-site.

b. For sites where sows or gilts entered the farrowing phase from June through

November 2006, percentage of sites that brought sows and gilts into their

farrowing phase, and percentage of sows and gilts entering the farrowing phase,

by source of sows and gilts:

Source

Percent 

Sites 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Pigs 

Std. 

Error 

On-site 89.3 (2.8) 82.4 (8.1) 

Another site belonging 

to same operation 4.9 (2.7) 1.3 (1.0) 

Other pig producers 

(e.g., farm-to-farm, 

contract, noncontract) 14.8 (3.7) 16.3 (7.9) 

Auction, sale barn, or 

livestock market 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Another source 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 

From June through November 2006, 55.8 percent of sites with a nursery phase

brought pigs already on-site into the nursery phase. Over half of pigs entering the

nursery phase (52.3 percent) originated from on-site.

c. For sites where pigs entered the nursery phase from June through November

2006, percentage of sites that brought or placed pigs into the nursery phase, and

percentage of pigs that entered the nursery phase, by source of pigs:

Source

Percent 

Sites 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Pigs 

Std. 

Error 

On-site (e.g., farrowing 

units on same site) 55.8 (4.4) 52.3 (16.9) 

Another site belonging to 

same operation (e.g., 

farrowing or nursery units 

belonging to same operation) 17.5 (3.5) 20.3 (8.3) 

Other pig producers 

(e.g., farm-to-farm, 

contract, noncontract) 27.5 (3.9) 27.1 (10.5) 

Auction, sale barn, 

or livestock market 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 

Another source 0.4 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

USDA APHIS VS / 21

Seventy-six percent of sites using off-site sources to fill the nursery used just one

source.

d. For sites that obtained any nursery pigs from off-site, percentage of sites by

number of different sources:

Number of Sources Percent Sites Standard Error 

1 76.0 (5.3) 

2 12.0 (3.8) 

3 1.5 (1.1) 

4 to 5 6.2 (3.2) 

6 or more 4.3 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 

Only 20.9 percent of sites with off-site sources immediately placed new nursery

pigs with existing pigs.

e. For sites that obtained any nursery pigs from off-site, percentage of sites that

immediately placed these pigs in the same building or area with existing pigs:

Percent Sites Standard Error 

20.9 (5.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

22 / Swine 2006

From June through November 2006, 60.6 percent of sites with a grower/finisher

phase brought pigs already on-site into the grower/finisher phase. Over 60 percent

of pigs that entered the grower/finisher phase came from off-site.

f. For sites where pigs entered the grower/finisher phase from June through

November 2006, percentage of sites that brought or placed pigs into the grower/

finisher phase, and percentage of pigs that entered the grower/finisher phase, by

source of pigs:

Source

Percent 

Sites 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Pigs 

Std. 

Error 

On-site (e.g., nursery 

phase/units on same site) 60.6 (3.5) 39.8 (4.6) 

Another site belonging to 

same operation (e.g., nursery 

units belonging to same 

operation) 23.7 (2.9) 35.1 (5.4) 

Other pig producers 

(e.g., farm-to-farm, contract, 

noncontract) 21.7 (3.0) 25.0 (4.7) 

Auction, sale barn, or 

livestock market 0.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.0) 

Another source 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

USDA APHIS VS / 23
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

24 / Swine 2006

Over three of four sites that obtained grower/finisher pigs off-site (76.5 percent)

received pigs from one source. About one-third of large sites (33.8 percent) used 3

or more sources.

g. For sites that obtained any grower/finisher pigs from off-site from June through

November 2006, percentage of sites by number of different sources and by size of

site:

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Number of 

Sources Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 83.7 (5.1) 76.0 (6.3) 56.2 (10.5) 76.5 (4.2) 

2 10.8 (4.5) 15.6 (4.6) 10.0 (6.2) 11.6 (3.1) 

3 1.9 (1.2) 6.6 (4.7) 11.3 (5.5) 4.8 (1.7) 

4 to 5 2.3 (1.8) 0.0 (--) 13.6 (7.2) 4.2 (1.9) 

6 or more 1.3 (1.3) 1.8 (1.2) 8.9 (7.7) 2.9 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Roughly one-quarter of sites that obtained pigs off-site (24.4 percent) immediately

placed new grower/finisher pigs with existing pigs.

h. For sites that obtained any grower/finisher pigs from off-site from June through

November 2006, percentage of sites that immediately placed these pigs in the

same building or area with existing pigs:

Percent Sites Standard Error 

24.4 (4.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Production Phase Management

USDA APHIS VS / 25

For sites with total confinement housing, square feet per animal ranged from 3.5 in

the nursery to 53.6 in the gestation facility.

i. For sites with the following production phases and total confinement housing,

site average number of animals per holding unit, and site average square feet per

animal:

 Site Average 

Phase

Typical 

Number of 

Animals per 

Holding Unit 

Standard 

Error 

Typical 

Square Feet 

per Animal 

Standard 

Error 

Gestation 8.9 (3.0) 53.6 (29.0) 

Farrowing1 1.3 (0.3) 24.5 (1.4) 

Nursery2 31.9 (3.7) 3.5 (0.3) 

Grower/finisher2 55.8 (9.1) 7.7 (0.2) 

1

Does not include piglets. 

2

Typical number when first placed in the production phase. 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Disease Prevention, All Phases

26 / Swine 2006

F. Disease Prevention—

All Phases

1. Disease prevention and treatment

From June through November 2006, 74.7 percent of sites dewormed sows and

gilts and 64.0 percent dewormed boars. In preweaned piglets, administration of

iron (usually administered at 7 to 10 days of age) was given by 82.1 percent of

sites. Over 8 of 10 nursery sites (85.3 percent) and grower/finisher sites (81.2

percent) used antibiotics in feed.

a. For sites with the specified pig types, percentage of sites that regularly gave

the following treatments from June through November 2006:

Percent Sites 

Pig Type

 Sows/Gilts Boars

Piglets Before 

or at Weaning

Nursery-age 

Pigs 

Grower/ 

Finisher Pigs 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Deworm 74.7 (4.5) 64.0 (5.3) 30.0 (5.0) 33.4 (4.9) 30.6 (4.0) 

Mange/lice 

treatment 46.5 (5.4) 43.5 (5.5) 23.0 (4.6) 24.4 (4.7) 12.7 (3.2) 

Iron (orally or 

through 

injection) NA NA 82.1 (4.1) NA NA 

Antibiotics in 

feed 47.4 (5.4) 37.2 (5.8) 43.5 (5.2) 85.3 (3.1) 81.2 (2.8) 

Antibiotics in 

water 3.3 (2.3) 1.3 (1.3) 7.6 (2.9) 40.4 (4.4) 38.6 (3.7) 

Antibiotics (oral) 5.0 (2.6) 4.8 (2.7) 14.9 (4.2) 4.2 (1.9) 2.8 (1.0) 

Antibiotics 

(injection) 47.9 (4.9) 27.5 (4.7) 54.9 (5.2) 53.8 (4.6) 56.6 (4.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Disease Prevention, All Phases

USDA APHIS VS / 27

Over 60 percent of sows and boars were on sites that regularly practiced

deworming. Over half of nursery and grower/finisher pigs were on sites that gave

these animals antibiotics, whether in feed, water, or by injection. Over 90 percent

of piglets were on sites that administered iron before or at weaning.

b. For sites with the specified pig types, percentage of pigs on sites that regularly

gave the following treatments from June through November 2006:

Percent Pigs 

Pig Type

 Sows/Gilts1 Boars2 Piglets Before 

or at Weaning3 Nursery-age Pigs4

Grower/ 

Finisher Pigs5

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Deworm 60.2 (6.1) 67.8 (5.2) 3.5 (1.8) 5.2 (2.1) 13.3 (2.3) 

Mange/lice 

treatment 13.4 (3.3) 44.7 (6.3) 1.3 (0.5) 2.3 (0.9) 3.1 (1.0) 

Iron (orally or 

through 

injection) NA NA 92.3 (5.2) NA NA 

Antibiotics in 

feed 38.8 (7.0) 30.7 (5.6) 8.7 (3.7) 94.9 (2.8) 86.4 (3.0) 

Antibiotics in 

water 2.7 (2.6) 0.5 (0.5) 2.6 (1.6) 76.2 (8.9) 65.7 (4.5) 

Antibiotics (oral) 4.7 (2.5) 3.1 (2.3) 41.5 (17.9) 5.1 (4.6) 5.2 (3.7) 

Antibiotics 

(injection) 35.6 (6.9) 21.2 (4.4) 85.6 (6.3) 76.4 (9.2) 68.4 (4.7) 

1

As a percentage of sow and bred gilt inventory on December 1, 2006. 

2

As a percentage of boar inventory on December 1, 2006. 

3

As a percentage of pigs born alive (6 months). 

4

As a percentage of pigs entering nursery (6 months). 

5

As a percentage of pigs entering grower/finisher phase (6 months).
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Disease Prevention, All Phases

28 / Swine 2006

From June through November 2006, 38.5 percent of sites gave breeding females

occasional, short-term treatments via injections of antibiotics.

c. For sites with the specified pig types, percentage of sites that used antibiotics

in feed, water, or by injection from June through November 2006, by route of

administration and by treatment type:

Percent Sites 

Treatment Type

 

Occasional 

Short-Term 

Treatment

Occasional, 

Short-term 

Prevention 

(Pulse Dosing) 

Occasional 

Individuals 

or Groups Continuously 

Pig Type Route Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Breeding 

females 

 Feed 17.3 (3.6) 30.7 (4.8) 7.0 (2.2) 10.8 (5.0) 

 Water 6.8 (2.4) 2.4 (1.6) 3.0 (1.5) 0.1 (0.1) 

 Injection 38.5 (5.1) 4.5 (1.5) 35.7 (4.9) NA 

Boars 

 Feed 10.3 (3.0) 15.6 (3.8) 6.1 (2.2) 9.8 (3.8) 

 Water 3.6 (1.6) 0.1 (0.1) 3.2 (1.6) 0.1 (0.1) 

 Injection 18.6 (3.7) 1.9 (0.9) 26.1 (4.4) NA 

Piglets 

 Feed 14.7 (4.1) 6.0 (1.8) 4.2 (1.8) 28.4 (4.9) 

 Water 6.7 (2.8) 8.2 (3.1) 3.5 (2.1) 0.9 (0.5) 

 Injection 37.3 (5.1) 18.8 (3.7) 39.9 (5.0) NA 

Nursery-age 

pigs 

 Feed 11.8 (3.2) 34.2 (4.7) 2.1 (0.8) 53.8 (4.8) 

 Water 32.9 (4.2) 21.6 (3.5) 9.0 (2.4) 0.7 (0.4) 

 Injection 31.2 (4.2) 4.4 (1.5) 42.6 (4.4) NA 

Grower/ 

finisher pigs 

 Feed 31.1 (4.1) 37.8 (3.7) 8.6 (1.9) 32.8 (4.1) 

 Water 41.7 (3.6) 9.2 (1.8) 10.8 (2.1) 0.1 (0.1) 

 Injection 30.6 (3.6) 0.6 (0.3) 49.5 (4.0) NA 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Disease Prevention, All Phases

USDA APHIS VS / 29

2. Veterinary contact for mortality

On average, a producer would contact a veterinarian when 4.2 percent or more of

grower/finisher pigs died.

Site average percentage of pig mortality before a veterinarian would be contacted,

by production phase:

Production Phase Site Average 

Percent Standard Error 

Breeding herd 5.8 (0.9) 

Preweaned piglets 12.4 (1.6) 

Nursery-age pigs 5.3 (0.6) 

Grower/finisher pigs 4.2 (0.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

30 / Swine 2006

G. General Management 1. Swine housing

Nearly all sites had buildings to house swine.

a. Percentage of sites that had at least one building to house swine, by size of

site:

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

98.5 (1.2) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 99.0 (0.8) 

Photo courtesy of National Pork Board

For sites with at least one building used to house swine, over 60 percent of sites

indicated that all buildings used to house swine were constructed and maintained

to keep out birds, cats, and dogs. A higher percentage of large and medium sites

housed swine in buildings that kept out birds, cats, rats, mice, and dogs than did

small sites.
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

USDA APHIS VS / 31

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

 Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Animal 

Type 

Number of 

Buildings Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Birds 

 None 24.3 (4.9) 2.6 (1.4) 2.8 (2.6) 17.2 (3.5) 

 Some 26.4 (4.1) 12.2 (3.3) 5.9 (2.8) 20.8 (2.8) 

 All 49.3 (5.4) 85.2 (3.5) 91.3 (3.8) 62.0 (3.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Rats and 

mice 

 None 50.8 (5.5) 25.4 (5.6) 23.8 (5.7) 42.2 (4.1) 

 Some 13.1 (3.0) 4.3 (1.6) 6.5 (3.1) 10.5 (2.1) 

 All 36.1 (5.4) 70.3 (5.6) 69.7 (6.2) 47.3 (4.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Cats 

 None 25.0 (4.4) 2.2 (1.4) 0.4 (0.3) 17.3 (3.1) 

 Some 24.5 (4.0) 9.2 (2.8) 4.8 (2.6) 18.8 (2.8) 

 All 50.5 (5.5) 88.6 (3.0) 94.8 (2.7) 63.9 (3.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Dogs 

 None 20.3 (4.2) 2.0 (1.4) 0.0 (--) 14.0 (2.9) 

 Some 23.1 (4.0) 5.9 (2.2) 4.9 (2.7) 17.2 (2.7) 

 All 56.6 (5.1) 92.1 (2.6) 95.1 (2.7) 68.8 (3.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

b. For sites with at least one building used to house swine, percentage of sites in

which either none, some, or all buildings used for swine were constructed and

structurally maintained to keep out the following types of animals, by size of site:
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

32 / Swine 2006

Nearly half of buildings (47.7 percent) had rodent bait stations inside the building.

c. For sites with at least one building used to house swine, percentage of

buildings that had rodent bait stations in the following areas, by size of site:

Nearly all sites (97.6 percent) use a closed structure to store feed. In addition,

21.6 percent of small sites used an open structure for feed storage.

d. Percentage of sites with the following types of feed storage, by size of site:

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Feed 

Storage Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Open structure 21.6 (4.6) 9.1 (4.9) 3.4 (2.8) 16.7 (3.7) 

Closed structure 97.1 (1.8) 98.9 (0.5) 98.2 (0.8) 97.6 (1.2) 

Bags 48.7 (5.3) 39.7 (5.7) 39.8 (6.3) 45.8 (3.9) 

Piles 3.8 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 2.5 (1.0) 

Percent Buildings 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Bait Station 

Placement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Inside building 38.6 (4.3) 59.5 (5.7) 61.9 (13.1) 47.7 (4.1) 

Outside building 

perimeter 50 ft 

apart or less 16.6 (3.3) 35.9 (6.2) 66.5 (9.0) 32.0 (4.7) 

Outside building 

perimeter more 

than 50 ft apart 8.6 (2.1) 43.8 (6.2) 22.4 (6.6) 17.6 (2.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

USDA APHIS VS / 33

For sites that use a closed structure to store feed, 21.0 percent reported that rats

and mice could still access the feed.

e. For sites with the following feed storage types, percentage of sites where the

following types of animals could access feed:

 Percent Sites 

Storage Type

Open 

Structure

Closed 

Structure Bags Piles* 

Animal 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Birds 73.5 (13.5) 14.0 (2.5) 24.0 (4.3) NA (--) 

Cats 60.0 (11.8) 13.3 (2.5) 32.9 (4.9) NA (--) 

Rats and 

mice 100.0 (--) 21.0 (3.1) 71.1 (4.6) NA (--) 

Dogs 37.4 (9.5) 11.5 (2.2) 24.0 (4.2) NA (--) 

*Estimate not reported due to small sample size. 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

34 / Swine 2006

For sites where feed was stored in an open or closed structure, about half of sites

(50.9 percent) placed rodent bait stations at any location, and 29.4 percent placed

them (50 or fewer feet apart) outside the structure where feed was kept.

f. For sites that stored feed in open or closed structures, percentage of sites that

placed rodent bait stations in the following areas relative to the feed storage

buildings or units, by size of site:

2. Employee policy

About two of three sites (68.0 percent) had a policy in place that prohibits

employees from coming into contact with off-site swine.

Percentage of sites that had a policy prohibiting employees from coming into

contact with swine not on-site (e.g., pigs on a neighbor’s farm or on employee’s

own farm), by size of site:

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

62.7 (4.9) 78.7 (5.0) 79.9 (6.2) 68.0 (3.6) 

Percent Sites 

Size of Site (Total Inventory) 

Small 

(Fewer than 

2,000) 

Medium 

(2,000-4,999) 

Large 

(5,000 or More) All Sites 

Bait Station 

Placement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Inside structure 16.2 (3.0) 17.4 (4.1) 22.6 (5.5) 17.3 (2.4) 

Outside 

structure 

perimeter 50 ft 

apart or less 24.1 (4.8) 30.0 (5.3) 55.4 (7.5) 29.4 (3.7) 

Outside 

structure 

perimeter more 

than 50 ft apart 7.5 (2.1) 35.8 (5.5) 33.2 (7.1) 16.1 (2.2) 

Any rodent bait 

stations placed 39.3 (5.2) 69.4 (5.8) 84.6 (5.5) 50.9 (3.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

USDA APHIS VS / 35

3. Carcass disposal

From June through November 2006, 42.4 percent of sites with at least one death

used on-site composting as a method of carcass disposal.

a. For sites with at least one preweaned piglet or weaned pig death from June

through November 2006, percentage of sites by method of carcass disposal:

Percent Sites 

Sites with at 

Least One 

Preweaned* Death 

Sites with at 

Least One 

Weaned** Death 

Sites with 

Any Deaths 

Method of 

Carcass 

Disposal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Burial on-site 33.6 (5.2) 25.5 (3.5) 27.7 (3.5) 

Burning on-site 15.2 (3.8) 13.9 (3.4) 14.4 (3.3) 

Renderer pickup 9.9 (3.2) 31.3 (3.3) 30.5 (3.2) 

Composting 

on-site 40.5 (5.4) 41.4 (4.1) 42.4 (3.9) 

Off-site burial 2.0 (1.4) 2.7 (1.3) 3.2 (1.3) 

Other 10.4 (3.9) 0.9 (0.8) 3.7 (1.5) 

*Pigs not yet weaned. 

**Weaned pigs and older pigs. 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

36 / Swine 2006
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

USDA APHIS VS / 37

Over half of carcasses (59.5 percent) were picked up by a renderer. About onequarter of carcasses (24.1 percent) were disposed of by composting on-site.

b. For sites with at least one preweaned piglet or weaned pig death from June

through November 2006, percentage of pig deaths by method of carcass disposal:

Percent Pig Deaths 

Preweaned* 

Deaths 

Weaned** 

Deaths 

All 

Deaths 

Method of 

Carcass 

Disposal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Burial on-site 3.0 (1.7) 5.6 (1.6) 4.0 (1.7) 

Burning on-site 8.8 (5.3) 15.2 (7.7) 11.3 (5.4) 

Renderer pickup 60.2 (19.5) 58.4 (9.3) 59.5 (14.9) 

Composting 

on-site 26.5 (13.6) 20.3 (4.8) 24.1 (9.2) 

Off-site burial 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 

Other 1.3 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Pigs not yet weaned. 

**Weaned pigs and older pigs.

4. Records

About one-third of sites with sows (33.8 percent) used commercial software to

keep track of individual sow production.

a. For sites with the specified pig types, percentage of sites that used commercial

software for the following types of records:

Pig/Record Type 

Percent 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Individual sow production records 33.8 (4.5) 

Group sow production records 28.6 (4.3) 

Group growing pig (nursery, grower/ 

finisher, wean/finish) production records 27.1 (3.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

38 / Swine 2006

Over half of sites that used antibiotics to treat disease conditions in grower/finisher

pigs recorded the name of the antibiotic and the date of treatment.

b. For sites that used antibiotics, percentage of sites by pig type and by type of

information recorded when treating disease conditions with antibiotics:

Percent Sites 

Pig Type 

 Breeding Nursery-age 

Grower/ 

Finisher 

Information Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Animal ID 53.4 (5.6) 13.5 (3.5) 10.1 (2.4) 

Pen/crate ID 44.4 (5.4) 28.0 (4.1) 29.6 (3.7) 

Facility or house ID 36.4 (5.2) 35.8 (4.4) 35.8 (3.6) 

Site ID 29.3 (4.9) 28.4 (3.8) 31.4 (3.4) 

Date of treatment 62.3 (5.6) 44.9 (4.7) 50.2 (4.1) 

Name of drug 63.5 (5.5) 48.7 (4.8) 50.5 (4.1) 

Dose 50.7 (5.6) 38.3 (4.8) 36.5 (3.9) 

Route used 35.2 (5.3) 32.1 (4.7) 31.2 (3.7) 

Who administered drug 36.3 (5.4) 31.0 (4.8) 30.4 (3.8) 

Withdrawal time or date 

withdrawal period 

completed 41.2 (5.4) 32.9 (4.8) 35.5 (3.9) 

Outcome of treatment 19.4 (4.8) 16.6 (3.5) 15.9 (3.1) 

Other 3.4 (1.8) 2.2 (1.2) 1.8 (0.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. General Management

USDA APHIS VS / 39

Photo courtesy of National Pork Board

5. Feed ingredients

Nearly one-third of sites (30.6 percent) used vegetable fat made from soybeans in

some rations fed to hogs.

Percentage of sites that used the following ingredients in any feed rations fed to

hogs:

Ingredient Percent Sites Standard Error 

Tallow (animal fat from cattle or 

sheep) 27.5 (3.1) 

Lard (pork fat) 26.6 (3.4) 

Other animal fat 11.2 (1.7) 

Vegetable fat made from 

soybeans 30.6 (3.2) 

Other vegetable fat 12.2 (1.9) 

Molasses 4.5 (1.3) 

Spray-dried plasma 24.1 (2.8) 

Blood meal, serum albumin, 

or other blood products 20.6 (2.7) 

Meat and bone meal (tankage) 17.6 (2.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Movement of Swine

40 / Swine 2006

H. Movement of Swine 1. Swine shipments

Nearly all sites (98.3 percent) sold or shipped at least one pig off-site from June

through November 2006.

Percentage of sites that sold or shipped at least one pig off-site from June through

November 2006:

Percent Sites Standard Error 

98.3 (0.9) 

2. Pig type

Market hogs were sold or shipped by 80.2 percent of sites, which comprised over

half of off-site shipments (56.8 percent).

For sites that sold or shipped at least one pig off-site from June through November

2006, percentage of sites and percentage of shipments by type of pig sold or

shipped:

Pig Type 

Percent 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Shipments 

Standard 

Error 

Nursery piglets 

less than 60 lb 21.3 (2.4) 19.4 (3.1) 

Feeder pigs or 

pigs 60 to 249 lb 14.0 (2.6) 7.6 (1.6) 

Market hogs or 

hogs 250 lb or more 80.2 (2.5) 56.8 (4.0) 

Breeding animals 10.4 (2.4) 4.8 (1.2) 

Culls 47.6 (3.6) 11.4 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Movement of Swine

USDA APHIS VS / 41
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Movement of Swine

42 / Swine 2006

3. Destination

Nearly half of all pig shipments (49.8 percent) went directly to slaughter.

For sites that sold or shipped at least one pig off-site from June through November

2006, percentage of shipments by destination:

Destination Percent Shipments Standard Error 

Directly to slaughter 49.8 (3.6) 

Sale/auction/buying station 19.5 (2.7) 

Dealer 1.4 (0.6) 

Show/fair 2.6 (0.9) 

Feedlot/feed yard 0.6 (0.3) 

Another operation 13.6 (1.9) 

Another site belonging to same 

operation (e.g., nursery, grower) 12.5 (3.3) 

Total 100.0 

4. Distance

Only 5.3 percent of shipments traveled 300 miles or more.

For sites that sold or shipped at least one pig off-site, percentage of shipments by

distance traveled one way:

Distance (Miles) Percent Shipments Standard Error 

Less than 10 20.9 (4.7) 

10 to 29 15.3 (2.2) 

30 to 99 32.1 (3.9) 

100 to 299 26.4 (3.1) 

300 or more 5.3 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 
Section II: Methodology

USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section II: Methodology

A. Needs Assessment During the needs assessment phase of the NAHMS Swine 2006 study, input was

sought from stakeholders regarding the critical swine production and health

information needs of the swine industry. These stakeholders included producers,

industry associations, researchers, and government agencies. A needs

assessment questionnaire (available on request) was developed to facilitate input

by a variety of groups. The primary sources utilized in the needs assessment were

the National Pork Board (NPB) and the American Association of Swine

Veterinarians (AASV).

The NPB needs assessment questionnaire for NAHMS Swine 2006 was included

in the October 20, 2005, “Pork Leader Letter”. This letter and a study

questionnaire were distributed by conventional mail and by e-mail to 2,800 and

5,000 subscribers, respectively.

The AASV needs assessment questionnaire for NAHMS Swine 2006 was included

in the November 2, 2005, AASV newsletter. This newsletter was also distributed

by mail and by e-mail to approximately 440 practitioners and 700 newsletter

subscribers.

In addition, from November 1 to 30, 2005, a letter of introduction and questionnaire

were e-mailed to government contacts at the Centers for Disease Control; APHIS

in Riverdale, MD; National Veterinary Services Laboratories; Centers for

Epidemiology and Animal Health; regional epidemiologists; area veterinarians in

charge; and the Food Safety Inspection Service. Overall, there were 528

responses to the needs assessment questionnaire.

1. Number of needs assessment respondents, by respondent type

Nearly half of respondents (46.4 percent) characterized themselves as producers:

Respondent Type Frequency Percent Respondents 

Producer 245 46.4 

Practitioner 206 39.0 

Researcher 22 4.2 

Federal or State government 16 3.0 

Other allied industry 21 4.0 

Unknown 18 3.4 

Total 528 100.0 
Section II: Methodology

44 / Swine 2006

B. Sampling and

Estimation

1. State selection

A goal for NAHMS’ national studies is to include States that represent at least 70

percent of the respective animal and producer populations in the United States.

This study focuses on operations with 100 or more hogs. Information from the

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) December 28, 2004, “Hog and Pig”

report for numbers of hogs and pigs and the January 1, 2005, “Farms and Land in

Farms” report for number of operations with 100 or more hogs was used to select

States. The NASS hog and pig estimation program collects data quarterly from

producers in 17 States* and annually in all States. These 17 States accounted for

94.0 percent of the December 1, 2004, U.S. swine inventory for operations with

100 or more hogs and 94.2 percent of U.S. operations with 100 or more hogs (See

Appendix II for data on individual States, updated to June 1, 2006, inventory and

number of operations in 2006.) An additional advantage of selecting these 17

States is that NASS’ list frame is more complete due to the more frequent contact

with producers.

2. Operation selection

In the Swine 2000 and 2006 surveys, an evaluation of the U.S. total inventory and

number of operations revealed that operations with 1 to 99 pigs accounted for 60.3

percent of pig operations in the 17 participating States but just 1.0 percent of total

pig inventory. Because this segment of the industry represented such a small

percentage of the total U.S. inventory, it was ineligible for the study. Therefore,

larger operations representing 99.0 percent of the pig inventory were selected.

NASS chose a stratified random sample of 5,006 operations selected from their

list sampling frame comprised of independent and contract producers.

Stratification was based on State and herd size. Larger operations were selected

with a higher probability of being included in the sample in order to reduce

variability. Operations with 100 or more pigs were eligible for an on-site interview.

At the first interview, if operations had multiple production sites under different dayto-day management, a maximum of three sites were randomly selected (one with

breeding animals and two with weaned pigs).

*Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,

North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Section II: Methodology

USDA APHIS VS / 45

3. Population inferences

Inferences cover the population of swine operations with 100 or more total pigs in

the 17 participating States for all phases of data collection. Appendix II shows that

these States accounted for 93.6 percent of operations with 100 or more pigs and

94.2 percent of the U.S. pig inventory on operations with 100 or more pigs (based

upon the June 1, 2006, inventory and 2006 number of operations). All respondent

data were statistically weighted to reflect the population from which they were

selected. The inverse of probability of selection for each operation was the initial

selection weight. This selection weight was adjusted for nonresponse within each

region and size group to allow for inferences back to the original population from

which the sample was selected. This weight was adjusted further for the number of

separate sites each operation had, relative to the number of sites that responded

to the survey.

C. Data Collection 1. General Swine Farm Report, July 17 – September 15, 2006

NASS enumerators administered the General Swine Farm Report questionnaire in

person with each selected producer that agreed to participate in the study. The

interview took approximately 1 hour. For producers that had 100 or more head on

June 1, 2006, NASS enumerators asked permission for veterinary medical officers

(VMOs) to contact the producer and discuss additional phases of data collection.

2. Initial VS Visit, September 5, 2006 – March 15, 2007

State and Federal VMOs contacted producers to solicit participation in this phase

of the study. A producer agreement that explained data confidentiality and

indicated producer intentions for biological sampling was signed by respondents. A

face-to-face interview was conducted to complete the Initial VS Visit

questionnaire, which took approximately 1 hour.

3. Second VS Visit, December 4, 2006 – March 15, 2007

State and Federal VMOs completed the VS phase of the NAHMS Swine 2006

study by making a second visit to participating producers. A face-to-face interview

was conducted to complete the Second VS Visit questionnaire, which took 54

minutes on average.
Section II: Methodology

46 / Swine 2006

D. Data Analysis 1. Validation and estimation

a. General Swine Farm Report

Initial data entry and validation for the General Swine Farm Report (results

reported in Swine 2006, Part I) were performed in individual NASS State offices.

Data were entered into a SAS data set, followed by the execution of the edit and

validation program. NAHMS national staff performed additional data validation on

the entire data set after data from all States were combined. The statistical

estimation was done using SUDAAN. SUDAAN uses a Taylor series expansion to

estimate appropriate variances for the stratified/clustered, weighted data.

b. Initial and Second VS Visit Questionnaire

After completing the Initial VS Visit Questionnaires, data collectors sent them to

the State NAHMS coordinators where they were manually reviewed for errors and

accuracy, then forwarded to CEAH. Data entry and validation were performed by

NAHMS staff. Data were entered into a SAS data set, followed by the execution of

the data entry edit and validation program. NAHMS staff performed additional data

validation on the entire data set after data from all States were combined. The

statistical estimation was done using SUDAAN.

E. Sample Evaluation 1. General Swine Farm Report

The purpose of this section is to provide various performance measurement

parameters. Historically, the term “response rate” was used as a catch-all

parameter, but there are many ways to define and calculate response rates.

Therefore, the table to the right presents an evaluation based upon a number of

measurement parameters, which are defined with an “x” in those categories that

contribute to the measurement. Of the 5,006 operations selected, 3,071 (61.3

percent) provided usable inventory information. Note, the comparable weighted rate

was calculated at 65.7 percent usable operations. There were 2,079 operations

(41.5 percent) of the sample that provided “complete” information for the

questionnaire. About 9 of 10 operations (87.9 percent) were actually contacted for

the study.
Section II: Methodology

USDA APHIS VS / 47

a. Operation level response

Evaluation 

Parameters 

Response Category Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable 1/ 

Survey complete 2/ 2,079 41.5 x x 

No pigs on June 1, 2006 696 13.9 x x 

Out of business 296 5.9 x x 

Out of scope (prison and 

research farms, etc.) 13 0.3 

Refusal of GSFR 1,327 26.5 x 

Office hold (NASS elected 

not to contact) 315 6.3 

Inaccessible 280 5.6 

Total 5,006 100.0 4,398 3,071 

Percent of total operations 87.9 61.3 

Percent of total 

operations weighted 3/ 90.7 65.7 

1/ Useable operation – respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either 

zero or positive number on hand). 

2/ Survey complete operation – respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions for at 

least one site. 

3/ Weighted response – the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights.

Survey complete operations were subdivided if multiple production sites existed. A

maximum of three sites were randomly selected. Overall, 2,230 site

questionnaires were completed for essentially the entire questionnaire, and 45.1

percent of the sites agreed to be contacted by APHIS for discussion about

participation in further phases of the study.

b. Site level response

Response Category Number Sites1/ Percent Sites 

Survey complete and 

VMO consent 1,005 45.1 

Survey complete and 

refused VMO consent 1,225 54.9 

Total 2,230 100.0 

1/ There were 1,005 sites with survey complete and consent for the APHIS or VMO 

phase of the study which originated from 912 selected operations. Similarly there were 

1,225 sites that completed the survey, but declined the VMO phase which came from 

the rest of the original 2,079 selected operations or 1,167 selected operations. 
Appendix I: Sample Profile

48 / Swine 2006

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding Sites 1a. Total inventory

Phase I: General 

Swine 

Farm Report 

Phase II: Initial 

VS Visit 

Phase II: Second 

VS Visit 

Size of Site 

(Total 

Inventory) 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Fewer 

than 2,000 1,157 260 213 

2,000 to 4,999 724 176 152 

5,000 or more 349 78 70 

Total 2,230 514 435 

1b. Sow inventory

Phase I: General 

Swine 

Farm Report 

Phase II: Initial VS 

Visit 

Phase II: Second 

VS Visit 

Size of 

Site 

(Total 

Sows and 

Gilts) 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

No sows 

and gilts 1,353 278 244 

Fewer 

than 250 468 100 83 

250 to 499 102 37 26 

500 or 

more 

307 99 82 

Total 2,230 514 435 
Appendix I: Sample Profile

USDA APHIS VS / 49

2. Type of site

Phase I: General 

Swine 

Farm Report 

Phase II: Initial 

VS Visit 

Phase II: Second 

VS Visit 

Type of Site Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Contract 

producer 1,027 237 206 

Independent:

market own 

pigs 1,086 246 205 

Independent: 

market 

through 

cooperative 105 30 24 

Other 12 1 0 

Total 2,230 514 435 

3. Regions

Phase I: General 

Swine 

Farm Report 

Phase II: Initial VS 

Visit 

Phase II: Second 

VS Visit 

Region Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

Number 

Responding Sites 

North 499 96 86 

West 

Central 456 135 122 

East 

Central 888 156 120 

South 387 127 107 

Total 2,230 514 435 
Appendix I: Sample Profile

50 / Swine 2006

4. Production phase

Phase I: General 

Swine 

Farm Report 

Phase II: Initial 

VS Visit 

Phase II: Second 

VS Visit 

Production 

Phase 

Combination

Number 

Responding 

Sites 

Number 

Responding 

Sites 

Number 

Responding 

Sites 

All four phases 502 120 98 

Gestation, 

farrowing, and 

nursery 81 14 10 

Nursery and 

grower/finisher 357 74 67 

Gestation and 

farrowing 226 83 66 

Nursery only 217 44 39 

Grower/finisher 

only 809 170 147 

Other 

combination 38 9 8 

Total 2,230 514 435 
Appendix II: U.S. Swine Population and Operations

USDA APHIS VS / 51

Appendix II: U.S. Swine Population and Operations

Number of Pigs on June 1, 2006, and Number of Operations in 2006

 Number Pigs 

(Thousand Head) 

Number Operations 

in 2006 

Region State 

All 

Operations 

Operations 

with 100 

or More 

Head1

All 

Operations 

Operations 

with 100 or 

More Head 

East 

Central Illinois 4,200 4,179 2,900 2,080 

 Indiana 3,200 3,171 2,800 1,500 

 Iowa 16,600 16,550 8,700 7,670 

 Ohio 1,620 1,539 4,000 1,300 

 Total 25,620 25,439 18,400 12,550 

North Michigan 980 965 2,100 560 

 Minnesota 6,800 6,766 4,800 3,600 

 Pennsylvania 1,100 1,067 3,100 800 

 Wisconsin 430 400 2,200 660 

 Total 9,310 9,198 12,200 5,620 

West 

Central Colorado 840 834 750 60 

 Kansas 1,840 1,827 1,400 540 

 Missouri 2,700 2,673 2,000 1,070 

 Nebraska 2,950 2,929 2,500 1,700 

South 

Dakota 1,470 1,455 1,100 730 

 Total 9,800 9,718 7,750 4,100 

South Arkansas 280 272 750 150 

North 

Carolina 9,600 9,590 2,300 1,510 

 Oklahoma 2,370 2,346 2,600 300 

 Texas 970 941 3,700 168 

 Total 13,220 13,149 9,350 2,128 

Total (17 States) 

57,950 

(93.9% of 

U.S.) 

57,504 

(94.2% of 

U.S.) 

47,700 

(72.8% of 

U.S.) 

24,398 

(93.6% of 

U.S.) 

Total U.S. (50 States) 61,687 61,070 65,540 26,058 

1

Derived from NASS publication Farm, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations, February 2007. 
Appendix III: Swine 2006 Study Objectives and Related Outputs

52 / Swine 2006

Appendix III: Swine 2006 Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Describe swine management practices used during the gestation, farrowing,

nursery, and grower/finisher phases of production.

• Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management Practices in the United

States, 2006, October 2007

• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management Practices in the

United States, 2006, December 2007

• Part III: Reference of Swine Health, Productivity, and General

Management, 2006, March 2008

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008

2. Determine the prevalence and risk factors for a variety of pathogens found in

nursery and grower/finisher pigs.

• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management Practices in the

United States, 2006, December 2007

• Part III: Reference of Swine Health, Productivity, and General

Management, 2006, March 2008

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008

3. Examine vaccination and antimicrobial use practices.

• Part II: Reference of Swine Health and Health Management Practices in the

United States, December 2007

4. Provide an overview of the changes in U.S. swine management and health from

1990 through 2006.

• Part IV: Changes in the U.S. Pork Industry, 1990-2006, expected early 2008

• Info sheets, expected early 2008