Citation of this paper

Sow and piglet management in small-holder and larger-scale pig farms in Northern part of Laos

Ammaly Phengvilaysouk¹, Anna Jansson³, Phonpaseuth Phengsavanh¹, Tassilo Tiemann⁴, Vanthong Phengvichith¹ and Jan Erik Lindberg²

¹ Livestock Research Center, National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, P O Box 7170, Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
jan.erik.lindberg@slu.se
² Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 7024, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
³ Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 7011, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
⁴ International Center for Tropical Agriculture, P O Box 783, Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Abstract

A survey was performed in small-holder pig farms (SHPF) and larger-scale pig farms (LSPF) in two provinces in the Northern part of Laos to identify factors with potential to improve performance and to reduce piglet mortality. Sows in SHPF produced fewer litters per year with a smaller number of live born piglets and weaned piglets per litter compared with sows in LSPF. Piglet mortality was the main problem in SHPF, particularly in more remote villages, while high costs for pig feed and labour were the main issues in LSPF. Some of the SHPF did supervise the farrowing, while all LSPF practiced supervision during farrowing. SHPF did not vaccinate their pigs against infectious diseases and they lacked measures for prevention and control of diseases. The sow feeding in SHPF was based on rice bran and locally available wild plants, and piglets were commonly fed rice bran only as creep feed. In contrast, all LSPF used commercial concentrate feed for sows and complete creep feed for piglets. By providing better nutrition for sows and piglets, give iron to piglet’s, provide adequate extra water supply for sows especially during lactating, and improved veterinary service, sow and piglet performance in SHPF can be improved.

Key words: piglet mortality, piglet production, reproduction, sow performance

Introduction

In Southeast Asia, pork is the most important source of meat accounting for more than 50% of the total meat output (Huynh et al 2007). However, pig production is small in scale with more than 70% being small-holders and often with productivity far below potential levels (Kunavongkrit and Heard 2000). Within the region, commercial scale pig farms are being established and are increasingly becoming controlling operators in the markets (Huynh et al 2007). A number of studies have shown that small-holder pig farms perform poorer than pig farms with improved pig breeds, better management and better feeding (Ocampo et al 2005; Lemke et al 2006; Kumaresan et al 2007)

In Laos, pig production plays an important role for the livelihood of small-holder pig farms (SHPF) (Phengsavanh and Stür 2006; Phengsavanh et al 2011). The pig population is close to 3 million head (Lao Statistics Bureau 2012) and the pig production is mainly based on SHPF production systems, while there are only a few larger-scale pig farms (LSPF). The latter are located nearby the big towns in the province (Phengsavanh et al 2011). Commonly, SHPF production systems in Laos are based on indigenous pig breeds, where the pigs are raised free scavenging, semi-scavenging or kept in pens or enclosures (Phengsavanh et al 2011). The major indigenous breeds used in SHPF in Northern Lao PDR are Moo Lath and Moo Hmong (Phengsavanh et al 2010). The animal performance in these traditional systems is characterized by high piglet mortality and poor growth (Phengsavanh et al 2011; Chittavong et al 2012). However, there are several factors that can affect sow and piglet performance such as nutrition, genetics, diseases and management (Hong et al 2006; Wilson 2007; Kirkden et al 2013).

The objective of this study was to obtain more detailed information on sow management and reproductive performance in SHPF production systems in the Northern part of Laos and to identify factors with potential to improve performance and to reduce piglet mortality.

Material and Methods

Survey area

This survey was conducted in the dry season (October to December 2014) in the two Northern provinces Sayabouly and Phongsaly. In total, 175 SHPF were interviewed comprising 92 farmers from eight villages in Phongsaly province (Mai district) and 83 farmers from nine villages in Sayabouly province. In addition, 6 LSPF (three from each province) were selected and interviewed.

Provinces with the highest pig population among the northern regions of Laos were selected (Lao Statistics Bureau 2012). The selection of LSPF was based on the information provided by the livestock sector of each province. The criteria of LSPF selection put emphasis on the number of sows kept in the herd (30 to 100 sows) and the location of LSPF should be at a distance of about 30 to 60 min from the district main village by car. For SHPF, district and villages with the highest number of pigs were selected and was based on secondary data provided by the livestock sector and district agriculture and forestry office. The village selection prioritized a high number of sow-piglet production units. Moreover, the villages selected were allocated into three groups according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village as follows: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car. The district main village in Phongsaly province (Mai district) is Nam Nga village and the district main village in Sayabouly province (Sayabouly district) is Thana village. Transects were randomly selected from those radiating out from each district main village. With this approach, two to four villages within each group were randomly selected for the survey. In each survey village, 10 to 15 percent of all household raising pigs in sow-piglet production systems were randomly selected for focus group meetings and were individually interviewed.

Survey methodology

The survey team comprised researchers, provincial/district staff and livestock extension workers. Initially, a survey team meeting was organized to inform about the task and to discuss an appropriate outline of a questionnaire for the survey. Thereafter, the team practiced and tested a first draft of the questionnaire on a few SHPF in the village and on LSPF. Then the team met for reflection of the outcome and made necessary revision to finalize the questionnaire to be used.

The survey used two methods to collect the information, including i) farmers’ focus group meetings and ii) individual interviews of farmers using a semi-structured questionnaire. The farmers’ focus group meetings were designed to generate general information on livestock and farming system practiced by farmers in the villages. The individual interviews of SHPF and LSPF were used to collect more detailed information on pig reproductive performance, production systems, management, problems and a deeper understanding of the existing SHPF and LSPF practice. The issues were covered in the semi-structured questionnaire and included: sow-piglet production system (free scavenging system, enclosures, pens), farm management practices for sow-piglet production (housing system, water supply, farrowing supervision, breeding system), feed and feeding management of sow and piglets (feed resources, quality and quantity of feed, creep fed for piglet), pig reproductive performance, animal health care for sow and piglets (vaccination and medical treatment) and pig reproductive constraints and experience of solving the problems in SHPF and LSPF.

Data analysis

The survey data was entered into a spread sheet and analysed using SASW Statistics 18 (2009) for descriptive statistical analysis of means, standard deviation, ranges and frequency of distribution and variation. For sow reproductive performance data; the continuous variables such as number of litters/sow/year, number of piglets/litter, number of piglet at weaning time and piglet mortality were analysed statistically using the ANOVA general linear model procedure of statistical software Minitab 17 (2015). The data were divided according to four groups (SHPF less than 30 min, n=5; SHPF 30 to 60 min, n=5; SHPF more than 60 min, n=7 and LSPF, n=6). The difference between means was considered as significant at the probability level p<0.05. The means were compared using Tukey’s pairwise comparison test.

Results

Pig herd structure

Almost all SHPF (99%) kept indigenous breeds (Moo Hmong) and the remaining raised crossbreed and exotic pigs or both, while all LSPF only kept exotic breeds (Large White x Landrace sows mated with Duroc boars). The pig herd size in SHPF was on average 6.1 (±5.4) heads per household while the average LSPF herd size was 208 (±93) heads. Around 18.9 % of SHPF and 100% of LSPF kept boars (Table 1).

Table 1. Herd structure in villages across farms in small-holder and larger-scale pig farms
	Boar	Sow	Sucking piglet	Weaned piglet	Growing	Total pigs per farm

SHPF “village” (n = 17)						6.1±5.4
Frequency(%)^A	18.9	85.8	15.4	26.6	52.7	-
Mean	0.2	1.7	1.1	1.3	1.9	-
Range	0-2	0-9	0-24	0-15	0-20	-
SHPF “village” <30 min (n = 5 )^§						7.5±5.6
Frequency (%) ^A	15.4	79.5	10.3	28.2	64.1	-
Mean	0.2	1.9	0.8	1.8	2.8	-
Range	0-1	0-7	0-14	0-15	0-20	-
SHPF “village” 30-60 min (n = 5 )^§						5.9±4.2
Frequency (%) ^A	18.6	96.6	11.9	28.8	50.8	-
Mean	0.2	1.7	0.7	1.4	1.9	-
Range	0-1	0-5	0-12	0-12	0-9	-
SHPF “village” <60 min (n = 7 )^§						5.5± 6.2
Frequency (%) ^A	21.1	80.3	21.1	23.9	47.9	-
Mean	0.2	1.5	1.7	0.9	1.3	-
Range	0-2	0-9	0-24	0-7	0-12	-
LSPF (n = 6)						208±93
Frequency (%)	100	100	100	100	100	-
Mean	4.3	69.7	70.8	40.3	23.2	-
Range	1-7	30-120	10-145	11-70	0-40	-
^SHPF Small-holder pig farms; ^LSPF Larger-scale pig farms. ^A SASW descriptive statistical analysis of frequencies, means and ranges. ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Pig reproductive performance and management

The pig reproductive performance in SHPF differed (p<0.001) when compared with LSPF (Table 2). In most villages, sows produced between 1.4 to 1.8 litters per year with a litter size of 7.0 to 7.6 live born piglets and 4.3 to 6.2 weaned piglets. In contrast, sows in LSPF produced on average 2.0 to 2.3 litters per year with 10.0 to 11.0 live born piglets per litter and 9.0 to 10.0 weaned piglets. Piglet age at weaning ranged from 2.7 to 3.6 months in SHPF, compared with 1.3 months in LSPF (p<0.001). Piglet mortality was high in the remote SHPF (Table 2).

Table 2. Pig reproductive performance in small-holder and larger-scale pig farms
	SHPF “villages”^§			LSPF	p -value ^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	LSPF	p -value ^A

Age at 1^st service (months)	8.8	9.7	10.5	7.8	0.051
Weight at 1^st service (kg)	43.6^b	30.7^c	28.1^c	96.6^a	0.001
# of litters/sow/year	1.8^a	1.7^a	1.4^b	2.0^a	0.001
# of piglets/litter	7.6^b	7.5^b	7.0^b	10.5^a	0.001
# of piglets at time of weaning	6.2^b	5.9^b	4.3^c	9.5^a	0.001
Piglet mortality (%)	17.1^b	20.5^b	36.9^a	9.5^b	0.001
Piglet age at weaning (months)	2.7^b	3.2^ab	3.6^a	1.3^c	0.001
Piglet weight at weaning (kg)	7.3^b	7.5^b	7.5^b	11.5^a	0.001
Turnover time for sows (years)	4.8	5.1	5.4	3.8	0.201
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms; ^LSPF Larger-scale pig farms. ^A Minitab statistics analysis of ANOVA general linear model, the mean value using Tukey’s pairwise comparison test.^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Of the interviewed SHPF a minority (20 to 40%) practiced farrowing supervision while all interviewed LSPF practiced farrowing supervision (i.e. they provided nest-building material, cleaned the piglets, cut teeth, disinfected navels, injected iron). The lowest frequency (p=0.045) of farrowing supervision was found in the most remote villages (>60 min). In these villages the lowest frequency of farrowing practices such as cleaning piglets, providing nest-building material and iron injection was found (Table 3).

Table 3. Sow-piglet management in small-holder pig farms (frequencies of respondents)
	SHPF “villages”^§			p -value^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	p -value^A

Farrowing supervision^@	41.1^a±5.0	30.6^ab±4.6	19.8^b±4.0	0.045
Type of farrowing supervision
Cleaning piglets	25.6^a±4.4	10.1^b±3.1	5.6^b±2.3	0.007
Cut teeth	15.3±3.7	11.8±3.3	11.2±3.2	0.814
Disinfect navel	10.2±3.1	5.0±2.2	1.4±1.2	0.112
Nest-building material	25.6^a±4.4	18.6^ab±3.9	7.0^b±2.6	0.024
Inject iron	28.2^a±4.6	20.3^a±4.1	4.2^b±2.0	0.001
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms. ^@All LSPF was provided farrowing supervision. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis of one-way ANOVA, the mean value using Tukey’s pairwise comparison test. ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Feed and feeding system in sow-piglet production

In most villages, farmers commonly (61 to 74%) used rice bran only as a creep feed for piglets. Maize and cassava root were less frequently used (8 to 17%) and their use was depending on availability. Complete commercial feed was mainly used by SHPF (35%) that lived in villages close to the district main village (Table 4). In contrast, all LSPF used complete commercial feed as creep feed for piglets and had an average creep feed intake of 333 g/head/day.

Table 4. Creep feed providing for piglet in small-holder pig farms (frequencies of respondents)
	SHPF “villages”^§			p -value ^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	p -value ^A

Providing creep feed (%)	92.4^a±2.7	81.4^ab±3.9	64.8^b±4.8	0.003
Type of creep feed (%)^@
Complete feed	35.9^a±4.9	6.7^b±2.5	0.0^b	0.001
Maize	15.3±3.7	13.5±3.5	12.6±3.4	0.926
Rice bran	66.6±4.8	74.5±4.4	61.9±4.9	0.313
Cassava root	17.9±3.9	8.4±2.8	12.6±3.4	0.383
Creep feed (g/head/day)	258^a±114	213^b±155	142^b±110	0.001
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p <0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis (see Table 3). ^@All larger-scale pig farms was provided complete feed only as creep feed for piglets. ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

The study found that in most villages the main feed resources for sows were crop by-products particularly rice bran and planted crops such as maize and cassava. The use of cassava root for sows decreased (p=0.043) with increasing distance from the district main village. All SHPF fed rice bran to sows as a basal feed and some added maize or cassava root and green feed (Table 5). In general, leaves from green plants naturally growing in the surroundings such as taro leaves were used as protein feed. Protein-rich commercial feed was less used in SHPF with the highest frequency (p<0.001) in the villages close to the district main village. The leaves of Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT-184 and other protein sources such as distiller waste were more commonly used in villages close to the district main village (Table 5 and 6). All LSPF used commercial concentrate mixed with rice bran and maize feed for the sows.

Table 5. Feed resources for sows in small-holder pig farms (frequencies of respondents)
	SHPF “villages”^{@ §}			p -value^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	p -value^A

Energy source (%)
Rice bran	100	100	100	-
Cassava root	51^a±5.1	39^ab±4.9	28^b±4.5	0.043
Maize	51±5.1	51±5.0	31±4.7	0.054
Broken rice	8.0±2.7	3.0±1.8	4.0±2.0	0.601
Protein source (%)
Concentrate feed	21^a±4.1	5.0^b±2.2	0.0^b	0.001
Stylo	13^a±3.4	7.0^ab±2.5	1.0^b±1.2	0.045
Taro leave	51^a±5.1	27^b±4.5	34^ab±4.8	0.046
Distillers waste	10^a±3.1	0.0^b	1.0^b±1.2	0.008
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05.^SHPF Small-holder pig farms. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis (see Table 3). ^@All larger-scale pig farms used rice bran, maize and concentrate feed. ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Table 6. Composition of diet and estimated allowances for sows in small-holder and larger-scale pig farms
	SHPF “villages”^§			LSPF	p -value ^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	LSPF	p -value ^A

Estimatedproportion of use feed source (%) ^@
Energy source
Rice bran	43.2^b	52.1^ab	62.9^a	32.7^b	0.001
Cassava root	16.0	13.1	9.1	0.0	0.067
Maize	10.8^b	14.0^b	7.7^b	50.0^a	0.001
Protein source
Concentrate feed	1.3^b	0.4^c	0.0^c	17.2^a	0.001
Stylo	1.5	0.9	0.4	0.0	0.443
Taro leave	13.7	11.4	13.4	0.0	0.374
Other source	13.8	7.2	6.4	0.0	0.051
Estimated level of feeding for sow (kg/head/day)
Dry sow	3.5^a	2.9^b	2.7^b	3.2^a	0.001
Pregnancy	3.7^a	2.9^b	2.7^b	3.6^a	0.001
Lactating	3.7^b	2.9^c	2.7^c	5.0^a	0.001
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p <0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms; ^LSPF Larger-scale pig farms. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis (see Table 3). ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car. ^@SHPF was demonstrated for diet formulation and level of feeding for sow during interview in the villages.

Water providing management in sow-piglet production

All SHPF provided water to pigs at feeding in a mixture with the feed (Table 7). A varying number of the SHPF (28 to 67%) provided extra water to sows, amounting to less than 7 liters per pig per day. A larger proportion of farmers living close to the city (67%) provided extra water to pigs as compared to those at middle distance (56%) and far from the city (28%). Around 70% of SHPF supplied extra water only once per day, while only 5% of farmers provided ad libitum access to from water nipples. All LSPF provided water from nipples and pigs had ad libitum access to water.

Table 7. Methods of providing water and levels of water to sows in small-holder pig farms (frequencies of respondents)
	SHPF “village”^§				p -value ^A
	<30 min		30-60 min	>60 min

Methods of providing water ^@
Mixed with feed	100		100	100	-
Extra water	67^a±4.8		56^a±5.0	28^b±4.5	0.001
Nipples, water ad lib	5.1±2.2		5.0±2.2	0.0	0.157
Level of water providing (liter/head/day)
Dry sow	6.9^a±3.3	5.3^b±2.7		4.8^b±1.6	0.001
Pregnancy	7.0^a±3.3	5.4^b±2.7		4.9^b±1.6	0.001
Lactating	7.3^a±3.5	5.5^b±2.7		4.9^b±1.6	0.001
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis (see Table 3).^§Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car. ^@ All larger-scale pig farms was providing water ad libitum from nipples.

Boar management

In SHPF, there were only few boars available for servicing sows and not every farmer kept a boar (Table 1). The existing farmers practice was that they selected a boar from male piglets of their own herd. The SHPF practiced natural mating in free ranging scavenging systems and boars were allowed to service at young age (Table 8). The feeding of boars in SHPF was the same as for sows with rice bran as a basal feed and some added maize or cassava root and green feed

In LSPF, boars were preferably bought from disease-free herds and were selected based on factors such as soundness, conformation, age of puberty and parameters related to reproductive performance like mating behavior and conception rate. Moreover, boars should be more than 8 months before they were used for breeding (Table 8). In general, LSPF used one boar per 20-25 sows with a frequency of mating of 2 to 3 times per week. Additionally, boars were selected from large litters (>10 piglets) with good performance for parameters such as feed efficiency, back-fat thickness and average daily gain.

Table 8. Boar management in small-holder and larger-scale pig farms
	SHPF “villages” ^§			LSPF	p -value^B
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	LSPF	p -value^B

Boar management
Age at 1^st service (months)	8.4^a	6.6^b	6.9^b	8.6^a	0.002
Weight at 1^st service (kg)	34.3^b	19.7^c	20.1^c	101.6^a	0.001
Turnover rate (years)	3.3^a	3.4^a	2.7^b	4.1^a	0.001
^abc Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms; ^LSPF Larger-scale pig farms. ^B Minitab statistics analysis (see Table 2). ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Table 9. Constraints of sow-piglet production in small-holder pig farms (frequencies of respondents) farms ^@
	SHPF “village” ^§			p -value ^A
	<30 min	30-60 min	>60 min	p -value ^A

High mortality of piglets	47±5.1	54±5.0	61±4.9	0.413
Outbreak of disease	21^b±4.1	41^ab±4.9	51^a±5.0	0.010
Slow growth of piglets	29±4.6	47±5.0	37±4.8	0.171
Lack of knowledge	13±3.4	31±4.6	24±4.3	0.149
Difficult to find feed	8±2.7	10±3.0	14±3.5	0.592
Lack of labor	0.0^b	0.0^b	18^a±3.9	0.001
Difficult for sale	0.0	0.0	0.0	-
^abcDifferent letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p<0.05. ^SHPF Small-holder pig farms. ^ASASW descriptive statistical analysis (see Table 3.) ^@The factors are main constraints in small-holder pig farms, while these issues were not a problem in larger-scale pig farms. ^§ Villages were grouped according to road access as indicated by the distance to the district main village: i) less than 30 min, ii) 30 to 60 min and iii) more than 60 min by car.

Pig reproductive constraints and farmer’s experience for solving the problems

The most important factor limiting sow-piglets production according to the SHPF was high mortality of piglets followed slow growth of piglets and outbreak of disease followed by outbreak of disease, slow growth of pigs and lack of knowledge (Table 9). Outbreak of disease (p<0.01) and lack of labor (p<0.001) were more frequent constraints with increasing distance from the district main village.

Figure 1. Action by small-holder pig farmers to cope with problems of poor productivity compared commercial pig farms existent
management (^VVWVillage veterinary worker; ^SHPFSmall-holder pig farms; ^LSPF Larger-scale pig farms)

Around 75% of SHPF never vaccinated pigs and they lacked management routines for control and prevention of disease. In case of outbreak of disease in the village, farmers tried to overcome the problems by several means such as slaughter and bury the sick pigs (more than 70%), trying to get assistance from village veterinarian workers or treating with medicines (20 to 23%) and less than 10% solved the problems in other ways (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present survey showed that sow-piglet performance in SHPF in the Northern part of Laos was poor, although in agreement with available performance data for the indigenous Lao pigs (Wilson 2007). There could be several reasons for the poor performance including management practices and the genetic status of pigs (Phengsavanh et al 2010; Chittavong et al 2012). Moreover, the farmers’ production aims may be one additional factor that could explain the level of production intensity in saving-oriented production systems with limited resource supply (Lemke et al 2007; Kumaresan et al 2009)

The results showed that SHPF in sow-piglet rearing systems mainly kept indigenous pig breeds. Similar results have been reported for SHPF in other Asian countries (Lemke et al 2006; Kumaresan et al 2009) as well as in South America (Ocampo et al 2005). The major reason for this is that native pigs are well adapted to local feed resources and traditional management practice (Kumaresan et al 2009; Phengsavanh et al 2011). We also found that most farmers kept pigs in confinement all year round, with animals housed in pens around the villages. However, in the past free scavenging pigs was very common in village pig production systems (Phengsavanh and Stür 2006). The change to use confined pig production systems is influenced by many factors such as village regulations, more intensive crop production and prevention of disease outbreaks. Moreover, the possibility to implement improved management practices in confined production systems has been a strong reason to promote this change (Stür et al 2010).

The sow performance in SHPF was well below the potential performance level for sows in Southeast Asia (Kunavongkrit and Head 2000) using genetically improved breeds from Europe and North America. Thus, the better sow-piglet performance in the LSPF in the current study could partly be explained by breed differences (Kumaresan et al 2007; Lemke et al 2007; Keonouchanh et al 2011). The poorest sow reproductive performance and piglet survival in SHPF was found in the more remote village from the district main village and could be due to differences in feeding and management practices (Hong et al 2006; Lemke et al 2006; Phengsavanh et al 2011). Moreover, the SHPF showed high piglet mortality (17 to 37%) compared with the LSPF (9.5%). This is an issue of major concern in SHPF production systems in Laos which can be related to poor nutrition, poor breeding management and diseases (Stür et al 2010; Phengsavanh et al 2010). The LSPF in this survey provided creep feed to the piglets pre-weaning while this was not common practice among the SHPF. Moreover, the creep feed used in LSPF was nutritionally well balanced and composed of appropriate feed ingredients. In addition, the LSPF had adopted structured management practices of sows and piglets. Poor pen hygiene is very common in SHPF in Laos and a factor which increase the risk of disease outbreak (Kunavongkrit and Heard 2000).

The LSPF provided nest-building materials to the pen during the farrowing period and they practiced farrowing supervision. These are factors that could prevent high piglet mortality (Thodberg et al 2002; Cutler et al 2006). In contrast, a common practice in SHPF was to let sows farrow in the forest without supervision. Under these conditions sows can express their nest-building behavior using available materials such as tree leaves and banana leaves but lack of other forms of support. Approximately two weeks post farrowing, farmers collect sows and piglets and confine them in pens in the village.

Common staple feed resources used for pig feeding by SHPF were cultivated crops such as maize and cassava, and crop by-products particularly rice bran. The main protein feed sources were naturally occurring wild green plants. Availability of protein-rich feed ingredients is the most limiting factor for appropriate pig feeding in SHPF (Phengsavanh et al 2011). Moreover, the availability of local feed resources depends on season, and variation in yield due to weather conditions and agronomic practices. All SHPF fed rice bran to the sows as a basal diet all year round. In addition, they commonly used rice bran only as a creep feed for piglets. The common practice in SHPF in Laos is to feed all pigs the same diet irrespective of age (Phengsavanh 2013). As a consequence, this will lead to malnutrition due to imbalanced nutrient supply as the energy and nutrient requirements of pigs differ with age and physiological performance (NRC 2012).

Another important factor for the poor sow reproductive performance and for the pig health situation is water availability and quality. Inadequate water provision will decrease feed intake and milk production which will have consequences for the performance and health of both sow and piglets (Robert and Swick 2001). Low feed intake during lactation results in increased weight loss and poor body condition which has negative impact on sow post-weaning reproductive performance (Kirkden et al 2013). The survey found that the SHPF mainly provided water to pigs at feeding and as a mixture with the feed. Most farmers in the upland areas of Laos are faced with insufficient water supply for family consumption (Phengsavanh et al 2010). This becomes a major issue in the dry season and is due to poor infrastructure in the water supply systems. In the present survey, it was only farmers living close to rivers and households with good water supply systems, in particular in villages close to a city, that were providing extra water to their pigs during the day.

In SHPF, only few boars are available for servicing sows which results in use of too young boars (Phengsavanh et al 2010). In addition, a common farm practice is to use male pigs from their own herd as a boar which will lead to inbreeding with implications on performance and health (Kambashi et al 2014).

Conclusion

By providing better nutrition for sows and piglets, give iron to piglet’s, provide adequate extra water supply for sows especially during lactating, and improved veterinary service, sow and piglet performance in SHPF can be improved. In addition, feeding strategies for boars in small-holder pig farms should be improved. Moreover, the awareness of the negative effects of inbreeding and the benefit of vaccination practices should be increased.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Swedish International Development Agency, Department for Research Cooperation (Sida/SAREC). We gratefully acknowledge the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) for necessary extra funding for the study. Special thanks to all stake-holders for facilitating this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest with any organization.

References

Cutler R S, Fahy A F, Cronin G M and Spicer E M 2006 Pre-weaning mortality. In: Straw B E, Zimmerman J J, Allaire S D and Taylor D J (Eds.). Diseases of swine, 9^th ed. Blackwell, Ames, IA, USA. pp. 993–1009.

Chittavong M, Lindberg J E and Jansson A 2012 Feeding regime and management of local Lao pigs in Central Lao PDR. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45, 149-155.

Hong T T T, Linh N Q, Ogle B and Lindberg J E 2006 Survey on the prevalence of diarrhea in pre-weaning piglets and on feeding systems as contributing risk factors in smallholdings in Central Vietnam. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 38, 397-405.

Huynh T T T, Aarnink A J A, Drucker A and Verstegen M W A 2007 Pig production in Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and Vietnam: A review. Asian Journal of Agricultural Development, 4, 69-90.

Kambashi B, Picron P, Boudry C, Thewis A, Kiatoko H and Bindelle J 2014 Smallholder pig production systems along a periurban-rural gradient in the Western provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 115, 9-22.

Keonouchanh S, Egerszegi I, Ratky J, Bouahom B, Manabe N and Brussow K P 2011 Native pig (Moo Lat) breeds in Lao PDR. Archiv für Tierzuch, 54, 600-606.

Kirkden R D, Broom D M and Andersen I L 2013 Invited Review: Piglet mortality: Management solution. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 3361-3389.

Kumaresan A, Bujarbaruah K M, Pathak K A, Bijoy Chhetri Das S K, Anubrata Das and Ahmed S K 2007 Performance of pigs reared under traditional tribal low input production systems and chemical composition of non-conventional tropical plants used as pig feed. Livestock Science, 107, 294-298.

Kumaresan A, Bujarbaruah K M, Pathak K A, Anubrata Das and Bardoloi R K 2009 Integrated resource-driven pig production in a mountainous area of Northeast India: production practices and pig performance. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41, 1187-1196.

Kunavongkrit A and Heard T W 2000 Pig reproduction in South East Asia. Animal Reproduction Science , 60-61, 527-533.

Lao Statistics Bureau 2012 Statistical Yearbook 2012. Ministry of Planning and Investment, Lao PDR.

Lemke U, Kaufmann B, Thuy L T, Emrich K and Valle Zarate A 2006 Evaluation of smallholder pig production systems in North Vietnam: Pig production management and pig performance. Livestock Science, 105, 229-243.

Lemke U, Kaufmann B, Thuy L T, Emrich K and Valle Zarate A 2007 Evaluation of biological and economic efficiency of smallholder pig production systems in North Vietnam. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39, 237-254.

Minitab 2015 Minitab Software Release 17. Minitab Inc, 3081 Enterprise Drive, State College PA, USA.

NRC 2012 Nutrient requirements of swine. 11^th Edn. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Ocampo L M, Leterme P and Buldgen A 2005 A survey of pig production systems in the rain forest of the pacific coast of Colombia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37, 315-326.

PASW Statistics 17 2009 Command Syntax Reference. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinoi, USA.

Phengsavanh P and Stür W 2006 The use and potential of supplementing village pigs with Stylosanthes guianensis in Lao PDR. Proceeding of the Workshop-seminar “forages for pigs and rabbits” MEKARN-CelAgrid. Article # 14, Retrieved October 18 2010.

Phengsavanh P, Ogle B, Stür W, Frankow-Lindberg B E and Lindberg J E 2010 Feeding and performance of pigs in small-holder production systems in Northern Lao PDR. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42, 1627-1633.

Phengsavanh P, Ogle B, Stür W, Frankow-Lindberg B E and Lindberg J E 2011 Small-holder Pig Rearing System in Northern Lao PDR. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 24, 867-847.

Phengsavanh P 2013 Forage Legumes as Feed for Pigs in Smallholder Production Systems in the North of Lao PDR. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Suecia, Doctoral Thesis No. 2013:12, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Uppsala, Sweden.

Robert A and Swick P D 2001 Nutrition and Feeding Management of Sows. Technical Bulletin. http://www.asasea.com.

Stür W, Phengsavanh P, Keonouchanh S, Phimphachanvongsod V and Phengvilaysouk A 2010 Final Report “Forage lequmes for supplementing village pigs in Lao PDR. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.

Thodberg K, Jensen K H and Herskin M S 2002 Nest building and farrowing in sows: Relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 77, 21-42.

Wilson T 2007 Status and prospects for livestock production in the Lao people’s democratic republic. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39, 443-452.

Received 10 July 2017; Accepted 10 September 2017; Published 3 October 2017

Go to top