The majority of veterinarians consider it important to classify sow herd PRRS status.Our survey showed that 8/21 follow AASV guidelines, with the others using alternative criteria.
Half of the surveyed veterinarians use processing fluids as part of their testing protocol for determining sow herd PRRS status.
Most of the respondents mentioned that AASV PRRS classification guidelines should be re-visited.
Twenty-one veterinarians from 12 participant systems and 1 non-participant group completed the questionnaire accounting approximately for 1.5 million sows.
When asked how important it was to classify sow farm PRRS status, 12/21 (57%) answered very important, 8/21 (38%) answered important. Among the most important reasons requiring PRRS status were:
Commingling of pigs downstream,
Timing the Depopulation/Re-population of growing sites with continuous flow, and
Defining gilt acclimation and introduction procedures.
The testing protocol to classify a farm as stable varied across and within systems. However, the most frequent sample collected was due-to-wean blood sampling. Other samples are shown in the figure below.
M. hyopneumoniae monitoring should be performed in incoming gilts and recipient herd.
Gilt acclimation against M. hyopneumoniae aids to maintain farm health stability.
Vaccination is the main strategy used to acclimate gilts in Europe and North America
Monitoring and diagnosis of M.hyopneumoniae
The article first covers how to assess the M. hyopneumoniae health status of the herd. Various methods of monitoring and diagnosis are detailed and compared with each other.
Most commonly used: M. hyopneumoniae antibody detection by ELISA but the interpretation of the results can be challenging.
Most useful technique: PCR on different respiratory tract samples.
No consensus on sample type to detect bacterial DNA in live pigs.
Classification of the herd based on incoming replacement and recipient herd
Proposed farm classification according to M. hyopneumoniae health status. (aELISA results (negative/positive) could depend on infection pattern in the farm and sampling time point.)
Subclinical infected I
Subclinical infected II
Prevention and control
Vaccination against M. hyopneumoniae, using commercial vaccines, is the most commonly used strategy to control its associated diseases in worldwide swine production systems.
However, since protection against M. hyopneumoniae infection by commercial vaccines is not complete, antimicrobial treatments are frequently required to control disease outcome. Several antibiotic classes are effective in reducing the incidence and severity of M. hyopneumoniae compatible lung lesions: macrolides, lincosamides, tetracycline, and fluoroquinolones among others.
The most common replacement origin used in Europe was external and that most respondents knew M. hyopneumoniae health status of replacement on arrival, being in most of the cases seropositive. Nevertheless, only 28% of respondents verified this theoretical M. hyopneumoniae status given as ELISA test results. Additionally, the most used strategy to acclimate gilt was vaccination alone (58%).
Gilt Development Units are utilized to allow ample time to incoming gilt to gradually adopt the health status of the recipient herd. These acclimation facilities are in most of the cases continuous flow allowing an effective gilt exposure to M. hyopneumoniae. Gilt vaccination in North American swine industry was also recognized as the most common practice used at acclimation.
Natural exposure was also used in both continents to help acclimate the incoming gilts to M.hyopneumoniae. However, taking into account that pig-to-pig transmission of this bacterium has proven to be extremely slow , the ratio of infected and naïve gilts as well as the time of exposure are crucial and should be considered to achieve an effective exposure.
Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyopneumoniae) is the primary causative agent of enzootic pneumonia (EP), one of the most economically important infectious disease for the swine industry worldwide. M. hyopneumoniae transmission occurs mainly by direct contact (nose-to-nose) between infected to susceptible pigs as well as from infected dams to their offspring (sow-to-piglet). Since disease severity has been correlated with M. hyopneumoniae prevalence at weaning in some studies, and gilts are considered the main bacterial shedders, an effective gilt acclimation program should help controlling M. hyopneumoniae in swine farms. The present review summarizes the different M. hyopneumoniae monitoring strategies of incoming gilts and recipient herd and proposes a farm classification according to their health statuses. The medication and vaccination programs against M. hyopneumoniae most used in replacement gilts are reviewed as well. Gilt replacement acclimation against M. hyopneumoniae in Europe and North America indicates that vaccination is the main strategy used, but there is a current trend in US to deliberately expose gilts to the pathogen.
Strong evidence of area spread was not found after evaluating three farm clusters located in two swine dense regions.
All barns of a nursery/finishing site should be sampled to define status.
Sick pen might not be the best target when sampling for PRRSV in grower pig sites
Background and Objectives
Area spread refers to the transmission of a pathogen (here PRRSV) through small particles in the air as well as through fomites on which the pathogen would have deposited on.
The objective of the study was to determine if the virus detected in a recently infected sow farm was similar to the one detected in neighboring farms (in other words: was local spread a likely source of infection?)
Methods and Results
35 farms were monitored for PRRSV. As soon as a farm broke, all of the neighboring farms were sampled for PRRSV independently of the type of production on site. If a sick pen was present on the farm, effort was made to include it in the sampling. Positive samples were then sequenced to compare to the original virus from the outbreak.
For two of the three area spread assessments performed, no similar sequence to the one obtained from the farm under investigation was found. Also it was not always possible to detect PRRSV in sick pens of the growing pig sites sampled in our study.
Our sixth presentation is by Dr. Andreia Arruda from the Ohio State University sharing the work she did in collaboration with Dr. Morrison regarding PRRS seasonality as well as the environmental factors that are protective against a PRRS outbreak.
Today on the blog, we are sharing a study by our colleagues: Dr. Lee Johnston from the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural resources Sciences (CFANS) and Sara Schieck from the swine extension team, regarding floor space allowance and its impact on growth on finishing pigs.
Most floor space allowance studies were conducted 20 years ago when pigs were sent to market when they reached 113kg (around 248 lb) whereas pigs are currently sent at 128kg (281 lb). Therefore, guidelines need to be updated.
Experiment 1: Pigs from 27 to 138 kg (59 to 304 lb) were housed providing either 0.71, 0.80, 0.89, 0.98, or 1.07 m2/pig of floor space (respectively 7.64, 8.61, 9.58, 10.55, 11.52 square ft/pig). Growth rate, cortisol concentration and lesion scores were measured for each pig.
Experiment 2: Pigs around 130 kg (286 lb) were housed providing either 0.71, 0.80, 0.89, 0.98, or 1.07 m2/pig of floor space (respectively 7.64, 8.61, 9.58, 10.55, 11.52 square ft/pig).
Initial body weight of pigs was not different across floor space allowances; however, increasing floor space allowance increased final body weight (linear, P = 0.04) and tended to increase ADG (linear, P = 0.06) and ADFI (linear, P = 0.06). Gain efficiency was not influenced by increasing floor space allowance. There were no differences in initial salivary cortisol concentrations across floor space treatments. Similarly, there were no differences in salivary cortisol among floor space allowances 2 and 1 wk before the final weight, when pigs should have experienced the greatest differences in crowding among treatments.
Based on the growth performance and pig welfare data collected in Exp. 1, a clearly optimal floor space recommendation is not apparent. The equation from previously published studies estimates that 138-kg pigs require 0.91 m2 of floor space; therefore, the present study provided 2 treatments below and 2 treatments above the predicted requirement. Our data are clear that pigs in the present study did not respond to floor space allowances greater than the predicted need of 0.91 m2 with improved growth performance or welfare.
In Exp. 2, the floor space needs of heavy market pigs could be studied isolated from the diluting effects of the early growth period that were present in Exp. 1. Results of Exp. 2 indicate that 0.98 m2/pig optimized growth performance of pigs between the weights of 133 and 148 kg.
Pigs marketed at 138 kg BW optimize growth performance when provided 0.89 to 0.98 m2 of floor space per pig. However, the negative effects of low space allocations were mostly observed in heavy pigs. Therefore, the use of a pig removal strategy near the end of the finishing period may be an effective strategy to diminish the negative effects of crowding when pigs are near market weight.
Current floor space allowances were determined in research studies conducted 10 to 20 yr ago using pigs that were marketed at a BW of about 113 kg or less. Currently, pork producers are regularly marketing pigs that weigh over 128 kg. Given this precipitous increase in market weight, we conducted 2 experiments to determine if floor space allowances previously determined apply to pigs marketed at greater than 128 kg. Experiment 1 was conducted at 5 university research stations throughout the Upper Midwest region. In this experiment, we evaluated the growth performance, salivary cortisol concentrations, and lesion scores of pigs weighing between 27 and 138 kg provided 0.71, 0.80, 0.89, 0.98, or 1.07 m2/pig of floor space. Within each station, group size (range = 6 to 19 pigs) remained constant across floor space treatments but pen size was altered to achieve the desired space allocations. There were 14 replicate pens for each treatment. Overall, increasing floor space allowance increased final BW (linear, P = 0.04) and tended (linear, P < 0.06) to increase ADG and ADFI. There were no improvements in final BW or ADG beyond 0.89 m2/pig. The G:F was not influenced by increasing floor space allocation. Salivary cortisol concentrations and lesion scores were not affected by floor space allowances. Experiment 2 focused on floor space needs of pigs nearing market weight and was conducted at 4 research stations. Pigs weighing about 130 kg were assigned to pens that provided 0.71, 0.80, 0.89, 0.98, or 1.07 m2/pig of floor space. Group size ranged from 4 to 11 pigs per pen but was constant across floor space treatments within station. The study lasted 2 wk and there were 8 replicate pens per treatment. As floor space allowance increased, ADG (0.86, 0.95, 0.95, 1.10, and 1.06 kg; linear, P < 0.01), ADFI (3.03, 3.26, 3.22, 3.49, and 3.25 kg; quadratic, P < 0.05), and final BW (145.6, 145.7, 146.4, 148.3, and 147.9 kg; linear, P < 0.01) increased. Based on the results of these 2 experiments, pigs marketed at about 138 kg require at least 0.89 m2/pig to support optimal growth performance. However, heavier pigs (about 148 kg) at the end of the finishing period require 0.98 m2/pig.
The EWMA chart is a smoothed chart of the percentage of farms that are breaking.
Newly added farms to MSHMP increase the denominator therefore diluting the estimate which affects the EWMA chart giving the impression that PRRS season has changed.
Reminder: What is the EWMA?
The Exponential Weighted Moving Average (EMWA) is a statistical method that averages data over time, continually decreasing the weight of data as it moves further back in time. An EWMA chart is particularly good at monitoring processes that drift over time and is used to detect small shifts in a trend.
In our project, EWMA is used to follow the evolution of the % of farms at risk that broke with PRRSV every week. EWMA incorporates all the weekly percentages recorded since the beginning of the project and gives less and less weight to the results as they are more removed in time. Therefore, the % of farms at risk that broke with PRRSV last week will have much more influence on the EMWA than the % of farms at risk that broke with PRRSV during the same week last year.
MSHMP report chart 4 depicts: 1)the number of new cases (green dots – secondary Y axis) during a specific week and 2)the percentage of farms that broke during that week of the total in the MSHMP project in a smoothed way (blue line/Y axis). The red horizontal line indicates the threshold (upper confidence limit – UCL). This UCL is calculated based on the average of cases during the lowest PRRS months in the year, June, July and August and is recalculated every two years.
When there are more cases than expected, the blue line crosses the threshold (red line) indicating there is an epidemic.
The formula used in the EWMA chart is the following:
where E is the smoothed % of infected herds, lambda the constant smoothing the curve, I the % of infected herds during that week and Et-1 is the smoothed % of infected herds during the previous week.
If different smoothing factors are applied to the MSHMP data this would generate different trends and then we would place the threshold based on the sensitivity
that we consider that signals an epidemic.
Has the incidence of PRRS changed?
One possible reason the EWMA % of cases decreasing might be that the number of farms that are breaking expressed as a percentage is less. This can be due to the fact that the total number of farms sharing PRRS status has been increasing and these new farms might have a lower underlying incidence.