IMPROVING MINNESOTA PRRS/PED CONTROL

Dave Wright & Bill Hartmann

Minnesota Pork CongressJanuary 19, 2016

Improving the Value of Minnesota PRRS & PED

Control

“WHAT’S NEXT?”Review and Progress

Report

Timeline Review

A discussion process that lead to the proposal being presented for

consideration

N212 Regional meetings on July 27 and August 3: “Have we reached a tipping point?”

• Discussed options and limitations of additional PRRS/PED control measures

• Concluded that there was enough interest to explore other options

N212 Progress ReportJan 2013 Jan 2014 Dec 2015

Sites Identified 812 872 914Signed Participants 408 567 600Positive PRRS Sites 89 72 69Stable or St. Vaccinated 18 88 66Negative PRRS/PEDV 273 308/0 360/201Empty Sites 88 107 111Unknown PRRS Status 343 296 307PED Positive Sites 8 10

N212 PRRS Analysis 2013-15

Minor clinical signs

5 unique sequences; Major losses-$5,000,000?

1-4-4 mostlyN212 crosses epidemic threshold, 9+sequences

Willmar on August 24: “What’s Next? Options for PRRS &

PED Control”• Participants: Dave Wright, Roger

Koosmann, Beth Thompson, Montse Torremorell, Nate Winkelman, Sarah Schiek, John Anderson, Mark Schwartz, Tim Snider, Dave Preisler, Deb Murray(+ Steve Langhorst & Randy Koehl)

Meeting Goal:

To explore feasible options to improve PRRS and PEDV

control in Minnesota

Limitations that became apparent

• PRRS & PED control is voluntary and remains the responsibility of the swine industry

• Cannot split the state• Must accommodate diverse opinions• No movement restrictions• Limited cost and inconvenience

Meeting in Mankato on September 23:

MPB Executive Committee summarizing discussion from

previous two meetings.

MPB Meeting• General concept presented and

discussed• Explained history• Offered this suggestion to make

constructive progress in a producer-led program

• Good discussion; no action requested or taken

Two documents drafted for consideration:

• 1. Filling Finishing Barns Responsibly

• 2. MN BAH Partnership Proposalfor PRRS/PED Control with Q & A

MN BAH Partnership Proposalfor PRRS/PED Control

with Q & A’s Distributed to MN Swine Health

Task Force for review

Meeting on Nov 18 in Mankato with MN Swine Health Task

Force

MN BAH Partnership Proposal Background

• PRRS and PED continue to plague the Minnesota swine industry despite a reduced prevalence nationwide.

• 15 million pigs are finished in Minnesota annually. The MN Board of Animal Health (BAH) reports that 6.5 million pigs move into Minnesota from other states and an additional 1 million pigs are imported from Canada.

Regional control projects have been helpful in promoting

collaboration among producers and veterinarians, but

effectiveness is limited by the voluntary nature of the

programs:

Voluntary Limitations• There usually is not 100% participation.• Not all participants test and report status

changes regularly—particularly among independent finishers and small producers.

• A perceived lack of progress frustrates producers and leads to a further lack of participation.

• We do not know the status of non-participating herds nor of pigs coming into Minnesota.

Purpose of the Proposal: • To partner with the MN BAH to gather

information about the PRRS and PED status of pigs entering Minnesota that could lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of disease control.

• Information will help determine area risk and assist in outbreak investigations

• Limited inconvenience to producers, veterinarians or the BAH

Proposal:• Partner with the MN BAH by asking

them to request that certificates of veterinary inspection (CVI’s) of all pigs entering Minnesota include a statement disclosing the PRRS and PED status of the herd of origin, if known. No movement restrictions would be imposed. All pigs, regardless of status, could enter the state.

2015 Summary of CVI’s

• 7,641 Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (Health Certificates)

• 6,078,429 imported pigs (includes Canadian Imports)

• Additional 1,459,974 pigs reported on system spreadsheets with swine health production plan-compiled weekly

Variable Formats for CVI’s

• Federal electronic e-CVI (VSPS)• Private electronic e-CVI (primarily

Global Vet Link)• Paper CVI’s and other private electronic

format• System spreadsheets

County Map

Zip code map

Zip code close up

Proposed Information Available on BAH Website

• Date• State of origin• Number of pigs• Class of pigs: Breeding/Feeders • County or Zip Code of Destination• PRRS and PED Status of herd of origin

The Swine Health Task Force felt that the

proposal has enough merit to present it to Minnesota pork producers for comment and

feedback.

Value to Swine Industry

• To identify the PRRS & PED status of 7.5 million pigs entering Minnesota

• To better understand the dynamics of PRRS & PED as it relates to pig movement into the state

• To assist in outbreak investigations• To encourage vet-to-vet communication

Value to Swine Industry

• To inspire more regional participation and transparency within the industry

• Ultimately, to reduce PRRS & PED infection rates—necessary to reduce antibiotic use

• To take a progressive step forward in PRRS & PED control

Bayesian Thinking“Prior probability (belief or opinion) exists, but with new information, the probability (belief or opinion) is revised.”

-Paraphrased explanation by Peter Davies explaining the philosophy of Thomas Bayes

“It’s always better to know than not to know.”

-Michael Murtaugh

Questions and Discussion

Dave Wright, D.V.M.763-242-7535

wright2me.dave@gmail.com

N212 Project Coordinator

AASV and NPBPOSTION STATEMENT

It is the position of the AASV that eradication of PRRS from the

North American swine industry is the long term goal.

October 19, 2005 — AASV Staff

Joe Connor Presentation: North American PRRS

SymposiumDecember 2014

http://www.swinecast.com/dr-joe-connor-historical-perspective-prrs-area-regional-control-prrs-arc

Joe Connor Message Points• Multiple comparisons between PRV ad

PRRS• PRRS costs the industry far more than

PRV did ($664 M vs. $30 M annually)• Incidence of new infections trend is

down• We probably know more about PRRS

now than we did about PRV

Joe Connor Message Points

• Elimination steps: Develop a teamDevelop a strategyImplement the plan

• The process is underway

Wisconsin Experience• Imposed mandatory reporting of

PRRS/PEDV status of herd of origin of incoming pigs about 2 years ago

• PRRS and PEDV are reportable• Statement on CVI stating PRRS and

PEDV status of the herd of origin:PositiveNegativeUnknown

Wisconsin Experience

• Educational effort more than control effort

• Difficult to assess impact on incidence-remains low

Julie McGwin, WI BAH Tammy Vaassen, WI Pork Association

Wisconsin Summary

PRRS Source• 54% Negative• 18% Vaccinated• 18% Positive • 9% Unknown

PED Source• 23% Negative• 11% Positive• 66% Unknown

State Animal Health Officials have the authority to approve movement of swine entering

their state and within their state.

Criteria to approve movement:

• Protect animal welfare• Preserve business continuity• Conserve animal resources• Reduce the need for disposal of animal

carcasses• Reduce the spread of (FMD) virus