of Batch Farrowing Systems in Disease Control · Return of Batch Production • Continuous...
Transcript of of Batch Farrowing Systems in Disease Control · Return of Batch Production • Continuous...
Application of Batch Farrowing Systems & Weaning Programs in Disease Control
Clayton JohnsonDirector of HealthCarthage System
Wuhan, ChinaAugust 24, 2017
2MetaFarms 2016 Sow Benchmarking
Population Disease Management
3
Susceptible
Infected ResistantVaccination/Medication – Minimizing Clinical Signs
& Decreasing Duration of Infection
Johnson, Clayton
Performance
• Performance is reduced during time pigs are sick – Mortality– Morbidity – Growth & Conversion
• Performance after recovery is variable: – Pigs may increase their performance above normal and compensate for reduced performance while ill
– Pigs may increase their performance but not above normal levels per age
– Pigs never regain “normal” performance and continually perform at below average expectations
4
DISEASE IMPACT: STUDY #1
5
Disease Performance Impact:Study Design
• Groups of littermate pigs split into 2 barns after the nursery period and raised under normal conditions– At week 0, (30‐34 Kg) one barn inoculated with a field strain of PRRSV (PRRSV+) and the other barn were injected with a saline solution (PRRSV‐)
– PRRSV+ all confirmed PRRSV positive and all PRRSV‐remained so throughout the study
– No mortalities or other infections reported– Pen feed intake and body weights recorded weekly– Trial was completed at an average body weight of approximately 130 Kg.
6Gabler et al, 2013
Disease Performance Impact:Study Results
• The PRRSV+ animals took 14 days longer (119 vs 105) to reach the final body weight
• PRRSV+ Pig Performance:– Average daily feed intake 6% impacted– Average daily gain 10 % impacted– Feed conversion was 7% impacted
7
Gabler et al, 2013
Gabler et al, 2013
Disease Performance Impact:Conclusions
• Performance reduced for Wk 1‐4 post PRRSV infection
• Performance not reduced past Wk 5
• PRRSV+ pigs did not perform poorer nor did they compensate for their reduced performance
8Gabler et al, 2013
DISEASE IMPACT: STUDY #2
9
Disease Performance Impact:Study Design
• Closeout performance data from a large US Production System analyzed based on Disease – Retrospective Longitudinal Survey– Respiratory Focus: PRRS & Mycoplasma hp– Disease impact evaluated relative to No Disease Baseline Performance
– Performance Difference reported for each disease individually as well as in combination
10Haden et. al., 2012. AASV Proceedings. pp75‐76
Disease Performance Impact:Study Results
Pathogen Difference vs. baseline, %
Difference vs. baseline, ADG
M. Hyo 2.15 % 0.04PRRS 1.68 % ‐0.11PRRS and M. Hyo 5.34 %
(**M**P)‐0.14(*M*P)
**M,P,S = combinations vs. M/P/S; P<0.05 * M,P,S = combinations vs. M/P/S; P<0.10
Haden et. al., 2012. AASV Proceedings. pp75‐76
Pathogen Loss per pig (compared to baseline)
M. Hyo ‐$0.63PRRS ‐$5.57
M. Hyo &PRRS
‐$10.41
Haden et. al., 2012. AASV Proceedings. pp75‐76
Disease Performance Impact:Study Results
Disease Impact Implications
13
• We must minimize the duration of Clinical Disease to minimize Performance Impacts
• Unstable disease status in wean pigs will result in prolonged Clinical Disease– Infected Pigs– Susceptible Pigs– Resistant Pigs
• Tools that Increase the % of Resistant Pigs while Decreasing the % of Susceptible and Infected Pigs will have tremendous value– Batch Farrowing
Disease Impact Implications
• Multiple pathogens causing Disease concurrently have a synergistic impact– Control of any Disease individually may have dramatic results on pig performance
– Elimination of Disease remains our most effective Health management tool
• Tools that facilitate rapid and consistent Disease Elimination will have tremendous value– Batch Farrowing
14
Batch Production History & Breeding Group Models
15
Batch Production History
• Most popular American production model until ~1990– Natural swine seasonal breeding cycle– Farrow to finish production models– Facilitated early Wean to Finish Transition
16
Batch Production History
• Multi‐Site Production & Artificial Insemination– Continuous farrowing better utilizes available lactation crate space, increased PSY
– AI allows more control over insemination timing, can place sows and gilts where needed for consistent breeding
17
Traditional vs Modern
18
Breeding & Gestation
Breeding & Gestation
FarrowingNursery Grower
Finisher
Traditional vs Modern
19
Breeding & Gestation
Breeding & Gestation
FarrowingNursery Grower
Finisher
Traditional vs Modern
20
Breeding & Gestation
Breeding & Gestation
FarrowingNursery Grower
Finisher
Traditional vs Modern
21
Breeding & Gestation
Breeding & Gestation
FarrowingNursery Grower
Finisher Breeding & Gestation
Farrowing
Stable Unstable
Return of Batch Production
• Continuous Production produces the most PIGS out of the Sow Unit, but not always the most PORK out of the Production System– Endemic Disease challenges are increased– Batch Production improves wean pig health
22
Return of Batch Production
• In addition to Historical Heath Benefits, new pathogens are better controlled with Batch Production– PEDv– DCoV– Rotavirus C– HP PRRSv– SIV
23
Batch Production
Benefits• Improved Endemic Health• Faster Disease Elimination• Faster Return to Normal
Health after Outbreak• Maximize Labor Specialists
– Breeding– Farrowing– Processing
Negatives• Less Efficient Use of
Lactation Crates• Lower Wean Age• Lower PSY• Surges in Labor Needs
– Breeding– Farrowing– Processing
24
Batch Production Opportunities & Challenges
• Gilts: – Challenge: Natural variation in 1st estrus age– Opportunity: Utilize common gilt pool for multiple farms
– Opportunity: Utilize Altrenogest to place gilts into appropriate breeding week
25
Batch Production Opportunities & Challenges
• Recycles: – Challenge: Natural variation in recycle date– Opportunity: Increased replacement rate by culling poor reproductive performers instead of rebreeding
– Opportunity: Transfer recycles to a different breeding group using hormones or physical movement to another farm
26
Batch Production Opportunities & Challenges
• Farrowing & Breeding Dates:– Challenge: Surge in labor needed compared to continuous production
– Opportunity: Shift labor from other areas of farm– Opportunity: Rotate best farrowing labor across multiple facilities
27
Batch Production Opportunities & Challenges
• Nurse Sows:– Challenge: Hard to have nurse sows available for extra pigs at farrowing or for fallback pigs
– Opportunity: Feeding supplemental milk to pigs 2 days of age or older in Rescue Decks
28
Lactation Space AIAO by Batch
• 5/4 Batch – 5 groups of sows farrowing every 4 weeks– Farrow all the crates over a 7 day period– Farm activity: Wean one week, breed that group the following week and start farrowing a new group 4‐7 days post weaning
– Wean age ranges from 14 to 21 days of age
29
5/4 Batch Model
30
BreedDay29‐33
BreedDay57‐61
BreedDay85‐89
BreedDay
113‐117
Breed Day 1‐5Farrow Day 116‐120
Wean Day 138
Gestation
Lactation
Key Assumptions: 5 Days Breeding, 115 Days Gestation, 3 Empty Crate Days, Load at Gestation Day 112
Lactation Space AIAO by Batch
• 4/5 Batch – 4 groups of sows farrowing every 5 weeks– Farrow all the crates over a 14 day period– Farm activity: Weaning one week, breed that group the following week, farrowing over the next 2 weeks
– Wean age ranges from 14 to 28 days (can tighten if breeding is well controlled)
31
4/5 Batch Model
32
BreedDay36‐46
Breed Day 1‐11Farrow Day 116‐126
Wean Day 145
Gestation
Lactation
BreedDay71‐81
BreedWeek
106‐116
Key Assumptions: 10 Days Breeding, 115 Days Gestation, 3 Empty Crate Days, Load at Gestation Day 112
Lactation Space Split into 2 Sections
• 10/2 Batch – 10 groups of sows farrowing 1group every 2 weeks– Farrow ½ the crates every 2 weeks with a 4 week turn
– Farm activity: Wean 1 week, then breed the next week; start farrowing 4‐7 days after weaning, start over again with weaning
– Weaning age of 14‐21 days
33Casanovas, C. 2011. www.pig333.com/management/pig_article
10/2 Batch Model
34
BreedDay43‐47
Breed Day 1‐5Farrow Day 116‐120
Wean Day 138
Gestation
Lactation
Breed Day 15‐19Farrow Day 130‐134
Wean Day 152
BreedDay71‐75
BreedDay57‐61
BreedDay85‐89
BreedDay
99‐103
BreedDay
113‐117
BreedDay
127‐131
BreedDay29‐33
Key Assumptions: 5 Days Breeding, 115 Days Gestation, 3 Empty Crate Days, Load at Gestation Day 112
Lactation Space Split into 2 Sections
• 7/3 Batch – 7 groups of sows farrowing every 3 weeks– Farrow ½ the crates every 3 weeks with a 6 week turn
– Farm activity: Breeding 1 week, farrowing the following week, and weaning the 3rd week
– Weaning age of 14‐28 days, based on the number of days you breed sows
35Casanovas, C. 2011. www.pig333.com/management/pig_article
7/3 Batch Model
36
BreedDay43‐53
Gestation
Lactation
Key Assumptions: 10 Days Breeding, 115 Days Gestation, 3 Empty Crate Days, Load at Gestation Day 112
BreedDay64‐74
BreedDay85‐95
BreedDay
106‐116
BreedDay
127‐137
Breed Day 1‐11Farrow Day 116‐126
Wean Day 145
Breed Day 22‐32Farrow Day 137‐147
Wean Day 166
Transitioning from Continuous Production to 5/4 Batch Production
Group 1 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon
Lact Weanfollicular phase HeatHeat luteel phase follicular
phase
Group 2 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon
Lact Weanfollicular phase HeatHeat
15 14 13 12 11 10 Altrenogest 6 5 4 3 2 1 follicular phase
Group 3 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon
Lact Wean
follicular phase HeatHeat
8 7 6 Altrenogest 3 2 1 follicular phase
Group 4 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon
gest farrowing Lact Weanfollicular phase
Courtesy of Beltranena, E
Batch Production Case Studies
System Examples with Production and Health Impacts
38
5/4 Model on 2 Farms• 2 – 2,500 head sow farms • 1 – 1,000 head “GDU” on‐site
39Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Background• High Epidemic Disease Pressure– Packing plant < 2 miles– Majority of employees live in Beardstown, IL
• Historical Break Rates– Break with PRRS every 6 months
– Broke with PED once, winter of 2014
40Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Background• Extremely Poor Finishing Performance
– Both sow farms flow together• Issue if one population breaks with PRRS
– PRRS often became endemic on these farms• Dealt with overwhelming PRRS viremia and assortment of septicemia secondary to PRRS downstream
• Decreased wean pig volume long fill times
– WTM Grade A Percent commonly 75‐80%
– In Process Mortality – average 0.81% 3 months prior to converting to the batch
41Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Something BIG Had to Happen
42
• Goal– Make Farms Profitable Through Control of Epidemic Disease
• Convert to Batch– Operate 3 populations as ONE farm
• 1,000 head “GDU” minimized impact to mated inventory and non‐productive days
• Shared labor allowed for labor segregation– Moved bred groups between farms and utilize wean down to 10 days of age for one turn converted in one turn
– Commit to flowing to 2,400 head sites weaning every 2 weeks
Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Initial Conversion for 2 Farms
• Combine Current Breed Groups to One Farm
43
Farm 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Farm 2
Initial Conversion for 2 Farms
• Combine Current Breed Groups to One Farm
44
Farm 1
1 2 5 6 9 10 13 14
3 4 7 8 11 12 15
Farm 2
Final Conversion to 5/4
• Wean 2 Weeks of Sows Together– Groups 18 & 19 Weaned Together– Wean Age 10‐24 Days– All Sows Weaned to 1 Farm– Group 16 & 17 Weaned Together in 2 Weeks– Repeat Process Every 4 Weeks on Each Farm
Until Complete
45
Farm 1
16 17 18 19
16 17 18 19
Farm 2
Farm 11 2 5 6 9 10 13 14
3 4 7 8 11 12 15Farm 2
Minimize Impact of Epidemic Disease• Our Experience with PRRS
– Circulating 1‐7‐4 for 8 months prior to batch• Consistent downstream seroconversion 2‐4 weeks post placement
• Previously utilized Load, Close, Homogenize protocols and strict McREBEL procedures
– ALL control measures removed when converted to batch• Resumed gilt entries• Discontinued McREBEL procedures
– Almost immediate delay in seroconversion to 4‐6 weeks– 6 months after start of batch no seroconversion downstream
– Farms have not rebroke since start of batch
46Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Minimize Impact of Epidemic Disease
• Expect similar results with PED, SDCoV– Impact/recovery highly dependent on time of infection
– High probability to expose next batch of sows in time to transmit immunity to next batch of piglets
– Advantage to clean, disinfect, dry ENTIRE farrowing house at once
47Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Minimize Impact of Endemic Disease
• Secondary Benefits– Labor segregation decreased stillborns– Better execution of farrowing room cleanliness– Faster Fill Time Wean 5,000+ pigs in 2 days compared to 2‐3 weeks previously
– Max of 5‐7 day age spread tighter spread of waning maternal antibodies in population
• Recovery from endemic influenza appears faster and more uniform through population
– Prevent stackable stressors to pigs through better management of nutritional needs and ventilation
– Time interventions such as vaccines and medications more precisely
48Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
Outcome
• Flow is consistently weaning 5,000+ pigs every 2 weeks• WTM closeouts consistently 87%+ Grade A • In‐Process Mortality
– Averaged 0.28% weekly through summer– Averaged closer to 0.4% weekly through fall/winter
• HALF of what it was prior to start of batch
49Toohill, E. Batch Farrowing: Disease Control Production Benefits, AASV, 27 Feb 2017
5/4 Model System on 4 Farms
• Four “2500” sow farms in same area– Historical low productivity on sow farms– Attached continuous flow nurseries with low growth rate and high mortality (>8%)
– PRRSv, SIV etc etc etc positive and active– Herd Roll over for PRRSv had failed for multiple reasons– Lack of discipline and low weaning ages
• Something needed to be done to drive health in both sow farms and nurseries
Model System History
• Summer 2006– Started “5 group ‐ 4 week” batch program at all 4 farms– Moved sows between farms weekly to create “batches”– Weaned all the sows on Thursday to synchronize groups for breeding
– Used Matrix to create batches of gilts– Exposed gilts to FV PRRSv in isolation barns 6‐7 weeks prior to gilt entry
Pigs Weaned per Sow
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
2006
-30
2006
-32
2006
-34
2006
-36
2006
-38
2006
-40
2006
-42
2006
-44
2006
-46
2006
-48
2006
-50
2006
-52
2007
-220
07-4
2007
-620
07-8
2007
-10
2007
-12
2007
-14
2007
-16
Week
Pigs Weaned per Sow CL LNPL UNPL
Deaths per 1000 in inventory
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week Post Placement
Deat
hs p
er 1
000
Continuous vs. Batch Flow in Sow and Nursery Units
Red = Weeks 1‐27 2006 – CF; Blue= Weeks 1‐28 2007 – Batch
Sow Farms (4 x 2500) – NW MO; 2007
Room Level Mortality - Missouri NurseryX chart
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
5/5/06
5/26/0
67/2
0/06
8/10/0
69/2
/069/2
1/06
10/11
/0610
/26/06
11/16
/0612
/14/06
1/4/07
1/25/0
72/2
2/07
3/8/07
3/22/0
74/1
2/07
4/26/0
75/1
7/07
6/7/07
6/21/0
77/1
2/07
Placement Date
Room
Clo
seou
t Mor
tatli
y
Room Mortatliy CL UCL LCL
1 2 3
1: Conversion from CF to Batch; 2: H2N3 Introduced; 3: Elimination of H2N3
Sow Farms (4 x 2500) – NW MO; 2007
Impact of Flow Change on System Throughput
Monthly Annual
Pigs SoldMean
WeightTotal
Pounds RevenuePigs Sold
Total Pounds Revenue
CF 14648 49.0 718122 $ 670,956 175777 8617462 $ 8,051,476
Batching 15550 54.4 845880 $ 728,983 186602 10150563 $ 8,747,791
Batch Advantage 902 5.4 127758 $ 58,026 10825 1533101 $ 696,315
Percent Change 6.2% 11.0% 17.8% 8.6%
Sow Farms (4 x 2500) – NW MO; 2007
Impact of Flow Change on System Efficiency
Per Sow per YearPer Farrowing Crate
per Year
Pounds Revenue Pounds Revenue
CF 830.8 $ 776 5386 $ 5,032
Batching 994.3 $ 994 6344 $ 5,467
Batch Advantage 163.4 $ 218 958 $ 435
Percent Change 19.67% 28.08% 17.79% 8.65%
Sow Farms (4 x 2500) – NW MO; 2007
Batch Production Lessons Learned & Summary
57
Batch Production Lessons Learned
• AIAO Batch Models (5/4 or 4/5) provide the greatest Health advantage
• Altrenogest program must be managed PERFECTLY – same dose, same time, every day
• Target extra breedings over crate capacity (3‐5%)• Cull poor performing sows (recycles and poor milkers) more aggressively than in continuous farrowing
58
Batch Production Lessons Learned
• The ability to rotate specialized labor is a significant advantage
• The ability to use a common GDU across multiple farms is a significant advantage
• Additional equipment will be needed:– Power Washers– Processing Carts
59
Batch Production Summary
• Batch Production Has Significant Health Improvements:– Better endemic disease control and epidemic disease recovery
– Easily facilitates disease elimination, particularly when combined with MEW/SEW programs
60
Batch Production Summary
• Batch Production Has Additional Costs to Consider:– Conversion Cost– Increased Non‐Productive Days– Wean Age Impact– Number Farrowed Impact
61
Batch Production Summary
• Producers Must Strategically Evaluate System Impacts:– Total Kg of Pork Produced– Wean Pig Cost Impacts– Conversion Cost & Revenue Impacts
62
Batch Farrowing Systems Workshop
63
Activity #1: Should I Convert My Farm to Batch Production?
• 10,000 Sow Farrow to Finish• 1866 Lactation Crates• Currently Farrow 500 Sows/Week• Currently Wean 2x per week• Current Wean Age is 21‐23 Days• Veterinarian Consensus:
– Nursery Mortality Improvement of 1%– Finishing Mortality Improvement of 1%– ADG Improvement of 50 grams/day
64
Activity #2: What is the Best Batch Model for My Farm?
• 10,000 Sow Farrow to Finish• 1866 Lactation Crates• 1 Day of Wean Age is Worth 10 RMB• No Shared Gilt Pool• No Shared Labor• Veterinary Consensus:
– Lactation Space can be Divided into 2 Sections (not AIAO) without losing Performance Improvements
65
Activity #3: How do I Convert to Batch Production?
• Goal is to Begin Soon• No Shared Gilt Pool or Moving Sows• Weekly Production is Variable in Short Term
– This Week: 525 Sows to Farrow– Next Week: 650 Sows to Farrow– 3rd Week: 425 Sows to Farrow– 4th Week: 400 Sows to Farrow– Assume 500 Sows/Wk for Future Weeks
• Altrenogest is Available, but Cost should be Considered
66
Activity #4: How Much Did my Batch Conversion Cost?
• Impact to Sow Non‐Productive Days (NPD)– 20 RMB per NPD
• Impact to Wean Age– 10 RMB per Day of Wean Age
• Cost of Altrenogest
67
Strategic Weaning Programs
Weaning Age and Health Programs for Targeted Pathogen Control
68
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
• Pathogen Specific• Increase Immunity & Decrease Shedding:
– Gilts– Sows– Piglets
69
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
• Increase Immunity:– Gilt Acclimation– Pre‐Farrow Vaccination
• Gilts – 2 Doses• Sows – May only need 1 Dose
– Piglet Vaccination• Stimulate Immune Response Prior to Maternal Antibody Decay
• Avoid Vaccination during Times of Stress and Lack of Feed Intake
70
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
• Decrease Shedding:– Gilt Acclimation– Pre‐Farrow Medication
• Whole Herd• Specific Breed Groups
– Piglet Medication• Disease Control: Target Timing Based on Age of Disease• Disease Elimination: Medication Coverage Throughout Lactation Period, Use of a Bacteriocidal Medication
71
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
• Key Medication Considerations:– Think like the Pathogen
• Resistance Mechanisms• Organ System Preference
72
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
73
By Gerard D Wright ‐ http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1741‐7007‐8‐123‐1‐l.jpg Antibiotic targets and mechanisms of resistance. See text for details.Wright BMC Biology 2010 8:123 doi:10.1186/1741‐7007‐8‐123Download authors' original image, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41858402
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs
• Key Medication Considerations:– Think like the Military – Use Different Forces to Attack all the Enemies Defenses
– Evade Resistance Mechanisms• Multiple Antibiotic Classes• Antibiotics with Different Mechanisms of Action
– Attack all Important Organ Systems• Multiple Antibiotic Classes• Antibiotics with Difference Tissue Preferences
74
Process Definitions
Process Definitions
• Earliest efforts to use early weaning and segregation technologies to obtain pathogen‐free piglets were attempted in the early 1980s– Weaning pigs at 5–10 days of age and relying on medication
• Later studies suggested that early weaning without medication could also reduce, but not eliminate, the impact of disease in pigs
77
Segregated Early Weaning (SEW)
• Since that time, systems using some form of early weaning and segregating pigs from the breeding herd have been rapidly adopted by the United States swine industry
• Although several investigators have observed improved growth in pigs undergoing segregated early weaning (SEW) these strategies have not proven to eliminate all pathogenic organisms from growing pigs
78
Immunity
• In SEW, pigs are removed from the sow while their immunity from maternal antibodies is still high– Assumes pathogenic organisms are unable to cross the placenta
– Assumes maternally derived passive immunity will prevent vertical transfer of such endemic pathogens
79
Immunity
• Pigs receive IgG, IgA, and IgM via colostrum• Pattern of decline of these antibodies is nearly exponential
• Half lives of immunoglobulin classes can be determined from the assay of serum concentrations over a period of 2–3 weeks
• Mean half lives were determined to be:– 2.8 days for IgM– 2.7 days for IgA– 9.1 days for IgG
80
Immunity
• The level of passive immunity in a population varies by the amount of colostrum ingested– Thus, the ability to mount an active immune response will vary within a population
• Management programs that maximize the passive transfer of immunity are critical:– Split‐suckling– Early cross fostering
81
Immunity
• Published anatomical comparisons between SEW pigs and conventional pigs show an increased thymus to body ratio– The thymus is a lymphoid organ for T‐cell development, differentiation, and sequestration
– SEW pigs had significantly more CD4 ‐ CD8 ‐lymphocytes than controls
• These findings suggest differences in the maturation of immune tissues and distribution of immune cells
82
Historical Elimination Wean Age Recommendations (Hank Harris)
83
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs Example: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae
84
• Goal: Eliminate Mhp in piglets weaned from an unstable all gilt population
• Sows:– Pre-Farrow Vaccination– CTC at 22 mg/Kg in lactation feed
• 30s ribosomal target– Enrofloxacin at placement into Lactation Crate
• DNA gyrase target– Mass injection with Tulathromycin at Farrowing
• 50s ribosomal target
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs Example: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae
85
• Goal: Eliminate Mhp in piglets weaned from an unstable all gilt population
• Piglets:– Colostrum Management Critically Important– Tulathromycin at Birth & 10 Days of Age
• 50s ribosomal target– Enrofloxacin at Weaning
• DNA gyrase target– Max Weaning Age of 20 Days– Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae vaccination
Pathogen Targeted Weaning Programs Example: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae
86
• Goal: Eliminate Mhp in piglets weaned from an unstable all gilt population
• Pigs Post-Weaning:– Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae vaccination booster– Tilmicosin in the feed for 1st & 2nd Nursery Rations– Lincomycin in the water for 7 Days Post-Weaning– All piglets injected with Tulathromycin 24 hours after
weaning