An assessment of enhanced biosecurity interventions and their impact on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus outbreaks within a managed group of farrow-to-wean farms, 2020-2021

Karyn A Havas; Lisa Brands; Roger Cochrane; Gordon D Spronk; Joel Nerem; Scott A Dee

doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.952383

An assessment of enhanced biosecurity interventions and their impact on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus outbreaks within a managed group of farrow-to-wean farms, 2020-2021

Front Vet Sci. 2023 Jan 12:9:952383. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.952383. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Karyn A Havas¹, Lisa Brands¹, Roger Cochrane², Gordon D Spronk³, Joel Nerem³, Scott A Dee¹

Affiliations

¹ Pipestone Research, Pipestone Holdings, Pipestone, MN, United States.
² Pipestone Nutrition, Pipestone Holdings, Pipestone, MN, United States.
³ Pipestone Veterinary Services, Pipestone Holdings, Pipestone, MN, United States.

Abstract

Introduction: Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) has been a challenge for the U.S. swine industry for over 30 years, costing producers more than $600 million annually through reproductive disease in sows and respiratory disease in growing pigs. In this study, the impact of enhanced biosecurity practices of site location, air filtration, and feed mitigation was assessed on farrow-to-wean sites managed by a large swine production management company in the Midwest United States. Those three factors varied in the system that otherwise had implemented a stringent biosecurity protocol on farrow-to-wean sites. The routine biosecurity followed commonplace activities for farrow-to-wean sites that included but were not limited to visitor registration, transport disinfection, shower-in/shower-out procedures, and decontamination and disinfection of delivered items and were audited.

Methods: Logistic regression was used to evaluate PRRSV infection by site based on the state where the site is located and air filtration use while controlling for other variables such as vaccine status, herd size, and pen vs. stall. A descriptive analysis was used to evaluate the impact of feed mitigation stratified by air filtration use.

Results: Sites that used feed mitigates as additives in the diets, air filtration of barns, and that were in less swine-dense areas appeared to experience fewer outbreaks associated with PRRSV infection. Specifically, 23.1% of farms that utilized a feed mitigation program experienced PRRSV outbreaks, in contrast to 100% of those that did not. Sites that did not use air filtration had 20 times greater odds of having a PRRSV outbreak. The strongest protective effect was found when both air filtration and feed mitigation were used. Locations outside of Minnesota and Iowa had 98.5-99% lesser odds of infection as well.

Discussion: Enhanced biosecurity practices may yield significant protective effects and should be considered for producers in swine-dense areas or when the site contains valuable genetics or many pigs.

Keywords: air filtration; biosecurity; feed mitigation; porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV); swine.