Part I Evaluating Regional Projects and Opportunities for PRRS Elimination, Dreaming of a World without PRRS - Dr. Robert Morrison, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, from the 2012 Iowa Pork Congress, January 24 - 26, Des Moines, IA, USA.

1. Evaluating Regional Projects &
Opportunities for PRRS Elimination
Bob Morrison DVM, MBA, PhD
University of Minnesota
&
USDA PRRS CAP

2. “Voluntary, producer-led,
coordinated, regional disease
control programs”

3. Voluntary, Producer-led
• All within the region will benefit,
but
• Not all will participate. “Producer-led”:
- Acceptance
- Patience
- Subtle persistence

5. PRRS CAP website

6. Cold Weather Biosecurity Practices: Preventing PRRSV
PRRSV happens year around but it is during the cold weather when we see most of the
infections. As we approach this cold season, remember the following:
SUGGESTED RESPONSE GUIDE TO A PRRS OUTBREAK
1. PRRSV likes it cold and humid.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to encourage all partieswet andby a newbeen cleaned and
PRRSV survives well on equipment that is still affected hasn’t
outbreak of PRRS to consider how he/she will respond to the outbreak in a way that will
satisfy and protect the best interest of all parties.
RESPONSE BY PRODUCER WHO CONTRACTS NEW PRRS OUTBREAK:
1. Gather team to discuss diagnosis, possible OF DISCLOSURE OF PRRS POSITIVE SITE
RISK source of infection, strategy for
investigation, and expected implications. Consider including local veterinarian,
consulting veterinarian, farm managers, key employees, banker/finance manager, prepare for the possibility
PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to help producers
and regional PRRS coordinator. Discuss disclosure arrangement and how to share
of a PRRS outbreak—to anticipate the variable and uncontrolled responses by
results with regional elimination participants.
individuals, businesses and the community. No one can control or predict behavior in a
voluntary effort to eliminate a disease, but it is important for each producer to
PRRS OUTBREAK risk of disclosing a positive site.
contemplate the INVESTIGATION
PROTOCOL
Objective: The purpose of this protocol is to assist the veterinarian and producer in
building a comprehensive case history with the ultimate goal of discovering the source of
a new PRRS infection.

8. N212 MN Regional PRRS Elimination
Program
Dave Wright, Montse Torremorell,
Bob Morrison
Swine Health Center, Morris Vet Clinic, Nate
Winkelman, Swine Vet Center, Neil DeBuse,
Fairmont Vet Clinic & others

9. N212MN Project
• N212MN funding
– ’04 – ’06 - none
• IACUC: – ’07 – ’09 - USDA
– 0711A21864 – ‘10 – ’12 – PRRS CAP &
UMN SDEC
• Rice
– MPB
• Disclosure:
– BI PRRS Initiative
– RBM - 2 sow farms
in Stevens Cy – AASV

10. Stevens County

11. Stevens County
2011
2004
Reduced infected farms from
31 in 2004 to none known in
2012 (5.7% of sites
unknown)

12. First Expansion

13. Second Expansion

14. Identified sites in the region
• 251 negative sites
• 46 positive sites
• 409 unknown sites
• 706 sites identified
• 315 have signed the participation agreement

16. Morris vets
Al Carlson
Nate Winkelman
Swine Vet Center
Has sows negative
Growing pigs, no sows unknown
positive

18. Sow herds in the region
(& nurseries & finishers)
Sow herd size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Farrow to wean 1 1 13 12 11
Farrow to feeder 1
Farrow to finish 23 11
Sow herd size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Unknown 17 5 8 1 2
Positive 1 1 1
Positive stable
Negative provisional
Negative 7 8 4 10 8

20. ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES
• Site identification
• Managing data base and maps
• Notification of status changes
• Relying on voluntary disclosure for herd status
updates

21. SOCIAL CHALLENGES
• Encouraging participation
• Weighing individual farm interest with region’s
interest
• Managing confidentiality and risk of disclosure

22. Managing Disclosure
• Knowing the neighbor’s PRRS status is a
privilege.
• Pressuring the neighbor will drive it
underground.
• “Thank you for telling me. I’m sorry this is
happening to you. Do you mind telling me
your plans? Is there anything I can do to
help?”

25. Update for NE IL:
• Like many other areas, we had a quick rash of breaks in mid
fall, but have been able to contain them fairly well. All of
those producers are in the midst of control programs, and will
or have started elimination plans (Load-Close-
Homegenize). One sow farm has decided to go ahead and
filter the farm. No new strain introductions this year.
• The mood continues to be one of “Yes, We Can”; however, it is
disheartening on all sides (vets & producers) when breaks on
farms, that have eliminated virus and were having
phenomenal production, occur. Everyone is still committed to
the end goal: controlling & eliminating field-strain PRRS from
our area.

26. NC Illinois
Region North-Central IL Density sows: 27.8/sq. mile
Year / Quarter Q4 2011, as of Dec. 31, 2011 Density pigs: 194.6/sq. mile
Sow herd size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Farrow to wean 1 4 3
Farrow to feeder 1 2
Farrow to finish 2 7 3 1
TOTAL 2 7 5 6 4 24
Sow herd Status by Size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Unknown 1 1 1
Positive 4** 2*** 4**** 1
Positive stable 1 2 1 1 2
Negative provisional 1
Negative 1 1
TOTAL 2 7 5 6 4 24

27. 30
25
20
NEG
15 NEG PROV
POS-STABLE
10 POS
UNK
5
0
2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

28. Nurseries (no sows or pigs >10 wks)
<=1200 1201-2400 2401-4800 >4800
Source Source Source Source
IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
Unknown
Positive 1* 1* 3^
Negative
Total 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5
Finishing or Wean to finish
<=1200 1201-2400 2401-4800 >4800
Source Source Source Source
IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
Unknown 1 1 2
Positive 9* 3* 8^^ 1* 8^^^ 4** 10^^^^ 43
Negative 2 1 1 3 7
Total 9 3 11 2 10 4 13 0 52
24 sows, 5 nurseries, 52 finishers
* - Positives are MLV strain
** - 2 of 4 are MLV strain
*** - 1 of 2 are MLV strain
**** - 3 of 4 are MLV strain

29. 80
70
60
50
NEG
40 POS-MLV
POS
30
UNK
20
10
0
Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011

30. Current Needs/Challenges:
• Manpower – there never seems to be a shortage of things
we want to do for this area: educational
programs, improved biosecurity trainings, enhanced testing
• Endurance – the original “push” seems to have faded, and
the challenge will continue to be staying focused &
motivated in the years ahead
• Coordination Among Projects – now that there are so many
projects throughout the US, there needs to be a focused
effort (by NPB, AASV?) to connect the
leaders, coordinators, and participants of these projects so
that they can learn from each other, work in tandem with
one another (projects now know pig flows not only in & out
of their area, but in & out of other project areas).

31. NE project

33. Cuming Co, NE
1) Approx 10 new sow breaks & rumors of problems in some finishers
that haven't been checked yet. These farrowing units provide pigs to
about 25-30 grow finish sites so we are trying to get to all of the sites
to see if offspring is positive. Primarily reproductive problems at sow
units with high number of parasuis cases in newly positive nurseries.
2) The mood is pretty good. The project still has good momentum
although it does come in spurts. It seems if I have enough time to get
out to producers with project they are really excited. We are trying
some MJ prrs in a couple of our areas.
3) The current needs of the project continue to be that of time to
devote to it. When it is rolling we can accomplish a lot in a little bit of
time but it does get bogged down from time to time.

34. PRRS Area Regional Control Project
Iowa County, Iowa
Derald Holtkamp, DVM, MS
Iowa State University
College of Veterinary Medicine
IVMA Winter Conference
February 8, 2012

35. Project Area
• West and north of Highway 151 to Highway 6
to Highway 149 as it bisects the county
• All sites with commercial pigs

36. Swine Premises in Iowa County

37. Iowa County
Region Iowa County Density sows: 10.28 per sq mile
Date 1/24/2012 Density pigs: 186.89 per sq mile
Sow herd size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Farrow to wean 1 1 1
Farrow to feeder
Farrow to finish
Show
Unknown 2 5
Sow herd size
<=100 101-600 601-1500 1501-3000 >3000
Unknown
Positive 2 1
Positive stable 1 1
Negative provisional
Negative 2 3

38. Iowa County
Sow herd status
12
10
8
Negative
Negative provisional
6
Positive stable
4 Positive
Unknown
2
0
2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4

39. Nurseries (no sows or pigs >10 wks)
<=1200 1201-2400 2401-4800 >4800
Source Source Source Source
inside outside inside outside inside outside inside outside
region region region region region region region region
Unknown
Positive 1 1
Positive stable
Negative provisional
Negative 1 1
Total 2 2
Finishing or Wean to finish
<=1200 1201-2400 2401-4800 >4800
Source Source Source Source
inside outside inside outside inside outside inside outside
region region region region region region region region
Unknown
Positive 3 (2 finishers by vaccine)
1 1
Positive stable
Negative provisional
Negative
Total 3 1 1

40. Iowa County
• Substantial progress in 2011.
• Only 2 incidents of PRRS.
– A nursery that receives pigs from an outside
source. Sequence matches source’s strain.
– A wean-to-finish site that had been negative since
the beginning of the area project, but in
November was positive. Source is unknown.

41. Some highlights:
• Dr. Aljets presented at the Swine Disease Conference at
Iowa State in November 2011
• A project vet requested a feed truck delivery pyramid
be drafted the project area. Feed truck biosecurity
facts and tips were drafted and will be shared with the
producers.
• Project dendogram continues to be built.
• Monthly updates continue to be sent to producers and
veterinarians which contain data tables, maps and
other appropriate updates
• PADRAPs are all but complete, only 2 more need to be
completed

42. What’s next?
• Herd plans
• Expanded the project boundaries to include all of Iowa
County commercial producers.
– Many producers in the eastern portion of the county are
beginning to get involved with the Washington County
project and sharing their information, & would be willing
to become a part of the Iowa County Project.
– Many sow farms in eastern portion of the county or
Washington county finish pigs in our current project area
or vice versa. If we were to expand the project, producers
and veterinarians believe that we could get a more
complete picture of pig and virus movement in the county.

43. Current needs & challenges:
• Keep producers focused and motivated. To encourage the project
onwards we plan to hold biosecurity workshops, bring in quest
speakers at quarterly meetings and explore other options. Some
producers are not excited to be retested. Leaders of project, along
with vets are encouraging producers to keep monitoring sites, as
well as complete PADRAPs and herd plans.
• Positive pigs are being placed in project area. If we could get
negative pigs coming into area that would automatically clean up
many growing pig sites.
• Better biosecurity. We are focusing on better biosecurity practices
including feed truck delivery biosecurity and transporting market
hogs. Transporting market hogs was the main focus of the last
producer meeting.

44. “Voluntary, producer-
led, coordinated, regional disease
control programs”

45. Current Issues & Workgroups:
• 7 working groups
• Failure of some closure programs
• Risk factors for spread in hog dense regions

46. Seven working groups:
1. Standard Of Practice for sow herd management &
sampling
2. Minimum sampling guidelines for low risk sow herds
and growing pig sites
3. Risk based sampling
4. Incorporating oral fluids into sampling-testing
guidelines
5. Managing the risk of disclosure
6. Farrow to finish herds
7. Guidelines for implementing common
reports, including mapping legends

47. Evaluating Regional Projects &
Opportunities for PRRS Elimination

49. PRRS SURVIVABILITY STUDIES
Condition Length of Survival
Frozen Years
Moist, Cold, Wet 11 days
700 F (210 C) 6 days
98.6 0 F (37o C) 24 hours
132o F (56o C) 20 minutes
Pitkin, Otake, Dee, “Biosecurity protocols for the
prevention of spread of PRRSv”, Swine Disease
Eradication Center, University of Minnesota