The document outlines efforts to improve control of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea (PED) in Minnesota swine, discussing the results of regional meetings and proposed partnerships. It highlights the need for better information on the disease status of pigs entering the state, suggesting collaboration with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health to enhance participation and transparency in disease reporting. The proposal aims to identify and manage risks associated with PRRS and PED through improved data collection without imposing movement restrictions on pigs.

1. IMPROVING MINNESOTA
PRRS/PED CONTROL
Dave Wright & Bill Hartmann
Minnesota Pork Congress
January 19, 2016

2. Improving the Value of
Minnesota PRRS & PED
Control
“WHAT’S NEXT?”
Review and Progress
Report

3. Timeline Review
A discussion process that lead to
the proposal being presented for
consideration

4. 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

5. N212 Progress Report
Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Dec 2015
Sites Identified 812 872 914
Signed Participants 408 567 600
Positive PRRS Sites 89 72 69
Stable or St. Vaccinated 18 88 66
Negative PRRS/PEDV 273 308/0 360/201
Empty Sites 88 107 111
Unknown PRRS Status 343 296 307
PED Positive Sites 8 10

6. N212 PRRS Analysis 2013-15

7. Minor clinical
signs
5 unique sequences;
Major losses-
$5,000,000?
1-4-4 mostly
N212 crosses
epidemic
threshold,
9+sequences

8. 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)

9. Meeting Goal:
To explore feasible options to
improve PRRS and PEDV
control in Minnesota

10. 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

11. Meeting in Mankato on
September 23:
MPB Executive Committee
summarizing discussion from
previous two meetings.

12. 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

13. Two documents drafted for
consideration:
• 1. Filling Finishing Barns Responsibly
• 2. MN BAH Partnership Proposal
for PRRS/PED Control with Q & A

14. MN BAH Partnership Proposal
for PRRS/PED Control
with Q & A’s
Distributed to MN Swine Health
Task Force for review

15. Meeting on Nov 18 in Mankato
with MN Swine Health Task
Force

16. 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.

18. Regional control projects have
been helpful in promoting
collaboration among producers
and veterinarians, but
effectiveness is limited by the
voluntary nature of the
programs:

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. County Map

25. Zip code map

26. Zip code close up

27. 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

28. The Swine Health
Task Force felt that the
proposal has enough merit to
present it to Minnesota pork
producers for comment and
feedback.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. “It’s always better to know
than not to know.”
-Michael Murtaugh

33. Questions and
Discussion

35. Dave Wright, D.V.M.
763-242-7535
wright2me.dave@gmail.com
N212 Project Coordinator

36. AASV and NPB
POSTION 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

37. Joe Connor Presentation:
North American PRRS
Symposium
December 2014
http://www.swinecast.com/dr-joe-
connor-historical-perspective-prrs-
area-regional-control-prrs-arc

38. 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

39. Joe Connor Message Points
• Elimination steps:
Develop a team
Develop a strategy
Implement the plan
• The process is underway

40. 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:
Positive
Negative
Unknown

41. 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

42. Wisconsin Summary
PRRS Source
• 54% Negative
• 18% Vaccinated
• 18% Positive
• 9% Unknown
PED Source
• 23% Negative
• 11% Positive
• 66% Unknown

43. State Animal Health Officials
have the authority to approve
movement of swine entering
their state and within their
state.

44. 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