dr. julie menard - what would dr. leman do... for prrs
DESCRIPTION
What Would Dr. Leman Do... for PRRS - Dr. Julie Menard, F. Menard, Inc., from the 2012 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-18, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.TRANSCRIPT
Julie Ménard, Agr. DVM
Allen D. Leman Swine Conference
September 18, 2012
Dr Leman : A leader
His great qualities
Passion
Charisma
People person
Pro-Active
Cost sensitive
His grad students : His legacy!
• Sylvie D’Allaire
• Bob Morrison
• Monte McCaw
• Tim Blackwell
• Tom Stein
• Morgan Morrow
• Kirk Clark
• Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt
Livestock producers want and will continue
to want veterinary service
They want veterinarians to :
a) Be co-responsible for farm success or failure.
b) Help share the burden or worry.
c) Compare their farm with other similar farms.
d) Authenticate their farm decisions and judgments.
e) Increase farm profits by reducing costs and
increasing through-put.
Al Leman, 1988
Still an important strategy
for PRRS control
What would Dr Leman do…
for PRRS ?
My history with PRRS
Graduated in 1987
Start with F.Menard a swine
integrated company in Canada
1 million pigs marketed/year
Agricultural and swine dense area
Province of Quebec/Canada
Swine Dense Area
7 000 000 pigs / year
First PRRS
case : 1988
Since 25 years,
more than 500 cases
My dream :
to control PRRS
F. Ménard inc
Montréal
PRRS cost
• United states = 664 $ millions/yr
• Canada = 150 $ millions/yr
• Quebec = 40 $ millions/yr
Cost of PRRS
Maternity Nursery Finishers
Neuman 51.00 $ (2.35 $) 6.30 $ 8.40 $
Yeske 43.00 $ (1.98 $) 2.19 $ 8.75 $
Ont-Que 60.00 $ (2.76 $) --- ---
F.Menard 60.10 $ (2.77 $) 4.43 $ 7.19 $
Cost/sow = 322 $ Cost/pig = 15 $
C. Surprenant, 2010, Journée AQINAC
1140 sow herd sites in Quebec
# of site(s)
Distance km
500 1 3 5 10
0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 76% 84% 96% 99% 99%
2 16% 41% 83% 94% 98%
3 3% 17% 70% 89% 97%
4 1% 8% 60% 85% 96%
5 0% 3% 52% 81% 95%
6 0% 1% 46% 77% 94%
7 0% 0% 42% 74% 93%
8 0% 0% 38% 71% 92%
9 0% 0% 33% 69% 91%
10 0% 0% 28% 68% 90%
11 0% 0% 24% 67% 89%
Distance of sow herds to nursery
or grow-finish farms in Quebec
C. Klopfenstein 2008, CDPQ
Ange-Gardien sow farm = 2750 sows
The neighborhood
Ange-Gardiensow herd – 2 miles
18 pig barns
30 000 pigs
• Mostly finishing hogs
• Different ownerships
A slaughtering plant
• 2400 killing/day
A manure collection
pit
789
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
3 ja
n 0
4
28 f
ev 0
4
1 m
ai 0
4
3 ju
i 04
aou
04
30 o
ct 0
4
1 ja
n 0
5
26 f
ev 0
5
30 a
vr 0
5
2 ju
i 05
28 a
ou
05
29 o
ct 0
5
31 d
ec 0
5
25 f
ev 0
6
29 a
vr 0
6
1 ju
i 06
26 a
ou
06
oct
06
30 d
ec 0
6
24 f
ev 0
7
28 a
vr 0
7
30 ju
i 07
25 a
ou
07
27 o
ct 0
7
29 d
ec 0
7
23 f
ev 0
8
26 a
vr 0
8
28 ju
i 08
30 a
ou
08
25 o
ct 0
8
3 ja
n 0
9
28 f
ev 0
9
2 m
ai 0
9
4 ju
il 09
29 a
ou
09
31 o
ct 0
9
2 ja
n 1
0
27 f
év 1
0
1 m
ai 1
0
3 ju
i 10
28 a
ou
10
30 o
ct 1
0
1 ja
n 1
1
26 f
ev 1
1
30 a
vr 1
1
2 ju
il 11
27 a
ou
11
29 o
ct 1
1
31 d
ec 1
1
25 f
ev 1
2
28 a
vr 1
2
PIG
WEA
NED
/SO
W/Y
EAR
May 04 Nov 04 Oct 05 Jan 06 Sept 06 Sept 07
PRRSV STRAINS INTRODUCTION
Dec 08 Jun & Jul 09 Nov 10 Jan 12
28
18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
13
/Ju
l/0
4
13
/Au
g/0
4
13
/Sep
/04
13
/Oct
/04
13
/No
v/0
4
13
/Dec
/04
13
/Jan
/05
13
/Feb
/05
13
/Mar
/05
13
/Ap
r/0
5
13
/May
/05
13
/Ju
n/0
5
13
/Ju
l/0
5
13
/Au
g/0
5
13
/Sep
/05
13
/Oct
/05
13
/No
v/0
5
13
/Dec
/05
13
/Jan
/06
13
/Feb
/06
13
/Mar
/06
13
/Ap
r/0
6
13
/May
/06
13
/Ju
n/0
6
13
/Ju
l/0
6
13
/Au
g/0
6
13
/Sep
/06
13
/Oct
/06
13
/No
v/0
6
13
/Dec
/06
13
/Jan
/07
13
/Feb
/07
13
/Mar
/07
13
/Ap
r/0
7
13
/May
/07
13
/Ju
n/0
7
13
/Ju
l/0
7
13
/Au
g/0
7
13
/Sep
/07
13
/Oct
/07
13
/No
v/0
7
13
/Dec
/07
13
/Jan
/08
13
/Feb
/08
13
/Mar
/08
13
/Ap
r/0
8
13
/May
/08
13
/Ju
n/0
8
13
/Ju
l/0
8
13
/Au
g/0
8
13
/Sep
/08
13
/Oct
/08
13
/No
v/0
8
13
/Dec
/08
13
/Jan
/09
13
/Feb
/09
13
/Mar
/09
13
/Ap
r/0
9
13
/May
/09
13
/Ju
n/0
9
13
/Ju
l/0
9
13
/Au
g/0
9
13
/Sep
/09
13
/Oct
/09
13
/No
v/0
9
13
/Dec
/09
13
/Jan
/10
13
/Feb
/10
13
/Mar
/10
13
/Ap
r/1
0
13
/May
/10
13
/Ju
n/1
0
13
/Ju
l/1
0
13
/Au
g/1
0
13
/Sep
/10
13
/Oct
/10
13
/No
v/1
0
13
/Dec
/10
13
/Jan
/11
13
/Feb
/11
13
/Mar
/11
13
/Ap
r/1
1
13
/May
/11
13
/Ju
n/1
1
13
/Ju
l/1
1
13
/Au
g/1
1
13
/Sep
/11
13
/Oct
/11
13
/No
v/1
1
13
/Dec
/11
13
/Jan
/12
13
/Feb
/12
13
/Mar
/12
13
/Ap
r/1
2
NU
RSE
RY
MO
RT.
%
New PRRSV strains introduction
July 04 Nov 04 Oct 05 Jan 06 Sept 06 Oct 07 Nov 08 Mai & Jun 09 Dec 10 Jan & Feb 12
15%
12.8%
Incidence of new PRRSV strains
introduction related to pig density
# FARMSTOTAL #
SOWS
INCIDENCE NEW
STRAINS
(1 every x month)
Remote area (>3 km) 4 5230 1/204
Filtered farms 2 1750 1/23
Medium to dense area
(1 to 3 km)11 14550 1/27
Dense area (2 farms
or more <1 km)3 4930 1/11.3
F.Menard sow herds - 2004 to 2012
New PRRSV strains introduction into sow herds by month
Jan 2004 to May 2012
F.Menard sow herds 25 000 sows
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov DecNum
ber
of
PR
RSV
posi
tive s
am
ple
s
Months
Number of PRRSV positive samples
B. Morrison, 2012
What would Dr Leman do…
for PRRS ?
PRRS control in 2012?
1. Systemic approach to minimize disease expression
2. Gilt acclimatization for PRRS positive sow herds
3. Use of diagnostic tools – PCR and sequencing
4. Strong biosecurity rules
5. Barn filtration in dense hog area
6. PRRS regional control program
7. New areas of research
Controlling the system
to minimize disease
expression
Sow multiplication
Slaughter Plant
TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON OVERALL PRODUCTION FLOW
NUCLEUS
Replacement gilts
Sow herd ASow
herd BSow
herd CSow
herd ESow
herd D
Nursery Nursery Nursery N N N
Finisher Finisher Finisher F F F F F F F F F F F F
N N N N N N N N N
PRRSV -
PRRSV +/-
PRRS -
PRRS -
PRRSV -
PRRSV -
Gilt multiplication and boar studs must be PRRS free
PRRSV - BOAR STUD
• 20 flows of pigs
• Single source / 3 sites / AI AO
• Individual gilts acclimatization
• In house gilts multiplication and AI
• Standard management practices
FINISHERS
NURSERIES
SOW HERD
GILTS ACCLIM.
BARN
FLOW #1 FLOW #2 FLOW #4 FLOW #5 FLOW #6 FLOW #20FLOW #3
A B C D E F Y
A B C D E F Y
A B C D E F Y
A B C D E F Y
Boar studs + Gilts multipliers (PRRS naïve)
F.Menard production structure
Sow herd management to reduce
impact of disease
THE MENARD RULES
1. Stop inducing sows
2. Colostrum intake (day 0)
3. Leave max piglets to their mother (11 to 14)
4. Minimum cross fostering (<10%)
5. PRRS outbreak : Stop completely cross fostering
Thanks Monte!
Does Dr Leman would have
use gilt acclimatization in
order to control PRRS in
his herds ?
Certainly !
Gilt acclimatization
• The Pioneers :
• Dr Scott Dee
• The early researches
• Dre Montserrat Torremorell
• Naïve gilts introduction in PRRS positive herds
• Dre Laura Batista
• PRRS control in Mexico
• The first sero immunization project
• Dr Mark Fitzsimmons as a mentor
• Gilt acclimatization at Swine Graphic
Acclimation with
homologous field virus away
from the sow herd.
Key factors :
1. Achieving complete herd sterilizing immunity
eliminating naïve subpopulations.
2. Exposure of replacement gilts for the next 5
months to the homologous PRRSV strain.
3. Farm closure
The F.Menard strategy
Acclimate gilts at a very young age in
order to wean PRRS negative piglets
from PRRS positive stable sow herd.
Sow herd
Gilt
acclim .barn
PRRSVStrain A
A
Sow herd
Gilt
barn
Strain B
B
Sow herd
Gilt
barn
Strain C
C
Sow herd
Gilt
barn
Strain D
D
• Séro
immunization
Isolated offsite
EXPOSURE
Specific gilt acclimatization
F.Menard
Sow herd and gilt acclimatization become one single unit
Long term gilt acclimatization and
parity one segregation – F.Menard
P
A
R
I
T
Y
O
N
E
S
E
G
R
E
G
A
T
I
O
N
Sero immunizationAI/AO section–55 d
Continuous
section – 80 d
AI/AO section –50 d
Gilt gestation
P1 farrowing rooms
P2 + herd
Gilt
acclimatization
barn
Quarantine
Sow herd A
On site
On site
Off site
345 days old
50 days old
Exposure
Cool
down
PRRSV naïve gilts
PRRSV immunized gilts
AI/AO section –50 d
Gilts acclimatization - advantages
1. Stabilize sow herd quickly following on
outbreak
• Provide gilt immunity to homologous strain
2. Long term immunity in hog dense region
3. Important strategy for eradication
•Since off site, it mimic herd closure without
production break
What would Dr Leman have
thought about PRRSV
PCR and sequencing to help in
PRRS control ?
Maternity
Nurseries
Finishers
Boar stud
Gilt
nucleus/multiplication
PRRSV
PCR AND
SEQUENCING
SERUM OR
ORALFLUID
The diagnostic : Essential tool
for best PRRS control
MONITORING : PRRSV STATUS
Diagnostic - F.Menard
PRRSV PCR and
sequencing
PRRSV strain sequence % homology
(ORF5)
• 485 sequences
identified since 1998
• Homologous or
Heterologous
• Relationship to other
sequences
• 1998 to 2002
• 226 field cases
• ORF5 PRRSV sequencing
• Main relationships between strains
1. Introduction of infected animals
2. Area spread
•Distance between farms
•Ownership (same or different)
2012 – University of Montreal
Quebec, Canada
• Bank of 2500 PRRSV sequences
• Grouping of sequences from Quebec field cases
• Predominant strain = « Tsunami »
• 10% of the FVM sequence database
• Appearance in 2007
• « Tsunami » strain = 13% F.Menard sequences
Dre Sylvie D’Allaire and co-workers
What about Dr Leman’s
perception of biosecurty
today ?
Biosecurity – Case #1
• April 26, 2012
•PRRSV naïve sow herd
•Very isolated farm
•New PRRSV introduction
•ORF5 sequences = « Tsunami strain »
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1 ju
i 06
29
jui 0
6
26 a
ou
06
sep
t 06
oct
06
25
no
v 0
6
30 d
ec 0
6
27 ja
n 0
7
24 f
ev 0
7
31 m
ar 0
7
28 a
vr 0
7
26 m
ai 0
7
30
jui 0
7
28
jui 0
7
25 a
ou
07
29 s
ep 0
7
27 o
ct 0
7
24
no
v 0
7
29 d
ec 0
7
26 ja
n 0
8
23 f
ev 0
8
29 m
ar 0
8
26 a
vr 0
8
31 m
ai 0
8
28
jui 0
8
26
jui 0
8
30 a
ou
08
27 s
ep 0
8
25 o
ct 0
8
29
no
v 0
8
3 ja
n 0
9
31 ja
n 0
9
28 f
ev 0
9
4 av
r 09
2 m
ai 0
9
30 m
ai 0
9
4 ju
il 09
1 a
ou
09
29 a
ou
09
3 o
ct 0
9
31 o
ct 0
9
28
no
v 0
9
2 ja
n 1
0
30 ja
n 1
0
27 f
év 1
0
3 av
r 10
1 m
ai 1
0
29 m
ai 1
0
3 ju
i 10
31 ju
i 10
28 a
ou
10
2 o
ct 1
0
30 o
ct 1
0
27 n
ov
10
1 ja
n 1
1
29 ja
n 1
1
26 f
ev 1
1
2 av
r 11
30 a
vr 1
1
28 m
ai 1
1
2 ju
il 11
30 ju
il 11
27 a
ou
11
1 o
ct 1
1
29 o
ct 1
1
26 n
ov
11
31 d
ec 1
1
28 ja
n 1
2
25 f
ev 1
2
31 m
ar 1
2
28 a
vr 1
2
26 m
ai 1
2
30 ju
in 1
2
28 ju
il 12
PIG
WEA
NED
/SO
W/Y
EAR
PIG WEANED/SOW/YEAR "TSUNAMI STRAIN"
New PRRSV strainintroduction -> May 12
28
4
Biosecurity
PRRSV strain sequence % homology (ORF5)
Biosecurity
Source of contamination ??
• Homologous to sequences within our
organization
• 12 years without PRRS contamination
• Many repairs and visitors during last months
• Inadequate showers and disinfection room
Conclusion : Internal contamination
-> Biosecurity breach by personnel
Biosecurity – Case #2
• April 23, 2012
•Filtered sow farm
•PRRSV naïve
•New PRRSV introduction
Biosecurity
PRRSV strain sequence % homology (ORF5)
• Log book – Maintenance
• Friday morning
•Repair crew in finisher barn receiving the
highly PRRSV contaminated piglets.
• Monday morning
•Repair at the filtered sow farm (72 hrs later!).
Same crew – same truck
•Fans introduced through disinfection room
Biosecurity
Source of contamination
Biosecurity – Case #2
Conclusion
PRRSV introduction by contaminated
material
Need very few viruses to infect
High survival and stability of some
viruses in the environment
Biosecurity
Manure Linhares et al. 2012
Otake 2012
Predictors associated with PRRS positive status using
multivariable logistic regression model whit robust SE on
ownership (54 sites)
Description of predictors Odds ratio P-value
Heat producing unit > 300 (HPU) 10.7 0.02
Distance from closest pig site ≤ 2.5 (km) 7.3 <0.01
No shower at the entrance 8.7 <0.01
Access to the site by rendering truck 7.0 0.03
Biosecurity
Lambert M.-E. et al. 2012
% of pairwise combinations having ≥98% homology between
wildtype strains over total number of combinations –
122 sequences – 7381 pairwise combinations
Distance between sitesSame
ownership
Different
ownershipTotal
≤ 5 km16.0%
8/50
0.9%
7/785
1.8%
15/83516 X
> 5 km to ≤ 10 km9.6%
8/83
0.3%
5/1453
0.8%
13/153632 X
> 10 km5.2%
9/174
0.4%
20/4853
0.6%
29/501013 X
Total8.1%
25/307
0.6%
32/7074
0.8%
57/738114 X
Biosecurity
Lambert M.-E. et al. 2012
Strict compliance with biosecurity rules
is the single most important factor
It is imperative to find the source of
contamination
Internal or aerosol
ORF5 sequencing = The best tool!
Remote Area
Pig Dense Area
PRRS control :
The site is the
primary factor!
Would Dr Leman have used
air filtration to prevent new
introduction of PRRSV ?
Summary of new PRRSV infections before
and after air filtration in breeding herds
Group Cohort n Enrolled
End of
follow
up
Time at
risk/herd
(months)
Total herd
time at
risk
(months)
Number
of cases
Pre-
filtration
(control)
A 5 May 05 Sep 08 40 200 20
B 5 May 06 Sep 09 28 140 17
C 14 May 07 Sep 10 16 224 21
Total (24) 564 58
Post-
filtration
(treatment)
A 5 Sep 08 Jan 12 40 200 3
B 5 Sep 09 Jan 12 28 140 1
C 14 Sep 10 Jan 12 16 224 4
Total (24) 564 8
S. Dee et Al. 2012
C. Alonso et al. IPVS 2012
Presqu’Ile
800 sows
(2010)
Ste-Brigide
1000 sows
(2008)
F.Menard
filtered farms
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
25.00
26.00
27.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
32.00
33.00
1 ja
n 0
5
26 f
ev 0
5
30 a
vr 0
5
2 ju
i 05
28 a
ou
05
29 o
ct 0
5
31 d
ec 0
5
25 f
ev 0
6
29 a
vr 0
6
1 ju
i 06
26 a
ou
06
oct
06
30 d
ec 0
6
24 f
ev 0
7
28 a
vr 0
7
30 ju
i 07
25 a
ou
07
27 o
ct 0
7
29 d
ec 0
7
23 f
ev 0
8
26 a
vr 0
8
28 ju
i 08
30 a
ou
08
25 o
ct 0
8
3 ja
n 0
9
28 f
ev 0
9
2 m
ai 0
9
4 ju
il 09
29 a
ou
09
31 o
ct 0
9
2 ja
n 1
0
27 f
év 1
0
1 m
ai 1
0
3 ju
i 10
28 a
ou
10
30 o
ct 1
0
1 ja
n 1
1
26 f
ev 1
1
30 a
vr 1
1
2 ju
il 11
27 a
ou
11
29 o
ct 1
1
31 d
ec 1
1
25 f
ev 1
2
28 a
vr 1
2
P
V
T
A
Differentsstrains May 05 July 06 May 08 Oct 08 Oct 09 Nov 10 Feb 11
PRE-FILTRATION 44 months4 new PRRSV infection
POST-FILTRATION 44 months1 new PRRSV infection
Installationof filters
PRRSV gilthomologous acclimation
Homologous strain
Pig
weaned/so
w/year
Filtered farms – PRRSV infection
• Before filtration : PRRS break every year
• After filtration : PRRS break :
• Farm A = 1/4 yrs
• Farm B = 1/2 yrs
Reasons for PRRSV contamination
1. Gilt transport in swine dense area
2. Personal biosecurity breach
• Boots and equipment material
Double doors principle
Filtered farms – The devil is in the details
Clear SOP’s No air leakage
Would Dr Leman have been
involved in one of these PRRS
regional control projects?
I think so!
United-States
Becton, Morrison, AASV 2012
Canada – PRRS regional projects - 2012
26
sites
150 sites
236
sites
Niagara project
5 projects
September 2011
90% PRRS positive
Larochelle, D’Allaire and Magar
CFIA and University of Montreal
5 Veterinarians sharing informations on
PRRSV sequences (ORF5)
The first collaborative team work
Quebec, Canada
Benefits of PRRS regional
control project
1.Farm location, production type
2.Share PRRSV status and sequences
3.Strategic and uniform action plan
PRRS regional control project –
Monteregie region
F.Menard
3 other integrated
companies
Independant
producers
Highlights of the action plan
1. Clusters of production
• Same source of pigs around sow farms
2. Stabilize sow herds
• Offsite gilt acclimation/herd closure
3. Protect naïve herds with same
commercial live PRRSV vaccine strain
4. Prevent introduction of new PRRSV
strain through pigs in the region
Real big impact of these projects
• Improve quality of information
• Increase use of valid diagnostic tools
• Sequencing (ORF5)
• Homology
• Phylogenic tree
• Occasion to look back at our system
• Grouping of strains within
organizations
• Internal transmission
Which research would
have interested
Dr Leman the most ?
Recent News
Scientists discover PRRS resistance gene By Melodie Michel, 05-Mar-2012
Related topics: Safety & Legislation, Livestock, United States
A team of US scientists have discovered a genetic marker determining pigs’ level of resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).
The findings could help the country reduce the impact of PRRS, a disease costing the pork industry an
estimated $664m a year.
Lisa Becton, director of swine health and information at Pork Checkoff, which funded the research,
said: “PRRS is one of the industry’s top ongoing issues, so this research discovery is a major step in
the right direction. Pork producers realise that supporting science-based research is not an overnight
proposition. It’s especially gratifying to achieve results like this and to envision how they can be
implemented at the farm level.”
PRRS Host Genetics Consortium
• PRRS researchers (including virologists)
• NC1037/NRSP8 (swine genome)
• NPB Swine Health and Animal Science Committees
• Veterinarians
• AASV
• Producers
• Commercial partners representing breeders, animal health,
feed and diagnostic companies
• Topigs, Fast Genetics, Genesus, Genetiporc,
Newsham, PIC
Viral load vs. weight gain
Individual pig data
from PHGC 1-3
rp = -0.25
Source: Boddicker et al. 2012
PRRS challenge trial
Effect of SSC4 SNP WUR10000125 on viral load
Adapted from Dekkers et al., 2012
Where do we go now in terms of
PRRS control?
• As practitioners, we learned a lot on PRRS
• Have to use research results and apply it
in our day to day work
• Get into all these new projects
• Be pro active
• Be part of our producers success
What will we do when PRRS
is completely eradicated ?
We will have more time to enjoy life!
HOG JOG – IPVS 2010
Special thanks to my family
Special thanks to my F.Menard team
Special thanks to my scientific mentors
• Dre Sylvie D’Allaire
• Dr André Broes
• Dre Laura Batista
• Dr Robert Desrosiers
• Dr Bob Morrison