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


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 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


FarrowingNursery Grower

Finisher


19




Finisher


20




Finisher


21




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


• 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


• 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


• 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


Wean Day 145

Gestation

Lactation

BreedDay71‐81

BreedWeek

106‐116


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


Wean Day 138

Gestation

Lactation


Wean Day 152

BreedDay71‐75

BreedDay57‐61

BreedDay85‐89

BreedDay

99‐103

BreedDay

113‐117

BreedDay

127‐131

BreedDay29‐33


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


BreedDay64‐74

BreedDay85‐95

BreedDay

106‐116

BreedDay

127‐137


Wean Day 145


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


Lact Weanfollicular phase HeatHeat

15 14 13 12 11 10 Altrenogest 6 5 4 3 2 1 follicular phase


Lact Wean

follicular phase HeatHeat

8 7 6 Altrenogest 3 2 1 follicular phase


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 Has Additional Costs to Consider:– Conversion Cost– Increased Non‐Productive Days– Wean Age Impact– Number Farrowed Impact

61


• 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


• 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


• 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


• Key Medication Considerations:– Think like the Pathogen

• Resistance Mechanisms• Organ System Preference

72


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


• 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

• 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


85


• 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


86


• 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

87

Thank You!

[email protected]

of batch farrowing systems in disease control · return of batch production • continuous...

Documents