I recently had the opportunity to host a group of food bloggers at a farm that I am the veterinarian for in South Dakota.  Prior to this event, I didn’t have a good understanding of what food blogging entailed aside from a couple quick visits to The Pioneer Woman’s blog!  But let me tell you… I learned a lot about food blogging.

The nine bloggers who visited our farm were amazing people who had worked with companies like Kraft food, Bushes Baked Beans, Taste of Home, and even Captain Morgan!  Some of them have written cookbooks and all of them demonstrated an AMAZING PASSION FOR FOOD!  In return, I shared my passion for pig farming and our desire to give the best care to our animals.

The bloggers brought a unique perspective to our farm visit which inevitably led to some candid conversations about antibiotics, health, and care of the animals.  I thought our readers may be wondering about these questions too:

“Do all pigs get antibiotics here at the farm?”

The first stop on our tour was in the area that is like the “medicine cabinet” and supply room.  One of the bloggers asked if all the pigs on the farm get antibiotics.  I clarified that we do not give all pigs on the farm antibiotics.  As a veterinarian, I took an oath to protect animal health and prevent and relieve animal suffering – so using antibiotics to treat sick pigs or to prevent significant diseases spreading through a group of animals is of the utmost importance to me.  We do use antibiotics because they are an important tool for caring for our animals, when necessary. We also talked about ways that we prevent disease and measures we take to keep the animals healthy – for example, the vaccinations that we give, having our animals inside to keep their environment comfortable and working with nutritionists to provide the best nutrition.

 “How are the mom pigs taken care of while they are at the farm?”

Sow (mom pig) comfort is a top priority on the farm.  We had the opportunity to walk through the area where the pregnant sows are located.  Our visitors noticed that there was “mood music” playing in the background – they enjoyed this surprising find!  We also talked about special nutritional needs that change throughout pregnancy and how we are able to adjust to meet these needs and keep the sows healthy.

“What happens when mom pigs give birth?”

As we walked through the part of the farm where piglets were being born (aka farrowing rooms), we discussed how a specially trained individual is checking on the moms every 20 minutes to make sure they are progressing with farrowing. They also are drying piglets off as they are born and putting them under the special heat lamps to make sure piglets warm up quickly.  This sounds similar to the steps taken when my children were just born!  Some of the bloggers tried their hand at helping deliver piglets – those who did seem to glow with pride and excitement when the new piglet was delivered into their arms!

The bloggers enjoyed seeing first hand all the actions that we take to care for the sows and pigs. Farmers and Veterinarians work together to keep them healthy and reduce our need to treat animals with antibiotics.  Sharing this message as well as demonstrating our passion for pigs helped resonate with the bloggers – it was great to share that we are raising animals to provide that SAFE WHOLESOME DELICIOUS FOOD THEY LOVE & BLOG ABOUT!!

Dr. Jay Bobb, veterinarian, and Jenna Hauglid, Pipestone Grow Finish, Nutrition Account Manager, traveled to Ethiopia in October 2017 to tour schools and other programs that benefited from a contribution from Pipestone to the Adams Thermal Foundation earlier this year.

Adams Thermal Foundation was established by the Adams Thermal Systems in Canton, South Dakota, in 2014 to support the company’s charitable and social programs in the U.S., Africa, and China.  In Africa, the foundation supports two schools in Southern Ethiopia and programs to improve water quality and help women achieve economic self-sufficiency.

“Our support of the Adams Thermal Foundation programs is consistent with our “Caring” core value and meets our priorities to support organizations that benefit children and increasing food security,” said Dr. Bobb.

As part of an event during the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) convention, a group of 32 individuals and organizations raised $32,000 for the AASV Foundation to support the Adams Thermal Foundation.  Pipestone matched the foundation’s donation. The donated funds were used to renovate and expand the Hosanna School, which serves about 580 students in grades Kindergarten through 11, with plans to add twelfth grade for the next school year. The renovation included the construction of 14 classrooms, the addition of modern restroom facilities and equipment and resources for student learning.

Hosanna is a city of about 76,000 people located about 115 miles southwest of Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa.  The Hosanna School serves the “poorest of the poor” in the city, many of whom are orphaned or HIV-positive.  Enrollment is done in coordination with the local government to identify students who wouldn’t otherwise have an opportunity to attend school.  Students also receive health care and a meal program at Hosanna School.

Despite their challenging circumstances, Jenna noted the positive attitudes and clear focus of the students they met. “The students are incredibly confident and determined.  They know exactly what they want to accomplish in their life, whether it is a pilot, engineer, doctor or other career goals,” she said. “The education and other resources at the Hosanna School will provide them a way to reach their goals and move out of poverty.”

In addition to classrooms, the school features a large garden used to supplement the school meal program and as a learning lab for biology classes.  Children and families can learn about gardening practices that they can use in home gardens. Ottoro School is the second school supported by the Adams Thermal Foundation and is located in an impoverished rural village about 135 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.  The school serves 480 students in Kindergarten through 8^th grades.  Students receive health screenings as well as tuition and uniforms. “We were able to visit classrooms and talk with students in the older grades who have learned English,” said Jenna.  “They are amazing kids who are very committed to their education, with many walking six to eight miles a day just to get to school.” She was inspired by the students and is planning to personally sponsor a student’s education through the foundation’s website in the future.

In addition to touring the schools, Dr. Bobb and Jenna also met with members of two women’s self-help program groups.  The women receive training on a variety of skills and earn money through the sale of weaving and other handmade items, then are able to put their earned money into savings accounts or invest in home or other projects.

Dr. Bobb recognizes that while there is progress being made, the students and families face many challenges.

“It puts a lot of things in perspective when you see children who don’t get meals every day, or to see families washing clothes or getting drinking water from standing water in ditches,” he said.

Donations from individuals or companies like Pipestone will provide the tools that students to get an education and help families emerge from poverty.

“It is an honor to work for a company with the commitment to caring for people not only where we live but around the world,” he said.  “It was a blessing to be able to see firsthand what an impact we were able to make.”

Below is a guide to plan your open house from the decorations, guest list, menu, and even a couple stress relievers.

#1 Decorations

You can go as simple as you want or shoot for a glossy covered magazine look!

• Make your house an inviting- casual setting with warm lighting and several food stations.
• Pick a focal point and decorate around it.
• A theme is easy to keep you focused and less stressed. A couple examples would be Santa’s, snowflakes, snowmen, rustic or modern
• Select a decorating day. Put on some festive music, light some holiday candles and enjoy the process.
• Repurpose with minimal expense.
  • Swapping out photos for holiday cards
  • Move the couch to face the tree instead of the TV
  • Use old ornaments in vases of various heights
  • Paint the ornaments, pinecones, etc. with your theme color. Then accent with greens

#2 Guest List:

When you have your invite list finalized, be as personal as possible, whether it’s an email invite, fun little cards or word of mouth. You could even create an “Open House” invite to keep in your pocket and hand out as you see friends and family.  Here are some tips when creating your invites:

• Be clear on start and stop times. This will ensure people don’t come over when you are prepping
• Decide on whether kids are invited or not. If they are, keep them busy by setting up several easy festive crafts. Even better hire a responsible teenager or two to do the crafts with them. Adults can mingle and kids will be having fun!
• Parting gift for guests (if it’s in your budget.) A couple ideas would be baked goods or your signature fudge that can be prepared days ahead. Careful not to overdo it here! My rule is something “homemade” from the heart or nothing at all.

#3 Menu:

• Keep it simple. Pick a dish you are good at for your main entrée.
• Prepare finger foods and appetizers ahead of time, do as many ahead as possible to reduce your party day stress. Don’t be afraid to outsource if budget allows!
• Self-serve BAR! – Need we say more?! This gives your guests who may not know each other something to do together and chat about. Have a signature drink? Print out recipe cards for guests to use and take home. And remember, LOTS of ice!
• Remember sharing goes both ways, your guests feel welcome if they can participate in a small way. You would pick the menu, then ask a guest to bring something to go along with your theme. Here are some fun ideas:
  • Wine & Cheese
  • Pastries & Coffee
  • Bacon & Beer
  • Meats & Sweets

#4 Stress Relievers

• Keep it casual. Set the mood with your festive music and decorations.
• Set a budget and find ways to save by shopping online or borrowing from friends.
• Phone a friend. The day before, have them come over to help with final touches (dusting, cleaning, food preparations, table setting, furniture moving, and getting those last minute items). It’s always more fun with a friend and you will get it done faster!
• Enlist in a helper- your babysitter, your child’s friend, a waitress you know – hire them to come for the evening to assist in kitchen help, serving and clean up!
• Stock up the bathroom- running out of toilet paper is a buzz kill!
• Have a designated spot for coats.
• Place plenty of trash receptacles. Cover with burlap bag or wrapping paper to go along with your theme.
• If you have leftovers, purchase some holiday decorative plastic containers and send home with your guests.
• Clean up as you go! This is a MUST. The last thing you want is to wake up tomorrow and regret hosting. It’s OK to accept help of considerate guest who volunteer to help.

The holiday season is usually a busy season, but having an open house for your friends and family allows them to come and go as their schedule allows. No reservations, no pressure, no worries. ENJOY the festivities and Merry Christmas!

During the last three decades, continuous selection for increased litter size and milk production has increased heat production of sows and reduced their upper critical temperature. This selection has also resulted in decreased piglet birth weights and less body energy reserves at birth, requiring greater farrowing room temperatures, and the use of heat pads or heat lamps to provide local heat for piglets. Daily feed intake, milk production level and subsequent reproductive performance of sows are limited by the need to have higher room temperatures for increased piglet survival. If the anticipated environmental warming continues to adversely affect ambient temperatures, it will become more important that lactating sows be provided with some form of active cooling to maintain productivity and animal welfare.

The Animal Sciences and Agricultural Biological Engineering Departments at Purdue University have been working together for the last three years to develop a cooling pad able to remove locally and efficiently the excess of heat from lactating sows. First studies were focused to estimate the daily heat production of lactating sows. A heat production model was developed using the energy efficiency equations from NRC, (2012). The model estimates the heat production of sows with different daily feed intake and milk production levels during lactation. A lactating sow produces approximately between 350 to 650 watts of heat as a daily average and heat production increases as the parity and lactation progresses (Figure 1). Heat stress results when the heat energy produced by the animal is greater than the amount dissipated.

Figure 1. Predicted daily heat production of lactating sows by parity

Cooling pads technology is based on the conduction of the heat from the source (the animal) to the sink (chilled water running through the pipes). The thermodynamic laws govern the rate of heat transfer by temperature differentials. The design and the materials used in the cooling pads should be selected in order to increase heat removal. Aluminum and copper have a low heat capacitance, which means that rather than storing the heat, they are able to transfer it. The cooling pad has been built with a heavy-duty aluminum plate in the surface, high-density polyethylene base and copper water pipes attached to the aluminum plate. The first prototype had six rows of copper pipes and then an eight rows pipe prototype was developed to increase heat removal capacities. The eight rows pipe prototype was able to remove approximately 50% more heat than the previous prototype. All heat transfer and removal tests have been performed using an “artificial sow”, a bag with approximately 40 gallons of water heated at 104ºF (Figure 2). The initial pads had numerous thermocouples and were run through heat transfer trials with different cooling water flow options, including constant cool water flow, set times between cool water flushes and alternative pad temperatures to initiate the cool water flush. Pad dimensions were refined and the range of constant flow rates, time between flushes and desired upper set temperatures for different environmental conditions were estimated.

Figure 2. Heat removal test station (“artificial sow”)

The best prototype was then replicated, and 24 cooling pads were built. They have been used to run trials on sows during lactation. One of the trials was performed under severe heat stress conditions (95ºF and 69% RH) to test the cooling effect on behavior and heat stress markers in sows (respiration rate and skin, rectal and vaginal temperatures). Sows with no cooling spent more time in a “dog like posture” to increase body heat dissipation to the environment, less time on the feeder and less time milking in comparison to the sows with an active cooling of 0.85 L/min. After 80 min of cooling, sows with active cooling had lower respiration rates (45 versus 122 breaths/min), vaginal temperature (102.6 versus 104.2ºF), rectal temperature (102.2 versus 104.0ºF) and skin temperature (101.5 versus 102.9ºF) than sows with no active cooling, respectively. Heat removal was three to four times greater than previous cooling pads made of concrete and steel pipes.

Pipestone continues to evaluate new technologies like cooling pads to bring a competitive advantage to our producers. For widespread implementation and use of this technology, long-term studies should be performed in commercial barns to estimate the direct and indirect effects of heat stress, and the benefits on sows’ lactation and reproductive performance of cooling pads technology operation. In the near future, the use of cooling pads should be investigated on boars, growing finish pigs and gestating sows.

Media suggests that the livestock industry is not properly managing the antibiotic issue.  Assumptions like this have led to action, such as the recent San Francisco law requiring grocery stores and meat producers to label the average time and quantity of drugs given to livestock.

Let’s talk about the truths of AMR, before assumptions.

Truth #1:  There is no direct evidence that links antibiotic use in livestock to clinical failure of therapy in humans.

Truth #2: Livestock producers must follow federal withdrawal times to make sure the antibiotic has left the treated animals body by time of harvest.

To ensure farmers follow withdrawal dates and our meat supply is safe and nutritious, the USDA monitors and tests the meat supply for antibiotic residues in the meat.

Truth #3: Withholding treatment to sick animals is inhumane.

Veterinarians take an oath to protect animal health and prevent and relieve animal suffering, conserve animal resources, promote public health, and advance medical knowledge.  What does this have to do with antibiotics?  When an animal is sick, treatment with antibiotics is the ethical thing to do to relieve the animal from suffering.

Data from a recent Pipestone Applied Research scientifically validated study indicate that the inability to use antibiotics in a judicious, responsible manner to treat sick animals can result in unacceptably high mortality levels.  As a veterinarian and animal care-taker, it’s at my core to use every approved tool I can to save animal lives while being judiciously responsible for my family, community and environment.

Truth #4: Antibiotic Resistance has been happening in bacteria for millions of years, long before the discovery and development of antibiotics.

1. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been identified in the stomach contents of mummified humans.
2. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been identified in 4-million-year-old caves in which humans have never set foot.
3. Samples of bacteria collected from pens of pigs indicate resistance to antibiotics that have never been used on the farm.

Truth #5: The environment is the real driver of resistance.

Often overlooked is the effect of environmental bacteria on the development and spread of resistance, specifically,

1. Bacteria & molds have been in our environment for millions of years.
2. In order to compete and to survive, they have developed metabolites which are the precursors to antibiotics.
3. The genetic code for these metabolites are easily exchanged from one bacteria to another
4. The widespread exchange of genetic material results in the development of bacteria that are resistant to the metabolite (antibiotic).
5. Because of this phenomenon, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics, even if they are never used in the population or on the farm.

Truth #6: More research is needed to understand AMR.

Antimicrobial Resistance is extremely complicated, and with research so new on this topic it is too easy for people to jump to conclusions.  Pipestone takes AMR and our responsibility of antibiotic use very seriously, which is why we have dedicated time and resources to developing programs such as PART (Pipestone Antibiotic Resistance Tracker).  PART provides Pipestone veterinarians and livestock producers the tools for Responsible Antibiotic Use with ability to track antibiotic use.  Pipestone is also undergoing research trials in regard to AMR so we can better understand how we can combat antibiotic resistance.

We applaud others who are taking steps to better understand the truths of AMR, and ask others to join us before making assumptions.

For any questions or concerns regarding this topic please do not hesitate to contact our Pipestone team of veterinarians and swine specialists at 507-562-PIGS

Scott Dee, DVM MS PhD Dipl; ACVM
Director of Research

scott.dee@pipestone.com

The first trial was designed to understand lactation lengths impact on sow weight and growing pig performance. We looked at five treatment groups from 21 days to 30 days wean age in 2-day increments.

The second trial was designed to evaluate the impact of lactation length on sow performance and total born. Records of 99,653 sows farrowed between August 2016 and August 2017 were evaluated. Genetic lines were PiC-L42, DNA, Topig-Norsvin and Fast. Farms with health breaks were excluded and sows with total born less than 5 and greater than 25 were excluded.

Here are the top 5 things we learned from these trials.

#1 Elevated weaning age causes no change on sow weight loss or gain during lactation

The statistical model did show that a P1 sow lost significantly (-33 lbs) than P2+ sows (-2 lbs.) And that a wean age of 29-30 days lost numerically the least (12 lbs.)

Sow weight loss in cohorts by 2-day increments of lactation length and by parity during lactation is described in the figure below.

#2 Elevated weaning age improves wean to finish ADG, but does not improve lifetime ADG.

The below chart shows that by weaning an older pig, you will have fewer days to market from placement, but will not move the physiologic lifetime growth rate of the pig.

#3 Elevated weaning age has minimal impact on wean to finish feed conversion

#4 Elevated weaning age reduces wean to finish mortality and culls and reduces removals

#5 Elevated lactation length elevates subsequent sow total born

Subsequent total born improves by 0.085 pigs for every day of lactation increase.

In summary, data overwhelmingly supports maximizing lactation length at sow farms. There are benefits for the sow as well as the piglets.

For additional questions on the trial, contact Dr. Cameron Schmitt at cameron.schmitt@pipestone.com.

Dr. Scott Dee of Pipestone Veterinary Services shares what we've learned about air filtration over the years and how its making a difference in the industry.

PRRS has been a game changer in the swine industry, and filtration of hog barns has made great strides in reduction of the spread of the air-borne strains of the virus.

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome has been a game-changer in the U.S. swine industry. Having first been described in the United States in 1987-88 in North Carolina, Iowa and Minnesota, the economic impact to producers has been compounded most recently attributed to $580.62 million each year.

Though a lot has been learned about PRRS, control of the virus is far from accomplished. Great strides have been made, with the recent technological advancements in the area of gene editing, presenting the potential to create a pig immune to PRRS. Progress has also been made with companies releasing live-virus vaccines that help herds build immunity. But several years ago, one of the biggest challenges was reducing the risk of airborne spread.

Filtration comes to America

Scott Dee, veterinarian with the Pipestone Veterinary Services and the director of Pipestone Applied Research, became intrigued with potential ways to stop farms from becoming infected with PRRS while he was a practitioner in Morris, Minn., from 1987-99, and while he was a professor at the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine. His research there focused on the transmission and biosecurity of PRRSV for a 12-year period.

In 2003, while he was still at the U of Minn., a new PRRSV strain — 184 — surfaced causing high mortalities in sows and “seemed to just jump from place to place”. Follow-up work by Dee and one of his students, Jenny Cho demonstrated that this virus had a great ability to replicate inside a pig and exhaling aerosols containing a quantity of virus that was significantly higher than from pigs infected with some of the older PRRSV strains.

Based on this information, in October of 2004, Dee’s intrigue with aerosol transmission of PRRSV took him to Brittany, France, where he had veterinarian friends who had started filtering hog farms. “Now that I knew air-borne risk was real, I wanted to learn what they were up to.”

The Brittany area of France, Dee says, is like the “Iowa of France” with hog farms very close together, though not very large. Filtered breeding stock farms, having been established for one to two years by the time Dee visited, were located right in the middle of all of this hog congestion, “and they had good clinical findings that filtration seemed to prevent infection; however, there was no hard data to support this observation.”

The French barns that Dee visited were all positive-pressure. The French had also employed the use of high-efficiency particulate air filters, which Dee calls the most efficient, but also most expensive, means of filtration. HEPA filters are about 99% efficient at particle removal, and are often found in hospitals and other medical facilities.

“I remember riding home on the airplane, thinking that air filtration is the answer, but we have to make it work for the U.S. national herd. We have to do it cheaper, and we have to do it with negative pressure because that’s the way all our buildings were set up.”

Proving the concept

Dee took his excitement from that October 2004 trip, and turned it into performing proof of concept research work at the University of Minnesota in 2004-05. Starting with rudimentary filter chambers, Dee set out to see if he could prevent infection, “and it worked.” Working off the French model, Dee worked with HEPA filters, and then started showing that less efficient, lower cost filters also worked very well.

Having shown success, Dee started getting the word out by publishing his results and doing presentations at industry conferences, and “people started to take notice and listen.”

As chance would have it, Dee found himself on a National Pork Board speaking circuit with Steve Pohl, South Dakota State University professor of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, who was presenting ventilation information, and “we started talking about how all this would work together,” Dee recalls. “So here we have a very talented engineer who can actually calculate the correct cfm and the airflow, measure the resistance and determine how many filters you’re going to need, how much inlet space you’ll need to make sure the pigs would get enough air. I could manage the virus, but we had to make sure the pigs could breathe. Steve deserves a great deal of credit for all that effort.”

The Pohl and Dee team were now looking for opportunities, and the first to come along was the Pipestone System boar stud in 2005. “Gordon Spronk (Pipestone System co-founder) was the real pioneer in putting air filtration into the real world,” Dee says, adding that the Pipestone boar stud was the first commercial success of a filtered barn.

The production region model

To further validate the process, in 2006, Dee developed and initiated a new project, funded by the National Pork Board, called the “production region model” that simulated a dense population project to mirror what was taking place across the Midwest countryside. “We set up four buildings, all close in proximity to one another. One facility contained 300 grow-finish pigs, the ‘source population’, and downwind from that we bought three small double-L nurseries, some filtered, and some not.” The grow-finish pigs were infected with the 184 strain and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in the “source” population. Downwind were the nursery barns housing negative pigs, and every two weeks new pigs were brought into the source herd to “keep the infection active.”

Using this approach, airborne pathogens were detected in exhausted air from the source population, across the landscape and right outside the downwind facilities. “Most importantly, we demonstrated the ability to keep the filtered barn free of infection, while the unfiltered barn became infected at a 30% infection rate.” To eliminate the doubt of PRRS virus and M hyo coming into the barns through other means than aerosol, Dee and his team were diligent in swabbing people and supplies coming in, testing insects, swabbing trailers and collecting air coming in to the barn. The leader of the team, Andrea Pitkin, now with PIC, ran this project as part of her master’s thesis. “The production region model was the first attempt to show on a day-to-day basis for an entire year if it was possible to keep a group of negative pigs free under a filtered condition. Then in a nonfiltered system, how often would those pigs become infected,” Dee says. As part of the project, researchers gathered any and all possible weather data using an on-site weather station — humidity, temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction — “and we put together a set a meteorological guidelines as to what is high-risk and what is low-risk for PRRS virus aerosol infection.”

Dee says Pitkin deserves a lot of credit for what at the time was the most impactful study to show the efficacy of filtration and the risks of spread is various conditions. “There had never been a study of this type conducted before. Basically we modeled what I saw in Brittany, France, in 2004.” Another one of Dee’s students, Satoshi Otake, came back to the University of Minnesota and continued Pitkin’s production regional model for his post-doctorate work, adding three years to the project. Filter technology was evolving, and Dee and Otake looked at various types of filters and media, “and every filtered facility remained free for the entire four years,” Dee says. “At the end of the four years not one of the filtered barns had become infected, while the non-filtered control populations became infected 30% of the time.”

Taking it to the real world

Following sharing of the results of this study at the 2007 Leman Swine Conference, Spronk once again stepped forward with the vision of filtering a large commercial sow farm, which had never been done. The sow farm that Spronk was suggesting had 3,000 sows located in the heart of pig production in southern Minnesota, and it broke at least once every year with PRRS. “They basically would just figure it into the cash flow,” Dee says, “It was that regular occurrence, and always a new virus, never the old one.”

Dee says Spronk issued a challenge of taking the filtration practice that appeared to work on a small scale, both in the boar stud and the production region model, and take it into the “real world.”

“I said definitely, but we have got to bring Steve Pohl in,” Dee says, “which we did and away we went.”

The barn stayed PRRS-free for the first year, which it never had done before. Next for Dee was to see if this one barn’s success could be replicated on a grander scale, across multiple units over time. “I had been at the University for over 10 years and really enjoyed the time; however, I was looking for something bigger, I wanted to make a significant impact in the industry. You know, a published paper is nice, but if it’s a dusty old journal that sits on a shelf and no one ever looks at it, it doesn’t have much value,” Dee says. So, in 2011, he went to Luke Minion (Pipestone System chief executive officer) and Spronk to ask for a job. “I simply wanted to see if what we had developed at the U of M would work on a large scale. Based on the leadership of Pipestone in the science and application of air filtration, it made sense to get involved.”

Lessons learned

With Dee coming to Pipestone, this was the first leap of filtration into commercial sow farms and with it came many challenges. “We had to change behavior at the farm level. For example, you can’t just open the door anymore. How do you move pigs out without letting potentially contaminated air in?”

A lot of training and education of farm employees took place. “Gordon had the idea of having employees take regular biosecurity-based quizzes, using real-world scenarios.” Dee says the employees “really caught on fast, because they were all getting sick of having PRRS, and they got really excited when they started to see the infections stop.”

Unfortunately, “success was our worst enemy,” Dee says, “because people started to get lax on the biosecurity once PRRS cases started to drop. Therefore, we had to focus even harder and pay attention to the protocols.” Dee predicts that some farms do not adopt filtration systems “because deep down they know they cannot execute the biosecurity details necessary to make a filtration system work optimally.”

Another learning curve was the issue of filter longevity. Though they sought out the best filters to efficiently keep PRRS and other particles out of the sow farms, Dee says they learned that filters do not stand up forever. “We didn’t know that at first, but we learned that independent of media type (fiberglass or polypropylene), all filters lose performance over time. In addition, we learned that the adhesives are also affected by the aging process and would separate from the media and the frame causing bypass of non-filtered air.” The aging process of the filter wasn’t understood when Dee started his research, but it became a real concern when a system the size of Pipestone puts in as many filters as they do. “When you’re putting thousands (of filters) in a facility, the cost gets pretty high, so we want to stretch that investment out as long as we can.”

Though trying to stretch the filter’s life makes economic sense, that becomes difficult when filters meet the environment of a hog barn — fluctuating temperatures, high moisture and high dust. “Moisture is the Achilles heel for filters,” Dee says.

As Pipestone gained more experience with filters, they gave feedback to the manufacturers. “Some were responsive and some were not. Those that were willing to work with us to get better clearly got our loyalty. After 10-plus years of filtering and thousands of filters tested we have learned that all filters are not created equal and there are definitely differences in quality and lifespan.” Pipestone Veterinary Services has helped many producers with their preventative plans.

“We also learned that we had to devise ways to protect against backdrafts of fans and air leaks that are apparent in both positive and negative pressure facilities. … There was a lot of learning we had to do after the ‘honeymoon’ period. One of the lessons was this is not a perfect process. The filter system is a dynamic entity, it a living thing, it’s changing and aging over time, but when used right it does work very well.”

Before you even think of filtering a barn, Dee recommends that farms have a comprehensive biosecurity plan in place, involving personnel and supply entry, pig movement, quarantine and testing and transport sanitation programs. “You need to have all that in place before even thinking about putting in a filtration system. If you don’t have all the biosecurity bases covered, the filters will fail.” Dee says it’s also important to evaluate filters on a regular basis to monitor their performance, looking at air flow and fractional efficiency, as well as their structural integrity. Filters from Pipestone barns are sent to LMS Technologies in Minneapolis, a third-party lab to test the filters. The third-party lab provides transparency, as well as offering unique facilities for additional testing. “At LMS, we’ll expose filters to repeated wet/dry cycles, thermocycles (freezing conditions versus hot conditions) and extreme pressure secondary to heavy dust loading. We want to model three to four years of time in the swine environment to see what these filters have to deal with on a daily basis.”

Any new sow farm, which includes the GDU, built in the Pipestone System is built with filtration, and currently 44 of 60 sow farms in the system are filtered accounting for about 150,000 of the system’s 225,000 sows. “We have some barns that have 3,000 days of filtration with no breaks, and with that track record, people are more accepting of the technology.” He estimates close to 1 million sows in the United States live in the benefit of filtered barns.

At this time, the current Pipestone System filtered barns remain negative-pressured filtration barns. Though the debate between negative and positive filtered barns continues, Dee doesn’t care what producers use. “We’ve been on a steep learning curve with negative pressure and we think we’ve got a pretty good system now. We love the concept of positive pressure, and we want to continue to learn, but with that comes diligence on protocols and backdraft/air leak prevention.”

Dee says the Pipestone System, and the U.S. hog industry as a whole, needs to work to further lower PRRS break rates, with less than 10% being an acceptable rate. He is confident that filtered barns — positive or negative — are the key to achieving that goal.

“Any filtered barn that prevents disease spread is good for everyone,” Dee says. “It’s fun to help people reduce their risk of PRRSV infections, we have worked with many systems across the country and really enjoy that. I took on the challenge of air filtration PRRSV to make a difference. It has been very successful and I am very proud to have been involved from the beginning.”

As producers and veterinarians, we face the challenge daily of attempting to improve our efforts at combating this challenging disease.  For Pipestone System, and as an industry, we have become better every year as we look at our rate of new infections in Pipestone System sow farms, as well as infections across a large number of herds in the United States monitored through the late Dr. Bob Morrison’s Swine Health Monitoring Project.  This is evidence that the research generated and efforts put forth towards combating this disease are driving progress.

As we look in the toolbox for PRRS control, one tool that has proven effective for aiding our control efforts has been modified live PRRS vaccine.  Modified live PRRS vaccine has two primary benefits and warrant strong consideration for your operation.  The first of these benefits is seen in growing pig performance.  In a controlled research study in which pigs were challenged with a virulent strain of PRRS virus, pigs that were previously vaccinated with PRRS vaccine significantly outperformed the pigs that were not vaccine with PRRS vaccine in wean-to-market average daily gain, and having less pigs that needed to be sold as culls at the end of the group.  This economic return for vaccination was $4.35 in this study over non-vaccinated pigs.

The second benefit comes from controlling viral spread in a neighborhood.  PRRS virus has been shown to travel via aerosol spread, and often can infect multiple sites in a geographical region when present.  One way to help reduce the number of herds that become infected is to reduce the time and degree to which this virus is shed from infected populations.  This strategy is used in pig dense areas and areas in which sows are present to decrease viral density in an area.  In another controlled trial, is was demonstrated that when challenged with a virulent field strain of PRRS, pigs that were vaccinated with a modified live PRRS vaccine shed significantly less virus from the infected facility.  Air samples were collected daily from this facility after pigs were challenged and only 5 days with positive air samples were detected outside of the room with vaccinated pigs, compared to 27 days with positive air samples in the non-vaccinated pigs.  Additionally, PRRS virus was only detected in the air out to day 6 post-challenge in the vaccinated group, compared to day 55 in the non-vaccinated group.  This shows that PRRS vaccine is a beneficial tool to help reduce the amount of virus that is shed from infected barns and reduce the challenge to nearby barns, helping protect your neighborhood.

As we approach this time of year, it is a good time to evaluate our strategies going into historical “PRRS season.”  All of the tools in our PRRS control toolbox, including good biosecurity practices, air filtration, and regional and herd control strategies are all important and cannot be forgotten.  PRRS vaccine is just another tool that helps us in our efforts to combat this disease.  Modified live PRRS vaccine can be beneficial in improve the health and performance of the growing pig, and control viral presence within regions.  Additionally, in an era where pressure is applied on antimicrobial use in livestock operations, we must evaluate our production practices and health control strategies constantly.  PRRS virus infections warrant the need for antimicrobial use within infected populations and is one more reason to put forth our best efforts to prevent infection or control disease. We must use all the tools in our toolbox to help control this disease and PRRS vaccine is one of these tools that can help protect your herds.

For any questions or concerns regarding this topic please do not hesitate to contact our Pipestone team of veterinarians and swine specialist at 507-562-PIGS.

Adam Schelkopf, DVM

Pipestone Veterinary Services

adam.schelkopf@pipestone.com