Evaluation of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome stabilization protocols in 23 French Farrow-to-finish farms located in a high-density swine area

Abstract

BackgroundPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) is responsible for reproductive disorders in sows and respiratory problems in pigs, and has a major economic impact. Controlling PRRSV is therefore a priority for the swine industry. Stabilization of a herd, defined as the production of PRRSV-negative pigs at weaning from seropositive sows, is a common method of control, and different protocols have been described in the literature to achieve this stabilization.Context and purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate wether the combination of mass vaccination of sows and their piglets with a Genotype I modified live virus (MLV) vaccine, with temporal closure to the introduction of replacement animals and unidirectional pig and human flow can result in the production of PRRSV-negative pigs at weaning. The study took place in French farrow-to-finish farms located in a high-density swine area where the disease concerns over 60% of farms and only closely related strains of genotype I have been reported. Twenty-three 100-to-700 sow farrow-to-finish farms were selected prospectively between 2005 and 2014, regardless of their biosecurity level. Those farms adopted a stabilization protocol characterized by the following standardized measures: vaccination of sows, gilts, and piglets with the Genotype I MLV vaccine PORCILIS®PRRS, temporary herd closure, and strict internal biosecurity measures. Monitoring of herd status was then performed using a combination of 3 diagnostic tools: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and Open reading frame (ORF) 5 and ORF7 sequencing. The status of finishing units (either active or inactive, meaning PRRSV-positive or PRRSV-negative, respectively) was not considered in this study.Results and conclusionsAt the end of the monitoring period, considering the results of all the analyses, clinical signs, and epidemiology, 19 farms were considered stable and 1 remained unstable. In 3 farms it was commonly agreed to extend the number of vaccinated batches of piglets, which enabled them to be considered stable at the end of a second round of monitoring. The combination of vaccination of sows and their piglets with a Genotype I MLV vaccine, together with the closure of the farm and a unidirectional pig and human flow, seems to be effective for farrow–to-finish farms even in high-density swine area, even with French PRRSV strains closely related to one another. This research is the first European study examining such a large number of farms, and increased confidence in the results stems from the added value of using the ORF7 and ORF5 sequencing tool.

PRRSV detection by qPCR in processing fluids and serum samples collected in a positive stable breeding herd following mass vaccination of sows with a modified live vaccine

“…First vaccination concerned all gilts, boars and sows present in the breeding unit simultaneously. This vaccination scheme was repeated 3 weeks later as previously described [ 1 ]. Then, booster MLV vaccinations were implemented every 16 weeks.…”

“…In the last two decades, in France, stabilization protocols have been developed using mass vaccination with a modified live vaccine (MLV), herd closure and biosecurity measures strengthening [ 1 ].…”

“…Therefore when implementing a sow mass vaccination (SMV), veterinarians usually wait for several weeks before to start a stability monitoring. This period may vary between 9 weeks [ 15 ] and 12 weeks [ 1 ] after a sow mass vaccination with a PRRS MLV vaccine.…”

PRRS eradication from swine farms in five regions of Hungary

“…The management of large breeding swine herds had complete freedom to decide whether eradication of the PRRS virus was to be carried out by complete depopulationrepopulation (Rathkjen and Dall, 2018), herd closure (Torremorell and Christianson, 2002), test and removal (Dee, 2004), applying more stringent site management methods, rationalisation of infection chain interruption (Dee et al, 1993;Dee and Joo, 1994;Baker, 2010;Berton et al, 2017;Rathkjen and Dall, 2018) or supportive vaccination for all or specified ages (Philips and Dee, 2003;Toman et al, 2017), and by the introduction of systematic laboratory testing processes. The criterion was to find an optimal method suited to the particular technological processes of the swine herd that according to the current state of science was likely to lead to a PRRSV-free status with high probability.…”

Investigation on Infectious Agents of Aborted Pig Fetuses and Its Correlation with PRRSV MLV Vaccine

“…Modified live virus (MLV) vaccines are vitally used for the prevention of major diseases, such as PRRSV, PCV2 and SIV in swine industries, and it is critical for these vaccines to neither spreading nor reverting virulence of the virus. But, sometimes safety issues concerning the usage of MLV virus vaccines are made, because the virulence of vaccine itself can affect the swine's health [16,17]. Correlation between the vaccine and disease is essential for every swine farm in most countries, because it is directly related with economic losses in swine industries [18].…”