Sign up now!
Don't show this again
Download the report!Continue to Site >
or wait 7 secs

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Pig Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app


Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report


Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
follow us

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Pig Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Pig Health Today | Sponsored by Zoetis


Five steps to better Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae control

By Lucina Galina, DVM, PhD
Director, Pork Technical Services, Zoetis


For pig producers and veterinarians, the health and economic impact of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) is clear. In the US, enzootic pneumonia caused by M. hyo is considered one of the “big three” respiratory diseases in swine, following porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome (PRRS) and influenza.

Economic losses due to reduced growth, poor feed efficiency and extended time to market can significantly hurt the producer’s bottom line. Recent estimates indicate that the cost of uncomplicated M. hyo infections in large production systems is more than $1.00 per pig and $10 in M. hyo-positive sites co-infected with influenza and PRRS virus.1

Often less clear, however, is how to manage this costly and persistent pathogen. Overall, disease control has improved in recent years, thanks to the production of M. hyo– and PRRSv-negative breeding stock, the adoption of segregated systems — in which pigs of a similar age are raised and moved together — and the development of strategic treatment and vaccination protocols.

The challenge is that differences in the M. hyo health status of incoming breeding stock and sows at the recipient farm can have a negative impact on health — with costly consequences.

M. hyo-control challenges

For example, when M. hyo-negative gilts are introduced in M. hyo-positive systems without proper acclimation, subclinical or clinical disease can develop, increasing vertical transmission from dam to piglet. Higher rates of vertical transmission mean more pigs colonized at weaning, which is the greatest predictor of clinical disease in the finishing herd.2

We have also learned that pigs that have been exposed to M. hyo can continue shedding for up to 250 days.3 Controlling shedding in a population is the most challenging aspect of disease control since there are currently no reliable methods of ensuring uniform exposure of all animals in a population. Additionally, facilities that allow for a long enough “cool-down” period to discontinue shedding are rarely available.

Vaccination, medication and proper all-in, all-out movement of pigs are therefore necessary but insufficient for preventing colonization. Successful M. hyo control must begin with acclimating gilts, as part of a comprehensive plan that includes multiple strategies.

Five steps

To help veterinarians and producers get a better handle on M. hyo control, my Zoetis colleagues and I teamed up with eight experts from animal health, academia, diagnostics, swine veterinary practice and a breeding-stock company to review the latest knowledge and best practices for managing M. hyo.

The outcome is a 60-page manual, titled “A Contemporary Review of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae Control Strategies,” which outlines a systematic, five-step approach for managing M. hyo in today’s segregated production systems:


1. Establish current herd status of M. hyo on the farm and set appropriate goals.

A breeding-herd classification allows veterinarians to determine a baseline and set appropriate goals. For example, a positive, unstable herd is likely to require a more aggressive control strategy than a positive, stable herd. The use of a common classification language should also improve communication between stakeholders, including veterinarians, producers, diagnosticians and breeding-stock companies. A summary of the four M. hyo categories for breeding herds is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Most swine herds fall within one of the herd categories outlined in the table above, but their responses to challenges may not always be black and white. The most critical guideline is the percentage of pigs colonized at weaning. This criterion clearly differentiates positive, unstable herds from positive, stable ones.


2. Leverage diagnostic techniques that reveal your current status.

The appropriate diagnostic approach for your farm will depend on which question needs to be answered. The question could be whether M. hyo is present in the population, or whether M. hyo is causing disease. These are two different questions that call for different diagnostic approaches.

Detailed diagnostic requirements for health-status categories, shown in Figure 2, take into account the expected prevalence of M. hyo in the population, as well as the sensitivity of the sampling technique and diagnostic tests. Testing should be repeated, regardless of which diagnostic method is used.4

Figure 2


3. Understand and manage risk factors that influence disease transmission at all stages of production.

Many factors influence M. hyo transmission. Some important risk factors include location of infected facilities within a 9 km (5.6 mi) radius, lack of isolation and acclimation facilities, lack of gilt exposure programs, introduction of replacement breeding stock with different health status, insufficient time for gilts to discontinue shedding, high proportion of at-risk females, poor lactation management, poor pig management and lack of vaccination.

Adequate biosecurity is critical to mitigate or eliminate these risk factors. Some biosecurity risks include transmission via fomites, equipment and transport; lack of cleaning, disinfection and drying of facilities; lack of all-in, all-out movement in the farrowing room; and the presence of concurrent diseases.

Understanding risk factors helps determine the most realistic and sustainable control strategy. For example, trying to achieve a negative status using disease elimination may not be suitable in an unstable herd that has a high risk of re-infection due to its location. Disease control could be achieved by moving to a healthier status such as stable herd.


4. Consider control measures, including maintaining a negative herd, vaccination, medication and disease elimination.

If your herd is negative, the best strategy is to keep it that way. If your herd is positive, control can be achieved by minimizing disease with vaccination or medication or by eliminating M. hyo. Vaccination and medication alone — without being part of a disease-elimination strategy — can be expected to reduce clinical signs, shedding and economic losses but not to eliminate the organism from the population. Vaccination of weaned pigs is unlikely to result in full disease control in finishers if the sow farm is unstable.

Medication can be used for control, treatment or disease elimination. For successful disease elimination, gilts should be acclimated to stabilize the sow herd. Then, the breeding herd will go through exposure and recovery phases, during which all pigs must be exposed to M. hyo and be confirmed positive before strategic medication, disinfection and vaccination.

All these steps should be carried out with proper timing and orchestration. The goal is to eliminate M. hyo shedding from mother to piglet and reduce the number of positive piglets at weaning.


5. Monitor the efficacy of interventions.

Control interventions should be monitored every 6 to12 months to determine if the herd status has been maintained (Figure 3). There are multiple sampling procedures and diagnostic tests for monitoring M. hyo infection, colonization and disease progress.

Choice of procedure depends on several factors, including infection, clinical signs, disease prevalence, pig age, sampling technique, diagnostic test sensitivity and time to develop antibody response. Most important is to be certain of the current status of the population; the herd must meet the diagnostic criteria shown in Figure 2 to properly determine the correct classification.

Figure 3

For a free download of “A Contemporary Review of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae Control Strategies,” click here.





Editor’s note: The opinions and recommendations presented in this article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the editors of Pig Health Today or its sponsor.





1. Haden et al. Am Assoc Swine Veterinarians proceedings, 2012
2. Fano et al. Can J Vet Res, 2005
3. Pieters et al. Vet Microbiol, 2009
4. Galina, L. Am Assoc Swine Veterinarians proceedings 2016.







Share It
In the US, enzootic pneumonia caused by Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) is considered one of the “big three” respiratory diseases in swine. But how can you get a better handle on control?

Click an icon to share this information with your industry contacts.

Posted on October 17, 2018

tags: , , ,

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Share It
It’s not unrealistic to say that if you checked the nasal cavities or tonsils of any group of pigs, you would find Strep suis. While the strain and impact can vary widely, this commensal bacterium is on virtually every hog farm.

Click an icon to share this information with your industry contacts.
Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.