Tap to download the app
X
Share
X

REPORTS

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

Create a New Report

Favorites

Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
CREATE
X
NEXT
PORK POULTRY
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

.

Print

Formula sheds light on disease risk

Understanding the transmission route of a disease pathogen, how long it’s infective, its survivability in the environment and routes of infection all build the foundation for creating effective biosecurity protocols.

Infected animals are the most direct path to introducing diseases into a herd. But as herd health status improves, higher-risk practices are eliminated and other pathogen-exposure routes assume greater relative importance, such as indirect transmission, according to Anna Romagosa, DVM, with PIC Europe.1

While exposure routes vary depending on the pathogen, the more common ones include:

  • Airborne transmission
  • Animal, feed and mortality transports
  • People, including workers, visitors and maintenance staff
  • Equipment
  • Slurry management
  • Pests

When implementing biosecurity procedures, it’s not only important to assess the chance of a disease being brought in through certain routes but also to consider how often the risk occurs.

In her paper submitted to the 2017 American Association of Swine Veterinarians’ meeting, Romagosa offered a predicted-probability formula, provided by Professor Jeroen Dewulf, University of Ghent, Belgium, to assess the combined risk of transmission multiplied by the frequency:

P = 1-(1-P)N

P = the chance of disease transmission per risk occurrence

N = the number of times this risk occurs

For example: If you assume that the chance of a particular route to actually transmit the disease is only one chance in 1,000, but you know that this route occurs 52 times a year (weekly, for example), the chance of disease transmission at the end of the year is 5%.

5.0% =1-(1-0.001) 52

That is already a significant risk, Romagosa noted.

Baseline and low-risk outcomes

Romagosa cited a recent Swedish study that looked at the disease-introduction risk on two different farm scenarios. The infectious agents were Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, causing swine dysentery, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, causing swine enzootic pneumonia. The production examples included a 1,600-head finishing herd and a 484-sow farrow-to-finish, single-site farm. The most common between-farm contacts were considered, including live animals, animal-transport vehicles, mortality collectors and veterinarian visits.

Biosecurity measures included quarantine for new-animal introductions, preventing livestock truckers and mortality collectors from entering buildings and providing protective clothing and boots for all visitors.

The measures were then combined into two scenarios for each herd — baseline and low-risk — used to reflect differences of between-farm contacts. The baseline scenario included the predicted yearly contacts in a typical farm for each type. In the low-risk scenario for the farrow-to-finish herd, the number and sources for live-animal introductions were reduced.

The results of the yearly risk model for introduction of M. hyopneumoniae and B. hyodysenteriae are illustrated in the accompanying table:

Scenario/Model Biosecurity measures Farrow-to-finish herd, % Fattening herd, %
B. hyodysenteriae      
   Baseline No

Yes

11.43 (2.88-31.3)

2.33 (0.2-4.92)

45.35 (5.66-70.0)

22.18 (2.69-35.75)

   Low risk No

Yes

8.17 (1.88-25.58)

1.18 (0.10-2.52)

26.32 (2.98-45.35)

12.5 (1.37-22.03)

M. hyopneumoniae      
    Baseline No

Yes

100 (98.37-100)

53.51 (17.2-85.03)

100 (100-100)

55.86 (18.34-87.56)

   Low risk No

Yes

99.99 (98.3-100)

54.24 (17.01-86.46)

100 (99.99-100)

38.12 (15.09-67.61) 

Lewerin, et. al, 2015

 

 

 

1Romagosa A, et al. Applied Review of Evidence-based Biosecurity. Biosecurity Seminar Proceedings of the 48th American Association of Swine Veterinarians’ Annual Meeting. 2017;5-10.

 


tags: , , ,
RELATED NEWS
  • Solve biosecurity overload by focusing on the basics

    Keeping a hog farm free of pathogens can be a daunting task for producers. The process to evaluate potential risks and then undertake biosecurity measures to manage the risks has become complex. In fact, the complexities of biosecurity are so great that some producers...

  • Feed biosecurity must address risk of PEDV transmission

    The biosecurity of swine feed is important for producing healthy animals and safe pork. But until 2013, feed was considered a low-risk vehicle for transmitting viral pathogens to swine.

  • Cross-border scheme aims to limit pig disease risk in US, Canada

    A scheme to tackle biosecurity issues in the United States and Canada should help limit the risk of disease transmission in north America’s pig herds, say pig health experts.

  • PEDV and other pathogens survive in feed for weeks

    In 2013-2014, infection of pig farms with PEDV was a frequent event, even in farms using the highest level of biosecurity. In an effort to determine how this could happen, Scott Dee, DVM, began investigating.




You must be logged in to edit your profile.

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.