About 10 years ago, an industry study was conducted that found the cost of PRRS to the U.S. swine industry to be about $664 million. An updated study by Dr. Derald Holtkamp was presented at the International Pig Veterinary Society Congress in Germany in June and shows that costs have risen to a staggering $1.2 billion.

Dr. Paul Yeske, a veterinarian at the Swine Vet Center in Minnesota, USA, recently spoke with Sarah Mikesell of The Pig Site at Iowa State University about what this means for the industry following the James D. McKean Swine Disease Conference.

Dr. Yeske, explain to us what has caused this increase in losses.

To put this in context, you have to note that the data was truncated in 2020. So that was really before we saw some of these more severe PRRS strains start to affect the industry, such as the L1C.5 strains, formerly known as the 144 strains. Those only started in 2020. So the numbers are probably a little higher than they are today simply because that information isn’t available, but the numbers have doubled. When you think about that $1.2 billion number, that means that as we were standing here, TodayThe producers lost $3.3 million.

The cost of the disease is very relevant. They have calculated the impact of the disease and it is difficult to determine that cost, but they have to make some estimates. They have a good methodology for that calculation.

The majority of the $1.2 billion disease cost was incurred in the finisher phase of production. In the past, the disease was seen more on the sow side, but today we see it more on the finisher side. As these viruses have evolved over time, we have seen more clinical signs on the finisher side, so it is understandable that costs on the finisher side are increasing.

As we look at these costs in the future, they are likely to be even higher when we look at the numbers for 2020 to 2025. Unfortunately, the question goes back to the industry: ‘What can we do?’ When we look at the Morrison Swine Health Monitoring Projects, we see an increasing number of herds remaining in Category One, where active virus is moving around in the herd.

One of the things we can do is continue to work to have fewer of these herds and reduce the number of herds that are infected with the Category 1 virus. We know that there will continue to be positive herds until there is a more formal program, but at least reducing those numbers can help us move forward. It can reduce the possibility of the viruses recombination and some of the problems that come with that.

Considering the costs we discussed earlier, there is an economic benefit to producers in attempting to remove these field strains from their herds and taking the necessary biosecurity measures to prevent these strains from returning.

There is a lot of effort on the sow farms to introduce filtering and a complete biosecurity package to protect those farms. But we also need to go into the finishing farm and improve our biosecurity. So we are not going to do that in the finishing farm and increase the costs more than is absolutely necessary.

Has there been progress in biosecurity in fattening?

Absolutely, progress is being made. I would say that not everyone is progressing at the same pace, but today there is much higher awareness and more people are taking proactive steps.

There are some things you can do that don’t cost much that can help with biosecurity. Improving biosecurity can be as simple as cleaning benches and changing boots. Ensuring we don’t wear the same boots and overalls across multiple sites where we do work is just a simple thing.

I would say producers are looking at what they can do within their barn capacity. A lot of these older barns are not as easy to retrofit with a biosecurity system as newer barns. We are making progress, but there is still room for improvement.

In the bigger picture: What would be necessary from the perspective of the entire industry to really reduce the costs of PRRS?

Gene editing is still in the FDA approval process. Gene editing has incredible possibilities. Again, there has to be consumer acceptance and all the things that go along with that, but the science behind the program is exceptionally good. It looks like – and we’ve seen some of the data at the meetings here – that these pigs just aren’t getting infected. This technology could be very promising for us, but it’s not going to be the whole answer.

Even if that technology were available tomorrow, we still need good biosecurity and biocontainment – the forgotten part of biosecurity. If we have positive sites, we need to be careful that we don’t push it into the future. We can’t forget about biocontainment. Often times, it’s easy to forget about it when there’s an outbreak, and it’s important that we try to contain the virus to that site.

The possibility of genome editing may not be a panacea, and approval will not be immediate, right?

No, it’s going to take some time. It’s a double recessive gene, so it’s going to take some time to get through the production system. Even if we went at the fastest pace, the projections would be between seven and 10 years to get it through the whole production system. That would require everyone to work in a coordinated way and act as quickly as possible. It’s going to take some time, so it’s good to have all these different tools available.

Is there a possibility of a vaccination that could better prevent infection?

Yes, and vaccines have helped us with that. They’re not perfect, but they’ve helped reduce hair loss. They’ve also helped reduce some of the clinical symptoms. But today we probably need a breakthrough on the vaccine technology side before we can say that we’re going to see many different changes than the ones we’re seeing today.

I think we can use the tools we have today and they are valuable. I don’t want to underestimate the value of the biosecurity tools. They are all valuable, but for the vaccine to be the complete answer in the long term, we need a technological breakthrough, something different.