Dr. David Baumert, senior technical services veterinarian with Zoetis Pork, spoke to The Pig Site’s Sarah Mikesell at World Pork Expo about Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mhp).

What should a producer be thinking about when he or she determines which Mhp intervention – elimination or control – is most feasible for their operation?

For a producer, choosing between an elimination or control program is certainly an important choice, because they need to be sure they pick a program that actually fits their operation and fits their business profile. For example, an elimination program will give you the fastest, most dramatic return in terms of health for both the sow herd and the downstream pig flow, but it also requires a lot more attention to detail.

When I talk to producers about making the decision between an elimination or control program, there are six components that I like to have them talk through and consider. The first three of those deal with the farm itself and its location.

• Does the farm have the right geography or at least a solid biosecurity program where they think they can stay Mhp-negative after an elimination program?
• Does the farm have access to a supply of Mycoplasma-negative gilts available after the elimination program?
• Does the farm have a program for pig placement that can keep their Mhp-negative pigs in a flow that has only Mycoplasma-negative pigs.

The other three components I talk to a producer about are related to the finances and the actual business operations of the farming system.

• Do they have the financial ability to manage a premium antibiotic program? If not and the cost is a hurdle, then are they willing to go with a lesser antibiotic program and possibly accept lower success rates?
• Can they withstand the loss of piglet production? Invariably, in an Mhp elimination program there will be at least a temporary loss of piglet production.
• Do they have the ability to concentrate and focus on Mhp during the extent of the elimination program?

All six of these components play a role in making the right decision that’s best for their individual operation.

Can you tell us more about gilt availability and that aspect of the decision-making process?

Having Mhp-negative gilts available after the elimination program is critical because the last thing we want to do is reinfect the herd with Mhp-positive gilts coming back into the herd. If a producer is raising their own gilts, they need to recognize that they will not have breeding aged gilts available until six months after the elimination program. It will take that long to grow their own gilts to breeding age, and that six months will play into how long it will then take them to return their breeding herd to a proper herd parity distribution. If, on the other hand, producers are going to be purchasing gilts, they will have gilts available sooner after the elimination ends.

Those producers who are planning to purchase Mhp-negative gilts need to talk to their gilt or breeding stock supplier and make sure everyone's on the same page in terms of the number of gilts needed and the timeframe for bringing those gilts onto the farm. Again, we want to return the breeding herd to a proper parity distribution as efficiently as possible.

One additional comment regarding a producer who's buying replacement gilts – we want to make sure their breeding stock supplier has a testing or monitoring program in place, so the producer is confident that he or she is truly getting Mhp-negative gilts. Again, we don't want to deliver Mhp back into a herd after we’ve just eliminated it.

What should producers expect regarding pig placement and loss of piglet production?

In terms of piglet placement, if you've accomplished the goal of producing Mhp-negative piglets, it's intuitive that we need to place these pigs carefully. But it’s important that producers have a discussion so that everyone from the logistics person who's scheduling the nursery pig placements, the vaccination crews and all the field managers know where the negative piglets are going to be placed relative to where the positive-Mhp piglets have been placed in the past. We don't want our older Mhp-positive pigs to come back and reinfect our negative pigs.

As for piglet production, invariably, if our producers think through it, between normal sow mortality and culling processes, most sow herds will lose about 4% of their inventory on a monthly basis which is typically replaced by gilts on a regular basis. In an Mhp elimination program, there’s a herd closure period where new gilts are not coming onto the farm. Even with a reduced rate of culling, the farm will still end up with about 20% fewer sows in inventory at the end of the herd closure period. This decrease in sow inventory is going to run parallel with a decrease in piglet production. It’s important to ensure that the producer understands there will be at least a temporary loss of piglet production, so they can plan to manage it accordingly. If they have contracts with a packer and are committed to supply a certain number of pigs on a regular basis, the producer needs to think that through ahead of time and make adjustments accordingly.

What are the financial implications for both interventions?

Whether a producer chooses an elimination plan or a control intervention, either one of those will likely reduce the $2 to $5 impact per pig that Mycoplasma causes. If you want to measure it in a different way, Mycoplasma typically costs $50 to $125 per sow on an annual basis.

Either one of the programs will eliminate or at least significantly reduce that tax of having to deal with Mycoplasma. The elimination program, though, does have a bigger financial demand up front, but the advantage is it's a one and done program. If the producer chooses to go with a control program, the financial impact is not as significant upfront, but recognize that a control program is ongoing. Every group of gilts that comes through the gilt developer unit needs to go through an exposure, stabilization and recovery process, so they stop shedding Mycoplasma before they get to the farrowing crate. It will be every group of gilts month after month, so it's a long-term program.

Which intervention is more typically utilized today. Has this changed over time and why?

About 10 years ago, the industry became more excited about Mycoplasma elimination. We saw the opportunity to completely eliminate at least one of the big three respiratory pathogens that our sow herds have to deal with.

More recently, as PRRS became a more common issue on sow farms, producers saw the opportunity to take a PPRS elimination program and integrate a Mycoplasma elimination program along with it. Now we're able to eliminate two major pathogens with one plan and that bonus has really pushed the industry towards more Mycoplasma elimination as opposed to just control.

In the long run, most producers see the benefit of a double disease elimination as very attractive. Thus, the elimination programs, I think, will continue to outnumber the control programs in the future.

How does the Mhp Guardian program help a producer through this phase of the process?

Mhp Guardian is a comprehensive Mhp management program that Zoetis developed and presented to the swine industry recently. It consists of four steps which help move Mhp-positive herds into a negative or more stable status and keep them there.

Specifically, it helps a producer to answer the question of whether elimination or control fits the customer's farm profile better. Step #2 goes into much more detail on the six components that we talked about today. It not only lists the components but describes them in detail so that as Zoetis, either our tech service veterinarian team or our pork production specialist team, works with producers and their veterinarians, everyone has what we consider a better informed ability to make a decision.

We're going to head producers down the path of Mhp elimination or a control program based on what best fits their situation. Mhp Guardian keeps us all going in the same direction. But along the way, it's customizable enough that we can make small adjustments, so it fits the producer profile.