The goal of this study was to evaluate survival of important viral pathogens of livestock in animal feed ingredients imported daily into the United States under simulated transboundary conditions. Eleven viruses were selected based on global significance and impact to the livestock industry, including Foot and Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV), Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV), African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV), Influenza A Virus of Swine (IAV-S), Pseudorabies virus (PRV), Nipah Virus (NiV), Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV), Swine Vesicular Disease Virus (SVDV), Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV), Porcine Circovirus Type 2 (PCV2) and Vesicular Exanthema of Swine Virus (VESV). Surrogate viruses with similar genetic and physical properties were used for 6 viruses. Surrogates belonged to the same virus families as target pathogens, and included Senecavirus A (SVA) for FMDV, Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) for CSFV, Bovine Herpesvirus Type 1 (BHV-1) for PRV, Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) for NiV, Porcine Sapelovirus (PSV) for SVDV and Feline Calicivirus (FCV) for VESV. For the remaining target viruses, actual pathogens were used. Virus survival was evaluated using Trans-Pacific or Trans-Atlantic transboundary models involving representative feed ingredients, transport times and environmental conditions, with samples tested by PCR, VI and/or swine bioassay. SVA (representing FMDV), FCV (representing VESV), BHV-1 (representing PRV), PRRSV, PSV (representing SVDV), ASFV and PCV2 maintained infectivity during transport, while BVDV (representing CSFV), VSV, CDV (representing NiV) and IAV-S did not. Notably, more viruses survived in conventional soybean meal, lysine hydrochloride, choline chloride, vitamin D and pork sausage casings. These results support published data on transboundary risk of PEDV in feed, demonstrate survival of certain viruses in specific feed ingredients (“high-risk combinations”) under conditions simulating transport between continents and provide further evidence that contaminated feed ingredients may represent a risk for transport of pathogens at domestic and global levels.

Few issues in swine production are as complex as floor space allowances. One method for pork producers to calculate floor space allowance (A) is to convert BW into a 2-dimensional concept yielding an expression of A = k * BW(0.667). Data on ADG, ADFI, and G:F were obtained from published peer-reviewed studies. Five data sets were created: A = grower-finisher pigs, fully slatted floors, and consistent group size; B = grower-finisher pigs and fully slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); C = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors, and consistent group size; D = grower-finisher pigs, partially slatted floors (group size did not need to be consistent); and E = nursery pigs, fully slatted or woven wire floors (group size did not need to be consistent). Each data set was analyzed using a broken-line analysis and a linear regression. For the broken-line analyses, the critical k value, below which a decrease in ADG occurred, varied from 0.0317 to 0.0348. In all cases the effect of space allowance on ADG was significant (P < 0.05). Using the linear analyses based on data with k values of < 0.030, the critical k values for the 4 grower-finisher data sets did not differ from those obtained using the broken-line analysis (0.0358 vs. 0.0336, respectively; P > 0.10); however, none of the linear regressions explained a significant proportion of the variation in ADG. The slopes for the nonplateau portion of the broken-line analyses based on percent values varied among data sets. For every 0.001 decrease in k (approximately 3% of the critical k value), ADG decreased by 0.56 to 1.41%, with an average value of 0.98% for the 5%-based analyses. The use of an allometric approach to express space allowance and broken-line analysis to establish space requirements seem to be useful tools for pig production. The critical k value at which crowding becomes detrimental to the growth of the pig is similar in full- and partial-slat systems and in nursery and grower-finisher stages. The critical point for crowding determined in these analyses approximated current recommendations to ensure the welfare of pigs.

No abstract

An approximately 3,000 finishing swine operation in the United States experienced an outbreak of an atypical neurologic disease in 11-weeks-old pigs with an overall morbidity of 20% and case fatality rate of 30%. The clinical onset and progression of signs in affected pigs varied but included inappetence, compromised ambulation, ataxia, incoordination, mental dullness, paresis, paralysis and decreased response to environmental stimuli. Tissues from affected pigs were submitted for diagnostic investigation. Histopathologic examination of the cerebrum, cerebellum and spinal cord revealed severe lymphoplasmacytic and necrotizing polioencephalomyelitis with multifocal areas of gliosis and neuron satellitosis, suggestive of a neurotropic viral infection. Bacterial pathogens were not isolated by culture of neurologic tissue from affected pigs. Samples tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were negative for pseudorabies virus and atypical porcine pestivirus. Immunohistochemistry for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, porcine circovirus and Listeria was negative. Porcine sapelovirus (PSV) was identified in spinal cord by a nested PCR used to detect porcine enterovirus, porcine teschovirus and PSV. Next-generation sequencing of brainstem and spinal cord samples identified PSV and the absence of other or novel pathogens. In addition, Sapelovirus A mRNA was detected in neurons and nerve roots of the spinal cord by in situ hybridization. The PSV is genetically novel with an overall 94% amino acid identity and 86% nucleotide identity to a recently reported sapelovirus from Korea. This is the first case report in the United States associating sapelovirus with severe polioencephalomyelitis in pigs.

Assessing Animal WelfareWhen evaluating how housing affects the welfare of pregnant sows, it is important to be clear about what is meant by animal welfare. Commonly expressed concerns include the following: 1) animals should function well in the sense of being healthy and thriving; 2) animals should feel well, especially by prevention of serious pain, hunger, fear, and other forms of suffering; and 3) animals should be able to live in a manner consistent with the nature of their species. 1 Task Force members recognized that scientists, including veterinarians, approach animal welfare from different viewpoints and attribute various degrees of importance to each of these concerns on the basis of their education, training, experience, and personal values and the perspectives, morals, and ethical constructs of the society in which they live and work. [2][3][4][5] The ways in which other segments of society interpret animal welfare are likewise diverse. A study 6 conducted in The Netherlands found that producers tended to believe that health and normal biological function were evidence of good animal welfare, whereas consumers tended to focus on the animal' s ability to live a reasonably natural life. A sampling of quotations by ethicists and social critics identified suffering and other affective states as central concerns. 7 Although the degree of importance attributed to each of these elements may vary, Task Force members agreed that no assessment of animal welfare is complete unless all elements are considered. It is not satisfactory, for example, to judge the welfare of an animal on the basis of its physical health without regard for whether it is suffering or frustrated or to conclude that an animal that can engage in species-typical behavior has a good state of welfare without also carefully evaluating its health and physiologic function. In recognition of the need for a comprehensive approach, physiologic function, behavior, physical health, and production indices were used to evaluate the effects and appropriateness of the use of gestation stalls, compared with other systems, for housing pregnant sows. Because ethical perspectives may affect how scientific data are