• home
  • about us
  • contact us
Browse by Issue
Products
Enterisol® Ileitis
Enterisol® SC-54
Ingelvac® ERY-ALC
Ingelvac® HP-1/HPE-1
Ingelvac® M. hyo
Ingelvac® PRRS ATP
Ingelvac® PRRS MLV
Reprocyc PRRS/PLE
Diseases
Atinobacillus Pleuropneumoniae
B. hydysenteriae
E. Coli
Erysipelas
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae
Haemophilus parasuis
Ileitis
Leptospira
Mycoplasma hyponeumoniae (M. hyo)
Parvo Virus
PCVAD
PCV2
PMWS
PRRS
PRV
Salmonella choleraesuis
Salmonellosis
SIV
Worms

Print This Article

PRRS Risk Assessment Tool

A Web-based version of the PRRS Risk Assessment Tool for the Breeding Herd is in development and should be available online this summer.

The tool was initiated by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. (BIVI) to apply risk assessment to swine production, specifically for PRRS. A working group of veterinarians and researchers facilitated the process of separating important from not-soimportant factors that may predispose a farm to a higher probability of clinical PRRS.

Factors are listed in the tool’s database, which was gifted to the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) a year ago. Financial support for the program is being provided by the National Pork Board.

BIVI’s Dale Polson, DVM, led the team responsible for the original risk assessment approach.

Risk factors in the assessment tool are organized into categories as external risks (risks associated with introduction of a new, nonresident PRRS virus into a swine population) or internal risks (risks associate with existing, resident virus circulating within the hog population).

Through September 2006, 340 assessments have been submitted for the database. The assessments have been submitted by 28 assessors and 78 production entities from 18 states.

Of the 340, 180 assessments are for sites that are negative or naïve for PRRS and 160 are for positive sites. Nearly all of the genetic production sites for which assessments were submitted – 104 of 122 – were PRRS negative or naïve. For commercial sites, 76 of 218 were negative or naïve.

The largest difference between negative/naïve sites and positive sites, not surprisingly, is related to density of pig farms near the site. Transportation of feed, employee and service vehicles, disposal of dead animals and waste management, and distance to pork industry infrastructure make up the top five factors affecting the difference between negative and positive sites.1

Training sessions for AASV members are being offered periodically and only those who have completed training can access the risk assessment tool. Veterinarians interested in a training session should contact AASV Executive Director Tom Burkgren.

1. Holtkamp, D., DVM, Iowa State University and D. Polson, DVM, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Proceedings, Swine Disease Conference for Swine Practitioners, p. 30-36, November 2006.

Back to Top