Hog Management

Intentional Agility: Is the Pork Industry Ready for the Next Swine Health Threat?

Mon, 11 May 2026 18:07:21 GMT

In the past five years, the Swine Health Information Center (SHIC) has transformed 115 research projects into a practical arsenal for U.S. pork producers. By leveraging Checkoff dollars and federal partnerships, SHIC’s 2021-2025 program review proves that in an unpredictable global landscape, agility is the industry’s best defense.

For SHIC Executive Director Megan Niederwerder, this review is more than a retrospective; it is a strategic roadmap. It marks an expansion of data gathering and diagnostic tool development that drives actionable change on the farm.

What “Moved the Needle” from 2021-2025?

A standout success of the last five years is the $2.5-million Wean-to-Harvest Biosecurity Research Program. Launched in 2022, this initiative funded 24 projects specifically targeting nursery and grow-finish facilities.

“Typically, biosecurity protocols are less stringent outside of the sow farm or boar stud,” Niederwerder says. “We wanted to turn our focus to nursery, grow-finish and harvest to consider how reducing the pathogen load in that population protects the whole industry. Even if they’re not affected by the disease, those hogs can replicate the pathogen, we know that’s a risk for the entire U.S. industry.”

The program focused on three critical pillars:

Bioexclusion: Reducing the risk of pathogens entering the farm.
Biocontainment: Managing a pathogen on-site post-introduction.
Transportation: Reducing disease spread through dead haul, cull and market transport.

Facing Future Threats with Intentional Agility

SHIC has built a response infrastructure designed to pivot the moment a new threat—such as H5N1 or emerging FMD serotypes—is detected.

“We have built this organization to be intentionally agile,” Niederwerder says. “‘Emerging’ means it could change later today or tomorrow. We want tools in place that can respond the moment a disease appears.”

When a threat is identified, SHIC triggers a standardized “thought process” to bridge knowledge gaps:

Is a diagnostic test available?
Are fact sheets ready for producers?
What are the U.S. industry’s knowledge gaps?
How do we communicate research outcomes immediately?

Global Diseases on the Radar

SHIC is currently monitoring significant shifts in foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Specifically, the SAT-1 and SAT-2 serotypes, historically confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, have emerged in the Middle East and parts of the European Union over the past year.

Niederwerder emphasizes that U.S. preparedness must include vaccine bank readiness and producer vigilance. Because Senecavirus A is already present in the U.S. and causes similar blisters (vesicular lesions), distinguishing it from FMD is critical .

“It’s important to stay vigilant about potential entry points for any emerging disease,” she points out. “As we watch what’s going on globally, we always want to think about how we can learn from what other countries experience.”

Investing in the “Slat-Level” Future

Beyond the data, SHIC’s 115 projects are building the industry’s intellectual infrastructure. A significant portion of research funding supports graduate and veterinary students, ensuring a pipeline of experts dedicated to swine health.

“It is not only the researchable outcomes, but a critical component is the workforce development piece,” Niederwerder says. “We need to keep conducting slat-level research that results in actionable tools to change the farm immediately.”

Producers Take the Lead: NPB Launches New Swine Health Advisory Committee

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:15:40 GMT

Recognizing that swine disease carries both a heavy economic price tag and a significant mental burden for producers, the National Pork Board (NPB) has officially launched its Swine Health Advisory Committee. The producer-led group held its inaugural meeting in Des Moines earlier this month to begin shaping the future of the National Swine Health Strategy.

“The National Swine Health Strategy is informed by producers and is for producers,” says Dr. Seth Krantz, advisory committee member and NPB board member. “Producers have felt the significant mental and economic stress of swine disease for too long. The time has come for our industry to unite around the long-term mission of improving herd health. It will take daily individual actions and decisions on farms around the nation to make a measurable difference for the entire pork industry, but that is the goal.”

A Strategy Built for the “Slat-Level”

The producer-led committee will provide strategic input and guidance to help ensure the National Swine Health Strategy remains aligned with industry priorities and delivers meaningful progress. By providing strategic guidance, the strategy aims to reduce the impact of domestic diseases like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), lessen the spread of disease, and keep foreign and emerging diseases out.

“The formation of this new producer-led advisory committee is an important step in advancing the National Swine Health Strategy and continuing to transform valuable research and resources into practical, slat-level solutions for producers,” says NPB Chief Veterinarian Dr. Dusty Oedekoven. “I am excited and energized at the opportunity to collaborate with this group of engaged, wise and generous producers who are willing to contribute their time and expertise to help improve swine health for the entire pork industry.”

The advisory committee plans to provide ongoing strategic input and recommendations to NPB staff and board members in three areas of their work:

Prioritizing proposed plans to find efficiencies and opportunities across industry resources.
Defining clear actions and measurable outcomes to track progress and demonstrate impact on turning research into action.
Addressing both the risk of transboundary diseases and the ongoing burden of disease, including PRRSV and PEDV.

A Diverse Coalition of Experts

The committee features a broad cross-section of the industry, including independent producers, large-scale production leaders, veterinarians, and representatives from the USDA and academic institutions. NPB Swine Health Advisory Committee members include, in alphabetical order:

Dr. Matt Anderson, Suidae Health and Production
Paul Ayers, The Maschhoffs, NPB board member
Dr. Alexandra Buckley, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Cheryl Day, Ohio Pork Council
Joe Dykhuis, Michigan producer
Dr. Anna Forseth, National Pork Producers Council
Scott Hays, Missouri Pork Association
Jesse Heimer, Missouri producer, NPB board member
Stacy Herr, Indiana Pork Producers Association
Nathan Isler, Ohio producer
Dr. Clayton Johnson, Carthage Veterinary Services, LTD
Dr. Jeff Kaisand, Iowa Animal Industry Bureau
Dr. Seth Krantz, Tosh Farms, NPB board member
Dr. Joel Nerem, Pipestone
Dr. Megan Niederwerder, Swine Health Information Center
Dr. Kathleen O’Hara, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Lawrence Parks, The Parks Companies
Brock Pillen, Nebraska producer
Jeremy Robertson, Iowa producer
Brandon Schafer, Minnesota producer
Dr. Harry Snelson, American Association of Swine Veterinarians
Dr. Gordon Spronk, Minnesota producer, NPB board member
Dr. Matthew Turner, JBS Live Pork
Kraig Westerbeek, Smithfield Foods
Todd Wiley, Iowa producer
Noel Williams, Seaboard Foods
Clay Zwilling, National Swine Registry

By working together, the industry plans to strengthen its ability to protect long-term herd health and improve the lives of pigs and America’s 60,000 pig farmers. Learn more at porkcheckoff.org/strategy .

Pseudorabies in Swine: 5 Questions on the Texas-Iowa Detection

Tue, 05 May 2026 19:43:23 GMT

The recent detection of pseudorabies (PRV) in swine transported from Texas to Iowa has raised important questions regarding herd health and market stability. While the incident highlights the ongoing risk posed by feral swine populations, it also serves as a testament to the effectiveness of the U.S. animal health surveillance system. From rapid diagnostic reporting to swift regulatory action, the industry’s coordinated response ensured the virus was identified and mitigated quickly. To help producers navigate this situation, industry experts address five common questions about the risk, the response, and the safety of the U.S. pork supply.

Q. Do I need to be worried about the pseudorabies incident in Iowa and Texas?

A. “We know the pseudorabies virus is present in the feral swine population. On occasion, we see cases in domestic swine where pigs, specifically those raised outdoors, have a known risk of exposure to feral pigs. This case involved the transport of swine from Texas to Iowa, and it’s important to keep in mind that the diagnostic and regulatory system performed as we have planned and as it is intended to do. The surveillance program was in place, the diagnostic laboratory reported timely results, the state veterinarian was notified and took swift action in conjunction with the state’s department of agriculture and USDA, and traceability allowed for communication with the state of Texas, initiating a fast response there. While it is never ideal to have a case occur, the focus here should be that there is a known risk and industry measures in place to swiftly coordinate and address that risk.” – Dr. Anna Forseth, National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) Director of Animal Health

Q. How can I protect my herd?

A. “To keep farms PRV-negative, producers should only bring replacement animals and semen from PRV negative sources, ensure that pigs do not come in contact with feral pigs, and should enforce biosecurity protocols of visitors and employees by using farm dedicated clothing and footwear exclusively, and avoid sharing equipment or materials with other farms.” – University of Minnesota Swine Group

Q. Has the U.S. had any export market response?

A. “NPPC is working closely with USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative’s offices on outreach to trading partners informing them of the detection of PRV and the steps immediately taken to mitigate the virus’ impact on U.S. pork exports. Strong animal health standards are a cornerstone of U.S. leadership in global protein supply, and the U.S. pork industry’s track record of eradicating and containing PRV should provide confidence to our trading partners in the safety and reliability of U.S. pork.” – Maria C. Zieba, NPPC Vice President of Government Affairs

Q. How do producers differentiate PRV from other respiratory/neurological issues?

A. “PRV can easily look like many common swine diseases such as influenza, PRRS or S. suis. Clinical presentation for PRV tends to be age-specific with neonatal/suckling pigs more likely to exhibit neurologic symptoms (including trembling, incoordination, convulsions, paralysis) and high mortality, while older growing animals tend to exhibit respiratory symptoms (including cough, dyspnea, rhinitis). Gestating gilts and sows can exhibit reproductive abnormalities including increased stillborn and mummified pigs, mummies as well as an increased rate of abortion. The virus cannot be detected based on observational, clinical signs alone. Working with your herd veterinarian to collect detailed herd health information and history in addition to a comprehensive diagnostic analysis is critical if a case of PRV is suspected. Veterinary investigation should be considered when animals of various ages are exhibiting symptoms that are outside of “normal” for the herd or that the herd has increased risk factors for PRV such as known exposure to feral swine or a PRV positive herd. Samples for diagnostic analysis include various tissues, serum, and oral fluids from affected animals.” – Dr. Lisa Becton, associate director of the Swine Health Information Center

Q. Is our food supply safe?

A. “It’s important for people to know that pseudorabies is not a food safety concern, and this virus does not pose a risk to consumers. The United States’ pork supply remains safe and secure.” – Mike Naig, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture

While the threat from feral swine remains a constant reality, the combination of robust diagnostic systems and proactive farm-level biosecurity provides a strong defense for the U.S. pork supply. Vigilance and strong biosecurity protocols ensures herds stay protected and the export market remains secure.

Innovation and Health Take Center Stage at May and June Swine Conferences

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 13:10:29 GMT

From NC State’s Swine Innovation Forum in May to Iowa State’s back-to-back disease and production workshops in June, these events offer critical updates on research, technology and market trends for pork producers across the country.

MAY: NC State University Swine Innovation Forum
There’s still time to register for the 2026 Swine Innovation Forum on Tuesday, May 5 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Maxwell Center in Goldsboro, N.C.

The annual Swine Innovation Forum features presentations from keynote speakers from both the industry and academia, providing updates about innovations in management, research and technology within the swine industry.

From future-proofing swine sprayfield irrigation to pit management and indoor air quality impacts, attendees will hear about new research findings and production practices to improve your herd’s profitability. During the afternoon sessions, Lee Schulz of Ever.Ag will share a pork market economic outlook before Eric van Heugten shares about sow anemia and Mark Knauer unveils nutritional solutions to enhance sow livability.

JUNE: 2026 ISU McKean Swine Disease Conference
Save the date for the 2026 ISU McKean Swine Disease Conference on June 23-24, followed by Iowa Swine Day on June 25. This powerful lineup of events will kick off with a deep dive into enteric disease and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) management.

What and When:

Tuesday, June 23 (morning) – International Workshop on Enteric Diseases at the ISU College of Veterinary Medicine
Tuesday, June 23 (afternoon) – International PRRS Management Workshop ISU College of Veterinary Medicine
Wednesday, June 24 (whole day) – ISU McKean Swine Disease Conference (focus on swine health) at Gateway Hotel and Conference Center in Ames, Iowa
Thursday, June 25 (whole day) – Iowa Swine Day (focus on production) at the Scheman Building in Ames, Iowa

McKean Conference attendees are also invited to attend the Iowa State University Swine Networking Social, the welcome reception for the ISU Swine Day conference, at the Hansen Agricultural Student Learning Center on the evening of June 24. Although the McKean Conference is a separate conference, it will be held back-to-back with Iowa Swine Day again. Conference organizers say this allows attendees to participate in two exceptional conferences in Ames in one trip.

Conference program information will be finalized soon, with registration to follow. For more information on the event, please visit the conference website .

Las Vegas Buffet Decline Forces Pig Farm to Source Different Food Scraps

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:52:48 GMT

The famous buffet lines of the Las Vegas Strip aren’t the only things that changed after 2020. For Las Vegas Livestock , the pandemic forced a total reinvention of how they feed 5,000 head of hogs — a move that ultimately led to a major increase in their processing capacity.

MGM recently announced that its buffet at the Grand Hotel is set to close permanently on May 31. This follows a trend of major resorts replacing traditional buffets with food halls and specialty restaurants.

Historically, Las Vegas Livestock relied on the massive volume of food waste generated by casino buffets. Now the operation is shifting its focus toward grocery stores and warehouses, reports Fox 5 Las Vegas .

The transition required a technological overhaul. Sourcing from grocery stores meant dealing with a higher volume of inorganic materials and packaging.

An Innovative Shift
To handle the shift, Las Vegas Livestock upgraded its equipment to mechanically process items like ketchup packets and hot sauce containers that were previously sorted by hand. This automation has made a big impact.

Pre-pandemic, the farm processed 30 tons of waste per day. Today, that number has surged to 55 tons.

Las Vegas Livestock holds a food scrap processing license that allows them to feed food scraps containing meat to pigs. Under the supervision of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, all food scraps are cleaned and pasteurized to ensure safety for the pigs and consumers.

Sister company Combs Brothers LLC is responsible for sourcing and recovering the food scraps. They build customized programs to maximize trash diversion and profits for Las Vegas resorts.

According to the Las Vegas Livestock website, this family farm has been raising pigs for generations with a mission to be humane and sustainable.

“The LVL team provides excellent care to the animals, and the barns have been designed to keep the animals quality of life in mind,” the website says. “Sustainability is always a priority of the farm. The family has close ties to the desert and understand the importance in conserving resources as well as keeping food out of the landfill.”

The Producer’s Toolbox: 5 Essential Economic Skills for Future Swine Producers

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 17:49:36 GMT

The typical swine producer wears many hats, managing animals, employees, facilities, finances and markets. With such a wide range of responsibilities, preparing the next generation requires more than teaching day to day skills, it demands building a broad and adaptable professional toolkit. One essential skill set to add to that toolbox is economic reasoning and analysis.

Economics is often misunderstood. It’s sometimes confused with accounting or finance, or treated as a catch all term for anything involving business or money. In reality, economics is the science of how we use resources, and how to put those finite resources to better use. Just as an engine converts fuel into energy, economics views farms as systems that transform inputs into more desirable outputs. Capital, labor, land and other resources enter the system and emerge as food. In this framework, money isn’t a product; it’s merely a unit of measurement, much like horsepower or torque.

With that foundation in mind, here are five key economic concepts every future producer should understand.

1. Profit

When we view the farm as a transformation system, profit becomes the measure of how efficiently that system operates. If more output is created than inputs used, the farm is operating efficiently. It’s also important to remember that profit is relative. A farm is successful not just because it earns a surplus, but because it earns more per pig than its peers. In a competitive environment, the more efficient survive.

2. Opportunity Cost

If profit measures efficiency, opportunity cost measures what could have been. It’s the tool that helps determine whether a farm is operating at peak efficiency. Opportunity cost shows up in two ways. First, in decision making: if the farm reinvests $100,000 in one project, all alternative uses of that money disappear. Those lost alternatives need to be weighed against the chosen path. Second, opportunity cost emerges as lost potential, often from disease or errors like feed outages. Opportunity costs represent real losses. Even if they don’t appear in QuickBooks, they are just as impactful and often twice as dangerous because they can go unnoticed.

3. Modeling

Modeling turns concepts into insight and insight into action. A model is simply a structured description of reality. For instance, projecting a pig’s weight based on starting weight and ADG is a basic model. Models don’t need to be complicated, but they must be accurate. Start simple; once your model reliably reflects reality, you can expand it. Ultimately, a farm’s model should describe how profit is generated so opportunity cost can be evaluated with confidence.

4. Risk Analysis

Once a profit model is established, it’s time to test extremes. Ask “what if?” What if pig prices fall to a 20 year low? What if disease severely impacts performance? The goal isn’t to find breakeven points but to identify critical failure thresholds. Knowing those limits helps determine the most likely threats and how to mitigate them.

5. Variation

Risk analysis reveals a fundamental truth: averages rarely reflect reality. Weather, markets, and biological systems constantly change, making variation, not the average, the norm. Understanding and measuring variation opens new paths to improve efficiency. Variation often has disproportionate effects on profitability. A 10% change in a parameter rarely results in a 10% change in profit, due to how pigs are valued and how performance changes cascade through the system.

With these skills, tomorrow’s producers will be better equipped to meet, and exceed, the challenges ahead, positioning themselves to consistently achieve above average profits.

Lance Mulberry is an economist with KnowledgeVentures, LLC. He consults with producers, processors, pharmaceutical companies, genetics firms, nutrition, and technology providers throughout the global pork chain.

Dynamic Pig Health is Changing the Rules of the Game

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 20:11:50 GMT

For decades, swine health research often focused on a single pathogen. However, experts pointed out during a recent Boehringer Ingelheim webinar hosted by Farm Journal that producers are actually dealing with the interplay of multiple health challenges over time. Nick Gabler, DVM, professor in animal science at Iowa State University, started researching these factorial health challenges about a decade ago.

He believes the sow farm is the true starting line when it comes to swine health. Although disease often manifests in the nursery or finisher, the root cause frequently traces back to the sow farm.

“We’re seeing that sow farm health has a big impact on that first three to four weeks in the nursery,” Gabler says. “There’s a lot of multi-factorial health challenges there. That’s where I see opportunity for the swine industry to clean up the sow farm and create a downstream impact on health and performance of the pig.”

The Multiplier Effect

Most research focuses on the onset of an infection. However, the economic impact isn’t just about how many pigs get sick, but how quickly and efficiently they recover, Gabler says. A pig that “lingers” in a subclinical state is often more expensive than one that recovers quickly, as it continues to consume resources without gaining weight.

This approach of dynamic pig health, or understanding the full picture of the problem, requires producers and veterinarians to ask some tough questions.

“What is the pathogen or stressor involved?” Gabler asks. “When is it coming into your operation? How does it interact with your management decisions (feeding, marketing, people movement, truck movement, medication and vaccine use)? What pathogens are present?”

Just as importantly, it’s important to consider if the pig can recover and get to full value in time, he says. In short, it’s understanding the big picture and then intervening where you see the most benefit.

But that’s not easy math.

“One plus one does not equal two with the disease world. One plus one equals three, and a lot of times, four,” says Clayton Johnson, DVM, director of health for Carthage Veterinary Services. “That’s tough for a farmer to hear that the pieces of the puzzle don’t fit together well, but that’s the honest answer you’ve got to give them sometimes.”

No Two Pigs Are Alike

Dynamic pig health understands that no two pigs are going to get sick in the same way, says Lance Mulberry, an economist with KnowledgeVentures.

“Between no impact to mortality, there is a huge range of effects that can happen,” Mulberry says. “Dynamic pig health is a shift in mentality away from thinking of our herd as one unit, where every pig gets sick at the same time, has the same impact and recovers at the same time, to a population with complexity. This impacts that opportunity cost at the end because you’re going to have some pigs that just struggle a lot – I call those opportunity pigs.”

In a low-margin industry, the difference between profit and loss often lies in the “opportunity pigs” or the 20% to 30% of the herd that struggles to reach target weights due to health burdens.

“If you’re a producer and you’re trying to optimize your profits, you’re trying to hit a moving target that is changing from day to day and week to week,” Mulberry says. “When we throw disease in, especially a co-infection, we are making that target – that optimal profit point – move even more. Hitting that target in the best of scenarios is difficult to do, but with disease it can become a real challenge. Anything we can do to get a better idea of what is happening to individual pigs will make optimizing profit a little bit easier.”

PRRS is the “Trojan Horse” of the Barn

Even when pigs from different sources appear healthy and have no “bad actors” on a diagnostic report, mixing them often triggers disease, Johnson says. Mixing populations is a major catalyst for dynamic health challenges.

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) remains the primary driver of coinfection complications because of how it systematically dismantles the pig’s defenses.

“PRRS makes everything else harder,” Johnson says. “PRRS is an excellent Trojan horse. It comes into the immune system and affects macrophages whose job is to be the police on the street looking for the bad guys.”

PRRS gets in those macrophage cells and causes apoptosis.

“Those ‘police on the street’ are now dead men walking,” Johnson explains. “They’re not out there finding the bad guys and bringing them to the immune system anymore. That allows PRRS replicate within the pig, pretty unchecked for several weeks, until eventually, the pig’s immune system figures out what’s going on and builds antibodies.”

During that period, imagine an entire city without police, Johson continues.

“On night one, it’s not a big deal. Night two, not as much of a big deal. But night three, once the bad guys have realized there’s nobody to catch them, that’s where you start to see problems,” he says.

The list is long of pathogens that can’t wait to take advantage of that situation. In short, it’s an “unwinnable battle” because the pathogens have the upper hand.

“We have to figure out a way to change the rules of the game in order to put the pig in a position where it can have the upper hand,” Johnson says.

The “Silent Thief": Subclinical Disease

Not all losses are visible. Subclinical infections are diseases that don’t cause obvious clinical signs or mass mortality. For example, subclinical Lawsonia (ileitis) can significantly worsen PRRS outcomes, even if the producer never sees a bloody gut.

“Subclinical diseases are like your taxes. They take it out before you get the money,” Johnson says.

Dynamic disease contributes to opportunity pigs and prevents producers from optimizing those opportunity pigs.

“What happens at the end of every all in/all out group of pigs?” he asks. “You have somewhere around 15% to 20% of your pigs left. What do you do? You dump them. You sell them all, no matter what weight they are right then, and you take a huge penalty by doing that.”

To minimize subclinical impact around diseases like Lawsonia, Fernando Leite, DVM, associate director of technical marketing at Boehringer Ingelheim, encourages producers to consider how they can optimize immunity and protection to the pathogens the pigs will likely face in the field.

It’s important to keep in mind that not all protection is equal. Using vaccines that are homologous to the field strain where possible can significantly reduce viral load and lesions compared to heterologous vaccines.

The Windshield vs. the Rearview Mirror

Edison Magalhães, DVM, assistant professor of animal science at Iowa State University, encourages producers to incorporate more real-time data into health decisions. Closeout reports are “rearview mirror” metrics, but real-time data on water and feed consumption acts as a “windshield” that allows producers to see a health challenge before it becomes a wreck.

When coinfections and health challenges occur, the temptation is to change every variable. However, Gabler warns this prevents producers from finding the root cause.

“If you try to change too many things at once, you’re never going to get to what the true cause was,” he says.

When “Something is Off": Identifying the Subtle Shift of PCV2d

It’s Time to Unravel How Multiple Swine Pathogens Interact in the Pig

Lawsonia: It’s Time for a Gut Check

Can Bigger Pork Carcasses Keep Their Cool?

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 20:52:12 GMT

As pork producers continue to improve growth efficiency and push market weights heavier one question keeps coming up on the processing side: are carcasses getting too big for our current chilling systems?

It’s a fair concern. When things get bigger and denser, they cool more slowly. Most of us have seen this play out at home or at an event. Imagine the end of an FFA banquet…there’s a large pan of pulled pork left over, and it gets placed in the refrigerator to chill. The outside cools down quickly, but the center stays warm for a long time. That’s a problem because of what we call the “danger zone”: a temperature range where bacteria grow rapidly.

While food safety is always top of mind, the concern in pork carcasses is a little different. In intact muscles like the ham or shoulder, we worry less about bacterial growth in the interior. Instead, the bigger issue is how temperature interacts with muscle biology early postmortem. As pH declines after harvest, if muscle temperature remains high for too long, proteins can become denatured. When that happens, they lose their ability to hold water.

The result? Paler meat and reduced water-holding capacity, traits that can impact both fresh pork quality and further processing performance. This becomes especially important for the ham, where much of the product is destined for curing and further processing into items like deli ham. If proteins are compromised early, it can lead to weaker cured color and a drier final product after cooking. For processors, that’s a real economic concern.

So, what did we do to evaluate this?

At the University of Illinois Meat Science Lab, we tracked chilling in some very large pigs, around 400 pounds live weight. While the chilling in our facility is effective, it doesn’t have the advanced blast chilling systems found in many commercial plants. This meant that we were already in less than perfect chilling conditions and further stressing the system with some heavy carcasses. We monitored how quickly different muscles cooled and evaluated traits relevant to further processing.

As expected, larger carcasses chilled more slowly than smaller ones. We also saw differences across primals. Hams and shoulders cooled more slowly than loins. These effects stacked on top of each other, meaning that the hams from the heaviest pigs were the slowest to chill.

But here’s the good news.

Even under these less-than-ideal chilling conditions, we did not observe meaningful negative effects on ham color or processing characteristics. In other words, while heavier carcasses cooled more slowly, that slower chilling did not translate into reduced product quality in our study.

So, what’s the takeaway? For now, it appears that pigs have not outgrown our ability to chill them effectively. That said, this isn’t a “set it and forget it” situation. As I often remind my graduate students, much of the work in fresh meat science is about monitoring—identifying potential issues before they become real problems.

Carcass weights will likely continue to increase, and processing systems will need to keep pace. Staying ahead of these changes ensures that improvements in production efficiency continue to deliver high-quality pork products all the way through the supply chain.

For now, bigger pigs are still keeping their cool—but we’ll be watching closely.

Want to know more? Check out our publications about these pigs:

Effects of Pork Carcass Weight Category and Carcass Primal on Postmortem Temperature and Meat Quality by Kaitlin Guthrie and others

Pork Ham and Belly Processing Traits With Increasing Carcass Weight by Joe Metz and others

We appreciate support from the National Pork Board, whose investment in meat quality research like this helps ensure that production gains translate into high-quality pork products.

The PORK Podcast: Mark Knauer on Discipline, Sow Longevity, and Research

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 19:11:45 GMT

Mark Knauer is no stranger to the “grind culture.” As a Division I wrestler at Iowa State University during the legendary Cael Sanderson era, Knauer knew making it out onto the mat required a daily discipline that could only be achieved through doing hard, repetitive work until it’s perfect. Whether it was a 6 a.m. workout or a 3 a.m. trip to the North Carolina State University swine research farm, the discipline to be successful remains the same.

Walking On to a Legacy

After a heartbreaking loss in his high school state finals by one point, Knauer says he felt like he wasn’t done wrestling. After attending the University of Wisconsin-Platteville for a year, he transferred to Iowa State University with a goal of walking onto the wrestling team.

“Coach Bobby Douglas allowed me to walk on and probably thought I would keep or cull myself over that first semester,” Knauer says. “I remember one of my first practices was a morning practice at 6 a.m. The Iowa State indoor track was maybe 300 meters or something. I gave that first lap everything I had to come in first, but then the next laps after that, I did not come in first. I was just trying so hard to make an impression on the coach.”

His wrestling season went well from there. He walked onto the team and started three years, winning more matches than he lost. Although he admits wrestling was his main focus during his undergrad years, he developed a passion for his animal science classes which led to a graduate student assistantship with Kenneth Stalder at Iowa State for his master’s and Todd See at North Carolina State University for his Ph.D.

The Danger of “Barn Blindness”

Growing up on a 50-sow purebred, commercial-focused, farrow-to-finish operation in the ‘80s and ‘90s, Knauer grew up with a passion for agriculture, but his experience at Iowa State helped guide him specifically to the swine industry.

Early on in his career, he invented the sow caliper , a tool many people use today in the U.S. and across the world. The caliper has moderate correlations with muscle, fat and sow weight, Knauer explains. It measures the angle of a sow’s back. As a sow gets fatter, her top gets wider and more level, and that’s what the sow caliper measures.

Trusting your eyes to measure backfat visually is challenging, he adds.

“You can get barn blind,” Knauer points out. “It happens to the best of us. That’s the nice thing about the sow caliper – it helps you stay on track and takes the argument out of it.”

Knowing a sow’s body condition is critical for maximizing reproductive performance, ensuring herd longevity and reducing feed costs.

Sow Caliper: The Barn Referee

Like wrestling, producers win or lose based on points and performance.

“In wrestling, some people win the same way every time, and some people win different ways,” Knauer says. “Sometimes you get a reversal and win in a defensive match, or sometimes you get back points.”

Similarly, the sow caliper is a useful tool because there are different ways producers can use it to “win.”

“If somebody has a good livestock background, they may just have the sow caliper on hand to settle any arguments,” Knauer says. “If a consultant comes in and says, ‘Your sows are too fat or too thin,’ a good production manager can pull the caliper out and be like, ‘Well, according to this, they’re in ideal sow body condition.’ If you have young stock people who don’t have a lot of background in stockmanship and evaluation, they can use the sow caliper as a tool to get them dialed in for what an ideal sow looks like.”

Just like there are multiple ways to win a wrestling match, Knauer says there are multiple ways to use that sow caliper when it’s being implemented in the field. Ultimately, it’s about changing how pork producers manage the biology of the animal to ensure longevity and profitability.

Pig Livability: The Stakes are High

Unlike wrestling, working harder to help improve sow longevity isn’t enough these days. It requires working smarter through research into sow livability, piglet survival and the intersection of nutrition and health. Knauer says there are a few management levers that producers can pull to improve sow livability.

“Those gilts that have the best pre-weaning average daily gain, or best weaning weights when they are on the sow, are the gilts that go on to be the best when they grow up,” he says. “They grow up to be the best mothers.”

That’s challenging to identify, he says. It requires finding which gilts are the biggest at a very young age and then determining from a cost standpoint, what percentage you will keep.

“That early growth rate of that gilt in the very first 21 days of her life, really sets her up for her lifetime productivity,” he says. “Another piece of the puzzle that’s somewhat related is recent reports saying early puberty is favorable for longevity. That makes me feel good, because the data we ran 20 years ago said the same thing.”

From a management standpoint, that requires more hard questions.

“If you bring in your gilts, are you going to keep the first 80% that come into heat and ship the late ones because they’re not going to have as good a lifetime performance?” Knauer asks.

He’s starting new work now looking at more of these early predictors. Based on some of the work coming out of South Dakota State University on sow hemoglobin, Knauer is doing some of his own work on the impact of raising a gilt’s hemoglobin level at selection on subsequent lifetime retention.

Regaining No. 1 Status in the U.S.

Improving sow livability is not only a good idea from an economic and animal welfare standpoint, but it’s necessary to help the U.S. regain its status as the world’s lowest-cost producer, he says.

“If we look at cost of production for pork across the world, the U.S. is not ranked No. 1,” Knauer says. “Brazil is. It is in our best interest to close that gap in cost of production between Brazil.”

The U.S. is losing too many pigs along the way to disease and other challenges. He believes there are opportunities, especially as genotypes have advanced, to do better.

“On the sow side, we’ve made a lot of progress just in the last year or two, showing that nutritional interventions can help solve livability,” Knauer says. “Improving our pig livability across our system is going to help close the gap with Brazil, but to do that, we need research dollars behind this nutrition by health interaction piece.”

Researchers must listen to the data, the pigs and the producers to do this, he says.

“You learn when you’re listening,” he says. “That’s why it’s so important to move this industry forward.”

Discover more about Knauer’s experiences from the mats to the slats by watching “The PORK Podcast” on YouTube or by listening to it anywhere podcasts are found.

From Pig Data to Profit: How Accurate Records Drive 2026 Swine ROI

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 16:15:01 GMT

The days of collecting volumes of data from your swine operation and wondering what to do with it “someday” are largely past.

In 2026 it’s possible to crunch standard data points on pigs, and even additional specialized data, to come up with a whole operations picture that assists producers with faster, even more efficient decision-making. This translates to more accurate financial records to satisfy bankers and partners and help veterinarians solve or prevent health issues, as well as giving management the ability to focus more pointedly on big-picture plans for future return on investment.

But sharp, well-informed analytics is not possible without a solid foundation of accurate production records — which is also integral to the future of automation and artificial intelligence assistance for swine producers.

Clean and consistent

It is vital that the information a producer is amassing from their operation is clean and consistent, to build the best records database. A prime way to ensure this, is for the people collecting the data to enter it into your collection system in real time, or as close to real-time as possible.

Obviously the day-to-day work of pig production is going to be a producer’s, farm manager’s, or barn employee’s main priority. With that in mind, you can see it’s easy to get caught up in other immediate tasks and not finish entering all the data at the time you’re collecting it. You may think, “I can finish this in a little while; I’ll remember.”

Nobody believes they will forget important information, but waiting a few hours or longer to enter data from memory or incomplete or confusing notes means there is a high likelihood the information could indeed be forgotten — or at least misunderstood. If you are not consistent in entering data in a timely manner, it is less likely to be clean, accurate and useful.

Say you get most of a morning’s data entered correctly but are inaccurate on even one or a few points; that mistake can compound over time. This might impact how quickly you recognize a health issue in one or more animals and delay a critical response, eventually affecting the whole herd and costing extra in treatment and mortality. Conversely, inaccurate data could distort the picture of your healthy animals and create unnecessary concern and expense.

Collecting it right

There are two ways we help producers ensure they are recording this clean, consistent data. First, we work with a farm’s team to help them learn not just how to collect and enter data, but the ways in which it’s so important to the operation.

As I noted above, it’s easy to view data collecting as a distant or optional second responsibility to caring for the pigs. So we show them how the data is used to influence those day-to-day decisions, and why the quality of data matters to the speed of the farm being able to pivot on critical health or real-time financial information.

Second, we help producers understand the features of the data they can and do collect, based on the goals for their operation. There are different types of data collection software you can use, and each one has certain parameters you can choose to deploy.

For example, most sow farms collect basic, standard types of data on each animal such as vaccination, breeding date, farrowing, live-born, weaning and return to estrus. Some producers like to get much more detailed — such as recording every movement of the animal, specific genetic lines used in breeding, every medicine administered, total born including stillborn and more.

The accuracy is the point

When it comes to pig data — any data — it’s not only about what you collect, it’s about how accurate it is.

Part of what we do is to help producers make certain they are collecting the right data to inform the details of decisions important to their operation. I talk periodically with current producers to review the value of their data and records. We discuss if they are collecting the proper data, enough data — or too much. There is a difference between data, and data that matters.

One thing I sometimes encounter are producers who want certain insights but don’t know the type of data to collect, or they presume there’s no way to glean that information from data they’ve already collected. Or, they don’t realize their software can collect particular data — on health, management practices, performance or even environmental factors — to inform even more detailed decisions.

These are good problems to encounter because it means I can help them view data in a whole new light, and we can make their operation more efficient, profitable and meaningful through advanced technological tools in the long term!

Ashley Tanner is Data Operations Manager for Carthage Veterinary Service. A nearly 17-year veteran of CVS and an expert in sow production records, her role recently expanded to include finishing data, which gives her oversight across the full swine production lifecycle. In her role, she leads broader pig data management initiatives with an emphasis on efficient, strong data collection and integrity.

AI in Pork Production: Turning Barn Data into Faster, Better Decisions

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 03:16:45 GMT

By Aidan Connolly, AgriTech Capital & Camila Ulloa, Purdue University

Pork production has always been a business of timing. Breeding schedules, feed deliveries, pig flow, ventilation adjustments and marketing decisions must all happen at the right moment. When those decisions are coordinated well, the system runs smoothly. When they are delayed or disconnected, small problems can quickly become expensive ones.

Today the pace of decision-making in pork production is accelerating. Labor shortages, volatile feed prices, disease pressures and unpredictable markets are forcing producers to operate with greater precision than ever before. Recent industry analyses also show that hog prices have experienced significant swings due to supply chain disruptions, disease outbreaks and export demand shifts. Artificial intelligence is emerging as a tool that can help producers turn operational data into faster and better decisions.

AI is often described as futuristic technology. In reality, it is simply a new way of using information. Modern pig farms already generate enormous amounts of operational data: feed intake, water consumption, barn temperatures, growth rates, mortality and processing weights. The challenge is not collecting the data; it is turning it into decisions quickly enough to matter.

Artificial intelligence helps solve that problem by identifying patterns across multiple data streams simultaneously. Instead of reviewing reports after problems occur, AI systems can detect early signals and recommend adjustments while outcomes are still manageable. For pork producers, the shift is subtle but important. Management moves from reacting to events toward anticipating them.

Why Pig Production Generates So Much Data

Modern swine production generates data at nearly every stage of the production cycle. Large production systems manage breeding farms, nurseries, finishing barns, feed mills and processing plants across multiple locations. Each stage produces its own set of measurements and records. Environmental controllers track temperature and ventilation inside barns. Feed systems record feed usage. Weigh scales monitor growth performance. Health treatments and vaccination programs add additional records, while processing plants provide feedback on carcass weight and yield. Individually, these datasets are useful. But they often remain isolated within separate software systems or management processes.

Nutrition, ventilation, breeding and marketing decisions all depend on different types of information. Yet these decisions influence one another across the production cycle, and the data needed to coordinate them is rarely analyzed together.

Rather than analyzing each issue separately, AI systems evaluate how multiple variables interact across the production system. In practice, this means artificial intelligence can help producers understand how:

changes in feed formulation influence growth curves and marketing weights
ventilation and temperature patterns affect feed intake and animal health
ingredient variability impacts finishing performance
health signals in barns influence downstream processing schedules

When these relationships become visible earlier, producers can adjust sooner.

From Observation to Prediction

Traditionally, good pig managers relied heavily on observation. Experienced producers could walk through a barn and quickly recognize when pigs were uncomfortable or when something in the environment was not quite right. Artificial intelligence does not replace this expertise. Instead, it extends it. Sensors track feed intake and water consumption continuously. Environmental systems monitor temperature and airflow. Cameras and sound sensors detect changes in activity levels or coughing patterns. When analyzed together, these signals provide a clearer picture of herd health and barn performance.

The result is earlier intervention. Health issues can be detected sooner, reducing treatment costs and mortality. Environmental adjustments can also be made earlier to prevent heat stress or growth setbacks. Predictive insights also improve planning, helping producers schedule marketings more accurately and coordinate better with processors. In this way, AI does not change the fundamentals of pig farming. It simply allows producers to see patterns sooner and respond faster.

The Bullet Train Moment for Pork Production

Transformational technologies rarely succeed on technology alone. They require changes in the systems around them. A useful comparison comes from transportation history. When Japan introduced the Shinkansen bullet train in the 1960s, the breakthrough was not simply building a faster train. The entire railway network had to be redesigned. Tracks were rebuilt, signaling systems upgraded and operating procedures rewritten. Without those changes, the train would never have achieved its famous speed.

In our recent white paper on AI in agri-food we describe how artificial intelligence presents a similar moment for agriculture. Installing AI software without adjusting how decisions are made is like placing a bullet train on old railway tracks. The technology may be powerful, but the surrounding system limits its impact. For pig producers, the key challenge is not simply adopting digital tools. It is reorganizing how information flows across the operation.

Turning Information Into Better Decisions

In a previous column in Farm Journal’s PORK titled “ Smarter Pigs, Smarter Farms: How AI and ChatGPT Are Re-Wiring Swine Production ,” I introduced the DRIVE framework as a practical guide for pork producers interested in experimenting with artificial intelligence. That article explains the steps in detail. The principle remains simple: artificial intelligence creates value when it helps producers connect information that already exists across barns, feed mills, health records and marketing plans.

The Next Stage of Pig Farming

The swine industry has repeatedly adapted to new technologies. Genetic improvements, precision feeding systems and modern ventilation controls have reshaped production over the past several decades. Artificial intelligence represents the next stage of that evolution. But the real transformation will not come from algorithms alone. It will come from producers who rethink how information moves through their operations and how decisions are made across breeding farms, nurseries and finishing barns.

In railways, the bullet train succeeded because the entire infrastructure evolved around it. In pork production, artificial intelligence offers a similar opportunity. The farms that move fastest will not simply install new software, they will redesign their decision systems so information works together across the entire operation. Because in modern pig farming, the ability to learn quickly may become just as important as the size of the herd.

Aidan Connolly, President, AgriTech Capital, is described by Forbes as ‘a food/feed/farm futurologist’ He is the author of the book ‘The Future of Agriculture’, now in 4 languages, and a recent white paper on AI in Agri-Food systems. Camila Ulloa is a market research analyst, with a master’s in agricultural economics from Purdue University. Her work combines industry analysis and applied research on innovation, sustainability, and emerging trends across agriculture and food systems.

2026 Common Swine Industry Audit Updates: What Pork Producers Need to Know

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:48:04 GMT

Nobody gets excited when an auditor pulls into the driveway, but in an era of increasing retail pressure and global scrutiny, the Common Swine Industry Audit (CSIA) is evolving from a simple checklist into a pork producer’s most powerful shield.

The CSIA task force’s 2026 updates are the most significant overhaul in a decade, shifting from looking for flaws to benchmarking positive welfare outcomes. By aligning with international standards and providing rigorous third-party verification of on-farm care, these science-based revisions are securing the industry’s ‘freedom to operate’ and ensuring U.S. pork remains a trusted, high-quality staple in the global supply chain.

Securing ‘Freedom to Operate’

The CSIA is a tool for third-party verification, not just internal training, explains Stephanie Wetter, National Pork Board’s director of animal welfare. It provides the credible data needed to justify pork’s place in the global supply chain and protects the industry’s right to operate by meeting international standards.

“CSIA does not teach. It does not train. It is third party auditing, verifying what you’re doing on farm,” Wetter says. “This helps to protect the ‘freedom to operate’ by giving us that credible third-party voice to demonstrate how our pigs are being cared for before these requirements are dictated to us by others.”

She’s quick to add that she understands people don’t get excited about having an audit done on their farm.

“It’s not necessarily fun to think about having someone come in and basically give your farm a test,” she says. “But the CSIA is not designed to focus on your flaws, and especially with the changes in positive welfare language. This is a way to brag about the good care and production that our producers are doing on farm.”

The CSIA is an industry-led effort that gives customers and packers confidence in their suppliers and helps justify keeping those farms in their supply chain because they have that third-party verification.

“There will always be opportunities to improve,” Wetter says. “It’s just the nature of agriculture and production, and especially in an industry that is committed to continuous improvement. The CSIA helps keep those conversations focused on outcomes, learning and progress, rather than focusing on punishment or one-off issues.”

From a system perspective, Brooke Kitting, senior veterinarian at Seaboard Foods, appreciates the feedback loop the CSIA provides. While it does identify things done well, it also identifies areas that could be improved. She says having this formalized audit tool to help them deliver that feedback has helped the CSIA to become a core part of their program.

What’s Changing in the Audit

The 2026 updates to the CSIA include both revisions and clarifications to audit standards and individual questions. Key updates include:

Animal Sampling: The animal sampling protocol was updated following recommendations from published validation research. The revised method is designed to detect at least a 0.5% occurrence at a 95% confidence level, improving data accuracy and consistency while maintaining practicality for on-farm use.
Animal Benchmarking Question Language: Benchmarking questions were reframed to report positive welfare indicators—such as the percentage of animals walking well or in good condition—reflecting a shift toward recognizing positive affective states while maintaining transparency about welfare concerns.
Animal Handling: Additional questions were added to capture a broader range of observed animal handling behaviors. All handling must now be performed in accordance with the site’s written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The section also includes expanded criteria for evaluating handling during transport, with added emphasis on space allowance during loading and unloading.

Kitting appreciates that the “Five Domains” of animal welfare are now being incorporated into the framework of the CSIA. The domains include nutrition, environment, health, behavioral interactions and mental state. This comprehensive framework ensures the audit tool is a true reflection of modern production.

Why ISO Compliance Clicks

The work the CSIA task force is doing to continue to improve the CSIA has a trickle-down effect to support producers’ ‘freedom to operate’ and protect their own supply chain domestically and internationally, Wetter says. In her role at National Pork Board, she interacts with all of the big retailers and food service brands.

“When we start talking about resources like PQA, PQA-plus site assessment, TQA and CSIA (which are all aligned), USDA has granted ISO compliance with all these programs,” Wetter says. “This means they are in line with the World Organization of Animal Health’s international animal welfare standards. When we start talking to our supply chain and they start hearing those words, that clicks with them.”

Coming from a production background, Wetter knows producers don’t always see that other end of these programs they participate in.

“Your participation is so incredibly valuable and meaningful to the other end of the supply chain,” Wetter says. “This is why we want them to continue to use and support these different programs.”

Kitting says it’s incredibly valuable to the Seaboard Foods system that the standards for care and pre-harvest pork safety are well defined, and everyone “sings the same song.”

“As you look at other species in the barnyard, it may not necessarily be replicated in other areas,” Kitting says. “We are incredibly fortunate in the swine industry to have all these programs that sing the same song and dance for us to follow.”

When "Something is Off": Identifying the Subtle Shift of PCV2d

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 18:46:23 GMT

Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) doesn’t look like the devastating ‘wasting’ disease of two decades ago that resulted in high mortality and failure to thrive. Instead, it manifests as a subtle, persistent drag on production today that leaves producers feeling like something is simply ‘off.’

New research confirms the PCV2d genotype is now ubiquitous across the U.S. industry, appearing in over 80% of clinical cases. By matching the vaccine to the dominant field strain, experts say producers can provide the most robust protection possible, effectively taking PCV2 ‘off the table’ so they can focus their resources on more complex challenges like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

Why Modern Circovirus Doesn’t Look Like it Used To

The original PCV2 vaccines included protection against genotype “a” (the most common at the time) and “b.” What had become a major challenge for U.S. pig farmers was fading away because of the successful protection of these vaccines.

But something shifted, as viruses do. Veterinary diagnostic labs discovered less PCV2a and started finding more PCV2d.

“When they were finding PCV2d, they were not seeing the full-blown clinical signs like they saw before vaccines,” says Jana Morgan, DVM, senior key account veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim. “It led us to ask, what’s off? What do we need to look for? What more do we need to understand about PCV2d? We wanted to discover what PCV2d was doing to the system.”

To better understand how widespread this particular genotype was in the industry, Boehringer Ingelheim designed two studies. The first set out to determine if PCV2d was associated with particular flows or production systems from a geography perspective and system perspective. The other study sought to discover if PCV2d was actually leading to disease.

“We took two approaches to assess its distribution across the U.S. and swine-producing states,” explains Fernando Leite, DVM, associate director of technical marketing-swine at Boehringer Ingelheim. “We used oral fluids for simple detection and to see if genotype “d” was present or absent. We found that it was widely present in most swine producing states and across most of the production systems that we evaluated.”

In terms of the disease cases, the researchers followed strict criteria to validate that those pigs had clinical signs – lesions. Then, they sequenced the virus to see which genotypes were present.

“The ‘d’ genotype was present in more than 80% of the clinical cases that we investigated, and the ‘a’ genotype was present in around 15% of the cases that we investigated,” Leite says.

What Does This Mean for Vaccines?

Morgan points out there is cross protection between PCV2a and PCV2d. As the “d” genotype became more prevalent in production systems, the team worked to develop a “d” vaccine so they could have homologous protection.

“Although the ‘a’ is cross protecting, it is not doing exactly what we want it to do,” Morgan says. “We now have the ‘a’ and ‘d’ in the same bottle. It’s important to have that homologous protection to provide the most robust defense. I make sure producers understand that they will still have protection against ‘d’ if they only use the ‘a’ vaccine, but there is an economic impact by putting ‘d’ in there as well. Your production will be better, and you will decrease the clinical signs if you have ‘d’ in your system.”

When PRRS and PCV2d Mix

Recent research also indicates that PCV2d can be more virulent when combined with PRRS, Leite adds. That’s why it’s important to understand which genotype of circovirus is present on your farm.

“The more we understand, the more we can meaningfully intervene,” he says.

As PRRS also continues to evolve and become more frustrating for producers, Morgan says getting a handle on PCV2 helps.

“If we can take that piece off the table by putting a homologous vaccine in the pig that’s going to protect it to the best of its ability (whether it’s ‘a’ or ‘d’), we can start working harder to fight viruses like PRRS,” she says.

Do Diagnostics Align with a Shift in Data?

Producers are encouraged to look critically at small shifts in production numbers. If the “math is off,” diagnostics should be used to see if PCV2d is the underlying culprit, even in the absence of full-blown clinical symptoms.

“Understand what you’re seeing within your system,” Morgan says. “Yes, everyone looks at their closeout numbers. I think with PCV2d, the shift might be small. But if the diagnostics align with this small shift in production numbers, there are tools to shift that back.”

Questions about PCV2d being just in one flow or system in one area of the country have answers now, Leite says.

“PCV2d is really the predominant genotype in the industry today, across different production systems and states and locations,” he says. “Why not use the best tools that are available? If you want to optimize production, the tool is there. As always, work with your herd veterinarian to find the best strategy for your herd.”

Wean-to-Market Filtration: Advancing the Next Generation of PRRS Biosecurity

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 18:17:07 GMT

“Great innovation only happens when people aren’t afraid to do things differently,” George Carter said.

It has been nearly 20 years since the first commercial sow farms were filtered with the goal of controlling porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus. This was certainly different at the time. Farmers and veterinarians didn’t know if it would work. What they did know was that the survival of many family farms depended on changing the strategy in preventing PRRS.

For generations, the sow farm was a foundational piece to their family farm – a truth that still stands today. Ownership of sows was a way of securing a pig supply, controlling health and genetics, and building equity for the farm. PRRS was threatening that paradigm, as it was frequently infecting sow farms and eliminating the ability to consistently control health. For many farms, high infection rates were becoming unsustainable.

Fast forward 20 years, and filtration has become one of the pillars of sow farm biosecurity at Pipestone, now managing over 50 farms with air filtration. Those individuals who dared to think differently and took that initial leap of faith changed the course of history forever – both for their family farms, as well as for the swine industry.

Now, farmers find themselves asking the same questions about wean-to-market barns:

What can we do to reduce wean-to-market PRRS infection rates? Beyond abandoning or relocating barns?

We believe the time has come to challenge the current paradigms in wean-to-market PRRS control and consider if filtration is part of the next generation of wean-to-market biosecurity.

Examples in operation today, both in the United States and internationally, that have demonstrated proof of concept. In China, Pipestone has had firsthand experience with a concept called micro-filtration that has been effective in reducing both PRRS and African swine fever. Domestically, there are examples in operation that utilize a simple seasonal filtration design that mimics or comes from the basic concepts used in sow farms today. While the sample size is small and the duration is not long, the results thus far suggest the concept can be successful.

Two decades of filtration have taught us a couple lessons that are worth considering:

Filtration mitigates risk and reduces infections but does not eliminate risk. In dense swine-producing areas, filtration has reduced the frequency of breaks on sow farms. Our goal when looking at filtration should be to reduce the frequency of infection, not eliminate all risks.
Filtration only controls infection by air. We must have strong biosecurity in other areas of mechanical transmission as well to reduce PRRS infections. If farms are not going to execute on the basics of biosecurity, filtration is not the solution.

As with any innovation, we will continue to learn from both successes and setbacks. Standards for filtration may need to evolve to fit the unique challenges of wean-to-market settings, but the pursuit of perfection should not hinder progress. This technology will not fit everyone and is not needed for everyone, but for some farmers, this could be the next chapter in biosecurity for those brave enough to think differently.

Adam Schelkopf, DVM, is a veterinarian with Pipestone Veterinary Services.

Read More:
Finisher Sites Are the Weak Link in Swine Disease Biosecurity
Why Producers Must Lead the Charge Against PRRS
11 Steps to Eliminate PRRS from the U.S. Swine Herd

What’s Driving Grow-Finish Profitability in 2026?

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 15:35:51 GMT

Times change quickly. Fifteen years ago, a standard 2,400-head barn that cost $600,000 now requires aninvestment of nearly $1 million, points out Brad Eckberg, account executive at MTech Systems. With much of the U.S. finishing capacity built in the late 1990s and early 2000s reaching the end of its lifespan, the need is growing for expensive mechanical and structural overhauls.

“If you have an aging facility and want to do some remodels, I think there’s definitely a need for good space out there,” Randy Kuker, director of swine production for The Equity, explained during the recent State of the Pork Industry Report. “Where your challenge is going to be is if your facility is in an area where it’s surrounded by other pigs and has a lot of disease pressure, the value you’re going to get from integrators or even independent producers that want to use your facility is not going to be very high.”

With what he’s “hearing in the countryside,” porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) have been major issues brought up by people looking for spaces. Too much disease in an area is just too hard to manage.

“Health is king,” Eckberg agrees. “But ultimately, success in the wean-to-finish barn comes down to feed conversion and feed cost per pound of gain. Feed represents about 55% to 65% of the total cost of the pig, so keeping inputs low matters.”

However, he’s quick to point out that people in the barns at the slat level are key to making sure inputs stay low. For example, making sure no out-of-feed occurrences happen, keeping pens appropriately stocked and reducing stress on pigs that are being marketed can make a big difference.

Eckberg and Kuker joined Adam Annegers, JBS sow farm manager, and Cara Haden, DVM, director of animal welfare and biosecurity with Pipestone, on the April 2026 State of the Pork Industry Report. They share tips for contract hog growers to consider this spring.

1. Focus on the first 48 hours.

The transition from the sow farm to the wean-to-finish barn is the most vulnerable time. Success depends on preventing dehydration and ensuring pigs find water and feed immediately.

For Annegers, spending time in the wean-to-finish barns recently has helped him gain a better perspective of the downstream cycle. He believes communication is key.

“Each group of pigs is going to be a little bit different from the last group whether that’s due to health status, diet change or a treatment plan,” he says. “Review the health document with that grower on the group of pigs that’s coming prior to their arrival.”

Make sure the barn is ready to receive pigs from the temperature to ventilation to having the right diet ready to go, he adds.

“The most important thing to do when the pigs arrive is to make sure the pigs don’t get dehydrated,” Annegers says. “They’re used to having mom’s milk right there available to them, so making sure they find water and get started. Have the mats ready for mat feeding multiple times a day. And don’t just throw feed on the mat; get the pigs up and moving.”

2. Better biosecurity equals better production.

Disease management remains one of the most significant operational risks for all pig farmers, contract growers alike. Kuker says he has heard of three sow farms in the past few weeks that have experienced outbreaks of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

“From what I’m being told, it’s a pretty bad one,” Kuker says. “High mortality, high abortion rate and then those pigs end up in the finishers. It’s very frustrating for those growers because it doesn’t seem like any antibiotic strategy is doing the pigs much good. It’s rather disheartening.”

He says it’s resulting in the producers and pig owners adding a lot of cost to manage with very few results.

“There’s not much the growers can do,” Kuker says. “The ones who end up getting those pigs just have to deal with it. The veterinarians have a good plan to transition those sows back to healthy pigs, but it’s hard when you know that group of pigs you’re getting is going to be a challenge, take a lot of work and not get anywhere close to the results you want.”

The Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia (APP) break from a couple years ago really opened producers’ eyes to ‘Oh, wow. We’re actually moving stuff around in grow-finish on people and equipment,’ Haden says. She believes as the industry moves toward disease elimination with the National Swine Health Strategy, the pressure will increase on grow-finish sites to do the same.

The better biosecurity is in your barn, the better your production will be, Haden adds. In a recent cost of disease project funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and the Swine Health Information Center, they’ve been doing some testing and biosecurity scoring to help determine production impact.

“We’re starting to see some very clear ties between better biosecurity and better production,” she says.

Eckberg says that it’s not hard to see how better biosecurity will also improve key performance indicators.

“Think about it – I’ve got healthy pigs so from a cost standpoint, I’ve got fewer medication costs,” Eckberg says. “I’ve got lower mortality so my labor retainment is higher. I’ve got improved average daily gain because they’re not sick. You name the metric – across the board – production will be better because of better biosecurity and better health.”

3. Look into manure as a strategic asset.

Manure is no longer just a byproduct; it is a significant revenue stream, Kuker says.

“We’re seeing a shift, especially with guys that were looking at expanding their operations or adding another facility, to look into ways to create more revenue from manure,” Kuker says. “Depending on your situation, if you’ve got a neighbor or somebody who wants that manure, we’ve got some people benefiting in the $3 to $5 range per pig space from it. On a 4,000-head site, that could generate $20,000 a year in income for that barn owner.”

Kuker says he is also hearing more and more talk about manure technologies. At a recent grower meeting, he learned about a manure separation process where solids are separated from the liquid. Then, the liquid can be set up to go into a planter for more precise and concentrated manure treatment.

“They are looking at 30 gallons per acre on that application and sometimes seeing an 18-bushel increase in yield by using that specific treatment,” he says. “We also heard about a farmer over in Indiana who was willing to pay $1 a gallon and wanted a million gallons of this stuff. There are definitely opportunities out there on the organic side for this fertilizer. And with the current prices where they are, I think you’re going to see more of this by people looking to branch out in their operations.”

4. Boost truck biosecurity.

“It feels like we control everything at the sow farm, we’re talking about improvements in biosecurity at grow-finish sites, but then we’ve got this black box of transport that’s often not something that we manage,” Haden points out. “A lot of times, it’s a third-party vendor and it’s out of our control.”

Washing and properly drying trucks is not an easy job, she says. In fact, it’s a big ask to get a truck and trailer perfectly clean every time.

“There are a lot of things that have to go right to get that done perfectly,” Haden says. “How do we verify that on a regular basis? How can we make sure every single trailer comes out clean?”

She believes truck audits and verification are a gap in the pork industry that needs to be focused on moving forward to be successful.

Watch the full report here.

Summer Marketing Period is More Than Summer

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:54:47 GMT

For 2026, the terminology around “summer marketing” has a slightly different context. Normally, the crush sheets indicate that those few summer months might be the only months of the calendar year that offer a market profit opportunity. However, for 2026, depending on individual production costs, all months have had and continue to have this potential. While all swine operations implement diets and management strategies with the end in mind, 2026 should bring even a sharper pencil to maximize this opportunity.

Real time decision-making economic tools discussed below for stocking rate influence on growth rate, DDGS inclusion recommendations, ideal net energy and amino acid inclusion (lysine and tryptophan), optimal diet phosphorus levels and feed additives use such as Skycis, among other tools are available here .

Try These Post-Weaning Practices

For the first three to four weeks post-weaning, there is a limited opportunity to accelerate growth rate to have a measurable impact on final market weight. In many cases, more time and investment should be devoted to ensuring pigs are started correctly, with properly sanitized facilities, accurate implementation of SOPs for newly placed pigs, proper ventilation and timely treatment of challenged pigs to ensure they are set up for the remainder of their growth stage to market. However, nursery nutritional programs that include in-feed acids, pharmacological zinc, super-dose phytase and other feed and water additives, with consistent data, can increase final body weight by 0.4 to 1.5 lb. at the end of this period.

Late Nursery to Marketing Tips

Once post-wean pigs are about 28 days post-weaned, they often respond to various nutritional practices to increase growth rates that are sustainable until marketing. These practices include increased dietary energy intake and use of growth promoters (some already mentioned in the post-wean section), such as pharmacological copper, ionophores and other feed additives. Some nutritionists formulate dietary phosphorus and various amino acids, such as tryptophan, at slightly higher concentrations to achieve higher growth rate targets.

A commonly used practice is to reduce or eliminate higher-fiber ingredients, such as distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) or wheat middlings, to increase growth. This also allows for increased dietary soybean meal, which can improve growth rates if currently included at low diet concentrations.

The use of added fat is a decades old practice that always gets discussed, but often the resulting improvements are only in the 1.0-2.0 lb. carcass weight basis, but the added feed cost in many U.S. locations can still be greater than the revenue received.

While nutrition is a piece of maximizing profitability in high market price months, management practices can often override nutrition changes for extra weight gain. Practices to increase days to market could include:

Double stocking nursery pigs longer for fall-marketed pigs to allow for more days on feed of finishing pigs during the summer months.
Utilizing a lower stock rate for targets periods of time as possible as a means to improve daily gain.
Altering marketing strategies to maximize days of feed of an entire barn population.

From the Front Lines to the Finishing Barn

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 21:15:13 GMT

The world is a small place. For Michael Williford, serving in the U.S. Army taught him that everything is connected in one way or another. He deployed to Iraq three times. He served in Afghanistan, Korea, Belgium, Germany and Kosovo, among others.

While he was serving as a military police officer all over the world, one thing always remained consistent: his wife Andrea was where he called home.

“College wasn’t exactly recruiting me at the time, so joining the Army seemed like a good fit,” says Michael Williford, the son of an Army veteran. “I was one of three in my class who went into the armed forces, but the only one who went into the Army.”

(Provided by Michael Williford)

“While I was in my first Iraq deployment, Andrea bought a house in Texas,” Williford says. “It’s kind of funny. Everybody was teasing me when we were coming home. They were like, ‘Is your wife going to pick you up?’ I said, ‘Well, I hope so, because I don’t know where I live.’”

During these years, Andrea had to make the majority of the decisions for their family. So, when Williford was nearing retirement after 20 years of service, he decided to go wherever she wanted to go.

Answering the Call Home

Andrea’s parents asked the couple to return home to run their family farm in Clinton, Ky. At this point, Williford was far removed from agriculture and admittedly didn’t know anything about farming.

“There was no succession plan in place for the family farm,” Williford says. “They assured me that it was OK that I didn’t know anything about farming and that they would help me learn. And they’d keep the farm growing while I finished up my service.”

To add value and create a “spot” for himself in the operation, he and his wife, Andrea, decided on contract hog production. While he was on a deployment to Afghanistan, Andrea went to the bank, completed archaeological surveys and went to work on how she wanted to create opportunities to grow and diversify their family farm. She called him to tell him the news while he was stationed in South Carolina.

“I told her, ‘You’ve followed me for the last 17 years. I’ll do whatever you want me to do,’” he says. “Andrea said, ‘I’m building the hog barns, and you’re going to take care of them.’”

The bank was also in favor of the contract hog production opportunity.

“In our area, there’s quite a few chicken farms and Tosh Farms was up and coming in Kentucky at the time,” Williford explains. “The contract differences were pretty tremendous. Your paycheck is locked in stone. Your contract terms are a lot better. I had a 10-year contract when we started out, so as long as I did what they told me to do, then we should be in good shape.”

A Soldier’s Eye for Detail

Returning to the family farm required taking some time to stand back and watch, listen and learn, he says.

“I had to figure out where I fit in and what would work best for the farm,” Williford says. “I asked a lot of questions of myself. What can I improve? What can I make better? What do I need to leave alone and not touch on the family farm? There are some things you probably need to let alone for a while.”

(Kentucky Pork Producers Association)

But when it came to the hog operation, he had the opportunity to make it his own and bring some of his military skill set into the mix.

“As a contract grower, the long-term commitment and structure was appealing,” he says. “Tell me what to do, and I’ll make sure it happens. I’ll execute.”

The repetitive nature of the job is perfect for a retired soldier.

“I enjoy walking through the barns, making sure everything is the way it should be,” Williford says. “If something’s out of place, it stands out. That’s where the military training really helped me the most. If one feeder isn’t as full as the one next to it, I notice. Then, I figure out why.”

Managing the Big Picture

Being a contract grower allows him to work with a talented group of experts in swine health, nutrition, production and more. He enjoys being able to focus entirely on animal husbandry and management without the stress of market volatility or feed costs.

His one piece of advice for people considering contract hog production is to be prepared for the management component. From taking care of buildings and equipment to having a plan for the manure, management is a key part of his day.

(Kentucky Pork Producers Association)

“You’ve just got to look at it with eyes wide open to see the big picture of everything going on and have a plan,” Williford says. “You still have to manage it all. When it comes right down to it, every piece of gravel in the parking lot belongs to me. Every two-by-four in the building belongs to me. You have to make it work in order to pay for it.”

The 20-Bushel Benefit

There’s no question the benefits go beyond the paychecks. For the last 40 years, Andrea’s family has always tried to use as much animal manure as possible to fertilize their farm ground. Everyone was happy to get an extra 200 acres of fertilizer every year from our pigs, he points out.

“We can definitely see a huge difference in soil health overall,” Williford says. “I’m not a scientist or anything, but around here, there’s a difference between white dirt and black dirt. We have white dirt here and we have black dirt here. Some of our dirt that was brown is now actually turning black after a few years. We used to forecast that we were going to make 170-bushel corn, and we’ve since upped that to about 190 because of our pig manure.”

At the end of the day, Williford says his passion for farming connects closely to his passion for serving his country.

(Provided by Michael Williford)

“The military is really big on traditions – remembering the past and preserving the heritage and culture of those who came before us in the military,” he says. “Farming is not that much different. People have great pride in being a multigenerational farmer.”

Preserving a farm in the same location for centuries is an incredible feat. It’s important to the Williford family to do the same.

“Long after I’m gone, I hope there’s some descendant of mine who says this is a 300-year farm,” he says.

Discover more about Williford’s experience in the military, his passion for agricultural advocacy, his thoughts on being a dad and his insights on the pork business by watching “The PORK Podcast” on YouTube or by listening to it anywhere podcasts are found.

Sow Longevity: New Study Confirms Critical Management Triggers for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 20:48:20 GMT

Sow mortality continues to frustrate U.S. pig farmers. One of those key causes of sow mortality is pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Previous studies on purebred sows show that there is no silver bullet to prevent POP, but susceptibility can be reduced by genetic selection because it has a substantial heritability. A new study shows the same correlation exists among the crossbred (F1) commercial sows, but that’s not the only factor contributing to prolapse incidence.

A recent study led by Tricia Haefner, a master’s degree student at Iowa State University, evaluated genetic and non-genetic factors associated with susceptibility to vaginal/uterine POP in crossbred sows. She wanted to validate the non-genetic factors tested in the Iowa State University POP project led by Jason Ross , including the association of body condition score and perineal score measured during late gestation with POP in crossbred sows.

Data were collected on 3,983 crossbred sows during late gestation on two commercial farms in the Midwest during the summer of 2023. The data include:

Body condition score (1-5)
Caliper units (5-24)
Perineal Score (PS, 0=low risk; 1=moderate/high risk)
POP – defined as vaginal or uterine prolapse (0/1)

All sows were housed in group pens 35 days after breeding, except for a subset of sows at one farm, which were placed in groups immediately after weaning and managed according to California Proposition 12 regulations and moved into farrowing within 5 days prior to her due date.

The “Thin Sow” Problem

Using body condition score and the sow caliper tool, this study confirmed a “glaringly obvious” linear relationship between body condition score during late gestation and POP.

“Sows that are too thin during late gestation are at a substantially higher risk of prolapse,” says Jenelle Dunkelberger, a geneticist at Topigs Norsvin USA.

She says that’s an important message for the industry to hear right now.

“Late gestation is just a snapshot in time, but we should consider what her body condition at this time point might imply about her development prior to that point,” Dunkelberger says. “For instance, we need to be aware of, and perhaps even implement changes, regarding how she’s managed prior to late gestation to ensure that she is in the appropriate body condition going into farrowing, to maximize her success for longevity.”

Within parity groups, the data showed higher parity animals are also at a higher risk than gilts or Parity 1 sows.

Perineal Scoring as an Indicator

Researchers used a 1–3 scale developed by Iowa State University’s Jason Ross and former graduate student Zoe Kiefer to score the perineal region for swelling and redness. They found a high genetic correlation between perineal score and actual POP, indicating that these are, genetically, the same trait. More specifically, genetic predisposition for an unfavorable perineal score is strongly correlated with genetic predisposition for POP. Because perineal issues occur at a higher frequency (33%) than actual prolapse (2.4%), it can be considered a higher-resolution “indicator trait” for early identification of susceptibility to POP.

“POP is a binary trait – you either have a prolapse or not,” Dunkelberger explains. “Unless you have a high incidence rate, statistically, it’s tricky to analyze these types of traits. That’s why a trait like perineal score, which appears to have a higher incidence rate, may be an attractive indicator trait for POP.”

For this study, they did not see a large incidence of 3 scores, so they grouped together scores 2 and 3 and called them a moderate to high risk.

“We want to use this perineal score to try to develop an indicator of prolapse because you don’t get to see the incidence of it until it actually occurs,” Haefner says. “This helps identify it a little sooner so we can develop mitigation strategies.”

Prop 12 and Group Housing Stress

A significant finding showed that sows in Prop 12-compliant systems (weaned directly into groups) had a higher risk of POP and high perineal scores compared to sows kept in stalls for the first 35 days post-breeding.

“That was a little bit of a shock, but also we know that there’s a lot of stressors occurring around that time frame,” Haefner says, noting that there was limited data for this subset of animals. “It’s a critical time point of breeding and just getting off of lactation, wanting sows to recover their body condition. Even though those sows in that group were at this higher risk, we actually saw higher average body condition scores and caliper scores for them at late gestation.”

The sows were recovering, but Haefner says more research is needed to determine what’s different during that 35-day period as compared their non-Prop 12-compliant sows. She suspects hierarchy, including competition for feed, to be a key factor.

Still More Genetic Work to Do

After compiling this data, Haefner performed a genetic analysis on the tissue samples she collected.

“We were looking at perineal score and actual prolapse incidence,” Haefner says. “We were able to find moderate heritability for both of those traits, validating the heritability of POP in a commercial, crossbred population.”

Haefner says there’s still more that genetics can contribute to reducing the incidence of POP and improving perineal score.

“Perineal score and prolapse together being highly correlated means that we can utilize perineal score to also help mitigate against prolapse and select for perineal score alongside prolapse as well. Or, potentially, use perineal score in place of POP, to select for reduced incidence of POP,” she adds.

In other words, the same genes that control susceptibility to an undesirable perineal score are the same set of genes that control POP.

A Multi-factorial Approach is Needed

“Genetics can be part of the solution, and should be part of the solution,” Dunkelberger says. “But moderate heritability indicates that the majority of phenotypic variation in that trait is actually influenced by non-genetic factors. Therefore, you need to address both the genetic and non-genetic factors influencing POP to make a substantial reduction in the incidence rate of POP.”

Topigs Norsvin USA has been performing direct selection against susceptibility to POP since 2021. Dunkelberger says that should continue to reduce the genetic susceptibility to that trait, but effort should also be invested into looking at these non-genetic solutions as a way of complementing that approach.

“The lowest hanging fruit is body condition,” Dunkelberger says. “There are different ways to go about managing body condition and different things that can influence it. Having awareness of the relationship between body condition during late gestation and susceptibility to POP is important. I really believe that proper management of body condition will pay for itself in terms of sow retention.”

Finisher Sites Are the Weak Link in Swine Disease Biosecurity

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:45:34 GMT

The U.S. swine industry relies on a multi-site system where pigs are moved between separate farms for different growth phases. Although efficient, this constant movement of pigs, people and equipment creates significant pathways for disease transmission.

“While sow farms often follow strict biosecurity protocols, there is limited information on how these practices are implemented and their impact on pathogen introduction in growing pig populations,” Mariah Negri Musskopf, DVM, said at the American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting in Las Vegas.

Wean-to-finish sites play a critical role in disease dynamics but are less frequently studied. Musskopf and a team of researchers at Iowa State University set out to identify bioexclusion practices associated with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) outbreaks in U.S. wean-to-finish sites.

A prospective observational study was conducted on 95 wean-to-harvest sites managed by eight companies across six states, including 33 nursery, 17 finisher and 45 wean-to-finish sites. All flows were either PRRSV-negative or PRRSV-positive stable vac¬cinated with modified-live vaccine at placement, Musskopf explains. Sites completed a detailed biosecurity survey covering 17 categories, including local swine site density. Oral fluid samples were col¬lected every four weeks from placement to market, refrigerated, and submitted to the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory for analysis.

The “Finisher” Problem

The results showed finisher sites were the most vulnerable, with an 82.4% outbreak rate, compared to wean-to-finish (66.7%) and nurseries (33.3%).

“These findings show that site type and farm density are key driv¬ers of PRRSV outbreaks, with finishers in dense areas at greatest risk,” says Musskopf, a graduate student at Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine.

Some of the top risk factors discovered include:

Local Farm Density: For every additional swine farm within a one-mile radius, the odds of a PRRSV outbreak increase by 62%.
Carcass Disposal: Using rendering services was associated with a 6.47 times higher odds of an outbreak.
Human Connections: Employees who live with others who also work in the swine industry face a 6.15 times higher odds of bringing the virus to their site.

Proven Protective Measures

There’s power in downtime. Implementing overnight downtime for employees who work across multiple sites significantly associated with lesser outbreaks, providing a critical window to prevent cross-contamination.

The study suggests prioritizing biosecurity and surveillance on high-risk finisher sites is beneficial, especially those located in “swine-dense” geographic areas.

Controlling PRRSV requires looking beyond the sow farm, Musskopf says.

“Veterinarians and production systems can use this knowledge to improve surveillance and biosecurity on high-risk sites, review practices adopted during carcass disposal and employee downtime, and cohabitation,” Musskopf says. “Targeting these factors can reduce opportunities for virus introduction and improve regional PRRSV control.”

The Path from PRRS Control to Elimination

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 15:00:13 GMT

The “why” behind elimination of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is clearer than ever, veterinarian Reid Philips said during the Alex Hogg Memorial Lecture at the American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting.

The statistics are staggering, he points out.

• PRRS costs the U.S. industry $1.1 billion annually.
• Acute breaks lead to a 278% increase in injectable treatments and pre-weaning mortality rates as high as 100% in some weeks.
• A single system can lose $1 million to $3 million in the 10 weeks following a break.

So, what holds producers back from eliminating this devastating virus? Philips believes the fear of reinfection is heavy on the minds of some pork producers. Only after controlling the virus and reaching a stable status can producers decide if they want to eliminate it or not, he adds.

“The fear there may be having a naive herd and then having a reintroduction of a new heterologous virus, and experience the break,” he says. “That’s the fear I would have. Can I prevent the rebreak?”

That’s a tough question to answer, Philips says.

Moving Beyond the Silver-Bullet Mentality

The industry has gained a lot of information and knowledge through research and experience since the “mystery disease” made its entrance in the late 1980s.

“We know there is not one tool in our toolbox that is a silver bullet, but if we can apply all the tools in a systematic and coordinated fashion, we can move the needle,” he says.

The industry should strive to get breeding herds to a stable status where they are weaning negative pigs, Philips says.

“We need to focus on managing the virus and in wean-to-finish flows, beat it down to a more manageable level and reduce the viral risk,” he adds. “I think we can employ pilot projects, whether they be system-based or regional-controlled pilot projects. We have the knowledge, tools and protocols to do that and prove that we can achieve not only regional control, but even regional elimination and minimize rebreaks.”

He knows this won’t be easy, but he believes it’s doable.

A Five-Step Checklist

In his mind, this is not just a science- and evidence-based discussion. It’s a business one. He encourages producers to consider a step-by-step approach to PRRS:

Step 1: Identify the goals of the program.
Step 2: Determine current PRRS virus status.
Step 3: Understand current constraints.
Step 4: Develop solution options.
Step 5: Implement, monitor and measure preferred solution inclusive of complementary components of a PRRS virus control program.

The Impossible Just Takes a Little Longer

Through the efforts of field-applied research and continuous learning, Philips says the industry is overcoming obstacles and turning them into opportunities.

“We have the tools (biosecurity, immunity management and diagnostic monitoring) and knowledge to apply what we’ve learned in a systematic, coordinated process to improve our ability to control and eliminate PRRS virus,” Philips says. “The components of regional control offer framework for programs to mitigate its economic, health and welfare impact.”

The effort will require industry leadership as well as patience and persistence. It will also take time, along with collaboration, coordination and communication with all stakeholders.

“It’s a long journey to the top of the mountain,” Philips says. “It’s never easy, but when you get there, the view at the top is well worth the trip. As the U.S. Marines often say, ‘The difficult things we do immediately; the impossible, it just takes a little longer.’”

Sows and Gilts May Need More Calcium and Phosphorus Than Previously Thought

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 14:59:46 GMT

The needs for calcium and phosphorus by growing pigs have been researched extensively and recommendations for requirements for digestible calcium and digestible phosphorus have been proposed. These recommendations have been validated in performance experiments, and the recommended levels were confirmed to be accurate.

However, there is a need to determine the requirements for calcium and phosphorus for developing gilts and sows, too. Due to the rapid increase in productivity of sows over the last decade, it is believed that requirements for all nutrients including calcium and phosphorus have increased. Still, research to determine the requirements for calcium and phosphorus for reproducing animals is lacking.

What Do Developing Gilts Really Need?

From the extensive work to determine requirements for calcium and phosphorus by weanling and growing-finishing pigs that was conducted over the last two decades, it is possible to estimate the levels of calcium and phosphorus that will maximize bone development. Because developing gilts need to stay in the herd for several years, it is important that they have maximum bone ash and bone strength when they enter the breeding herd.

The requirements for calcium and phosphorus that maximize bone ash should, therefore, be used in diets for developing pigs (Table 1). It appears from these data that the ratio between digestible calcium and digestible phosphorus that is needed during the growing phase increases as pigs get older because less and less phosphorus is needed for soft tissue growth as pigs get older and the optimum ratio in diets for mature gilts is, therefore, close to the ratio in bone ash.

How Are Gestating Sow Needs Different?

The needs for calcium and phosphorus by gestating sows represent the sum of the needs for maintenance, maternal growth, fetal development, and growth of placenta and other reproductive tissues. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data to demonstrate the needs for calcium and phosphorus for all of these requirements and estimates, therefore, can only be made based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be completely accurate. However, there are a few data for the endogenous losses of calcium and phosphorus by gestating sows and it is likely that these losses are representative of the maintenance requirements for calcium and phosphorus by gestating sows. There are also estimates for requirements for maternal gain, which are believed to be closely associated with the requirements for gain of bone ash from the first to the fourth parity of sows.

Estimates for requirements for fetal growth and growth of reproductive tissues have been published and although these estimates are variable among experiments, these data represent the best possible estimates for these requirements. As expected, requirements for fetuses and reproductive tissues are much greater from day 90 to farrowing than they are before day 90 because of rapid growth of fetuses late in gestation. Based on these estimates it is possible to make estimates for requirements for digestible calcium and digestible phosphorus by gestating sows (Table 2). Because these estimates are based on the daily requirements, the concentration of digestible calcium and phosphorus needed in the diets depends on the daily feed intake and will change with changes in feed intake.

The requirements for digestible calcium and phosphorus can be estimated, but there are considerable difficulties in formulating diets based on digestible calcium and phosphorus because there is a lack of data for the digestibility of calcium and phosphorus in feed ingredients fed to gestating sows. The digestibility has been determined in most feed ingredients fed to growing pigs, but gestating sows have digestibility values that are very different from those observed in growing pigs (Figure 1), and as a consequence, it is not possible to use digestibility values obtained in growing pigs when formulating diets for sows.

It may be necessary to formulate diets for sows using values for total calcium and phosphorus rather than digestible calcium and phosphorus, and requirement estimates in Table 2 are indicated both as digestible and as total calcium and phosphorus. In addition, values for total calcium and phosphorus are indicated both for diets without microbial phytase and for diets with microbial phytase, and it needs to be taken into account that the response to microbial phytase is different in sows than in growing pigs.

Lack of Data for Lactating Sow Digestibility of Calcium and Phosphorus

The requirements for calcium and phosphorus by lactating sows represent the sum of the requirement for maintenance and the requirement for milk production. As for gestating sows, the requirement for maintenance can be estimated from the requirement for endogenous losses and the requirement for milk production is largely determined by the amount of milk produced every day, which is strongly influenced by the number of pigs suckling the sow.

Under practical circumstances, most sows will likely have an average milk production of 12 liters per day during lactation and daily feed intake usually vary between 5 and 7 kg per day. It is possible to calculate the needs for digestible calcium and phosphorus in lactating sows producing 12 liters of milk per day and consuming 5, 6 or 7 kg of feed daily (Table 3).

As for gestating sows, there is a lack of data for the digestibility of calcium and phosphorus in feed ingredients fed to lactating sows, and it may be necessary to base formulations on total calcium and phosphorus rather than digestible calcium and phosphorus, as is also indicated in Table 3. Responses to microbial phytase by lactating sows are different from growing pigs and also different from gestating sows, and there is also a need to generate data for responses to phytase by lactating sows.

More Work to Be Done

Estimates for requirements for calcium and phosphorus by developing gilts are based on strong scientific data, but for gestating and lactating sows, there is a lack of data for which requirements can be based. The above estimates were based on calculations of requirements and a number of assumptions had to be made and there is therefore a need for these numbers to be validated under practical conditions. Likewise, there is a need for generating values for the digestibility of calcium and phosphorus by gestating and lactating sows in all feed ingredients and the impact of microbial phytase needs to be verified as well.

Sixth Circuit Reverses Ruling, Allowing Farmers to Defend Interests in Clean Water Act Case

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:06:30 GMT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling and agreed National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the Ohio Pork Council, and several other agricultural associations are allowed to intervene as full parties in a case challenging Ohio’s regulation of nutrients in the Maumee River Watershed and western Lake Erie basin.

“This decision matters because it ensures agriculture can stand up and tell its own story,” says Cheryl Day, executive vice president of the Ohio Pork Council. “Our producers who raise livestock and grow crops are in the best position to defend agriculture and explain how these policies affect real farms — not federal regulators or government lawyers who don’t have any connection to agriculture.”

The Case Background

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency developed and the U.S. EPA approved a total maximum daily load (TMDL) – the amount of pollutants, including otherwise unregulated farm and agricultural storm water runoff, that can be in a water body and still meet federal water quality standards – for the river in northwest Ohio, NPPC shares in Capital Update.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center, among others, sued EPA in U.S. District Court in 2023, arguing that its approval of the Ohio EPA’s Maumee River TMDL “was arbitrary and capricious and the TMDL is not stringent enough.”

Even though the District Court allowed environmental activists, including Food & Water Watch and the Waterkeeper Alliance, to intervene in the case, the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the agricultural organizations’ request to enter the case, arguing that it would represent EPA and farm group interests.

The Right to Intervene

In granting NPPC and the other agriculture organizations the right to intervene, the Sixth Circuit unanimously found that while the EPA’s argument that “approval of the Maumee TMDL is consistent with its regulations interpreting and implementing the CWA” – a position supported by the farm groups – the agricultural associations have a different view of the regulations from EPA. NPPC explains the groups further argue that some of the regulatory requirements are inconsistent with or otherwise not required by the CWA and not applicable to farmers.

“With the case back at the U.S. District Court, the farm organizations will be able to argue that while EPA’s reasons for approving the Maumee River TMDL were adequate to support its decision, the legal threshold for such approval is lower than the environmental groups and even EPA contend,” NPPC says.

Although NPPC and the agricultural associations could have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, being intervenors allows them to raise and prosecute their own arguments, argue at trial, weigh in on possible settlements, and appeal an adverse outcome.

“Overall, NPPC will have a much stronger platform for defending agriculture from baseless attacks by activist groups, both in this case and in future challenges,” the organization says.

Small Decisions Drive Big Victories for Disease Elimination

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 15:06:24 GMT

In the world of livestock health, the “impossible” is often just a goal that hasn’t been met yet.

Years ago, as a veterinary student at Iowa State University, Dusty Oedekoven spent his days bleeding pigs on sow farms and spinning down samples in the lab. At the time, the industry was locked in a battle with pseudorabies. Many producers believed the virus was too pervasive to ever truly disappear.

But Oedekoven watched as the industry rallied, developed vaccines, and made the thousands of small, disciplined decisions required to win. In 2004, the U.S. was finally declared free of the disease.

This isn’t his only experience with disease elimination. For nearly 20 years, he worked for the South Dakota Animal Industry Board, serving 13 of those years as the state veterinarian. From bovine tuberculosis in cattle to scrapie in sheep, Oedekoven is no stranger to the “impossible.”

Now, as chief veterinarian for the National Pork Board, he is facing a new “impossible” in the swine industry: the elimination of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV).

The Psychology of Elimination

In March 2025, the National Pork Board (NPB) received an advisement at National Pork Industry Forum asking the industry to facilitate the creation of a producer-led national swine health strategy.

During 47 listening sessions across 36 states, Oedekoven heard a recurring theme from producers. They were “PRRS fatigued.” The disease had made raising pigs “not fun anymore.” It was a heavy, endemic weight that felt permanent.

But Oedekoven saw a parallel to this struggle in a place far from the barn: the wrestling mat.

“This year was my son Alex’s fifth time to wrestle in the state tournament,” he says. “This was his third time in the championship match. He’s lost that championship two other times, and while we were so glad he made it that far, when you get to that point and you lose, it is hard.”

It might have been easy to accept that a title just wasn’t in the cards. Instead, Alex used those losses to fuel a year of disciplined, small decisions—extra practices, better nutrition and mental focus. Last week, Alex finally stood at the top of the podium as the South Dakota State A Champion at 144 lb.

Oedekoven believes the pork industry is at a similar crossroads. He presented an update on the next steps for the National Swine Health Strategy at the National Pork Industry Forum. He says this isn’t just a set of technical goals; it’s a mindset shift. The strategy aims to keep foreign diseases like African swine fever out while aggressively moving to eliminate PRRS and PEDV that drain producer morale.

Moving From Management to Eradication

Just as Alex’s title was won in the extra time and attention to detail in the practice room months before the tournament, Oedekoven argues that the battle against endemic disease is won in the mundane, daily adherence to biosecurity protocols.

Eliminating PRRS won’t be easy, he adds. It’s a significant challenge and there is a long list of reasons why this disease causes so much heartache in the industry.

“We know we can eliminate PRRS from a single farm,” Oedekoven says. “We have several examples of what happens when appropriate resources, knowledge and training are all in place – you can eliminate PRRS. Now, how long can you keep it from being reintroduced? I think there’s a lot of factors to that, but we know it can be done.”

The tools are already in place for elimination, but the real power doesn’t live in a lab, Dusty points out. It lives on the farm. It’s in the hands of the producer who enforces a strict biosecurity protocol one more time, or the system leader who chooses transparency over silence.

“It’s a mindset,” he says. “It’s believing that we can do it, believing that we should do it, and taking actions that align with that belief.”

Bringing everybody together around common goals is at the heart of the National Swine Health Strategy. It will take coordination, communication, collaboration and making difficult choices in some cases, Oedekoven says.

“We have a lot of work to do in understanding how we contain the disease on the farm,” he says. “What are the alternatives to moving pigs from a known positive sow farm to an area that was just getting over an outbreak? How do we share information within the industry to protect confidentiality, protect liability, and yet give producers the information they need to make the best decisions? We know that coordinated effort to reduce the viral load is going to pay dividends for everybody.”

Again, those are things the industry doesn’t have all the answers to, Oedekoven adds. But if we don’t change our actions to align with our beliefs, then we’re going to continue to struggle with these viruses.

The road to eliminating PRRS and PEDV will be long, and there will likely be setbacks. But as Oedekoven looks back on the victory over pseudorabies and his son’s journey to the podium, he remains optimistic. Success isn’t found in one giant leap; it’s found in the hundreds of small, purposeful decisions made every single day.

Check out the National Swine Health Strategy tactics here and engage with your state pork associations.

You can listen to more of Oedekoven’s personal experience with disease elimination and his perspective on PRRS on “The PORK Podcast” on YouTube or follow The PORK Podcast anywhere podcasts are found.

3 Emerging Technologies That Could Transform Modern Swine Operations

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:28:14 GMT

Traditional swine management still depends heavily on caretakers making rapid, subjective assessments of pig health and performance across large populations of pigs, says David Rosero, assistant professor in the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University. However, outdated processes often delay early detection of diseases, limit timely targeted interventions, and result in inefficient production systems.

Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) tools, such as computer vision and automated environmental and biological sensors, are becoming increasingly important tools as swine management shifts from labor-intensive, manual tasks to automated, digitally enabled systems.

“Despite the rapid development of new PLF technologies, adoption in swine barns remains slow, primarily because swine producers are uncertain about their accuracy, reliability and economic value,” Rosero said at the American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting.

Here are three emerging PLF technologies that Rosero and his team at Iowa State University believe offer a transformative opportunity to modernize swine operations.

1. Wearable sensors to monitor pig activity

Today’s technological advancements enable the clustering of multiple sensors into compact, innovative devices for pigs, Rosero says. Previous research has demonstrated this concept using a Bluetooth-enabled electronic sensor board that can record body and ambient temperatures, head tilt, movement and vocalizations, all integrated into an ear-tag form factor. The sensor cluster is now remarkably small and lightweight making it practical for the use in pigs at various stages of their lives, he adds.

“Wearable sensors have also demonstrated strong potential for early detection of infectious diseases,” he adds.

For example, one study evaluated a real-time monitoring system that combined an accelerometer and a thermometer within an ear tag, demonstrating that the model could distinguish between healthy and infected pigs with African swine fever (using an attenuated strain) one to two days before clinical signs became evident.

“Despite these promising results, important limitations remain for the large-scale implementation of ear-tag sensors,” Rosero says. “Costs of assembling electronic sensor boards remains high for commercial operations.”

Computer Vision is an emerging scientific field that seeks to automate tasks beyond the capacity of the human visual system, Rosero says. It integrates edge computing and artificial intelligence systems that extract and process information from images automatically using relatively low-cost equipment. Applications of computer vision technologies include assisting humans in identifying tasks, detecting events from visual surveillance, and analyzing medical images, among others.

“Traditionally, counting pigs at different production phases has been a time-consuming and labor-intensive task, often carried out alongside activities such as weaning, vaccination or sorting,” he says. “Because swine facilities house large numbers of animals, manual counts are frequently inaccurate, which can negatively affect feed and supply planning, health protocols, and marketing accuracy. New computer vision systems provide a superior solution for identifying, tracking and counting animals.”

It is true that the use of cameras in field conditions presents challenges due to variable lighting, diverse backgrounds and occlusion from pen structures. However, researchers have developed robust computer vision methods capable of overcoming these limitations with high accuracy, Rosero points out.

3. Computer Vision to estimate the body weight of pigs

Continuous and automatic monitoring of pig growth performance can provide producers with valuable insights into system efficiency, herd health status and marketing readiness, Rosero explains. In practice, however, caretakers rely on only a few traditional methods, including direct weighing with scales, body tape measurements such as heart girth or flank-to-flank measurements, and visual estimates made by trained technicians.

“The application of computer vision for body-weight estimation has demonstrated strong accuracy in research settings and is now being evaluated within commercial production systems,” he says.

A previous study conducted a direct comparison of methods using 91 individually weighed pigs in a university setting. Results showed that a walk-across scale achieved 98.2% accuracy (with six pigs unregistered), human visual estimation reached only 88.2%, and the PigVision computer-vision system achieved 96.6% accuracy. Researchers noted that PigVision was the least labor-intensive approach and provided continuous weight data throughout the growing period, although it required routine maintenance.

A novel computer vision-based system (Swine Sense Hub Camera) capable of estimating individual body weight of pigs and identifying them through ‘codeflex’ tags to was evaluated in a commercial research finishing barn in Indiana from June to November of 2025. The mean (± standard deviation) absolute percent error (MAPE) was 2.39% (± 2.31%) for Turn 1 and 2.58% (± 2.38%) for Turn 2. Concordance correlation coefficients were measured to evaluate the agreement between the camera and scale weights. Substantial agreement between weights was observed at the individual level in both turns, with estimates of 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.975-0.983) in Turn 1 and 0.99 (CI: 0.988-0.991) in Turn 2. Excellent agreement was identified at the pen-level, with correlations of >0.99 for both turns, showing high accuracy of predicting weights, Rosero says.

“Collectively, these findings demonstrate that computer vision can achieve high accuracy while reducing labor requirements,” he says. “Moreover, these studies highlight the need for standardized evaluation protocols to validate the accuracy and reliability of new technologies across diverse production and farm settings.”

The Challenge for Adoption

Rosero says the industry needs a standardized technology evaluation process. One study identified 83 commercially available PLF technologies for pigs; however, despite the large number of devices available for swine producers, only 14% had been evaluated in scientific validation studies.

“The limited number of validated systems is concerning, as rigorous evaluation is a critical step toward commercial adoption,” Rosero says. “Field-based assessments generate essential information on accuracy, reliability and return on investment, along with practical considerations such as barn connectivity, integration with existing controllers, staff training requirements and concerns about data ownership and privacy.”

Rosero believes that for digital tools to provide meaningful value in commercial swine systems, they must consistently capture, process and report data as intended. Scientific evaluation is critical to ensure emerging PLF tools are suitable across production systems, housing environments, growth phases and genetic lines.

To address this knowledge gap, Rosero and his colleagues Sarah Phelps and Nathan Vander Werff at Iowa State University, are developing standardized evaluation tools to assess the accuracy and reliability of emerging digital technologies for commercial swine barns. These science-based assessments are designed to inform technology adoption decisions and enhance swine producers’ confidence in PLF innovations, Rosero says.

“Establishing standardized technology evaluation processes, along with technology testing centers, will be crucial to reducing adoption risk, generating independent performance evidence, and building producer confidence,” he says. “As the swine industry moves toward a more digital, data-driven future, the strategic integration of validated PLF tools will be critical for enhancing animal health, improving labor efficiency, strengthening farm decision-making, and ultimately driving greater profitability across commercial systems.”

Don’t Leave the Feed Mill Out of Your Farm’s Biosecurity Plan

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 21:20:01 GMT

Biosecurity programs in commercial swine production typically focus on animal housing and the immediate farm perimeter. However, upstream inputs — particularly feed and ingredient supply chains — represent critical and sometimes under-recognized pathways for pathogen introduction.

Feed is unique among production inputs because it is delivered directly into animal environments and consumed daily. As veterinarians supporting the Carthage System’s 30-plus sow farms, our collaboration with feed mills extends beyond diet formulation. It also includes verification of ingredient sourcing, mill biosecurity design, and delivery logistics to minimize infectious disease risk.

Making feed safer

Modern swine diets include not only major ingredients such as corn, soybean meal and distillers byproducts, but also a range of micro-ingredients — including amino acids, trace minerals and vitamins — that are frequently sourced through global supply chains. Some originate from regions where foreign animal diseases (FADs) not present in the United States, including foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever and classical swine fever, are endemic.

To mitigate this risk, mills supplying Carthage System farms preferentially source ingredients from FAD-negative regions. When procurement from affected regions is unavoidable, imported micro-ingredients are held in segregated, climate-controlled storage to allow time-temperature inactivation of potential viral contaminants. Inventory planning is structured so incoming ingredients can complete the designated holding period before use.

Feed mitigants are also incorporated during manufacturing, particularly during higher-risk seasons when environmental survivability of enveloped viruses may be extended.

Feed mills themselves operate with internal and external clean-dirty line (CDL) separation, analogous to farm biosecurity zoning. Within the facility, traffic flow and personnel movement are structured to prevent cross-contamination between raw ingredient receiving, processing and finished feed load-out. Externally, physical separation of incoming ingredient trucks and outgoing feed delivery vehicles reduces cross-contact risk. In some mills, traffic lanes and access points are designed so inbound and outbound vehicles never intersect, with only the truck scale shared.

Safety in deliveries

While FAD exclusion remains a top priority, endemic U.S. swine pathogens — particularly porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) and porcine deltacoronavirus — continue to drive production losses. Feed delivery vehicles moving among farms represent a recognized mechanical transmission risk.

To reduce this risk, Carthage System mills and farms use a structured delivery sequencing model referred to as a biosecurity pyramid. Farms are categorized by health status, and delivery routes are scheduled from highest-health to highest-risk sites to avoid reverse contamination.

Health status classifications are reviewed at least weekly and adjusted as outbreaks occur or sites recover. If logistical constraints require deviation from sequence — for example, urgent delivery to a lower-status farm — the vehicle undergoes full wash, disinfection and downtime before returning to higher-health routes, in addition to routine sanitation protocols.

Seasonal environmental contamination also requires management. Winter road conditions in the Midwest can accumulate organic debris on truck undercarriages that may harbor pathogens. Mills typically require removal of this material before trucks enter load-out areas or pass over delivery pits. Farms may also increase on-site feed inventory ahead of forecast thaw events (“sludge days”) to reduce delivery frequency during high-contamination periods.

The importance of mill–farm relationships

For independent producers, the primary takeaway is the need for structured communication with feed suppliers. Vertically integrated systems with dedicated mills can implement unified protocols more readily, but toll and cooperative mills serving multiple clients can also operate at high biosecurity standards when expectations are clearly defined.

Producers should work collaboratively with their veterinarians, nutritionists and mill managers to establish and verify feed-related biosecurity measures. Within the Carthage System, veterinary teams conduct mill biosecurity audits every 6-12 months to verify compliance and incorporate emerging science and technologies. At minimum, annual review is recommended.

Another risk-reduction strategy involves eliminating porcine-derived animal byproducts in swine diets. Ingredients such as spray-dried plasma, serum and other blood products provide highly digestible protein and energy, but also present significant pathogen transmission risk within species. Carthage System diets use alternative sources to reduce this exposure pathway.

Feed biosecurity is not solely a mill responsibility or a farm responsibility. It is a shared system that requires alignment across the entire supply chain.

Why Doesn’t the Swine Industry Treat Flu Like the Problem It Is?

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:46:54 GMT

Diagnostic laboratories consistently rank influenza among the most frequently tested pathogens, and industry data repeatedly place it among the top causes of respiratory disease. If everyone can agree the swine industry has a flu problem, why has the industry largely decided to live with it?

“The ship has sailed on prevention at this point,” says Andrew Bowman, DVM, PhD of The Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, at the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) meeting in Las Vegas. “We are somewhere in control or elimination. And if we want to move the needle, we’ve got to start drifting toward elimination.”

Influenza A virus (IAV) in swine is typically not an isolated event, but rather a key contributor to the porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC), which inflicts significant economic losses through reduced weight gain, increased days to market, and reproductive inefficiency, Bowman says. However, IAV in swine has broader implications beyond the barn door.

“Swine are well-established as ‘mixing vessels’ for human, avian and swine influenza viruses, facilitating genetic reassortment that can generate novel viruses with zoonotic and pandemic potential,” he says. “Our commitment to controlling IAV in swine herds is, therefore, a frontline defense for both the pork industry and public health.”

Management Versus Elimination

Bowman believes the bigger issue is not lack of information, but the goal the industry has set for itself. Many production systems focus on managing influenza rather than eliminating it.

“The most pervasive obstacle we face is not the virus itself, but a sense of futility summarized by the statement, ‘Why bother? We are just going to get it again.’ This perspective fundamentally misunderstands modern IAV epidemiology,” he says.

This passive acceptance enables IAV to establish the endemic circulation we see in many production systems, Bowman adds.

“The virus’s circulation in other hosts and its ability to evolve rapidly are not justification for inaction,” he says.

Rather, Bowman believes these are the very reasons proactive, persistent control is non-negotiable.

“Allowing uncontrolled circulation effectively gives IAV unlimited opportunities to shift and drift, all but guaranteeing that we will, indeed, ‘get it again’ in a costly and predictable cycle,” he says.

The pork industry should take the lead in driving change by moving away from reactive treatments and accepting an endemic state, actively working to eliminate IAV in herds rather than merely managing it, Bowman says.

“This is not about finding a single ‘silver bullet’ vaccine, but about implementing a concerted, multi-faceted strategy,” he adds. “This will take innovative thinking, challenging dogma and substantial effort.”

Can Influenza Be Eliminated?

Bowman says IAV meets all the typical criteria used to justify elimination programs. IAV directly affects three major areas of concern for the pork industry:

• Animal health
• Economics and production performance
• Zoonotic risk at the animal-human interface

“Influenza hits all three,” Bowman says.

The tools needed to reduce IAV circulation are not new or complicated, he points out. Across numerous research studies and field experiences, the same core strategies repeatedly appear in successful elimination efforts:

• Isolation or segregation of pig populations
• Strong biosecurity protocols
• Strategic vaccination programs

“It’s not rocket science,” he says. “Those three things — isolation, biosecurity and vaccination — are the tools we have, and they work. They are the same issues being discussed for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSv) elimination, so it would be quite easy to shift from PRRSv elimination to also include IAV elimination in swine.”

Influenza diversity in swine has increased over time, making vaccine strategies more complex. But Bowman notes that diversity does not eliminate the effectiveness of biosecurity or pig flow management. Instead, he frames the challenge as one of industry mindset.

“While we may not always be able to prevent IAV infections, we can reduce clinical disease, decrease viral shedding and critically limit the probability of reassortment events within swine herds,” he says.

Can Cloud-Based Cameras Solve the Compliance Puzzle in Barns?

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:21:22 GMT

Growing up on her family’s 500-head farrow-to-finish sow farm in Illinois, Jacqueline Springer understands and appreciates the importance of biosecurity and the challenge of maintaining consistent day-to-day compliance.

To explore better ways to provide objective, actionable feedback to producers and farm employees at the farm level, Springer, a veterinary student at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, set up a study to evaluate how continuous monitoring and targeted feedback could influence behavior. She discovered that camera-based monitoring, when paired with targeted feedback, can drive meaningful and sustained improvements in biosecurity compliance.

Cameras and Compliance

“Traditional biosecurity monitoring relies heavily on periodic onsite inspections by veterinarians or production managers,” she explained at the 2026 American Association of Swine Veterinarians Annual Meeting. “While these visits provide valuable assessments, they capture only snapshots of farm operations during inspection windows, potentially missing violations between visits.”

In addition, the “announced” nature of many inspections often leads to temporary compliance improvements that may not reflect day-to-day practices, she adds. Not to mention these visits take time and labor required, which are always a premium at any operation.

“Cloud-based security camera systems have created new opportunities for continuous biosecurity monitoring,” Springer says. “These systems provide objective surveillance of critical control points where biosecurity protocols are most crucial. Motion-triggered recording allows efficient review by focusing human attention on periods of activity rather than hours of empty facilities.”

Still, questions remain about the thoroughness of footage review, consistency of violation detection and whether identified violations lead to meaningful improvements in farm practices.

Objective Feedback Works

Springer evaluated camera-based biosecurity monitoring in two commercial 6,000-head sow farms. Over two 28-day periods, before and after a targeted management intervention, she reviewed motion-triggered footage from five critical access points.

“I compared my findings to those of the third-party auditing service reviewing the same footage to evaluate detection consistency,” Springer explains. “I also assessed whether feedback reduced violations and documented the time and resources required to implement this approach in a commercial setting.”

For six to eight hours per day, Springer monitored these two sites. She admits this exceeds what most production veterinarians could dedicate while maintaining other responsibilities.

However, several approaches could improve scalability: intensive review periods (one week per quarter) rather than daily comprehensive review, distributed video review among multiple personnel with coordinated standards, integration of artificial intelligence-powered violation detection to automatically flag potential violations for verification, or sampling protocols using random selection of time periods or locations.

“Integration of AI systems could provide real-time alerts rather than retrospective review, enabling immediate intervention,” Springer notes. “Additionally, integration of camera monitoring data with other production data could provide comprehensive insights into biosecurity effectiveness and its relationship to herd health outcomes.”

During the 28-day baseline period, she documented 245 total violations across both farms. Following a management intervention, violations in the 28-day post-intervention period declined to 69 total violations.

“After a single data-driven intervention, violations decreased by 71.8% across both farm,” she says. “This suggests that objective feedback, not just written protocols, plays a critical role in changing day-to-day behavior.”

Springer believes this research provides producers with a data-driven approach to identifying compliance gaps at critical control points, such as employee entry, live animal load-out areas and supply entry zones.

Does It Add Up?

Economic considerations for implementing camera-based monitoring systems include both initial and ongoing costs. Installation costs for cameras and Wi-Fi infrastructure on 6,000-head sow farms range from $10,000 to $12,000. Ongoing expenses for maintenance, camera system access and weekly third-party auditing services based on the standardized training protocol cost approximately $1,150 per month, or $13,000 to $14,000 annually per farm.

“These costs must be weighed against the potential financial impact of disease outbreaks,” she says.

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) alone costs the U.S. swine industry $1.2 billion annually[JS1.1], so Springer says even preventing a single disease introduction could justify the monitoring investment for a production system over several years.

“By addressing these gaps early, producers can reduce the risk of disease introduction and spread,” she says. “Preventing a single outbreak, such as PRRSV, could justify the investment in monitoring for multiple years, making biosecurity not only a herd health priority but also a sound economic strategy.”

This project highlights a shift from periodic, reactive audits to continuous, proactive compliance monitoring. As technology advances, particularly with the integration of artificial intelligence-assisted review, Springer believes camera-based monitoring could become a scalable tool that strengthens biosecurity culture across the swine industry.

“Ultimately, protecting herd health starts with consistent daily behaviors, and this research reinforces the value of measurable feedback in achieving that consistency,” she says.

Springer says study limitations included the camera outage demonstrating that monitoring is only effective when cameras function reliably, requiring prioritized maintenance and rapid repair protocols. Protocol refinements during baseline monitoring improved relevance but complicated interpretation of baseline results. The learning curve for monitoring personnel should be anticipated when implementing these systems. Farm-specific violation patterns support the value of individualized feedback and training rather than generic systemwide interventions.