Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An update & next steps from 104 ...

Iowa Pork Industry Ce

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An update & next steps from 104 farms

collaborating on NPB project

Jason Ross, Amanda Chipman, Chris Rademacher, Colin Johnson, Ken Stalder, Anna Johnson, Aileen Keating, John Patience, Nick Gabler, Daniel Linhares, Kent Schwartz,

Suzanne Millman, Zoe Kiefer, Stephan Schmitz-Esser, Gustavo Silva

National Pork Industry ConferenceJuly 9, 2018


SU Investigators

Amanda Chipman, Extension

Colin Johnson, Extension

Chris Rademacher, Swine disease and production veterinarian

Ken Stalder, Genetics and statistics

Anna Johnson, Welfare and behavior

Aileen Keating, Reproductive toxicology

John Patience, Nutritionist

Nick Gabler, Nutrition and physiology

Daniel Linhares, Epidemiologyand statistics

Kent Schwartz, Diagnostic veterinarian

Suzanne Millman, Welfare

Jason Ross, Reproductive physiology


ackground

Sow mortality, especially due to prolapses, has increasethe past 5 years in the US swine industry.It has become a significant welfare and production issueNo good understanding of root causes are known at thistime.National Pork Board Released an RFP in October, 2017


meline for Sow Prolapse Study

Submitted proposal

ved the est for osals

Notification of funding

Interviews for Extension Program Specialist

Conference calls with

collaborators to enlist sow

farms

Amanda Chipman start date‐Project

Leader

Visited first integrated production company to

discuss project

~50 farms committed to being on the project. Open forum at Iowa Pork Congress

104 Sow Farms

enlisted on the project

ept 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 March 2018 April 20

62 ovi

com

On farm data

collection begins


bjectives of the Projectentification of risk factors associated with Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the US serd.

Establish network of industry partners and Sow Farm Managers (target was 60-80 sow fDevelop herd and individual sow survey tool and use it on farm.Establish communication and advisory network of producers, allied industry, university fa

and staff.Establish an accessible repository of data, samples and information.

his is a hypothesis generating project. – It is expected to provide data used to justify pursuing future

research studies that test specific hypotheses.


Examples of Data Being CollectedHerd factors: Sow farm inventory, gestation and lactation diet parameters, distillers dry grain usage, feed type (i.e. pellmash), mycotoxin binder usage, bump feeding, prior mortality and prolapse incidence at the farm, disease history, gilt sbreeding.

Facility factors: Water and feed delivery systems, sow housing type (i.e. pen or stall), gestation pen or stall hygiene, environmental conditions.

Management factors: Artificial insemination hygiene/cleanliness, farrowing assistance strategies, sow feedback and vaccinations, protocols on gestation pen/stall management, culling criteria and strategies.

Animal based measures: Data will be collected on sows that are at specific stages of production, assistance on previofarrowing, genetic background, lameness score, perineal region score, tail dock length, genital-anal distance, body condscore.

Records and data integrity: Prior year sow production and mortality records will be extracted and communication on hrecords were created with farm staff to ensure causes of mortality are accurately defined.

Sample Banking: We will collect representative fecal samples, feed samples, water samples, and swabs of gestation pens/stalls for future distribution and analysis if warranted.


Mortality and Prolapse Record Sheet

Scope of the projectWeekly mortality and prolapse data submitted weekly by:

104 Farms 85 farms in 13 larger systems 19 independents

Almost 400,000 sows15 states


Individual Animal Measurements

Scope of the projectOn‐site visits completed on:

62 of the 104 farmsOver 5000 sows individually measured11 of the 15 states4 people collecting data on visits


erineal Scoring: Score 1


Currently in Progress

eed sample analysis in progress– Proximate analysis (CP, Ca, P, Na, NDF, Se, Zn, etc.)– Particle size– Mycotoxin analysis ontinuing to collect information for each farm (i.e. historical production-means clustering to characterize patterns in POP incidenceaboratory analysis on a few biological samplesontinued collection of weekly prolapse and morality dataevelopment of a less subjective vulva score


his is PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS. . .

NO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!


eek 6-23 Trends:Average POP Rate for 104 farms

85 83 26 79 87 60 86 37 5 99 102 77 23 88 25 19 22 36 48 41 2 57 100

101 8 56 6 11 72 97 71 78 1 82 80 21 65 42 10 108 98 105

109 74 73 4 9 34 94 62 35 29 81 58 91 20 14 7 95 13 27 30 12 107 39 90 24 54 103 40 33 104 66 32 68 28 49 59 47 45 31 106

113 15 44 70 92 111 93 96 18 43 112 75 17

Farm ID

Prelimina


Week 6 to 23 Trends:Mortality Average of All Farms

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%

4‐Feb‐18

11‐Feb

‐18

18‐Feb

‐18

25‐Feb

‐18

4‐Mar‐18

11‐M

ar‐18

18‐M

ar‐18

25‐M

ar‐18

1‐Ap

r‐18

8‐Ap

r‐18

15‐Apr‐18

22‐Apr‐18

29‐Apr‐18

6‐May‐18

13‐M

ay‐18

20‐M

ay‐18

27‐M

ay‐18

3‐Jun‐18

Annu

alize

d Mortality (%

)

Week

Weeks 6‐23 Annualized Total Mortality

Prelimina


Week 6 to 23 Trends:Prolapse Average of All Farms

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%

4‐Feb‐18

11‐Feb

‐18

18‐Feb

‐18

25‐Feb

‐18

4‐Mar‐18

11‐M

ar‐18

18‐M

ar‐18

25‐M

ar‐18

1‐Ap

r‐18

8‐Ap

r‐18

15‐Apr‐18

22‐Apr‐18

29‐Apr‐18

6‐May‐18

13‐M

ay‐18

20‐M

ay‐18

27‐M

ay‐18

3‐Jun‐18

Annu

alize

d PO

P (%

)

Week

Weeks 6‐23 Annualized Prolapse Rate

Prelimina


Causes of Mortality

Prelimina

16%5%

2%

6%

2%

3%28%

38%

akdown of Week 4‐23 Causes of Mortality

Uterine Prolapse Rectal/Anal Prolapse

tal and Vaginal/Uterine Prolapse Difficulty Farrowing/Retained Pig(s)

Intestinal (Ulcer) Complications

ured/Downer Unknown/Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

wee

k 4

wee

k 5

wee

k 6

wee

k 7

wee

k 8

wee

k 9

wee

k 10

wee

k 11

wee

k 12

wee

k 13

wee

k 14

wee

k 15

wee

k 16

wee

k 17

wee

k 18

wee

k 19

wee

k 20

wee

k21

Causes of Mortality by Week

Vaginal/Uterine Prolapse Rectal/Anal Prolapse Both Rectal and Vaginal/Uterine P

Difficulty Farrowing/Retained Pig(s) Disease Intestinal (Ulcer) Complications

Lame/Injured/Downer Unknown/Other


gnificant Variation Across Farms Exis

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Annu

alized

Mortality (%

)

Annualized Total Mortality

Best 20% Average 60% Worst 20%

Prelimina


gnificant Variation Across Farms Exis

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

()

Annualized Pelvic Organ Prolapse Rate

Best 20% Average 60% Worst 20%

Prelimina

There seems to be more seasonal

variation in the high incidence farms


Means Clustering- Using the Weekly cidence of POP/1,000 Sows

Number of farms Freq. %49 52.1%36 38.3%9 9.6%

rms 94 100.0%

Average Sd Min Q1 median Q3 max0.29 0.33 0 0 0.23 0.46 1.630.76 0.52 0 0.44 0.73 1.09 2.681.58 0.82 0 0.93 1.52 2.08 4.19

descriptive stats of the POP incidence by 1,000 sows

tribution by cluster

Prelimina

Farms dividclusters basetrends of the

POP incid


ow, Medium, and High Incidence Clusters for Weekly POP Incidence

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Prelimina


Cluster Average of POP Incidence

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Prelimina

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Week

POP Incide

nce / 1

000 So

ws 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5


Relationship between POP and Mortality

Prelimina

R² =

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

0% 5% 10% 15%An

nualize

d PO

P Ra

te (%

)Annualized Non‐POP Mortality (%)

Non‐POP Mortality and Prolapse Incidence

P

R² = 0.4038

% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%Annualized Total Mortality (%)

Total Mortality and Prolapse Incidence

P < 0.0001


Score 1

Score 3

Score 2

Prelimina

R² = 0.1634

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

POP/10

00 Sow

s/wee

k

Perineal Score

Whole Farm Average‐ Perineal Score

P = 0.0011

Average Number of AnimalsScoring a 3 Correlates to Higher Prolapse Incidence


Perineal Score in Late Gestation as an Indicator ofPOP Risk

Total scored animals

Animalsprolapsed

Percentprolapsed

Score 1 1310 15 1.1%Score 2 1361 12 0.9%Score 3 235 17 7.2%Total 2906 44 1.5%

Score 1

Score 3

Score 2

1.1% 0.9%

7.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

1 2 3

Percen

t Prolapsed

Perineal Score

Percent of Sows Prolapsed According to Perineal Score

Prelimina


Body Condition Score in Late Gestation as an Indicator of POP Risk

Total scored animals

Animalsprolapsed

Percentprolapsed

BCS 1 586 16 2.7%BCS 2 2050 26 1.3%BCS 3 215 2 0.9%Total 2851 44 1.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

1 2 3

Percen

t Prolapsed

Body Condition Score

Prolapses by BCS

Prelimina


CS and Perineal Score as an Indicator POP Risk

Score 1 2 3

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

mals 206 966 113 308 941 81 72 141 21

d animals 5 9 1 4 7 1 7 10 0

prolapsed 2.4% 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 0.7% 1.2% 9.7% 7.1% 0.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

PS1, BCS1 PS1, BCS2 PS1, BCS3 PS2, BCS1 PS2, BCS2 PS2, BCS3 PS3, BCS1 PS3, BCS2 PS3, BCS3

Percen

t Prolapsed

Perineal Score and Body Condition Scores

Prelimina


Questions We Are Still Working On rying to Answer . . . Nutrition Nutrient composition Ingredient levels and sources Mycotoxins Laxatives Antibiotic pulses in the feed

GeneticsDisease outbreaks and health status Parity and performance information like total born Relaxin and other endocrine factors


Discussion and Thoughts for the utureA lot has been done in 6 months and a lot more to do…Significant analysis remains to be done on A LOT of data-some still being collected. Conduct additional projects on high and low incidence farms Endocrine assays Genetic approaches Nutritional contributions Etc.

Ultimately to design and employ on farm mitigation studies.


hank you to our MANY industry

ollaborators!

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An update & next steps from 104 ...

Documents

Transcript of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An update & next steps from 104 ...