PIG / SWINE FARM BOOT BATHS. 1 P a g e

Transcription

1 PIG / SWINE FARM The primary risk factor for introduction of disease to a swine herd is direct exposure to infected pigs. Another risk factor is exposure of pigs to people who may act as mechanical vectors of porcine pathogens. Consequently, many pork production facilities require that personnel, visitors, and veterinarians disinfect their boots before entering facilities, and also when moving between groups of pigs of different ages or health status. Literature on boot bath use is scarce and usually limited to the proper procedure. The effective utilization of boot baths consisted of cleaning boots in a preliminary bath filled with dilute ViralFx, followed by immersion of clean boots in a second bath filled with detergent to a depth of 15 cm, for at least one minute. We suggest that large units prepare new boot baths daily, or when they are visibly contaminated, and that small units prepare new boot baths every 3 days. BOOT BATHS Farm personnel use boot baths to prevent mechanical transmission of pathogens among groups of pigs. However, boot bath maintenance in most facilities is poor, and boot baths are often grossly contaminated with organic matter. People commonly avoid stepping into boot baths, or simply step through the bath without stopping to clean their boots. The result confirm, that simply stepping through or standing in a boot bath without first removing visible organic debris from boots does not provide effective boot disinfection. ViralFx is a suitable disinfectant for use in boot baths when used appropriately. All visible organic material must be removed from the surface of the boot to achieve efficacy. After removal of organic material, ViralFx rapidly disinfected the boot in most cases. Although there was no difference in the number of bacteria cultured when manure was scrubbed from boots while standing in a boot bath of 1% ViralFx compared to scrubbing the manure off with water and then dipping in a boot bath of 1% ViralFx, the latter protocol is more advantageous. The disinfectant in the boot bath will remain free of organic material and will need to be changed less often if personnel use 1 P a g e

2 a hose and (or) brush to remove manure from boots prior to dipping in disinfectant. Thus, producers will have decreased labor and disinfectant costs. CONCLUSION Removal of visible organic material from boots using a hose and (or) brush and then dipping clean boots in a boot bath of 1% ViralFx provides an economical and practical alternative for effective use of boot baths on farms. Stepping through or standing in ViralFx without removing organic debris first was ineffective in disinfecting boots. CONTROLS: Viruses of Hog Cholera, Swine influenza, Porcine Parvovirus, Pseudorabies, Porcine Reproductive and RespiratorySyndrome (PRRS), RotoviralDiarrhea, African Swine Fever and Foot and Mouth Disease. Bacteria of Pleuropneumonia, Treponema hyodysenteriae, and Clostridium perfringens. Fungi: Fusarium moniliforme. General Instructions: Remove swine and pre-clean the area to be treated. ViralFx at 1% solution is recommended for cleaning and disinfecting farrowing units, nurseries, finisher houses, processing plants, and agricultural production equipment such as trucks, waterproof footwear (such as rubber boots and associated livestock equipment and instruments). ViralFx at 0.5-1% solution is recommended for use in fogging (wet misting) operations or as a supplemental measure either before or after regular cleaning and disinfecting procedures. Fog (wet mist) until the area is moist using automatic foggers according to manufacturer s use directions. Rinse foggers and sprayers with water following use. 2 P a g e

3 Virucidal Efficacy - Pig Production The efficacy table below addresses specific diseases related to pig production : Pig Disease Virus Family Dilution Rate Porcine Reproductive Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS virus) Arterivirus 1:500 African Swine Fever (ASF) Asfarviridae 1:800 Transmissible Gastroenteritis (TGE) Coronaviridae 1:100 Swine influenza (H1N1) Orthomyxoviridae 1:100 Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD) Picornaviridae 1:1300 Swine Vesicular Disease (SVD) Picornaviridae 1:200 Post weaning multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS), Porcine Circoviridae 1:100 Aujesky s (pseudorabies) disease Herpesviridae 1:100 Classical Swine Fever (CSF)/Hog Cholera Flaviviridae 1:150 Bactericidal Efficacy Pig Production The efficacy table below addresses specific diseases related to pig production. Pig Disease Pathogen Dilution Rate Pleuropneumonia Actinobacillus/pleuropneumoniae 1:200 Food poisoning - humans Bacillus cereus 1:100 Atrophic Rhinitis Bordetella bronchiseptica 1:150 Spirochaetosis Brachyspira hyodysenteriae 1:100 Abortions Brucella abortus 1:100 Food poisoning - humans Campylobacter coli 1:100 Campylobacter jejuni 1:100 Campylobacter pyloridis 1:100 Necrotizing Enterocolitis Clostridium perfringens 1:100 Dermatitis Dermatophilus congolensis 1:100 Septicaemia Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae 1:100 Diarrhoea, Oedema Escherichia coli 1:100 3 P a g e

4 Food poisoning humans Escherichia coli O157:H7 1:100 Septicaemia, respiratory disease Haemophilus somnus 1:100 Abortion, foetal loss, endometritis, mastitis Klebsiella pneumoniae 1:200 Swine proliferative enteritis Lawsonia intracellularis 1:100 Abortion septicaemia, Encephalitis, Listeria monocytogenes 1:100 Food poisoning humans Polyserositis Mycoplasma hyorhinis 1:800 Swine enteritis related infections Pasteurella haemolytica 1:100 Pneumonia, Atrophic Rhinitis Pasteurella multocida 1:150 Secondary infections, co-infections with PCV2 Proteus mirabilis 1:200 Respiratory infection Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1:100 Enterocolitis, Septicaemia, Salmonella choleraesuis 1:120 Food poisoning humans Food poisoning - humans Salmonella arizona Salmonella enteritidis PT4 Salmonella hadar Salmonella infantis Salmonella thomasville 1:100 1:100 1:200 1:200 1:200 Enterocolitis, Septicaemia, Salmonella typhimurium DT104 1:200 Food poisoning humans Food poisoning - humans Salmonella virchow 1:200 Human infections Staphylococcus aureus (pig MRSA) 1:100 Botryomycosis Staphylococcus aureus 1:100 Septicaemia, Meningitis, Streptococcus suis -- Arthritis, Bronchopneumonia Fungicidal Efficacy - Pig Production The efficacy table below addresses specific diseases related to pig production. Pig Disease Pathogen Dilution Rate Aspergillosis Aspergillus niger 1:100 Gastro-oesophageal ulcers Candida albicans 1:100 Dermatophytosis Trichophyton mentagrophytes 1:150-1:300 4 P a g e

5 AERIAL DISINFECTION Aerial disinfection is an important part of the Biosecurity Programme in the pig farm and can have a major part to play in preventing or controlling disease. Essentially Aerial disinfection is the process of disinfecting suspended particles in the air for a period of time. Why should we do it? Basically there are two main reasons : Firstly: As part of a terminal disinfection programme between batches or when depopulating all or part of a farm. In this role it is usually done after the main disinfection is completed, and after moveable items and bedding have been returned. The purpose are as below : 1. To control any contamination that might have been re-introduced with these articles. 2. To disinfect areas which are inaccessible to normal procedures, either by virtue of their position or proximity to electrical supply or similar. 3. To help reduce any dust etc. which has been created. It should be stressed that this is a part of the complete programme and does not replace the normal disinfection in that programme. Secondly: While the building is still populated with pigs. There are three main reasons for doing it : 1. To reduce the airborne spread of pathogens and other micro-organisms. 2. To reduce levels of dust. 3. And hence to reduce the levels of airborne challenge to the pigs by endotoxins (toxins produced by certain bacteria which can be carried on dust - they have significant effects on productivity and disease). In this role aerial disinfection can be carried out daily or even more frequently, and can be highly effective. The importance of aerial disinfection while pigs are in the building can be seen and concludes that dust and endotoxins contribute to the development of respiratory disease in pigs and allowed a smaller dose of pathogen than normal to cause clinical pneumonia. Thus if we reduce pathogens, dust and endotoxins in the air by aerial disinfection we can expect to help control pneumonia - especially in herds with existing problems. 5 P a g e

6 How can we achieve Aerial Disinfection? There are three main ways of suspending disinfectant particles in the air of a pig building : By spraying - using a knapsack sprayer or pressure washer. This produces relatively large particles, which have a higher wetting capacity, but stay in the air for less time. By misting - (This is also known as cold fogging.) Done by using a mechanical mister (e.g. those produced by Stihl & Curtis, Dyna-Fog Limited). This produces smaller particles that have increased penetration and uniformity. By thermal fogging - similar to misting but involving heating of the disinfectant to produce a fine vapour. The small particle gives the best penetration and suspension. Which Disinfectants can be used? Various products can be used for aerial disinfection: Formaldehyde - used for fumigation and theoretically other methods. Cheap and quite effective, but carries major health risks for animals and operatives. (In humans these can include skin and mucosal irritation, respiratory problems, asthma, sensitisation and possible carcinogenic effects). Importantly residues on walls can be released several days later. Effects can be cumulative. Glutaraldehyde - very similar to formaldehyde and burdened with the same risks. Glutaraldehyde + Ammonium mixtures - these have a lower efficacy than Glutaraldehyde but still have significant health risks. Not efficient enough or safe enough for common use. ViralFx - a powdered peroxygen which is made up into solution. Has proven high levels of activity against a wide range of common pig pathogens. It is safe in use for both operators and pigs. As a result it can be used in terminal disinfection programmes or while pigs are still in the buildings. Dilution Chart : Product Foot & Mouth Disease Swine Vesicular Disease Formaldehyde 1:9 1:9 Glutaraldehyde + Ammonia Mixture 1:80 Not Approved ViralFx 1:1300 1:200 6 P a g e

7 Which is the best method? Spraying is ideal for small rooms or buildings, perhaps especially where dust is more of a problem. It can be done in the presence of pigs. Misting is better for larger buildings and tall buildings. The lower particle size means the disinfectant is suspended for longer. Again it is safe for use while pigs are in the building. Fumigation can only be used on an empty building. It provides good penetration of disinfectant for a lower price. The major disadvantage is the significant health hazard of the products used. (e.g. Formaldehyde). Thermal fogging is ideal for very large houses or moving around larger operations. The level of disinfection spread is good, but the noise of the machine can be disturbing to pigs. Interestingly this method is commonly used in the poultry industry - and how often has this set the standards for pigs? Two Aerial Disinfection Programmes The airborne risk of infectious disease such as foot-and-mouth this article details two different methods that can be used to achieve aerial disinfection : Misting System using ViralFx A mechanical application of disinfectant at small particle size to reduce dust and airborne pathogens in small to medium sized buildings. In very small areas a knapsack sprayer could be used to generate sufficient mist A. Prepare a 1:200 dilution of ViralFx to fill your mister Add 5g of ViralFx to every litre of water. (NB: Avoid contact of ViralFx with skin and eyes) Stir solution until fully dissolved (ViralFx dissolves faster in warm water) Add solution to mister or knapsack sprayer B. Application using a mister Position misting apparatus where it is capable of treating all the air in the building. In larger rooms it may be necessary to move the mister around the building. Taking care to avoid startling livestock if present, ensure the entire volume of the building is treated. Pay attention to the eaves of buildings. To protect at risk animals against foot-and-mouth disease apply at a rate of 1 litre/10 sq.m. of floor space at least twice-a-day. 7 P a g e

8 Thermal Fog Application System using ViralFx Introduction The use of thermal fogging is accepted practice for the final stage of full disinfection programmes. This method of disinfectant application can be rapid and does not involve large volumes of liquids in buildings where equipment and litter is already installed. The drawback of the low volumes that are applied in this way is that there is insufficient penetration of organic matter and porous surfaces for thermal fogging to be effective for primary disinfection, its successful use needs to follow thorough clean out, wash down and spray disinfection. The disinfectants commonly recommended for thermal fogging are based on formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, but these chemicals have two major drawbacks : Problems with the use of aldehydes 1. Toxicity Health and Safety legislation now requires the monitoring of exposure to these dangerous chemicals. This is both expensive and impractical under farm and industrial conditions. With formaldehyde excess levels are easily detectable by smell, but with glutaraldehyde occupational exposure levels of 0.05 parts per million can easily be exceeded without warning. This chemical, which is widely used on farms has been linked to occupational asthma, eye and throat irritation and may cause allergic dermatitis." 2. Time Due to the high levels of toxic vapour that persist after fogging the entry and restocking of buildings is delayed for up to 48 hours. 8 P a g e