1. Evaluation of a local PRRSv elimination program in Brittany (France) Catherine Belloc UMR INRA-Oniris 1300 BioEpAR Nicolas Masset, Vincent Auvigne, Nathalie Chatelier, Benoît Gouvars PRRS Diagnostic and Control Worshop, 24-08-2012

2. > 70% of pig production (2010) Pig production in France

3. Brittany >>Basse Normandie > Pays de la Loire (free) Heterogeneous PRRSv prevalence in France

4. 2006 : decision to try to eliminate PRRSv in a restricted « pilot » area To assess the feasability of such a program in a high density area 2007 : selection of the area (motivated farmers, several producer groups involved) 14 herds (11 PRRSv +) Signed consent letter Biosecurity improvement, herd closure, mass vaccination (MLV vaccine) An elimination program for a restricted area 2007 2008200920102011 Biosecurity improvement Our study Mass vaccination Herd closure 2011 : Evaluation of the program

5. Assessment of PRRSv herd status every 6 months Assessment of biosecurity (farm visits) : compliance of farmers to the program Perception of the program: farmers, veterinarians, other stakeholders Actual participation to the program : farmers, veterinarians, other stakeholders 2011 : a survey to evaluate the program

6. Evolution of PRRSv status of herds 2007-2011 Negative herds remained free of PRRSv (3) PRRSv eliminated in 2 herds Test and removal (farrow- to-finisher) Introduction of neg pigs + Vaccination (finisher)

7. Biosecurity External biosecurity : management of transport vehicles, of visitors, closure of the herd, manure management

8. Biosecurity Within-herd biosecurity : needles, boar, cleaning/disinfection, coveralls and boots

9. Difficult to interpret biosecurity assessments (several investigators, different items…) Reluctance to implement some measures Costly Regarded as non effective Induce changes in management; time consuming Biosecurity

10. PRRSv status of the herd was taken into account in one farmers’organization only (1/5 investigated) Lack of communication Organization of pig flows

11. Although PRRSv was percieved as a disease responsible for production losses, biosecurity improvement was poor The results or the program did not encourage participation More support and leadreship from all types of stakeholders (farmers, vets, program leaders…) are needed More communication (meetings : 60% participated on average) Evaluation of economic losses associated to PRRSv status Data on PRRSv status Conclusion