| Literature DB >> 33228643 |
YuSik Oh1,2, JongHyuk Baek3, JoongBok Lee2, Sun-Hee Cho3, Changhoon Park4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyopneumoniae), a representative pathogen causing swine enzootic pneumonia, generally infects piglets vertically. However, it is difficult to ascertain the M. hyopneumoniae infection state of sows due to limited detection methods. This report investigated sow herd stability by applying nested PCR to laryngeal swabs of suckling pigs, which is reportedly the most sensitive method.Entities:
Keywords: Acclimation; Herd size; Laryngeal swab; Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae; Vertical transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33228643 PMCID: PMC7681762 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02663-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Overview of farm management and M. hyopneumoniae detection in piglets
| Farm no. | MSYa | Herd sizeb | Gilt replication rate | Gilt source | Acclimation | Antibiotics (piglet treatment) | Antibiotics (Sow treatment) | PRRSV detectiond | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pos/total | ||||||||||
| 1 | 21 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | pos | 7/90 | ||
| 2 | 20 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Ceftiofur | pos | 0/90 | |
| 3 | 24 | ≤ 550 | > 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Respisure-ONE® | penicillin + Streptomycin | neg | 0/90 | |
| 4 | 20 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Respisure-ONE® | Ceftiofur | pos | 9/90 | |
| 5 | 24 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | neg | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Gentamicin | pos | 0/90 | |
| 6 | 22 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | pos | 2/90 | ||
| 7 | 26.5 | > 550 | > 40% | pos | External (GP) | Respisure-ONE® | Tulathromycin | neg | 3/88 | |
| 8 | 23 | > 550 | > 40% | neg | External (GP) | Exposure | Ceftiofur | Amoxicillin | pos | 6/90 |
| 9 | 25 | ≤ 550 | > 40% | neg | External (GP) | None | neg | 0/90 | ||
| 10 | 22 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | neg | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Tulathromycin | Tiamulin | pos | 5/90 |
| 11 | 20 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Tilmicosin | pos | 0/90 | |
| 12 | 21 | > 550 | > 40% | neg | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Tilmicosin | pos | 0/90 | |
| 13 | 23.5 | > 550 | > 40% | pos | External (GP) | Respisure-ONE® | Lincomycin+ Spectinomycin | Amoxicillin | neg | 26/90 |
| 14 | 24.2 | ≤ 550 | > 40% | pos | Self-replacement | Exposure | Lincomycin+ Spectinomycin | neg | 24/90 | |
| 15 | 18 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Lincomycin+ Spectinomycin | pos | 0/66 | |
| 16 | 16.5 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Tulathromycin | Lincomycin+ Spectinomycin | pos | 2/88 |
| 17 | 17 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | Self-replacement | None | Amoxicillin | pos | 3/90 | |
| 18 | 20 | > 550 | ≤ 40% | neg | External (GP) | Ingelvac MycoFLEX® | Amoxicillin | pos | 13/90 | |
| 19 | 22.5 | > 550 | > 40% | neg | External (GP) | Exposure | Amoxicillin | Lincomycin + Tiamulin | pos | 15/90 |
| 20 | 20.3 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | pos | External (GP) | None | Penicillin | pos | 0/90 | |
| 21 | 24.3 | ≤ 550 | > 40% | neg | External (GP) | None | Enrofloxacin or Sulfamethoxazole+ Trimethoprim | Amoxicillin | pos | 11/90 |
| 22 | 25 | ≤ 550 | ≤ 40% | neg | External (GP) | None | Ampicillin | neg | 1/90 |
aNumber of pigs, which survive until they reach to the weight for sale and are sold, among pigs produced by a sow for a year
bNumbers of sows on individual farms
cAnti–M. hyopneumoniae antibody detection results from a previous test
dPRRSV antigen test (PCR) of weanling piglet serum
eNumber of positive piglets/total number of piglets tested by nested PCR for M. hyopneumoniae on the three sampling dates
pos positive, neg negative
Fig. 1Comparison of the prevalence of M. hyopneumoniae between groups. a Comparison of detection rates by herd size: positive piglet prevalence in farms with > 550 sows (□) and others (■). b Comparison of detection rates by gilt replacement rate: prevalence of positive piglets in farms with > 40% replacement (□) and others (■). c Comparison of detection rates by gilt status: prevalence of positive piglets in farms introducing serologically positive (■) and negative gilts (□). d Comparison of detection rates by gilt source: prevalence of positive piglets in farms that produce their own replacement gilts (■) and farms that acquire their gilts from GP (□). e Comparison of detection rates by acclimation method: prevalence of positive piglets in farms that naturally expose gilts to M. hyopneumoniae (■), farms that vaccinate gilts (■), and farms that do not use acclimation treatment (□). f Comparison of detection rates by antibiotic usage for sows: prevalence of positive piglets in farms that use antibiotics on sows (■) and farms that do not use such treatment (□). g Comparison of detection rates by antibiotic use on piglets; positive piglet prevalence in farms that use antibiotics on piglets (■) and farms that do not use such treatment (□)