Marcelo Nunes de Almeida1, Cesar A Corzo2, Jeffrey J Zimmerman3, Daniel Correia Lima Linhares3. 1. Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1811 Veterinary Medicine Annex, 1856 Christensen Dr. Ames, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA. malmeida@iastate.ed. 2. Veterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA. 3. Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1811 Veterinary Medicine Annex, 1856 Christensen Dr. Ames, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Processing fluids (PF) and family oral fluids (FOF) are population-based surveillance samples collected from 2- to 5-day-old piglets and due-to-wean piglets, respectively. Although they are described for the surveillance of PRRSV in sows and piglet populations at processing and weaning, there is limited information on their use in commercial herds. This observational study described PRRSV RNA detection over time in PF, FOF, and piglet serum collected from farrowing groups in commercial breeding farms with the objective of achieving robust, practical, and effective PRRSV surveillance protocols. Weekly PF (an aggregate sample of all litters processed in a week from each room), and FOF (a convenience sample attempted from at least 20 individual litters in at least one farrowing room each week) samples were collected from six PRRSV-endemic commercial breeding herds for up to 38 weeks. A total of 561 PF room samples, 2400 individual litter FOF samples, and 600 serum samples (120 pools of 5 samples) were collected during the study period and tested for PRRSV RNA. Data were evaluated for patterns of PRRSV RNA detection by specimen within farms over time. RESULTS: In particular, the detection of PRRSV was commonly sporadic over time within farms (weeks of PRRSV RNA negative results followed by one or more weeks of positive results); was often non-uniform within farms (negative and positive farrowing rooms at a given point in time); and PF and FOF testing results agreement was 75 and 80% at week and room level, respectively, demonstrating that both sampling methods could complement each other. Non-uniformity in PRRSV detection in rooms sampled within the same week and detection after ≥11 consecutive weeks of PRRSV negative PF and FOF results underline the challenge of consistently detecting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that monitoring protocols for breeding herds attempting PRRSV control or elimination can use both PF and FOF to improve PRRSV detection in suckling pig populations.
BACKGROUND: Processing fluids (PF) and family oral fluids (FOF) are population-based surveillance samples collected from 2- to 5-day-old piglets and due-to-wean piglets, respectively. Although they are described for the surveillance of PRRSV in sows and piglet populations at processing and weaning, there is limited information on their use in commercial herds. This observational study described PRRSV RNA detection over time in PF, FOF, and piglet serum collected from farrowing groups in commercial breeding farms with the objective of achieving robust, practical, and effective PRRSV surveillance protocols. Weekly PF (an aggregate sample of all litters processed in a week from each room), and FOF (a convenience sample attempted from at least 20 individual litters in at least one farrowing room each week) samples were collected from six PRRSV-endemic commercial breeding herds for up to 38 weeks. A total of 561 PF room samples, 2400 individual litter FOF samples, and 600 serum samples (120 pools of 5 samples) were collected during the study period and tested for PRRSV RNA. Data were evaluated for patterns of PRRSV RNA detection by specimen within farms over time. RESULTS: In particular, the detection of PRRSV was commonly sporadic over time within farms (weeks of PRRSV RNA negative results followed by one or more weeks of positive results); was often non-uniform within farms (negative and positive farrowing rooms at a given point in time); and PF and FOF testing results agreement was 75 and 80% at week and room level, respectively, demonstrating that both sampling methods could complement each other. Non-uniformity in PRRSV detection in rooms sampled within the same week and detection after ≥11 consecutive weeks of PRRSV negative PF and FOF results underline the challenge of consistently detecting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that monitoring protocols for breeding herds attempting PRRSV control or elimination can use both PF and FOF to improve PRRSV detection in suckling pig populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Family oral fluids; PRRSV; Processing fluids; Serum; Surveillance; Swine
Authors: Jaewoon Jeong; Sharif S Aly; Jean Paul Cano; Dale Polson; Philip H Kass; Andres M Perez Journal: Am J Vet Res Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.156
Authors: Will A López; Jeffrey J Zimmerman; Phillip C Gauger; Karen M Harmon; Laura Bradner; Min Zhang; Luis Giménez-Lirola; Alejandro Ramirez; Jean Paul Cano; Daniel C L Linhares Journal: Prev Vet Med Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 2.670
Authors: J Mousing; P T Jensen; C Halgaard; F Bager; N Feld; B Nielsen; J P Nielsen; S Bech-Nielsen Journal: Prev Vet Med Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 2.670
Authors: Cesar A Corzo; Enrique Mondaca; Spencer Wayne; Montserrat Torremorell; Scott Dee; Peter Davies; Robert B Morrison Journal: Virus Res Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 3.303
Authors: G Nodelijk; M C de Jong; A Van Nes; J C Vernooy; L A Van Leengoed; J M Pol; J H Verheijden Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: M N Almeida; H Rotto; P Schneider; C Robb; J J Zimmerman; D J Holtkamp; C J Rademacher; D C L Linhares Journal: Prev Vet Med Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 2.670
Authors: Carles Vilalta; Juan Sanhueza; Julio Alvarez; Deb Murray; Montserrat Torremorell; Cesar Corzo; Robert Morrison Journal: Vet Microbiol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.293