Sign up now!
Don't show this again
Download the report!Continue to Site >
or wait 7 secs

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Pig Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app


Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report


Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
follow us

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Pig Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Pig Health Today | Sponsored by Zoetis


Comparing diagnostic sampling prospects from M. hyo-positive-source boar studs

Many sow farms have undergone Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) elimination within their breeding herd, which makes it critical to understand the potential transmission risk from boar studs. While M. hyo is largely transmitted via nose-to-nose contact between pigs, systematic transmission has been speculated, and there has been limited documentation.

“There are only a few studies that have tested different diagnostic methods for M. hyo in boar studs or the transmission risk,” Zack Talbert, University of Illinois veterinary student, told Pig Health Today. Consequently, he wanted to dig deeper into the subject.

Talbert organized a study to evaluate four common diagnostic sampling techniques and assess the M. hyo transmission risk from a positive-source boar stud.1

The process

For the study, Talbert enrolled 90 boars from two studs known to previously receive M. hyo-positive replacement animals. These boars were sampled for M. hyo using four diagnostic sampling techniques:

  • Tracheobronchial swabs (TBS) — This involved using the inner catheter of a post-cervical artificial insemination (PCAI) catheter, with an 80-mm FloqSwab attached at the end. After collection, the FloqSwab was removed and placed into a 3-mL tube containing 2 mL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS).
  • Frothy oral fluids (FO) — These samples were collected using a 4 in. by 4 in. gauze square, secured onto the soft rubber end of a PCAI catheter. Before sampling, each modified PCAI catheter was dipped into a small Ziploc bag containing PBS. Froth was then swabbed from the boar’s mouth, after which the gauze square was placed into a small Ziploc bag and squeezed to release the fluid, which was transferred to a 3-mL tube.
  • Semen (SEM) — 2 mL of fresh semen was placed in a 3-mL falcon tube prior to extending the semen.
  • Serum (SM) — Lastly, 3 mL of blood was collected from the lateral saphenous vein.

All samples were sent to the Iowa State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. Blood samples were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted on the TBS, FO and SEM samples.

The results

Both boar studs had seropositive animals identified by ELISA. Although positive ELISA tests were not surprising due to M. hyo vaccination protocols in isolation, several boars had an S:P ratio >1.0, indicating likely past exposure. All TBS, FO and SEM samples were PCR negative for M. hyo. (See accompanying chart.)  

Diagnostic results for TBS, FO, SEM (by PCR) and SM (by ELISA)


“Given the history of positive M. hyo-sourced boars into these studs, this study demonstrated that the transmission possibility may be minimal,” Talbert noted. More research is needed to validate the isolation of M. hyo SEM, he added.

Given the lack of research in this area, Talbert emphasized that those owning and managing boar studs should continue to be diligent in understanding lateral transmission prospects, elimination options and diagnostic testing methodology in order to assure classified health status.



1Talbert Z, et al. A comparison of diagnostic sampling techniques used to assess transmission risk of Mycoplasama hyopneumoniae from positive sourced boar studs. Student Research Posters, 51st Am Assoc Swine Vet Annual Meeting. 2020; 272.



Share It
Sow herds have undergone M. hyo elimination within their breeding herd, but what about the potential transmission risk from boar studs?

Click an icon to share this information with your industry contacts.

Posted on June 3, 2020

tags: , , ,
  • Zoetis releases update of M. Hyo Manual

    Zoetis has released an update of the comprehensive manual, “A Contemporary Review of Mycoplasma Hyopneumoniae Control Strategies,” with 14 articles developed by swine-disease experts specializing in this pathogen.

  • Start with the gilt-development unit for Mhp elimination

    US pig producers have made a big push to eliminate Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mhp) from their herds as a way to capture more value in finishing pigs.

  • M. hyo elimination or control: ‘We have the tools to succeed’

    Hog farmers and veterinarians no longer have to accept the poorer performance that results from M. hyo infection. Whether the decision is to control or eliminate M. hyo, there are numerous tools available, and the payoff is real.

  • Don’t lose sight of M. hyo while battling other swine pathogens

    TOOLBOX, Issue 1: An interview with Lucina Galina Pantoja, DVM, PhD, Director, Swine Technical Services, Zoetis 

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Share It
Eliminating porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) from pigs might not yet be possible, but monitoring tools could help refine a herd's PRRSV stability.

Click an icon to share this information with your industry contacts.
Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.