fbpx
Sign up now!
Don't show this again

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.)
Tap to download the app
X
Share
X

REPORTS

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

Create a New Report

Favorites

Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
CREATE
X
NEXT
PORK POULTRY
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

.

Tails or testicles: Which are better for PRRSV monitoring?

Pooled serum samples are a common method to monitor porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PPRSV) in piglets. But this typically involves a limited number of samples, which reduces the sensitivity and makes detection especially challenging in low-prevalence herds.

For example, in a 1,000-head herd with a 1% PRRSV prevalence, it would require more than 250 samples to achieve 95% confidence of detection, noted Megan Hood, North Carolina State University veterinary student.

“That’s just not feasible,” she said. “Processing fluids allow you to test more pigs, more frequently, while being practical, accurate and affordable.”

Hood conducted a study that compared the use of tails and testicles collected during piglet processing as a possible PRRSV-monitoring option.1

“These are aggregate samples, providing a high sensitivity even at low-disease prevalence,” she added. “So, for example, a farm that is PRRS-stable but comes up with a positive sample could prompt earlier responses, such as biosecurity, vaccination, treatment and animal-movement strategies.”

Tails vs. testicles

For the study, Hood enrolled six herds with a PRRS-positive, unstable status, which illustrates active PRRSV circulation. Tails and testicles were collected during piglet processing twice a week for two weeks, totaling 30 samples.

Past research has shown that piglet testicles provide a PRRSV-testing option, but because they represent only half of the population and not all farms castrate boar pigs, their use is limited. Tails, however, are a more complete representation of a population, Hood pointed out.

The tails were removed via clippers versus cauterizing so as not to limit fluids. Tails and testicles were collected in separate buckets, lined with gallon plastic bags. A hairnet or cheese cloth was attached across the bucket and secured with a rubber band to collect the tails or testicles but allowing the fluids to drip through.

Fluid levels varied

The testicles provided plenty of fluid, Hood noted, which was poured into a 50-ml tube. Fluid from the tails was collected similarly but the amount fell short. Consequently, the hairnet/cheese cloth was placed in a bag with 10 ml of nuclease-free water; the fluid was then squeezed out and poured into a 12-ml tube.

The tubes were frozen for shipment. Samples were tested by quantitative PCR (qPCR) for PRRSV, and positive results were further analyzed for cycle threshold (Ct) values.

The results showed that testicle fluids recorded higher PRRSV-positive results — 53.1%, compared to tails at 31.3%. The testicle fluid had a much wider range of Ct values, while the tails had a much higher Ct value than the testicles, Hood said.

The herd was experiencing a Type 1 (EU) PRRSV circulation at the time and was identified in 85% of positive samples. Type 2 (US) PRRSV also was found, sequenced and matched to the vaccine being given to piglets at processing.

Hood concluded that tails could be used to collect PRRSV samples at processing, although the sensitivity was lower than for testicles. “This may be due to the nuclease-free water diluting the samples,” she added. “It would be good to identify another way to collect more fluids from tails.”

A future study that she would like to see includes comparing only tails to serum samples for PRRSV testing. Also, she suggests a study to determine the number of pigs per tail-fluid sample required to ensure a PRRSV-positive test.


1 Hood M, et al. A comparison of the use of tails versus testicles in the production processing fluids for detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Student Seminar, 49th American Association of Swine Veterinarians’ Annual Meeting. 2018;99.

 

 

 




Posted on October 22, 2018

tags: ,
RELATED NEWS
  • Processing fluids helping to fine tune diagnostics in swine herds thought to be PRRS-negative

    Collecting aggregate samples of processing fluids during tail docking and castration is proving to be an excellent way to monitor herds for porcine reproductive and respiratory disease (PRRS) virus, Will Lopez, DVM, Iowa State University, told Pig Health Today.

  • Non-thermal plasma reactors can inactivate PRRSV

    Hog-farm biosecurity measures have largely focused on minimizing the transmission of infectious agents on various surfaces. However, it’s been shown that PRRSV — and possibly other respiratory diseases — can be transmitted via air.

  • Close to the finish: How grower pigs spread PRRS to sow farms

    It’s time to consider the role finishing pigs play in the spread of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) to sow farms, according to Montserrat Torremorell, DVM, PhD, University of Minnesota.

  • PCR falls short in monitoring PRRSV transport biosecurity

    Transport biosecurity is a growing priority as evidence shows that contaminated livestock trailers are a significant risk in spreading viruses between herds.




You must be logged in to edit your profile.

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.