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


Tips for successful oral-fluid sampling for PRRSV

Download our special report

This is one of eight reports that appears in a special edition
of Pig Health Today, “Framing the Future of PRRS.”
For a free copy, click here.


Oral-fluid sampling is an easy way to detect porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) or track changes in PRRSV infections in populations — and it can optimize your survey efforts by keeping a few simple tips in mind, said Jeff Zimmerman, DVM, PhD, a professor at Iowa State University.

Oral fluids contain local and serum-derived antibodies and pathogens from the pig, but they also contain whatever other pathogens happen to be in the pen environment. This combination makes them a good diagnostic specimen, Zimmerman said.

Oral fluid is more efficient than bleeding pigs for detecting PRRSV and other pathogens. For example, if 20% of the pigs in a pen were PRRSV-positive, the probability of detecting the infection using one oral-fluid sample is over 90% — actually, 98% by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and 94% by ELISA. To match that probability of detection, you would need to bleed at least 10 pigs (Table 1), he said.


Zimmerman advised obtaining oral-fluid samples first thing in the morning, when pigs are most active. It’s important to use cotton rope, which gives better PCR performance than ropes made with synthetic fibers, and to cut the length of the rope so that the pigs need to raise their heads just a little to reach it.

After fluids are extracted from the rope and poured into a tube, they should be chilled immediately and kept cool until they get to the lab. If there will be more than a 72-hour delay, it may be better to freeze the samples, he added.

“Fixed” spatial sampling — that is, sampling pens throughout the barn (or air space) and at equal distances from each other — is easier than trying to randomly select pens and is actually as good as or better than random sampling or risk-based sampling. Sampling the same pens the next time and every time is best.

“This is a new idea for us, but it works well for both detection and monitoring,” he said.

*Assumption is that pigs are both viremic and antibody positive.


If only one sample is going to be collected, he recommended sampling pens in the middle of the barn. “That’s the spot where you’ll have the highest likelihood of detection,” Zimmerman said.


For surveillance or monitoring, sampling the same pens each time will make it easier to interpret results. “If you mix different pens, they’re going to be at different stages of infection, and you have a more difficult time understanding what the results are telling you over time,” the veterinarian explained.

Repeated sampling over time is critical. “One sample is a picture that’s static and historic, while sampling over time is a movie that’s dynamic and predictive,” Zimmerman explained.

One of the biggest challenges, he noted, is determining the best strategy for monitoring presumed-negative populations. In this case, Zimmerman recommended collecting six, eight or 10 samples initially and then one or two more samples every week or two. Collecting from all barns exponentially increases the probability of detection.

“I’d rather see fewer samples — even one sample — collected every week or 2 weeks from all or most barns versus more samples collected less often,” he said.


Testing of oral-fluid samples for PRRSV can be done by PCR. Test results can vary depending on the PCR protocols and kits used. “That’s something to bear in mind when you look at your data. There are differences between labs and between kits,” Zimmerman cautioned.

A problem with PCR testing for PRRSV is that not all labs are running the same protocol. Results can therefore vary with each lab. “There’s still some work to be done to find the best protocol and get all the labs to run the same protocol,” he said.

Samples also can be tested for PRRSV antibodies, Zimmerman said, adding that the antibody response is more definitive than PCR results for a number of different pathogens. “We’ve had a tendency to abandon antibody tests, but it may be premature. Antibodies are detectable even after nucleic acid disappears. For effective surveillance and monitoring, we need both nucleic acid [PCR] and antibody tests,” he emphasized.

One problem with antibody testing occurs when maternal antibody (IgG) is present. IgG declines but can be detected for a long time. If there is doubt about a positive antibody result, a PRRSV IgM/IgA ELISA can be used to determine whether the antibody is from the sow (IgG) or from the pig (IgM and/or IgA), Zimmerman said.


1 Olsen C, et al. Probability of detecting porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection using pen-based swine oral fluid specimens as a function of within-pen prevalence. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2013;25(3): 328-335.



Posted on August 8, 2018

tags: , , ,

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Share It
US producers and veterinarians have seen an influx of different types of influenza viruses in the last 10 to 15 years, and that is a major reason why influenza is more difficult to control.

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.