Natural transmission and detection of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in a naïve gilt population

Dr. Alyssa Betlach, member of the Maria Pieters Myco Lab, recently published a study on the natural transmission of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in Veterinary Microbiology. The study evaluated transmission rate in a naïve gilt population and compared various sample types to detect infection.

Continue reading “Natural transmission and detection of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in a naïve gilt population”

Molecular detection of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus, Porcine Circovirus 2 and Hepatitis E virus in oral fluid compared to their detection in feces and serum

This is our Friday rubric: every week a new Science Page from the Bob Morrison’s Swine Health Monitoring Project. The previous editions of the science page are available on our website.

Doctors Plut, Kamnikar-Ciglenecki and Stukeli from the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) highlight the usefulness of pig oral fluid (OF) to detect Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV), Porcine Circovirus Type 2 (PCV2) and Hepatitis E virus (HEV) in different pig age categories. Read here the full article published in BMC Veterinary Research.

Key Points

  • OF, feces and serum were evaluated for the detection of PRRSV, PCV2 and HEV in six farms.
  • OF samples had good agreement with serum sample PCR results for the detection of all three viruses.
  • The study highlights that pooled samples can potentially be used to investigate viral presence on farms.
Continue reading “Molecular detection of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus, Porcine Circovirus 2 and Hepatitis E virus in oral fluid compared to their detection in feces and serum”

Detection of Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma hyosynoviae in oral fluids and correlation with pig lameness scores

In this newly released article from the MycoLab in the Veterinary Microbiology journal, Dr. David Pillman working with Dr. Maria Pieters shares his results regarding detection of two mycoplasma species and how this was correlated with lameness scores in nursery and finishing pigs.

Key points

  • M. hyorhinis was frequently detected in oral fluids in nursery and finisher herds
  • High detection of M. hyosynoviae in oral fluids was observed in finisher herds.
  • Proportion of lame pigs and M. hyosynoviae detection in oral fluids were correlated.
Continue reading “Detection of Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma hyosynoviae in oral fluids and correlation with pig lameness scores”

Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs

In this new scientific publication from Dr. Jorge Garrido, PhD candidate from the Torremorell lab, numerous sampling strategies to monitor influenza were compared. the following individual, litter, and environmental samples were included in the study:

  • Nasal swabs
  • Nasal wipes
  • Oropharyngeal swabs
  • Oral fluids
  • Surface wipes
  • Udder wipes
  • Airborne particle deposition
  • Air
Continue reading “Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs”

Science Page: Comparison of individual oral fluids, pooled oral fluids and Swiffer™ environmental samples of drinkers for the detection of influenza A virus and PRRS virus by PCR

This is our Friday rubric: every week a new Science Page from the Bob Morrison’s Swine Health Monitoring Project. The previous editions of the science page are available on our website.

This week,  we are sharing a study done by Taylor Homann, a DVM student at the University of Minnesota in collaboration with the Swine Vet Center and Boehringer Ingelheim, regarding the comparison of several sample types to detect PRRS and flu by PCR.

Key points:

  • Pooling oral fluid samples seems to be a good strategy to determine the status of a farm (positive/negative) for influenza A virus (IAV) and PRRSV.
  • Sampling water cups using environmental Swiffer™ samples appears to be a sensitive approach to detect IAV at the pen level.
  • However, sample size has been limited to one farm.

Objective:

The objective of this project was to compare the sensitivity of pooled pen oral fluids (OF) and environmental samples (Swiffer™ kits on water cups) using individual pen oral fluids as the standard.

Methods:

Fifteen paired environmental and individual pen OF were collected at days 3, 7, 10, 17, 24 and 31 post placement in two different nursery farms. Environmental samples (ES) were taken using Swiffer™ cloths to sample the bottom of water cups (both pans and bowls), focusing around nipples. After individual samples were collected, pen OF were pooled by 3.

Results:

There was an overall sensitivity of 71% (IAV) and 14% (PRRS) for the ES samples compared to individual OF. Pooled oral fluids samples had an overall sensitivity of 50%(IAV)and 80%(PRRSV)relative to individual pen OF.

Homann PRRS flu Oral fluid water cup sample comparison

In summary, ES appears to be a good strategy when sampling for IAV and not a reliable option when trying to diagnose PRRSV.