combat

COMBAT - Updated biosecurity tool with 4 features

Read now
Cover Guilty Gilt

The Guilty Gilt Guide

Read now
PRRS Ctrl

PRRS Ctrl 2.0

Download for free
prrs-awards-placeholder

The 11th European PRRS Research Awards

Discover now
  • combat
    COMBAT - Updated biosecurity tool with 4 features
  • Cover Guilty Gilt
    The Guilty Gilt Guide
  • PRRS Ctrl
    PRRS Ctrl 2.0
  • prrs-awards-placeholder
    The 11th European PRRS Research Awards
November 2024
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
December 2024
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
January 2025
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
France_5
Expertise article

Impact of piglet PRRS vaccination with Ingelvac PRRSFLEX® EU on finishing performances in a French farrow to finish farm

Impact of PRRS vaccination

img
Expertise article

Finding PRRSV in sow herds: Family oral fluids vs. serum samples from due-to-wean pigs

The aim of this study was to compare the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in due-to-wean litters in commercial swine breeding herds using family oral fluids (FOF) vs. individual piglet serum samples. FOF and piglet serum samples were collected in 199 due-to-wean litters on six farms containing 2177 piglets. All samples were individually tested for PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR. A litter was considered PRRSV-positive when PRRSV RNA was detected in ≥ 1 piglet serum sample or the FOF sample. Mixed effect logistic regression with farm as a random effect was used 1) to evaluate the probability of obtaining a PRRSV RNA positive FOF as a function of the proportion of viremic piglets in a litter and 2) the effect of litter size and parity on the probability that a litter would test PRRSV RNA positive in FOF. A Bayesian prevalence estimation under misclassification (BayesPEM) analysis was used to calculate the PRRSV prevalence and 95 % credible interval given the condition that all samples (FOF and serum) tested negative. In total, 34 of 199 litters (17.1 %) contained ≥ 1 viremic piglet(s), and 28 of 199 litters (14.1 %) were FOF positive. When all piglet serum samples within a litter tested negative, 1 of 165 FOF (0.6 %) tested PRRSV RNA positive. The probability of a PCR-positive FOF sample from litters with 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 40 %, and 50 % within-litter PRRSV prevalence was 3.5 %, 35.1 %, 88.8 %, 99.2 %, and >99.9 %, respectively. The odds of a PCR-positive FOF in a first parity litter were 3.36 times (95 % CI: 2.10–5.38) that of a parity ≥ 2 litter. The odds of a positive FOF result in a litter with ≤ 11 piglets were 9.90 times (95 % CI: 4.62–21.22) that of a litter with > 11 piglets. FOF was shown to be an efficacious sample type for PRRSV detection in farrowing rooms. A risk-based approach for litter selection combined with FOF collection can be used to improve on-farm PRRSV detection with a limited sample size, compared to sampling multiple individual pigs. Finally, the BayesPEM analysis showed that PRRSV may still be present in breeding herds when all samples (serum and FOF) test PRRSV RNA negative, i.e., negative surveillance results should be interpreted with caution.

img
Expertise article

Vaccine Dose, Timing Matters in a PRRS Fight

If a modified live vaccine is one of your weapons against a significant PRRS break, using the labeled dose at the right time is critical. Yet this science-based fact is not always followed.

article-img
Expertise article

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Surveillance in breeding Herds and Nurseries Using Tongue Tips from Dead Animals

The detection capacity of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSV) in tongues from dead animals in breeding herds (stillborns and piglets dying during the lactating period) and nursery farms (naturally dead animals) for PRRSV surveillance was evaluated. The samples were selected if pairs of serum and tongues were available from 2018 to 2020. Serum (pools of five) and exudate from tongues (one bag) were analyzed by PRRSV RT-PCR. The agreement between the serum sample procedure versus tongues exudate was assessed using a concordance test (Kappa statistic) at batch level. A total of 32 submissions, corresponding to 14 farms, had PRRSV diagnostic information for serum and tongues exudate. The overall agreement of batch classification as positive or negative, based on RT-PCR PRRSV results, between serum and tongue exudate of the 32 pairs was 76.9%. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.55. The main discrepancy came from the presence of positive samples in tongues exudate and not in serum, suggesting that tongue exudate to monitor PRRSV seems to be more sensitive than serum. These results suggest that this sample procedure could be also used for PRRSV surveillance and monitoring.

Video preview image
Asian PRRSpective | Epidemiology | Expertise video

Apisit Kittawornrat - Novel tools for PRRS epidemiology

Dr Kitawornrat describes the use of Oral Fluid testing for monitoring PRRS in populations.

img-podcast
Episodes

Episode 13 - Preparing gilts for breeding: Development and acclimation

“It’s important that pathogen exposure occurs early enough in the gilt’s life so she recovers from the infection, stops shedding the pathogen and is immunocompetent at the time of farrowing”

img
Expertise article

Duration of immunity against heterologous porcine parvovirus 1 challenge in gilts immunized with a novel subunit vaccine based on the viral protein 2

Porcine parvovirus 1 (PPV1) is widespread in commercial pig farms worldwide and has a significant impact to the swine industry.