Display options
Share it on

Porcine Health Manag. 2020 Sep 08;6:23. doi: 10.1186/s40813-020-00161-3. eCollection 2020.

Objective pathogen monitoring in nursery and finisher pigs by monthly laboratory diagnostic testing.

Porcine health management

Nicole B Goecke, Maja Kobberø, Thomas K Kusk, Charlotte K Hjulsager, Ken Steen Pedersen, Charlotte S Kristensen, Lars E Larsen

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Diagnostics, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
  2. Present address: University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
  3. Present address: Statens Serum Institut, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark.
  4. Ø-Vet A/S, 4700 Næstved, Denmark.
  5. SEGES Danish Pig Research Centre, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark.

PMID: 32922832 PMCID: PMC7476771 DOI: 10.1186/s40813-020-00161-3

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases are of great economic importance in commercial pig production, causing both clinical and subclinical disease, with influence on welfare, productivity, and antibiotic use. The causes of these diseases are often multifactorial and laboratory diagnostics are seldom routinely performed. The aim of the present study was to explore the benefits of monthly pathogen monitoring in nursery and finisher herds and to examine association between laboratory results and observed clinical signs, including coughing and diarrhoea. Three monthly samplings were conducted in three different age groups in six nursery and four finisher production units. For each unit, two pens were randomly selected in each age group and evaluated for coughing and diarrhoea events. Furthermore, faecal sock and oral fluid samples were collected in the selected pens and analysed for 18 respiratory and enteric viral and bacterial pathogens using the high-throughput real-time PCR BioMark HD platform (Fluidigm, South San Francisco, USA).

RESULTS: In total, 174 pens were sampled in which eight coughing events and 77 diarrhoeic events were observed. The overall findings showed that swine influenza A virus, porcine circovirus 2, porcine cytomegalovirus,

CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-throughput real-time PCR analysis for continuous monitoring of pathogens and thereby dynamics of infections in a pig herd, provided the veterinarian and farmer with an objective knowledge on the distribution of pathogens in the herd. In addition, the use of a high-throughput method in combination with information about clinical signs, productivity, health status and antibiotic consumption, presents a new and innovative way of diagnosing and monitoring pig herds and even to a lower cost than the traditional method.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Keywords: Coughing; Diagnostics; Diarrhoea; Enteric bacteria; Enteric viruses; High-throughput real-time PCR; Monitoring; Respiratory bacteria; Respiratory viruses

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsNG is employed by the Technical University of Denmark that may benefit commercially by the use of the system described in the study. CK works for SEGES Danish Pig Research Centre. T

References

  1. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2001 Nov;17(3):551-65 - PubMed
  2. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2020 Jan;32(1):51-64 - PubMed
  3. Virus Res. 2012 Mar;164(1-2):10-9 - PubMed
  4. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2013 Apr;97(2):207-37 - PubMed
  5. Res Vet Sci. 2019 Dec;127:47-56 - PubMed
  6. Front Vet Sci. 2018 Dec 12;5:315 - PubMed
  7. J Infect Dis. 1996 Sep;174 Suppl 1:S98-106 - PubMed
  8. Vet Rec. 2015 Jan 31;176(5):124 - PubMed
  9. Virus Res. 2016 Dec 2;226:1-6 - PubMed
  10. Ir Vet J. 2014 Nov 01;67(1):24 - PubMed
  11. Res Vet Sci. 2000 Feb;68(1):9-13 - PubMed
  12. Porcine Health Manag. 2017 Apr 5;3:7 - PubMed
  13. Vet Res. 2019 May 22;50(1):36 - PubMed
  14. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1978 Feb 15;172(4):458-63 - PubMed
  15. Vet Microbiol. 2013 May 3;163(3-4):242-7 - PubMed
  16. Prev Vet Med. 2011 Mar 1;98(4):288-91 - PubMed
  17. Res Vet Sci. 2003 Apr;74(2):163-9 - PubMed
  18. Vet Microbiol. 2009 Jan 1;133(1-2):172-8 - PubMed
  19. Viruses. 2020 Feb 23;12(2): - PubMed
  20. Vet J. 2015 Oct;206(1):30-8 - PubMed
  21. Vaccine. 2007 Sep 28;25(39-40):6852-62 - PubMed
  22. Virol J. 2016 Nov 11;13(1):184 - PubMed
  23. J Comp Pathol. 2006 Nov;135(4):176-82 - PubMed
  24. Vet J. 2003 Nov;166(3):251-6 - PubMed
  25. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 Jun;65(3):602-606 - PubMed
  26. Anim Health Res Rev. 2011 Dec;12(2):133-48 - PubMed
  27. Prev Vet Med. 2015 Jul 1;120(3-4):313-20 - PubMed
  28. Vet J. 2015 Jul;205(1):93-7 - PubMed
  29. Prev Vet Med. 2000 Sep 1;46(4):279-92 - PubMed
  30. Prev Vet Med. 2013 Jan 1;108(1):63-72 - PubMed
  31. J Comp Pathol. 2010 Aug-Oct;143(2-3):120-31 - PubMed
  32. Vet J. 2000 Jan;159(1):37-56 - PubMed
  33. Vet Microbiol. 2017 May;203:18-27 - PubMed
  34. Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Sep 30;57:64 - PubMed
  35. Vet Q. 1992 Jan;14(1):29-34 - PubMed
  36. Anim Health Res Rev. 2010 Dec;11(2):207-16 - PubMed
  37. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Jun;4(6):337-48 - PubMed
  38. J Virol Methods. 2017 May;243:190-195 - PubMed
  39. Vet J. 2012 Aug;193(2):443-7 - PubMed
  40. Anim Health Res Rev. 2005 Dec;6(2):119-42 - PubMed
  41. Int J Biometeorol. 2012 Nov;56(6):1167-71 - PubMed
  42. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999 Nov;44 Suppl B:3-9 - PubMed

Publication Types