Evaluation of Environmental Sampling Methods for PED

Abstract Text:

Evaluation of Environmental Sampling Methods for PED

R. Bardot¹, T. Fangman²

²Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc. Ames, IA

The ability to detect PEDv (Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus) via the environment as a proxy for herd health status post break would bring great benefits to the swine industry. The cost effectiveness of using a Swiffer® or gauze sponge to pick up the virus is a less invasive sampling method (as compared to rectal swabs/bleedings) to the pigs and reduces personal labor costs. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the ability of the Swiffer® compared to a gauze sponge to pick up PEDv in a commercial swine environment. The ability of a gauze sponge soaked in PBS and Swiffer® pad in transport media was demonstrated to detect PEDv in breed to wean sites following sanitation and overnight drying. Breed to wean sites (n =6) of a large Midwest swine production system containing PED were identified as High Prevalence (n=3) and Low Prevalence (n=3). High PED prevalence sites were determined to be 7 ± 1 week post break from the sampling dates. Low PED prevalence sites were determined to be 12 ± 2 weeks post break. Historical piglet PED (n = 30 piglets at 21d intervals) testing data from each site was provided as supplemental information. Before sampling was performed, farrowing rooms were disinfected by current disinfection protocols. A high prevalence power calculation suggested stalls (n = 12) for each sampling method (n = 2). At each site, 12 farrowing stalls were randomly selected to be swabbed with the Swiffer® pad and transport media, while another 12 were randomly selected to be swabbed with gauze sponge and PBS.  The back third of each selected stall was swabbed starting from left wall, the flooring, and to the right wall, ending with swabbing the railings and the back door. After swabbing, the Swiffer® pad or gauze sponge was put back into their respective bag with media (n=50 mL) and labeled at each site. Once all 24 stalls were swabbed, each liquid specimen was transferred into a test tube (n=5mL). Each test tube was labeled and shipped to Boehringer Ingelheim’s Health Management Center in Ames, IA for PEDv PCR testing. There was no discernable difference (P >.05) in PED detection with either collection method, however further study is needed to understand if the genetic material found following disinfection is infectious or noninfectious.

 Keywords: environmental, sampling, PED