Key result
Composite sampling was more sensitive than individual probes for detecting high-dose porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus in soybean meal (100% vs 37% detection; p < .05).
Why the study?
Animal feed can transmit swine viruses through unevenly distributed contamination, but no validated sampling method existed for viral detection in feed ingredients.
Does composite sampling improve the detection of PEDV in bulk soybean meal compared to individual probes?
Does composite sampling improve the detection of PEDV in bulk soybean meal compared to individual probes?
Composite sampling of at least 10 individual samples improves the sensitivity of detecting porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus in bulk feed ingredients compared to individual probes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ingredient sampling methods for PEDV require validation; Level 4 evidence leaves open the optimal protocol for feed surveillance.
Animal feed can be contaminated with fomites carrying swine viruses and subsequently be a vehicle for viral transmission. This contamination may not be evenly distributed, and there is no validated sampling method for detection of viruses in animal feed or ingredients. The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the sensitivity of ingredient sampling methods for detection of porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV). No animals were used in this experiment, so approval from an animal ethics committee was not necessary. Thirteen kg soybean meal was used in a 2 × 2 factorial plus a control, with 2 doses of PEDV (Low: 103 TCID50/g versus High: 105 TCID50/g) and two sample types (individual probes versus composite sample). Soybean meal was confirmed PEDV negative, then loaded into individual, 1-kg polyethylene tote bags with PEDV introduced after loading the first 100 g. There were six replicates per PEDV dose plus a control. Ten individual probes or one composite sample per bag were created and analysed for PEDV via qRT-PCR. The interaction, dose and sample type were significant for both PEDV presence and quantity. No control samples had detectable PEDV. At the low dose, no PEDV RNA was detected in individual probes or composite samples, but was confirmed in 100% (32.4 Ct) of the inoculant samples. This is likely due to loss of sensitivity during the analysis process, which has been previously reported to cause a loss up to 10 Ct when detecting PEDV in feed or ingredients. At the high dose, only 37% (37.7 Ct) of the probes had detectable PEDV RNA. Composite samples were more sensitive (p < .05), with PEDV RNA detected in 100% of samples (35.7 Ct). In summary, sampling bulk ingredients for PEDV should include compositing at least 10 individual samples. Future research is needed to identify alternative methods that have a similar sensitivity, but require less time and effort to collect such a sample.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2019) studied Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV) contamination in feed. Composite sampling vs. Individual probes was evaluated on Detection of PEDV RNA via qRT-PCR at high dose (p=< .05). Composite sampling was more sensitive than individual probes for detecting high-dose porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus in soybean meal (100% vs 37% detection; p < .05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: