Key result
Processing fluids and blood serum analysis assigned the same PRRS category in 18 out of 25 Italian swine breeding herds, showing perfect agreement for positive unstable and stable herds.
Why the study?
Does PRRS monitoring by processing fluids accurately classify herd infection status compared to blood serum analysis in swine breeding farms?
Observational (n=25)
Yes
Does PRRS monitoring by processing fluids accurately classify herd infection status compared to blood serum analysis in swine breeding farms?
Processing fluids are a reliable sample to assign PRRS categories in breeding herds, though an integrated strategy with blood sampling is recommended in unstable epidemiological scenarios.
PF monitoring matches serum for stable/unstable PRRS herd classification; leaves open whether it suffices alone for prevalence subtyping in unstable herds.
The porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) control strategy within swine breeding farms is based on herd classification relative to PRRSV infection status. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a monitoring plan based on processing fluids (PFs) by comparing it with the classification of herds based on the analysis of blood serum. Twenty-five breeding herds were enrolled in the study, with at least five consecutive batches sampled from each herd. Each batch was tested for PRRSV by RT-PCR performed on (i) pre-weaning blood serum from 30 piglets and (ii) PFs from all the male piglets in the batch. PRRS categories following the Holtkamp classification were assigned based on the results of each testing protocol. The two protocols assigned the same category to 18 out of 25 herds: while they showed perfect agreement in identifying positive unstable and stable herds, we observed some discrepancy in discriminating between low- and high-prevalence classes within unstable herds. PFs are thus a reliable sample to assign PRRS categories in Italian breeding herds characterized by widespread PRRSV circulation. However, in case of an unstable epidemiological scenario, we recommend the adoption of an integrated monitoring strategy that combines blood sampling with PFs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tonni et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) (n=25). Processing fluids (PFs) monitoring vs. Blood serum analysis was evaluated on PRRS category assignment agreement (Holtkamp classification). Processing fluids and blood serum analysis assigned the same PRRS category in 18 out of 25 Italian swine breeding herds, showing perfect agreement for positive unstable and stable herds.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: