real-world conditions of commercial swine production were needed, with larger populations of pigs, realistic volumes of contaminated feed supplemented with selected additives and natural feeding behaviours.” Dr Dee and his colleagues used a new research model called an “ice-block” challenge to insert equal concentrations of SVA, PEDv and PRRSv into feed treated or not treated with additives. The ice blocks were then manually dropped into designated feed bins and the pigs were allowed to consume the feed naturally.
Towards a US feed biosecurity programme PEDv broke out in the USA in 2013 and its movement into Canada in 2014 was traced back to a contaminated feed in- gredient. In subsequent years, members of the Canadian Pork Council worked with staff at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to create national guidelines for the import and handling of feed ingredients that presented high risks for viral diseases such as ASF, along with storage time and heat treatment recommendations for industry. Much of this was launched in the spring of 2019. Regarding what’s been hap- pening in this vein within the USA, Dr Dee says the pork and feed industries there have worked very hard over the last few years and have been successful in making changes to biose- curity at feed mills. “There are strong industry programmes now in place, but I and others would like to see a national government-led pig virus disease prevention and control
programme pertaining to feed, similar to what is happening in Canada,” Dr Dee says. “We need a national govern- ment-driven programme with additives approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and standard operating procedures for storage time, handling and so on.” He adds, “we’ve had good leadership from industry and we scientists are building a body of evidence on which a sound national programme can be based. A national Feed Risk Taskforce has been formed, and I sit on it with staff from the US Depart- ment of Agriculture, FDA, Swine Health Information Council, National Pork Producers Council, CFIA, members of the poul- try, swine, cattle and feed industries, and others, and we are meeting this month (September 2020). We will hopefully be able to set short, intermediate and long-term goals to get a programme going and discuss future research directions.”
Individual decisions Dr Dee ads that, in the meantime, now that he and his col- leagues have provided the industry with efficacy data, it’s up to individual feed companies and producers to make mitiga- tion decisions based on cost, mill specifications and so on. “We’ve discovered there are lots of additive options for virus- es of domestic interest, such as PRRSV, PEDV and SVA,” he says, “and we look forward to data from Dr Niederwerder’s lab regarding the effect of these products in combating foreign animal diseases.”
▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 28, No. 7, 2020 31
In the study 15 commercial additives were tested to evalu- ate their effect on mitigating SVA, PEDv and PRRSv in feed.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
