Table 1 – Sampling techniques used in cross-sectional EDEC study in Germany.
Sampling technique Effort in the barn Effort in the laboratory EDEC prevalence in study on farm level (%) Remarks Individual faecal samples ++ (picked up from the floor)
+ Boot swaps (using socks) + Chewing ropes Oral fluids + + + + + + + + + + + + 23 16 8 9
Some pens with only one sample positive; at least 5 samples per pen should be taken
Two additional pens identified when compared to floor fecal samples.
Ropes entangled in ear tags; piglets had no interest in chewing rope or rope dissolved in 28% of used chewing ropes (total: 450).
No fluid could be obtained in 22.2% of the chewing ropes used (total: 450).
infections with Streptococcus suis or water deprivation. It therefore should always be confirmed by laboratory diagnosis consisting of cultivation of the bacteria from biological samples followed by a molecular biological examination via PCR. Within the scope of the cross-sectional study, different bio- logical sampling techniques for the detection of stx2e-encod- ing E. coli were tested and their sensitivity evaluated. Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of faecal samples (picked up from the floor), boot swabs, and chewing ropes/ saliva samples.
Prevalence of EDEC in Germany In a German project, samples from 99 pig-producing farms with unknown infection status for EDEC were collected. On every farm, five pens of weaners (if available) were randomly selected for sampling, and in each pen five individual faecal samples (collected from the floor, at different locations) and two boot swaps (using socks) were collected. On 50 farms, one or two additional chewing ropes per pen were used, and oral fluids were collected from these chewing ropes. The re- searchers subsequently analysed the samples by bacterial
culture and tested, using duplex-PCR, for the presence of both stx2e toxin and F18 fimbriae. The samples collected showed that 23.2% of the pig-produc- ing farms were affected by EDEC. That could be an underesti- mation of the true population prevalence of EDEC-infected farms with weaner piglets in the sampled population, since farms with low infection status could have been missed by the within-farm sampling approach.
A greater spread than previously assumed Up to one third of German pig-producing farms could be af- fected by EDEC, which corresponds to a greater spread than previously assumed. To test for EDEC, it is possible to choose between rectal swabs, faecal samples and sock swabs. It is not recommended to exclusively test with chewing ropes. Also, it is essential to make sure that a sufficient number of samples is taken. If the result is positive, the introduction of vaccination should be considered due to the high costs caused by losses. Because of increasing antimicrobial resist- ance, treatment of animal groups with antibiotics should not be an option in fighting oedema disease.
When taking sock swabs it is recommended to use fresh single-use shoes and socks swabs for each barn.
In this study, fresh faeces from the floor was picked up to avoid the effort of taking individual swabs from the rectum of individual pigs. The results had sufficient sensitivity.
▶PIG PROGRESS | Volume 36, No. 8, 2020 11
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 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
