Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30052979›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Evaluation of the effects of flushing feed manufacturing equipment with chemically treated rice hulls on porcine epidemic diarrhea virus cross-contamination during feed manufacturing.

Jordan T Gebhardt, Roger A Cochrane, Jason C Woodworth, Cassandra K Jones, Megan C Niederwerder, Mary B Muckey, Charles R Stark, Mike D Tokach, Joel M DeRouchey, Robert D Goodband and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Feed Safety and the Development of Poultry Intestinal Microbiota.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Risk and Mitigation of African Swine Fever Virus in Feed.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  10. Biosecurity in pig farms: a review.Porcine health management · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Roger A CochraneDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Cassandra K JonesDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Megan C NiederwerderDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mary B MuckeyDepartment of Grain Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Charles R StarkDepartment of Grain Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS.
Jianfa BaiDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Philip C GaugerVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Qi ChenVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Jianqiang ZhangVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Rodger G MainVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Steve S DritzDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Center for Grain and Animal Health Research · USKansas State University · USIowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various strategies have been proposed to mitigate potential risk of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) transmission via feed and feed ingredients. Wet disinfection has been found to be the most effective decontamination of feed mill surfaces; however, this is not practical on a commercial feed production scale. Another potential mitigation strategy would be using chemically treated rice hulls flushed through the feed manufacturing equipment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effects of medium-chain fatty acids (MCFA) or formaldehyde-treated rice hull flush batches as potential chemical mitigation strategies for PEDV during feed manufacturing. Feed without evidence of PEDV RNA contamination was inoculated with PEDV. Based on polymerase chain reaction analysis, this feed had a cycle threshold (Ct) = 30.2 and was confirmed infective in bioassay. After manufacturing the PEDV-positive feed, untreated rice hulls, formaldehyde-treated rice hulls, 2% MCFA- (a 1:1:1 blend of hexanoic, octanoic, and decanoic acid) treated rice hulls, or 10% MCFA-treated rice hulls were flushed through laboratory scale mixers. For the untreated rice hulls, 3 of 6 samples had detectable PEDV RNA, whereas 1 of 6 formaldehyde-treated rice hull flush samples and 2 of 6 of the 2% MCFA rice hull flush samples had detectable PEDV RNA. However, PEDV RNA was not detected in any of the 10% MCFA rice hull flush samples. Then, rice hulls treated with 10% MCFA were mixed and discharged through a production scale mixer and bucket elevator following PEDV-positive feed. No rice hull flush or feed samples from the mixer following chemically treated rice hull flush had detectible PEDV RNA. However, one 10% MCFA rice hull sample collected from the bucket elevator discharge spout had detectible PEDV RNA. Dust collected following mixing of PEDV contaminated feed had detectable PEDV RNA (Ct = 29.4) and was infectious. However, dust collected immediately after the 10% MCFA rice hull flush batch had a reduced quantity of PEDV RNA (Ct = 33.7) and did not cause infection. Overall, the use of rice hull flushes effectively reduced the quantity of detectible RNA present after mixing a batch of PEDV-positive feed. Chemical treatment of rice hulls with formaldehyde or 10% MCFA provided additional reduction in detectible RNA. Finally, dust collected after manufacturing PEDV-inoculated feed has the potential to serve as a vector for PEDV transmission.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsCoronavirus InfectionsDisinfectionEquipment ContaminationFemaleFood ContaminationMaleOryzaPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusSwineSwine Diseases

Identifiers

PMID30052979
PMCPMC6162582
OpenAlexW2884910580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.