Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30099515›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Feed batch sequencing to decrease the risk of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) cross-contamination during feed manufacturing.

Loni L Schumacher, Roger A Cochrane, Anne R Huss, Jordan T Gebhardt, Jason C Woodworth, Charles R Stark, Cassandra K Jones, Jianfa Bai, Rodger G Main, Qi Chen and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Mitigation ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Feed Safety and the Development of Poultry Intestinal Microbiota.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Loni L SchumacherDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Roger A CochraneDepartment of Grain Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Anne R HussDepartment of Grain Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Charles R StarkDepartment of Grain Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Cassandra K JonesDepartment of Grain Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jianfa BaiDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Rodger G MainDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Qi ChenDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Jianqiang ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Philip C GaugerDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Steve S DritzDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Kansas State University · USIowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feed has been identified as a vector of transmission for porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV). The objective of this study was to determine if feed batch sequencing methods could minimize PEDV cross-contamination. Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus-free swine feed was manufactured to represent the negative control. A 50 kg feed batch was mixed in a pilot scale feed mill for 5 min, sampled, then discharged for 10 min into a bucket elevator and sampled again upon exit. Next, a pathogenic PEDV isolate was used to inoculate 49.5 kg of PEDV-free feed to form the positive control. The positive control was mixed, conveyed and sampled similar to the negative control. Subsequently, 4 sequence batches (sequence 1 to 4) were formed by adding a 50 kg batch of PEDV-negative feed to the mixer after the prior batch was mixed and conveyed; all sequences were mixed, conveyed, and sampled similar to the negative and positive control batches. None of the equipment was cleaned between batches within a replicate. This entire process was replicated 3 times with cleaning the feed mill between replicates. Feed was then analyzed for PEDV RNA by real-time reverse transcriptase semiquantitative polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) as measured by cycle threshold (Ct) and for infectivity by bioassay. Sequence 1 feed had higher (P ˂ 0.05) rRT-PCR Ct values than the positive batch and sequence 2 feed had higher (P ˂ 0.05) Ct values than sequence 1, regardless of sampled location. Feed sampled from the mixer from sequence 2, 3, and 4 was rRT-PCR negative whereas feed sampled from the bucket elevator was rRT-PCR negative from sequence 3 and 4. Bioassay was conducted using 66 mixed sex 10-d-old pigs confirmed negative for PEDV allocated to 22 different rooms. Pigs were initially 10-d old. Control pigs remained PEDV negative for the study. All pigs from the mixer positive batch (9/9) and bucket elevator positive batch (3/3) were rRT-PCR positive on fecal swabs by the end of the study. One replicate of pigs from mixer sequence 1 was rRT-PCR positive (3/3) by 7 dpi. One replicate of mixer pigs from sequence 2 was rRT-PCR positive (3/3) by 7 dpi although no detectable PEDV RNA was found in the feed. The results demonstrate sequenced batches had reduced quantities of PEDV RNA although sequenced feed without detectible PEDV RNA by rRT-PCR can be infectious. Therefore, a sequencing protocol can reduce but not eliminate the risk of producing infectious PEDV carryover from the first sequenced batch of feed.

Indexed as

Food ContaminationAnimal FeedAnimalsCoronavirus InfectionsDietFemaleMalePorcine epidemic diarrhea virusReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRiskRNA, ViralSequence Analysis, DNASwineSwine DiseasesRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID30099515
PMCPMC6247855
OpenAlexW2886059564

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.