Page 2 - Australian Pork Newspaper

Uncovering new learnings and opportunities
Pig Industry Calendar of Events
2018
NOV 11- 14 – Space 2018, Rennes, Francia, France www.space.fr
NOV 13 - 16 – EuroTier, Hannover, Germany www.eurotier.com/en
NOV 15 – Australian Pork Limited Annual General Meeting, Melbourne, VIC E: rachel.blake@australianpork. com.au T: 02 6270 8807
NOV 15 - 18 – Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, Saint Paul, Minnesota, US www.ccaps.umn.edu/allen-d- leman-swine-conference
NOV 19 – National Pig Awards, London, UK www.nationalpigawards. co.uk
DEC 5 – The Pork Show, Quebec City, Canada www.leporcshow.com/en
2019
JAN 8 - 10 – Banff Pork Seminar, Banff, Canada www.banffpork.ca
MAR 9 - 12 – 50th AASV Annual Meeting, Florida, US www.aasv.org/ annmtg
MAY 19 - 21 – ONE19 Conference, Lexington, US www.one.alltech.com
JUN 5 - 7 – World Pork Expo, Iowa, US www.worldpork.org
AUG 25 - 28 – Asian Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Buscan, South Korea www.apvs2019.com/invit.html
How to supply event details: Send all details to Australian Pork Newspaper, PO Box 387, Cleveland, Qld 4163, call 07 3286 1833 fax: 07 3821 2637, email: ben@porknews.com.au
porknews.com.au
07 3286 1833
THIS month I’m bring- ing you key highlights of several presentations I found very interesting from the 4th biennial International Swine In- dustry Symposium held on October 24 and 25 in Shanghai, China.
Hopefully, the technical focus of this article is not too ‘sciency’.
The symposium was jointly organised by the American Society of Ani- mal Science and Shanghai Gentech Industries Group, with about 600 delegates attending, primarily nutri- tionists and those from the feed milling sector.
A total of 14 presen- tations on varied topics were made by internation- al speakers from the US, Denmark, Germany, France, Norway, New Zealand as well as China.
I was invited to this meeting to present on our eating quality R&D that has enabled an eating quality model for fresh Australian pork to be de- veloped.
Feed biosecurity
It will come as no sur-
prise to you, given the Af- rican swine fever outbreak in China, that the review presented by Dr Jason Woodworth from Kansas State University on the potential role of pig feed as a disease vector was of high interest to all del- egates at the symposium.
His presentation was structured around five key questions: 1. Is it likely to get infected?; 2. Can it survive?; 3. Is it infec- tious?; 4. How can it be prevented?; and 5. How can it be mitigated?
Dr Woodworth outlined the feed biosecurity measures that have been evaluated in the US to
address these risks. Recently, it has been shown a number of vi- ruses, including porcine epidemic diarrhoea vi- rus, African swine fever, swine vesicular disease virus and senecavirus A (all diseases Australia is free from) can survive transboundary shipment in soybean meal, lysine and complete feed (see
Table 1).
While this information
is now known for some in- gredients, Dr Woodworth highlighted that there is insufficient data available at the pathogen x ingredi- ent x environment level to determine whether the
ASF virus (as well as oth- er key viruses) can sur- vive in other ingredients, such as in fishmeal, whey and various synthetic amino acids.
The survivability of a pathogen in feed varies – it depends on the ge- netic and physicochemical properties of the virus as well as the feed ingredient being tested.
Some feed ingredients and feed products provide a better matrix for virus survival than others.
Methods of preventing feed-based pathogens from infecting pigs, in- cluding prevention of haz- ard entry into the feed system, impact of people and vehicle movement, mitigation by thermal pro- cessing or decontamina- tion by chemical additives were also described.
This consideration also applies to chemical-based feed hazard control meas- ures.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of any chemical-based feed miti- gant is not only target spe- cific but also feed ingredi-
ent/matrix specific.
As an example, in their
dataset, PEDV survival was higher in convention- al soybean meal compared with an organic soybean meal that was evaluated.
While the exact reason for this is not clear, the organic soybean meal did have a higher fat content.
Higher protein ingredi- ents may also be more capable of retaining viral infectivity – why this may be the case is not under- stood and more research is needed to understand what ingredient attributes are associated with en- hanced survivability.
Both formaldehyde and medium-chain fatty acid blends have also been shown to have viricidal effects against PEDV – but formaldehyde use comes with caution.
In the US, it is only ap- proved to prevent salmo- nella contamination and specialised equipment is needed for accurate ap- plication.
Again, for PEDV, no in- fectivity of pigs was found
☛ continued P3
by HEATHER CHANNON Research and Innovation General Manager
Ingredient
SVA (FMDV)
ASFV
PSV (SVDV)
PRDV
FCV (VESV)
PCV2
BHV-1 (PRV)
PRRSV 174
BVDV (CSFV)
VSV
CDV (NIV)
IAV-S
Soybean meal (conventional)
✚
✚
✚
✚
✚
✚
✚
✚
Soybean meal (organic)
✚
✚
✚
Soy oilcake
✚
✚
✚
NT
✚
Dried distillers grain with solubles (DDGS)
✚
NT
✚
Lysine
✚
✚
✚
✚
✚
Choline
✚
✚
✚
✚
Vitamin D
✚
✚
✚
✚
Moist cat food
✚
✚
✚
NT
Moist dog food
✚
✚
✚
NT
Dry dog food
✚
✚
✚
NT
Pork sausage casings
✚
✚
✚
NT
✚
Complete feed (+ control)
✚
✚
✚
NT
✚
✚
Complete feed (- control)
Stock virus control
✚
Legend: FMDV denotes foot and mouth disease virus; ASFV - African swine fever virus; SVDV - swine vesicular disease virus; PEDV – porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus; VESV - vesicular exan- thema of swine virus;
PCV2 - porcine circovirus type 2; PRV - pseudora- bies virus; PRRSV - por- cine reproductive and res- piratory syndrome virus; CSFV - classical swine fever virus, VSV - vesicu- lar stomatitis virus; NiV - nipah virus; IAV-S - in-
fluenza A virus of swine. Surrogate viruses with similar genetic and physi- cal properties were used for six viruses. Surrogates belonged to the same virus families as target pathogens and included senecavirus A for FMDV,
bovine viral diarrhoea vi- rus for CSFV, bovine her- pesvirus type 1 for PRV, canine distemper virus for NiV, porcine sapelovirus for SVDV and feline cali- civirus for VESV. A box with ‘+’ indicates that vi- rus was recovered in a vi-
able form from a specific ingredient. A box with ‘-’ indicates that virus was not recovered by viral in- fectivity and/or pig bio- assay. NT denotes these ingredients were not used in the study, so no results are available.
© Collins Media Pty Ltd – Contents may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from the publisher. It is the responsibility of advertisers to ensure the correctness of their claims and statements. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the publisher.
Page 2 – Australian Pork Newspaper, November 2018
www.porknews.com.au
Table 1: Virus variability in feed ingredients (reproduced from Dee et al. (2018).