Search

Feed has been shown to be a vector for viral transmission. Four experiments were conducted to: 1) determine if medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) are effective mitigants when applied to feed both pre- and post-porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) inoculation measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), 2) evaluate varying levels and combinations of MCFA measured by qRT-PCR, and 3) evaluate selected treatments in bioassay to determine infectivity. In exp. 1, treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 + 1 factorial with main effects of treatment (0.3% commercial formaldehyde [CF] product, Sal CURB [Kemin Industries, Inc.; Des Moines, IA], or 1% MCFA blend (Blend) of 1:1:1 C6:C8:C10 [PMI, Arden Hills, MN]) and timing of application (pre- or post-inoculation with PEDV) plus a positive control (PC; feed inoculated with PEDV and no treatment). All combinations of treatment and timing decreased detectable PEDV compared with the PC (P < 0.05). Pre-inoculation treatment elicited decreased magnitude of PEDV detection (cycle threshold value) compared with post-inoculation (P = 0.009). Magnitude of PEDV detection was decreased for CF compared with Blend (P < 0.0001). In exp. 2, pre-inoculation treatments consisted of: 1) PC, 2) 0.3% CF, 3 to 5) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0, 6 to 8) 0.125% to 0.33% C8:0, 9 to 11) 0.125% to 0.33% C10:0, and 12 to 15) 0.125% to 0.66% C5:0. Treating feed with 0.33% C8:0 resulted in decreased (P < 0.05) PEDV detection compared with all other treatments. Increasing concentration of each individual MCFA decreased PEDV detectability (P < 0.042). In exp. 3, pre-inoculation treatments consisted of: 1) PC, 2) 0.3% CF, 3 to 7) 0.25% to 1% Blend, 8 to 10) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0 + C8:0, 11 to 13) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0 + C10:0, and 14 to 16) 0.125% to 0.33% C8:0 + C10:0. Treating feed with CF, 0.5% Blend, 0.75% Blend, 1% Blend, all levels of C6:0+C8:0, 0.25% C6:0 + 0.25% C10:0, 0.33% C6:0 + 0.33% C10:0, 0.25% C8:0 + 0.25% C10:0, or 0.33% C8:0 + 0.33% C10:0 elicited decreased detection of PEDV compared with PC (P < 0.05). Increasing concentration of each MCFA combination decreased PEDV detectability (linear, P < 0.012). In exp. 4, feed was treated pre-inoculation with: 1) no treatment (PC), 2) 0.3% CF, 3) 0.5% Blend, or 4) 0.3% C8:0 and analyzed via qRT-PCR and bioassay. Adding 0.5% Blend or 0.3% C8:0 resulted in decreased PEDV compared with PC and only PC resulted in a positive bioassay. Therefore, MCFA can decrease detection of PEDV in feed. Further, inclusion of lower levels of MCFA than previously evaluated are effective against PEDV., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.)

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.

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.

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) is a heat-sensitive virus that has devastated the U.S. swine industry. Because of its heat sensitivity, we hypothesized that a steam conditioner and pellet mill mimicking traditional commercial thermal processing may mitigate PEDV infectivity. Pelleting, a common feed processing method, includes the use of steam and shear forces, resulting in increased temperature of the processed feed. Two thermal processing experiments were designed to determine if different pellet mill conditioner retention times and temperatures would impact PEDV quantity and infectivity by analysis of quantitative reverse transcription PCR and bioassay. In Exp. 1, a 3 × 3 × 2 factorial design was used with 3 pelleting temperatures (68.3, 79.4, and 90.6°C), 3 conditioning times (45, 90, or 180 s), and 2 doses of viral inoculation (low, 1 × 10 tissue culture infectious dose (the concentration used to see cytopathic effect in 50% of the cells)/g, or high, 1 × 10 tissue culture infectious dose/g). Noninoculated and PEDV-inoculated unprocessed mash were used as controls. The low-dose PEDV-infected mash had 6.8 ± 1.8 cycle threshold (Ct) greater ( < 0.05) PEDV than the high-dose mash. Regardless of time or temperature, pelleting reduced ( < 0.05) the quantity of detectable viral PEDV RNA compared with the PEDV-inoculated unprocessed mash. Fecal swabs from pigs inoculated with the PEDV-positive unprocessed mash, regardless of dose, were clinically PEDV positive from 2 to 7 d (end of the trial) after inoculation. However, if either PEDV dose of inoculated feed was pelleted at any of the 9 tested conditioning time × temperature combinations, no PEDV RNA was detected in fecal swabs or cecum content. Based on Exp. 1 results, a second experiment was developed to determine the impact of lower processing temperatures on PEDV quantity and infectivity. In Exp. 2, PEDV-inoculated feed was pelleted at 1 of 5 conditioning temperatures (37.8, 46.1, 54.4, 62.8, and 71.1°C) for 30 s. The 5 increasing processing temperatures led to feed with respective mean Ct values of 32.5, 34.6, 37.0, 36.5, and 36.7, respectively. All samples had detectable PEDV RNA. However, infectivity was detected by bioassay only in pigs from the 37.8 and 46.1°C conditioning temperatures. Experiment 2 results suggest conditioning and pelleting temperatures above 54.4°C could be effective in reducing the quantity and infectivity of PEDV in swine feed. However, additional research is needed to prevent subsequent recontamination after pelleting as it is a point-in-time mitigation step.