Alternative Samples for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Surveillance in an Endemic PRRSV-1-Infected Breeding Herd: A Descriptive Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The aim of this study was to describe the rate of detection of PRRSV-1 by PCR in due-to-wean litters in an endemic infected herd using three different sample types (blood samples, family oral fluid and udder wipes). Rates of detection were compared after testing samples individually and after pooling. Blood samples gave the higher rate of detection even after pooling by five, confirming that, at this time, it seems to be the best sampling procedure. ABSTRACT: Knowing porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) status is essential for designing herd management protocols. For this, weaning-age pigs are a key subpopulation. Recently, different alternatives to blood sampling have been introduced because they are easier, welfare-friendly and cost-saving tools. Moreover, most of them allow the testing of more animals and seem to be more sensitive in low-prevalence scenarios. However, these studies were implemented mainly in PRRSV-2-infected herds. The first objective of our study was to compare the rate of detection of PRRSV-1 by RT-qPCR in individual serum samples, family oral fluid samples (FOF) and udder wipes (UW) collected the day before weaning. The second objective was to evaluate the suitability of pooling. The study was performed on a 210-sow farrow-to-finish farm which was PRRSV-1 infected and unstable. A total of 119 litters were sampled. The rate of detection of PRRSV-1 in blood samples, FOF and UW was 10.9%, 7.6% and 0.8%, respectively. The agreement between sera and FOF was almost perfect even if the detection capacity of sera was numerically superior to FOF. The Ct values of positive sera were statistically lower than those of FOF. Two modalities of pooling (1:3 and 1:5) were tested for sera and FOF. For sera, both modalities did not impact the PRRSV-1 status either at the litter level or at the batch one. On the other hand, whatever the modality (pooled by 3 or 5), most of the pools of FOF gave negative results, misclassifying many litters and batches.