Dr. Laura Greiner - Reducing Pathogen Transmission at the Feed Mill
-
Upload
john-blue -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
273 -
download
1
Transcript of Dr. Laura Greiner - Reducing Pathogen Transmission at the Feed Mill
Reducing Pathogen Transmission at the Feed Mill
Laura L Greiner, PhDCarthage Innovative Swine Solutions,
LLC
2
Introduction
• Dee et al. discussed fomite transfer of PRRS virus
• Any item entering the farm has the potential to be a fomite (including feed and feed trucks)
• Discussion of areas of greatest risk and opportunities to minimize the risk
3
Understanding Potential Routes of Introduction of Pathogens
• Ingredients– Contaminated with pathogen from supplier– Many ingredients sourced outside of US
• Sludge/Contamination – Trucks contaminated during transport– Dump over grated receiving pit
• Farm delivery trucks • Personnel
Feed Mill Swabs at Time of a PEDv Break
FindingsNegative Suspect Positive Total
Office floor 1 1
Corn pit 2 2
DDGs/SBM/Limestone pit 2 2 4
Mixer 2 2
Feed trailer – outside 3 1 4
Feed trailer - inside 3 3
Feed truck - sock 1 1
Bulk trailer 9 2 11
5
Feed Mill Risk Assessment Study
• Objective: To assess the risk of areas within a mill to test positive for either porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) or swine delta coronavirus (PDCov)
6
Methods• Twenty-four feed mills from various regions in the US in the
summer of 2014
• Samples (foot pedals of feed delivery truck, bulk ingredient unloading pit, inside mixer/pellet cooler, mill office floor, inside feed compartment on feed truck, and incoming bagged ingredient truck) were collected at each feed mill for up to 5 days
• The samples were submitted for PCR testing for PEDv and PDCov
• Data were analyzed as probabilities and risk assessments
7
Findings• Of the feed mills tested, 75% of the mills were supplying feed to
PEDv positive herds and 21% were feeding PDCov positive herds
• No samples tested positive for PEDv– 5% of the truck foot pedals and 1% of the bulk ingredient pit tested
suspect for PEDv
• Porcine delta coronavirus was found on 3.4% of the foot pedals of the trucks and 2.2% of the office floors
• As the number of days increase, the probability of a positive/suspect result also increased to being less likely
8
Floor Mixer Pedal Bulk Ingred CompPEDv+ Sample Days
18 Test ~+ 1 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.017 0.000 0.014
2 0.000 0.000 0.133 0.033 0.000 0.0283 0.000 0.000 0.193 0.049 0.000 0.0424 0.000 0.000 0.248 0.065 0.000 0.0565 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.081 0.000 0.069
PEDv-6 Test ~+ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Probability of Any Positive Test Results by Sample Days
9
Probability of PEDv+ in Mill Given Negative Test Results by Sample Days
Floor Mixer Pedal Bulk Ingred Comp
Sample Days
1 0.750 0.750 0.736 0.747 0.750 0.747
2 0.750 0.750 0.722 0.744 0.750 0.745
3 0.750 0.750 0.708 0.740 0.750 0.742
4 0.750 0.750 0.693 0.737 0.750 0.739
5 0.750 0.750 0.677 0.734 0.750 0.736
10
11
Floor Mixer Pedal Bulk Ingred CompDELTAv+ Sample Days
5 Test+ 1 0.000 0.000 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.0002 0.000 0.000 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.000 0.000 0.407 0.000 0.000 0.0004 0.000 0.000 0.502 0.000 0.000 0.0005 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.000 0.000 0.000
DELTAv? Sample Days8 Test+ 1 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0004 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0005 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
DELTAv-11 Test+ 1 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0004 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0005 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Probability of Any Positive/Suspicious Test Results by Sample Days
12
Probability of DELTAv+ in Mill Given Negative Test Results by Sample Days
Floor Mixer Pedal Bulk Ingred Comp
Sample Days
1 0.320 0.313 0.276 0.313 0.313 0.313
2 0.327 0.313 0.243 0.313 0.313 0.313
3 0.335 0.313 0.212 0.313 0.313 0.313
4 0.342 0.313 0.185 0.313 0.313 0.313
5 0.350 0.313 0.160 0.313 0.313 0.313
13
14
Contamination Sites
Transport
• Feed Mill ingredient unloading– Sometimes difficult to unload from trucks– Ingredient pit - sized and contained to prevent
side spillage
16
Establish a Traffic Pattern at the Mill for Ingredient Unloading and Feed Loading
Ingoing
Outgoing
Ingredient unloading-bulk
• Weigh at truck scales• Driver entrance area separate from feed mill
personnel-disinfectant mat• Define area to receive paper work: tickets etc.• Unloading area:– No direct access to rest of feed mill
• Ingredient drivers must stay in receiving area– Phone call to manager if problems– Cover ingredient pit after finished unloading
Ingredient Unloading
Loading-Complete Feed
• Feed driver entrance separate from mill personnel– Stay confined to load-out area and break room
area• Use flooring that allows material on the bottom of the
shoe to fall away (elevated flooring)• Receive paper work• Bathroom/vending area
Load-Out
Frozen Sludge
22
Frozen Sludge
• Dee demonstrated that frozen snow can carry PRRS virus
• Snow runs the risk of falling into an ingredient pit during the time of unloading
• Careful removal of the snow may be required before unloading or extra bulk storage to allow for a non-delivery day if needed
Vermin Control
• Doors to remain closed on ingredient loading and unloading bays
• Bait stations located outside of feed mill
Feed Deliveries
• Establish a biosecurity pyramid• Wash feed delivery truck before moving up
the pyramid• Disinfect floor mats/pedals• Watch shoes between facilities
Ranking of Greatest Biosecurity Ingredient Risks
• How fast is inventory used?• How is the product received?– Bags/totes – Bulk ingredient– Liquid tank
• How is the bulk product stored before arrival?
26
Survivability of PEDv in Ingredients
Dee, et al. 2015
27
Understanding Storage of Bulk Ingredients
• Storage areas– Flat-• potential for bird contamination• likely overhead load-out
– Silos/upright storage• more bio-secure with bird control
28
Storage Devices
• Bags/totes– Ensure manufactured product has been kept in a
clean storage facility for a desired period to reduce risk of active virus
• Liquid products– Can liquid fat be kept in a fat tank for a period of
week before use to allow for the heat to inactivate any potential virus?
29
Feed Mitigation
• Products can be added to the feed for control of pathogens:– Organic acids – bacterial control– Feed disinfectants – Salmonella control
• Pelleting process can heat inactivate pathogens
30
Conclusions
• Areas of risk are multi-fold
• Feed mills that are working with active facilities have a greater chance of having areas positive for the virus
• Strict biosecurity measures at the feed mill will help reduce the risk
31
Acknowledgements
• National Pork Board• Fellow nutritionists for feed mill samples• Dr. Bob Harrell
32
Thank you