Isolation and serological survey of Salmonella in pigs in Japan

A total of 267 fecal and serum samples collected from individual pigs reared on a Salmonella-positive farm were subjected to bacteriological and serological examinations of Salmonella. Salmonella was isolated from 47 pigs (17.6%) and prevalence of antibody to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of S. Typhimuri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of Veterinary Medical Science Vol. 64; no. 11; pp. 1011 - 1015
Main Authors Asai, T. (National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations, Sakura, Chiba (Japan). Inst. of Animal Health), Fujii, S, Osumi, T, Otagiri, Y, Namimatsu, T, Sato, S
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Japan JAPANESE SOCIETY OF VETERINARY SCIENCE 01.11.2002
Japan Science and Technology Agency
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0916-7250
1347-7439
DOI10.1292/jvms.64.1011

Cover

More Information
Summary:A total of 267 fecal and serum samples collected from individual pigs reared on a Salmonella-positive farm were subjected to bacteriological and serological examinations of Salmonella. Salmonella was isolated from 47 pigs (17.6%) and prevalence of antibody to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of S. Typhimurium, which was partly common to S. O4, 12: d: -, was observed in 90 pigs (33.7%). Salmonella was isolated from 26 (28.9%) of 90 antibody-positive pigs and 21 (11.9%) of 177 antibody-negative pigs. Twenty-one of 36 pigs (58.3%) positive for S. O4, 12: d: -, five of 10 pigs (50.0%) positive for S. Havana, and none for S. Anatum had antibodies. Thus, seropositive rates were higher than isolation-positive rates, and antibody prevalence was associated with serovars of the isolates. Then, we analyzed antibody prevalence among pigs on Japanese pig farms. The antibodies to LPS of S. Typhimurium were found in 195 of 1,498 pigs (13.0%) and in at least one serum sample on 35 of 52 farms (67.3%). Our results indicate that Salmonella does not seem to be so prevalent in pigs though it is widely prevalent among pig farms.
Bibliography:L73
2003002967
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0916-7250
1347-7439
DOI:10.1292/jvms.64.1011