title: Direct and indirect transmission of four Salmonella enterica serotypes in pigs.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Feed-borne spread of Salmonella spp. to pigs has been documented several times in recent years in Sweden. Experiences from the field suggest that feed-associated serotypes might be less transmittable and subsequently easier to eradicate from pig herds than other serotypes more commonly associated to pigs. Four Salmonella serotypes were selected for experimental studies in pigs in order to study transmissibility and compare possible differences between feed-associated (S Cubana and S Yoruba) and pig-associated serotypes (S Derby and S Typhimurium).
  
  
  METHODS
  Direct contact transmission was studied in four groups of pigs formed by six 10-week-old salmonella negative pigs commingled with two fatteners excreting one of the four salmonella serotypes. Indirect transmission was studied by putting six 10-week-old salmonella negative pigs in each of four salmonella contaminated rooms. Each room had previously housed a group of pigs, excreting one of the four selected serotypes.All pigs were monitored for two weeks with respect to the faecal excretion of salmonella and the presence of serum antibodies. At the end of the trial, eight samples from inner tissues and organs were collected from each pig at necropsy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the four direct transmission groups, one pig shed Salmonella (Cubana) at one occasion. At necropsy, S Typhimurium was isolated from one pig.In the indirect transmission groups, two pigs in the Yoruba room and one pig in each of the other rooms were excreting detectable levels of Salmonella once during the study period of two weeks. At necropsy, S Derby was isolated from one of six pigs in the Derby room and S Typhimurium was isolated from four of the six pigs in the Typhimurium room.No significant serological response could be detected in any of the 48 pigs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These results show that all four selected serotypes were able to be transmitted in at least one of these field-like trials, but the transmission rate was low in all groups and no obvious differences between feed-associated and pig-associated serotypes in the transmission to naïve pigs and their subsequent faecal shedding were revealed. However, the post mortem results indicated a higher detection of S Typhimurium in the ileocecal lymph nodes of pigs introduced into a contaminated environment in comparison with the other three serotypes.
authors.affiliation: National Veterinary Institute, SVA, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden. Julia.Osterberg@sva.se
authors.forename: Julia
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Osterberg
authors.forename: Susanna Sternberg
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Lewerin
authors.forename: Per
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Wallgren
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed; D000822:Animal Husbandry; D000818:Animals; D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial / Q000097:blood; D002432:Cecum; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D006799:Housing, Animal; D007082:Ileum; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000382:microbiology; D012481:Salmonella Infections, Animal / Q000382:microbiology / Q000635:transmission; D019779:Salmonella enterica / Q000235:genetics / Q000276:immunology / Q000472:pathogenicity*; D012703:Serotyping; D034421:Sus scrofa
chemical_list: D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 1987 Jun;98(3):323-30
references.pmid: 3595748
references.citation: Vet Res. 2001 Nov-Dec;32(6):591-600
references.pmid: 11777009
references.citation: Vet Rec. 2008 May 3;162(18):580-6
references.pmid: 18453377
references.citation: Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2007 Spring;4(1):33-40
references.pmid: 17378706
references.citation: Acta Vet Scand. 2006;47:13-21
references.pmid: 16722302
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 1996 Jun;30(1-2):37-53
references.pmid: 8856373
references.citation: Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2001 Sep-Oct;114(9-10):385-8
references.pmid: 11570185
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 May;68(5):2376-81
references.pmid: 11976111
references.citation: J Food Prot. 2005 Feb;68(2):246-50
references.pmid: 15726964
references.citation: Am J Vet Res. 2001 Aug;62(8):1194-7
references.pmid: 11497437
references.citation: Vet Rec. 2009 Oct 3;165(14):404-8
references.pmid: 19801593
references.citation: Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2001 Sep-Oct;114(9-10):331-4
references.pmid: 11570170
references.citation: Vet Microbiol. 2001 Jun 6;80(3):267-74
references.pmid: 11337142
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2009 Oct;56(8):429-54
references.pmid: 19175574
references.citation: Vet Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;38(6):835-48
references.pmid: 17903417
references.citation: J Food Prot. 2008 Apr;71(4):699-705
references.pmid: 18468022
references.citation: Vet Microbiol. 1994 Aug 15;41(4):333-44
references.pmid: 7801533
references.citation: Prev Vet Med. 2008 Aug 15;86(1-2):75-92
references.pmid: 18453017