Potential risk factors for the presence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in finishing pigs on conventional farms in the Netherlands

Eppink, Dorien M.; Bouwknegt, Martijn; van der Giessen, Joke W. B.; Swanenburg, Manon; Oorburg, Derk; Urlings, Bert A. P.; van Wagenberg, Coen P. A.; van Asseldonk, Marcel A. P. M.; Wisselink, Henk J.

doi:10.1186/s40813-022-00272-z

Table 2 Univariate analysis of potential risk factors for T. gondii infection in pigs from 69 Dutch finishing pig farms

From: Potential risk factors for the presence of anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies in finishing pigs on conventional farms in the Netherlands

Risk factor	Categories	No. of Farms	Blood samples			P-value
Risk factor	Categories	No. of Farms	No. positive	No. tested	Avg. % pos.*	P-value
Type of farm	Closed	14	42	1180	6.1%	0.008
	Open	55	217	3954	7.0%
Presence of dogs	Absent	22	83	1211	9.6%	0.002
	Present	47	176	3923	5.5%
Presence of poultry	Absent	59	170	4276	5.1%	< 0.0001
	Present	10	89	858	16.7%
Presence of ruminants^†	Absent	41	145	3463	5.2%	< 0.0001
	Present	28	114	1671	9.1%
Well-defined clean/dirty zones	No	52	217	3802	7.1%	0.000
	Yes	17	42	1332	5.9%
Boots only used inside stables	No	43	207	3578	8.6%	0.000
	Yes	26	52	1556	3.9%
Shower and farm clothing	No	61	235	3947	7.2%	< 0.0001
	Yes	8	24	1187	4.0%
Purchase of breeding gilts^a	No	58	228	4376	6.8%	0.195
	Yes	11	31	758	6.9%
Cleaning every round of pigs	No	21	115	1472	6.3%	< 0.0001
	Yes	47	136	3244	7.1%
Presence of cats	No	19	47	1530	5.1%	< 0.0001
	Yes, no stable access, no kittens spotted	29	82	2498	4.1%
	Yes, no stable access, kittens spotted	11	82	697	9.9%
	Yes, with stable access, no kittens spotted	3	7	99	5.7%
	Yes, with stable access, kittens spotted	6	41	304	21.3%
Pig feed accessible for cats	No	46	83	2972	2.7%
	Yes	23	176	2162	15.0%
Bedding pigs accessible for cats^a	No	65	253	5008	6.8%	0.882
	Yes	4	6	126	6.4%
Feed heated	No	37	195	3459	9.0%	0.004
	Yes	32	64	1675	4.2%
Compost, soil, peat^b	No	68	249	5038	6.7%	0.032
	Yes	1	10	96	10.4%
Whey (goat and/or cow)	No	51	134	3012	5.1%	0.021
	Yes	18	125	2122	11.5%
Whey (cow)^a	No	59	220	4226	6.3%	0.246
	Yes	10	39	908	9.8%
Whey (goat)	No	65	201	4887	4.9%	< 0.0001
	Yes	4	58	247	37.6%
Wet/Liquid feed^c	No	35	75	1702	4.7%	0.137
	Yes	34	184	3432	8.9%
Roughage^c,d	No	61	252	4352	7.3%	< 0.0001
	Yes	6	6	478	4.3%
Corncob mix^c,d	No	52	132	3001	5.2%	0.000
	Yes	15	126	1829	13.3%
Use of straw^d	No	54	227	4054	7.5%	0.059
	Yes	13	31	776	5.0%
Garden/kitchen waste	No	66	244	5030	6.6%	0.000
	Yes	3	15	104	11.5%
Pig drinking water	Tapwater	32	96	1555	7.0%	0.017
	Well	37	163	3579	6.6%
Shielding of flies	No	49	148	3349	6.1%	0.006
	Yes	20	111	1785	8.5%
Shielding of birds	No	8	26	316	9.1%	0.014
	Yes	61	233	4818	6.5%
Professional rodent control^a	No	41	145	2652	7.2%	0.152
	Yes	28	114	2482	6.2%
Mode of rodent control	No or trap-only control	4	12	262	4.0%	0.051
	Poisson-control	47	175	3808	6.4%
	Poisson and trap-control	18	72	1064	8.5%
Stable accessible for rodents^a	No	31	113	2188	4.6%	0.736
	Yes	38	146	2946	8.6%
Pig feed accessible for rodents^c	No	36	51	1877	2.3%	< 0.0001
	Yes	33	208	3257	11.7%
Bedding pigs accessible for rodents	No	64	253	4767	6.9%	0.004
	Yes	5	6	367	5.1%

*Average of the % positive samples at farm level
^†Cattle, sheep and/or goats
^aRisk factors not included in the multivariable analysis due to P > 0.15 in univariable analysis
^bRisk factors not included in the multivariable analysis due to low frequency counts
^cRisk factors not included in the multivariable analysis due to collinearity issues
^dRisk factors not included in the multivariable analysis due to missing values

Back to article page

ISSN: 2055-5660

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Porcine Health Management

Contact us