Discussion moderated by Anna Toffan, Valentina Panzarin& Sara Ciulli
In general, laboratory capacity is considered reliable. There is room for improvement in harmonization
Rapids test for the field diagnosis would be welcome but the few ones already available and they are probably lacking the sensitivity
Surveillance is done both on larva and broodstock, but time and frequency is variable in different countries (i.e. in Greece NNV is suspected only when the water temperature in > 26°C)
Non-lethal sampling methods for screening the broodstock are lacking.
ELISA test could be useful but need to be repeated more than once.
The vaccines are broadly used in Greece (80% of the farm are vaccinated), not used in Croatia, used sporadically in Italy.
A DIVA (differentiating infected from vaccinated fish) approach is missing.
I am very much interested in how to perform the surveillance on the broodstock to achieve reliable results; in fact in which way the surveillance should continue to develop?
Hi all,
for sea bass, ELISA on sera + PCR on brains of selected fish can be considered a good surveillance scheme.
However, according to my experience, the most reliable way to be sure of their NNV fredom is to divide broodstock in small families, make them spawn and test the progeny. This is applicable to species different from sea bass (i.e. bream, meagre...) where no serological test, nor epidemiological data (i.e. expected prevalence) are available.
Thanks, Anna. Do you think that proposed surveillance scheme would most likely prevent spreading of VNN from hatcheries to ingrowing? It would be great if we'll be able to produce several conclusions on role of diagnostics in disease management and for sure one you proposed seems to be very useful
Latest Post: Welcome to a new discussion topic Our newest member: admin_hosting Recent Posts Unread Posts
