Farms.com Home   News

Ozone and Air Ionization Technologies Shown Ineffective in Inactivating PRRS and PED

Research has shown the effectiveness of ozone and air ionization technologies in inactivating disease-causing pathogens in swine transport vehicles to be limited.

An Iowa State University study funded through the Swine Health Information Center’s Wean-to-Harvest Biosecurity Research Program, in partnership with the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research and Pork Checkoff, evaluated the effectiveness of ozone and air ionization technologies for their ability to inactivate PRRS and PED on non-porous surfaces in truck cabins.

SHIC Associate Director Dr. Lisa Becton says transportation poses a significant risk of disease transmission.

Quote-Dr. Lisa Becton-Swine Health Information Center:

The investigators used three different exposure times of 30, 60 and 120 minutes and there were three different concentrations of ozone utilized versus the one air ionizing treatment.They also assessed rubber coupons placed in different locations within the cab of the tractors and then put down the infectious viruses in those rubber coupons, set the treatment and then came back and sampled over time to see, was there any reduction in the virus from the start to after the treatment time?

Unfortunately, for the air ionization treatments, at least for this experiment, there was no reduction seen on PRRS or PED viruses on the rubber coupons.
When we looked at the ozone efficacy, there was variable efficacy for the different concentrations and different time frames but none of those reduced the viral concentrations by more than two logs and a two-log reduction is considered to be a baseline for what a disinfection would show to be effective. Essentially neither of the treatments really provided to have the reduction in viral load that would be expected to show effective disinfection.

The full final report can be accessed at swinehealth.org.

Source : Farmscape.ca

Trending Video

No-Till vs Tillage: Why Neighboring Fields Are World Apart

Video: No-Till vs Tillage: Why Neighboring Fields Are World Apart

“No-till means no yield.”

“No-till soils get too hard.”

But here’s the real story — straight from two fields, same soil, same region, totally different outcomes.

Ray Archuleta of Kiss the Ground and Common Ground Film lays it out simply:

Tillage is intrusive.

No-till can compact — but only when it’s missing living roots.

Cover crops are the difference-maker.

In one field:

No-till + covers ? dark soil, aggregates, biology, higher organic matter, fewer weeds.

In the other:

Heavy tillage + no covers ? starving soil, low diversity, more weeds, fragile structure.

The truth about compaction?

Living plants fix it.

Living roots leak carbon, build aggregates, feed microbes, and rebuild structure — something steel never can.

Ready to go deeper into the research behind no-till yields, rotations, and profitability?