Table 1.
Prevalence of TTV genogroups in different breeds of pig
| Farm | Breed | Prevalence of swine TTV genogroup | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTV1 or TTV2 | TTV1 | TTV2 | TTV1 and TTV2 | ||||||
| Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | ||
| A | Chenghua pig(n = 25) | 23 | 92.0% | 20 | 80.0% | 19 | 76.0% | 18 | 72.0% a, b |
| Rongchang pig(n = 38) | 37 | 97.4% | 26 | 68.4% | 25 | 65.8% | 16 | 42.1% a, | |
| Wild boar(n = 20) | 19 | 95.0% | 15 | 75.0% | 16 | 80.0% | 12 | 60.0% a, b | |
| Zibet pig(n = 10) | 10 | 100% | 9 | 90.0% | 10 | 100% | 9 | 90.0% b | |
| Total | n = 93 | 89 | 95.7% | 70 | 75.3% | 70 | 75.3% | 55 | 59.1% |
| B | Landrace (n = 25) | 24 | 96.0% | 21 | 84.0% | 23 | 92.0% | 20 | 80.0% a, b |
| Large Yorkshire(n = 16) | 16 | 100% | 13 | 81.5% | 15 | 93.4% | 13 | 81.5% a, b | |
| Rongchang pig(n = 42) | 39 | 92.9% | 29 | 69.0% | 31 | 73.8% | 19 | 45.2% a | |
| Duroc (n = 32) | 32 | 100% | 29 | 90.6% | 32 | 100% | 29 | 90.6% b | |
| Total | n = 115 | 111 | 96.5% | 92 | 80.0% | 101 | 87.8% | 81 | 70.4% |
Number of analyzed serum samples from different swine breeds in each farms (n), total amount of positive animals, prevalence of in percentage, different farms (A, B), and different letters (a, b, c) within the same column mean statiscal significant differences in different breeds and sources TTV prevalence when comparing one breed/source to another.