Table 2.
Prevalence of TTV genogroups in different sexes and breeds of swines
| gender | Breed | Prevalence of swine TTV genogroup | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTV1 or TTV2 | TTV1 | TTV2 | TTV1 and TTV2 | ||||||
| Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | Positive | Prevalence | ||
| Male | Rangchang pig(n = 20) | 19 | 95.0% | 18 | 90.0% | 9 | 45.0% | 8 | 40.0% |
| Chenghua pig(n = 11) | 11 | 100.0% | 9 | 81.8% | 8 | 72.7% | 7 | 63.6% | |
| Zibet pig(n = 6) | 6 | 100.0% | 6 | 100.0% | 6 | 100.0% | 6 | 100.0% | |
| Wild boar(n = 8) | 7 | 87.5% | 6 | 75.0% | 5 | 62.5% | 4 | 50.0% | |
| Duroc pig(n = 18) | 18 | 100.0% | 15 | 83.3% | 18 | 100.0% | 15 | 83.3% | |
| Landrace pig (n = 13) | 12 | 92.3% | 12 | 92.3% | 11 | 84.6% | 11 | 84.6% | |
| Yorkshire pig (n = 5) | 5 | 100.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 5 | 100.0% | 3 | 60.0% | |
| Female | Rangchang pig(n = 60) | 57 | 95.0% | 37 | 61.7% | 47 | 95.0% | 27 | 45.0% |
| Chenghua pig(n = 14) | 12 | 85.7% | 11 | 78.6% | 11 | 78.6% | 10 | 71.4% | |
| Zibet pigB(n = 4) | 4 | 100.0% | 3 | 75.0% | 4 | 100.0% | 3 | 75.0% | |
| Wild boarC(n = 12) | 12 | 100.0% | 9 | 75.0% | 11 | 91.7% | 8 | 66.7% | |
| Duroc pig(n = 14) | 14 | 100.0% | 14 | 100.0% | 14 | 100.0% | 14 | 100.0% | |
| Landrace pig (n = 12) | 12 | 100.0% | 9 | 70.2% | 12 | 100.0% | 9 | 70.2% | |
| Yorkshire pig (n = 11) | 11 | 100.0% | 10 | 90.9% | 11 | 100.0% | 10 | 90.9% | |
Number of analyzed serum samples from different breeds and genders in different sources (n), total amount of positive animals (Positive) and prevalence of in percentage (Prevalence).