{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04737384140061792, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029866117404737384, 'mean_word_length': 4.820359281437126, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identification of Brucella spp. in feral swine (Sus scrofa) at abattoirs in Texas, USA

Various tissues, nasal swabs, urine and blood samples were collected from 376 feral swine at two federally inspected abattoirs in Texas during six separate sampling periods in 2015. Samples were tested for Brucella spp. by culture and serology. Brucella spp. were cultured from 13.0% of feral swine, and antibodies were detected in 9.8%. Only 32.7% of culture‐positive feral swine were also antibody positive, and 43.2% of antibody‐positive feral swine were culture positive. Approximately, the same number of males (14.0%) and females (12.1%) were culture positive, and slightly more males (10.5%) than females (8.7%) were antibody positive. Our results indicate that serology likely underestimates the prevalence of feral swine infected, and that those who come in contact with feral swine should be aware of the symptoms of infection with Brucella spp. to ensure prompt treatment.