No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations between different pathogens in the development of pneumonia and bronchopneumonia in pigs. Samples of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from 100 pigs showing no clinical signs and 239 pigs with clinical signs of respiratory disease were examined for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Mycoplasma hyorhinis, US-type porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus (PRRSV), EU-type PRRSV, porcine circovirus type 2 (pcv-2), influenza virus type A, alpha-haemolytic Streptococcus species, beta-haemolytic Streptococcus species, Pasteurella multocida, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Haemophilus parasuis and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae. These potential pathogens were detected more frequently in the pigs with respiratory problems than in the pigs with no clinical signs. pcv-2 and alpha-haemolytic streptococci were the pathogens most frequently detected; A pleuropneumoniae was isolated in only two cases. There were more often associations between the organisms in the pigs with clinical signs than in the healthy pigs. In particular, alpha-haemolytic streptococci and M hyopneumoniae were both associated with the presence of M hyorhinis, EU-type PRRSV, P multocida and B bronchiseptica, and alpha-haemolytic streptococci also occurred more often in pigs that were already infected with other pathogens. P multocida and B bronchiseptica were both significantly associated with M hyopneumoniae, alpha-haemolytic streptococci, EU-type PRRSV and US-type PRRSV.

A case-control investigation was undertaken to determine management and health related factors associated with pleurisy in slaughter pigs in England and Wales.MethodsThe British Pig Executive Pig Health Scheme database of abattoir pathology was used to identify 121 case (>10% prevalence of pleurisy on 3 or more assessment dates in the preceding 24 months) and 121 control units (≤5% prevalence of pleurisy on 3 or more assessment dates in the preceding 24 months). Farm data were collected by postal questionnaire. Data from respondents (70 cases and 51 controls) were analysed using simple logistic regression models with Bonferroni corrections. Limited multivariate analyses were also performed to check the robustness of the overall conclusions.Results and ConclusionsManagement factors associated with increased odds of pleurisy included no all-in all-out pig flow (OR 9.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.3–29), rearing of pigs with an age difference of >1 month in the same airspace (OR 6.5 [2.8–17]) and repeated mixing (OR 2.2 [1.4–3.8]) or moving (OR 2.2 [1.5–3.4]) of pigs during the rearing phase. Those associated with decreased odds of pleurisy included filling wean-to-finish or grower-to-finish systems with piglets from ≤3 sources (OR 0.18 [0.07–0.41]) compared to farrow-to-finish systems, cleaning and disinfecting of grower (ORs 0.28 [0.13–0.61] and 0.29 [0.13–0.61]) and finisher (ORs 0.24 [0.11–0.51] and 0.2 [0.09–0.44]) accommodation between groups, and extended down time of grower and finisher accommodation (OR 0.84 [0.75–0.93] and 0.86 [0.77–0.94] respectively for each additional day of downtime). This study demonstrated the value of national-level abattoir pathology data collection systems for case control analyses and generated guidance for on-farm interventions to help reduce the prevalence of pleurisy in slaughter pigs.

BackgroundEuropean legislation dictates that pig tail docking is not allowed to be performed routinely (European Union. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. OJ L 47, 18.2.2009). Nevertheless, tail docking is still practiced routinely in many European countries, while four countries stopped routine tail docking completely. Tail docking is also practiced in many countries outside Europe.The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the European Association of Porcine Health Management (EAPHM) together with the European Commission carried out an online survey to investigate the situation regarding the practice of pig tail docking and the provision of enrichment material across 24 European countries. It also focuses on the role of the veterinary profession and gives an overview on published literature regarding the challenges and possibilities related to the raising of pigs with intact tails.ResultsFifty-seven (57) usable survey responses from 24 countries were received. On average 77% (median = 95%) of pigs are routinely tail-docked. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, less than 5% of the pigs are tail-docked. According to the respondents, 67% of pigs (median = 76%) across the 24 EU countries surveyed are given suitable enrichment materials. Training of veterinary practitioners, their role in advising the producer and undertaking a risk assessment of tail biting were more positively valued in countries that stopped routine tail docking than in countries that had not stopped routine tail docking. Initiatives such as training from national authorities to encourage abandoning tail docking and routine recording of tail biting at the slaughterhouse were identified as two successful items to promote the raising of pigs with entire tails.ConclusionIn many European countries the majority of the pigs are still routinely tail-docked, which is a violation of the European legislation. To stop routine tail docking it is necessary to raise the awareness and education about risk factors to prevent tail biting. The growing knowledge about the reasons for failing voluntary national initiatives as well as about successful measures taken by some countries to make pig production with intact tails feasible should be distributed throughout the EU pig producing community. The veterinary profession has a significant role to play in raising awareness, facilitate knowledge transfer and to identify risk factors and solutions on farm level for the benefit of pig health and welfare.