BackgroundNeonatal diarrhoea is a frequent clinical condition in commercial swine herds, previously regarded to be uncomplicated to treat. However, since 2008 it seems that a new neonatal diarrhoeic syndrome unresponsive to antibiotics and common management practices has emerged. Routine laboratory examinations have not detected any pathogen related to this syndrome. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate if well-known enteric pathogens could be associated with outbreaks of neonatal diarrhoea, thus question the hypotheses of a new syndrome. Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate macroscopic and microscopic findings associated with these outbreaks and if possible propose a preliminary piglet-level case-definition on syndrome New Neonatal Porcine Diarrhoea syndrome (NNPDS).ResultsFour well-managed herds experiencing neonatal diarrhoea with no previously established laboratory conclusion and suspected to suffer from New Neonatal Porcine Diarrhoea Syndrome, were selected. Within these herds, 51 diarrhoeic and 50 non-diarrhoeic piglets at the age of three to seven days were necropsied and subjected to histological and microbiological examination. Faeces were non-haemorrhagic. Neither enterotoxigenic E. coli, Clostridium perfringens type A or C, Clostridium difficile, rotavirus, coronavirus, Cryptosporidium spp, Giardia spp, Cystoisospora suis nor Strongyloides ransomi were associated with diarrhoea in the investigated outbreaks. Macroscopically, the diarrhoeic piglets were characterized by filled stomachs and flaccid intestines without mucosal changes. The predominant histological lesions were villous atrophy in jejunum and ileum. Epithelial lesions in colon were seen in one third of the case piglets.ConclusionsThe results of the study supported the hypothesis that a new neonatal porcine diarrhoea was present in the investigated herds, since no known pathogen(s) or management factors could explain the diarrhoeal outbreaks. Based on the findings in the four herds the following case-definition of NNPDS was suggested: Non-haemorrhagic diarrhoea during the first week of life, without detection of known infectious pathogens, characterized by milk-filled stomachs and flaccid intestines at necropsy.
Gastric ulcers are a common condition in finisher pigs. A study was conducted to investigate the hypothesis that gastric ulceration alters the behaviour of finisher pigs. Two one-hour observations (from video recordings) of home pen behaviour were conducted in finisher pigs, at two farms (one in Denmark and one in Scotland), in the days immediately prior to slaughter. Stomach condition was assessed post mortem according to a pre-established ulcer score index. The behaviour of pigs with healthy stomachs (n=36) was compared with the behaviour of pigs with deep ulceration of the pars oesophagea (n=26). Assessment of various predefined postures and behaviours was made by an observer blind to the gastric ulcer status of the observed pigs. Behavioural data from the two sites were combined in a single analysis. Pigs with gastric ulcers tended to spend less time idle (P=0.081) and less time lying on their left side (P=0.064), and significantly more time standing (P=0.009), or walking (P=0.038) compared to healthy pigs. Pigs with ulcers also showed an increased frequency of posture changes (P=0.02). A decrease in time spent lying on the left and an increase in standing/walking could both be interpreted as attempts to avoid liquid gastric contents pooling in the cranial region of the stomach. This along with the higher level of posture changes observed may indicate some degree of pain/discomfort associated with the presence of gastric ulcers in pigs. This study is the first to identify apparent behavioural differences between finisher pigs with or without gastric ulcers, and further work is needed to establish to what extent the apparent behavioural differences are a consequence of pain or discomfort for the animals concerned. Since gastrooesophageal ulceration of pigs is associated with pelleting and fine grinding of feed which in turn is linked to increased growth efficiency there may be a dilemma between on one hand concern for preventing gastric ulcers and on the other hand concern for the efficiency and sustainability of pig production.
Background The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess the within-herd prevalence of pars oesophageal ulcers (POU) in high-risk Danish herds using commercial diets. Furthermore, we aimed to estimate the association between gastric content fluidity and POU using a generalised additive model (GAM). The study included 200 clinically healthy nursery pigs randomly selected from ten farms (20 pigs from each farm). The 10 farms were selected based on a suspected high prevalence of gastric ulcers. Post-mortem gastric ulcer assessment was based on macroscopic lesions, and gastric content fluidity was assessed based on the solid particle sedimentation percentage (solid phase). Results We observed an overall prevalence of 35.5% for POU in nursery pigs. Within-herd prevalence varied considerably among farms, with values ranging from 0% in Farm 1 to 84% in Farm 4. Our model showed strong associations between POU and gastric content fluidity (P < 0.001), as well as between POU and farm of origin (P < 0.001). In addition, we observed that the risk of POU decreased non-linearly as the gastric content solid phase percentage increased, i.e. as the gastric content became more solid. Conclusion We have demonstrated that pars oesophageal ulcers are present in Danish herds with nursery pigs fed commercial diets. Furthermore, we have established that gastric content fluidity is strongly associated with POU in nursery pigs. Even so, we cannot conclude that gastric content fluidity is solely responsible for POU. Future research should look into the association between pars oesophageal ulcers and both farm management activities and individual pig factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.