Pathological findings in spontaneously dead and euthanized sows – a descriptive study

Abstract

BackgroundA high rate of euthanized and spontaneously dead sows causes production losses and likely indicates underlying welfare problems. Identification of predisposing factors to on-farm deaths requires a thorough understanding of the causes. Post-mortem examination is needed for a proper diagnosis. The aims of this descriptive study were to determine causes of spontaneous deaths and euthanasia in sows in a convenience sample of Finnish herds and to describe pathological findings in the locomotor system and in teeth and gums.ResultsThis study described post-mortem findings in 65 sows found dead or euthanized on 15 farms. All but one of the sows presented with two or more pathological findings. The majority of primary pathologic-anatomic diagnoses (PAD-1) were inflammatory. The most prevalent diagnoses were arthritis and peritonitis (9% of sows each). The locomotor system was the body part most commonly affected by lesions. Findings in the locomotor system unassociated with death were present in 85% of the animals, additionally 29% of PAD-1 s concerned the locomotor system. The prevalence for both degenerative joint disease and tooth wear was 71%. Farmers had noted clinical signs within 30 days of death in every euthanized sow and in half of the spontaneously dead ones. The farmer’s impression of the cause of death agreed at least partly with the PAD-1 in 44% of the cases.ConclusionMultiple pathologies were the norm in the present animals. This may indicate an extended course of illness and therefore also an unnecessary delay in medical treatment or euthanasia. The prevalence and clinical relevance of the most common disorders, including degenerative joint disease and tooth wear, need to be elucidated.

Description of on-farm treatment compliance and risk factors for culling in sows

“…Additionally, it has been previously reported that official farm records do not always accurately reflect actual procedures or incidents that occur on-farm and that culling or death information provided in farm records not always match up to actual death records [ 28 , 30 , 31 ] To speculate, caretakers may have been unable to correctly diagnose certain illnesses or injuries. For instance, a misdiagnosed sow with osteochondrosis or a fracture may initially have been treated with antibiotics.…”

Causes of Sow Mortality and Risks to Post-Mortem Findings in a Brazilian Intensive Swine Production System

“…Despite genetic and productivity advances, recent data indicate that sow mortality increased in the last years [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], with rates higher than 10% [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Sow mortality and longevity have a great economic impact and are concerns for animal welfare [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”

“…Sow mortality increases the direct costs related to the replacement of gilts and increases non-productive days, the use of medication, and the slaughterhouse carcass condemnation [ 4 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 13 ]. The mortality rate increases the indirect costs due to the partial loss of genetic value, retaining a female that should normally be removed/culled, and increasing the numbers of gilts with less health status adaptation to the farm challenges [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].…”

“…Regarding the methodology to determine the lesions, in some studies, the post-mortem examination was performed by its author [ 3 , 8 , 17 ], whereas, in others, the results were obtained by data collection [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. As stated by Ala-Kurikka et al [ 11 ], some studies are retrospective analyses of field data and the post-mortem examination protocols are not well detailed. Furthermore, it was described that in fewer than 50% of the post-mortem examinations, the farmers’ impressions about the cause of death are partly correct [ 11 ].…”

“…As stated by Ala-Kurikka et al [ 11 ], some studies are retrospective analyses of field data and the post-mortem examination protocols are not well detailed. Furthermore, it was described that in fewer than 50% of the post-mortem examinations, the farmers’ impressions about the cause of death are partly correct [ 11 ]. These reports indicate that neither farmers nor veterinarians have a real understanding of the post-mortem lesions and their impact on sow mortality.…”