Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated withLeptospiraspp. Infection in Technified Swine Farms in the State of Alagoas, Brazil Risk Factors Associated withLeptospiraspp. in Swine Farms

Abstract

Summary The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and to identify the risk factors associated with Leptospira spp. infection in technified pig farms in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. To compose sample for the prevalence study, 342 pigs were used (312 sows and 30 boars) proceeding from seven swine farms distributed in five districts of the state of Alagoas, Brazil. The infection’s serological diagnosis was performed by microscopic agglutination test. The risk factors analysis was performed using research questionnaires consisting of objective questions related to the breeder, the general characteristics of the property, and the productive, reproductive and sanitary management. Prevalence of 16.1% (55/342) of pigs seropositive was obtained. The associated risk factors were not performing quarantine (P = 0.003, OR = 5.43, CI = 1.79–16.41) and the use of artificial insemination (P = 0.023, OR = 3.38, CI = 1.18–9.66). A significant association of sow infection with the increased number of stillborn and mummified foetuses was found, as well as with the increased frequency of oestrus recurrence and the increased weaning‐to‐oestrus interval of seropositive sows. One might state that Leptospira spp. infection is disseminated in technified pig farms in the State of Alagoas, favouring reproductive failures and the impairment of zootechnical performance in these properties. The risk factors identified in this study are facilitators in the infecting agent dissemination and should be adjusted to control the disease in the herds studied.

Caracterização epidemiológica da leptospirose suína em criações não tecnificadas do semiárido brasileiro

“…Também foram constatadas reações sorológicas aos sorovares Patoc (3,4%), Autumnalis (1,9%), Bratislava (1,5%), Castellonis (0,7%), Sentot (0,7%), Bataviae (0,7%), Copenhageni (0,5%), Butembo (0,5%), Australis (0,2%), Panamá (0,2%) e Canicola (0,2%) (Quadro 1). Dentre as 20 propriedades trabalhadas, todas (Valença et al 2013) e Paraíba (14,6%) (Figueiredo et al 2013).…”

“…Os resultados demonstraram que a leptospirose estava disseminada em todas as propriedades examinadas do município e com elevado percentual, comprovando assim a endemicidade da infecção em suínos do município de Mossoró no Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Achados semelhantes foram encontrados por Valença et al (2013) em todas as granjas de suínos estudadas no Estado de Alagoas, no entanto, a frequência de animais positivos por fazenda foi menor, variando de 4,0% a 24,3%.…”

“…O sorovar Icterohaemorrhagiae foi o mais prevalente entre os suínos investigados. O resultado revela similaridade com outras pesquisas, conforme encontrado por Ramos e Lilenbaum (2002) em criações tecnificadas no Estado do Rio de Janeiro; Favero et al (2002) em Minas Gerais, Goiás, Paraná, Santa Catarina e São Paulo; Delbem et al (2004) no Paraná; Osava et al (2010) em Minas e Goiás; no Piauí e Maranhão; e Valença et al (2013) em Alagoas.…”

“…O sorovar Icterohaemorrhagiae, bem como Castellonis, Copenhageni e Autumnalis, em que houve suínos reagentes, tem nos roedores os seus hospedeiros mais comuns (Faine et al 1999, Aguiar et al 2006, Valença et al 2013, os quais podem ser indicados como responsáveis pela presença deste agente nas instalações das criações. Convém salientar que os suínos apresentavam características de hospedeiro de manutenção do sorovar Icterohaemorrhagiae, pois não havia sinais clínicos ou qualquer outra manifestação da doença.…”

Characterization of Leptospira interrogans serovar Pomona isolated from swine in Brazil

“…Icterohaemorrhagiae infection is associated with an increased risk of weak newborn piglets and stillbirths in Brazil [5]; serovar Tarassovi is associated with dead piglets [2]. Seroprevalence may vary with management practices, the presence of surface water and a farm rodent-control program [6,7]. Crossreactions among serovars, diagnostic titer uncertainty, and failure of some infected animals to seroconvert cause considerable difficulty in serological test interpretation [8].…”