Display options
Share it on

Porcine Health Manag. 2020 Nov 23;6(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40813-020-00170-2.

Swine inflammation and necrosis syndrome is influenced by husbandry and quality of sow in suckling piglets, weaners and fattening pigs.

Porcine health management

Gerald Reiner, Josef Kühling, Mirjam Lechner, Hansjörg Schrade, Janine Saltzmann, Christoph Muelling, Sven Dänicke, Frederik Loewenstein

Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Clinic for Swine, Justus-Liebig-University, Frankfurter Strasse 112, 35392, Giessen, Germany. [email protected].
  2. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Clinic for Swine, Justus-Liebig-University, Frankfurter Strasse 112, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
  3. UEG Hohenlohe, Am Wasen 20, 91567, Herrieden, Germany.
  4. LSZ Boxberg, Seehöfer Str. 50, 97944, Boxberg, Germany.
  5. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Bundesallee 37, 38116, Braunschweig, Germany.
  6. Institute for Veterinary Anatomy, University Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 43, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
  7. Institute of Veterinary Pathology, University Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 33, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.

PMID: 33292613 PMCID: PMC7682114 DOI: 10.1186/s40813-020-00170-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Swine inflammation and necrosis syndrome (SINS) is a newly identified syndrome in swine that can affect different parts of the extremities in suckling piglets. This study investigates the hypotheses that the clinical signs of SINS have histological equivalents, that SINS can also be observed in weaners and fatteners, that improving sow quality and husbandry (here the supply of water and fibre) can reduce the signs, and that coprostasis in sows is significantly associated with SINS in their offspring. From a cohort of 123 hybrid sows, the twenty sows exhibiting the best conditions and the twenty exhibiting the worst conditions were selected based on detailed scores from coronary bands, soles, heels, claws and teats. Half of the sows in each group, along with their offspring, were kept under conventional conditions, while the environment for the remaining sows in each group was improved with drinking bowls, water disinfection and additional feeding with hay and straw. In total, 115 suckling piglets, 113 weaners and 103 fatteners were scored for the degree of inflammation and necrosis of their tails, ears, teats, coronary bands, soles, heels and claws.

RESULTS: The clinical signs of SINS are associated with inflammatory signs at the histological level. SINS scores in suckling piglets, weaners and fatteners derived from low-quality sows under standard husbandry conditions were high, but they decreased significantly when husbandry was improved (water consumption and additional fibre). Sow quality had significant effects on suckling piglets and weaners under standard husbandry conditions. Coprostasis in sows led to significantly higher SINS scores in their offspring at any age. Improved husbandry conditions were associated with a reduced prevalence of coprostasis (R

CONCLUSION: The present study shows that SINS is not limited to suckling piglets but can also be found in weaners and fatteners. Coprostasis in sows is significantly correlated with SINS in their offspring and adds a good prognostic tool. Water supply and fibre could play a crucial role in combatting the syndrome.

Keywords: Animal welfare; Clinical study; Coprostasis; Histopathology; Swine inflammation and necrosis

References

  1. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(8):1069-76 - PubMed
  2. J Anim Sci. 2014 Nov;92(11):5193-202 - PubMed
  3. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 18;14:189 - PubMed
  4. Metabolism. 2020 Feb;103:154041 - PubMed
  5. Animals (Basel). 2017 Nov 27;7(12): - PubMed
  6. Acta Vet Scand. 1995;36(4):499-508 - PubMed
  7. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 1998 Nov;26(6):332-8 - PubMed
  8. Vet Microbiol. 2009 Nov 18;139(3-4):279-83 - PubMed
  9. J Anim Sci. 2012 Dec;90 Suppl 4:257-9 - PubMed
  10. Am J Vet Res. 1985 Jan;46(1):175-80 - PubMed
  11. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1988 Mar-Apr;7(2):225-8 - PubMed
  12. Mycotoxin Res. 2014 Aug;30(3):161-70 - PubMed
  13. J Anim Sci. 2013 Jan;91(1):276-85 - PubMed
  14. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009 May 15;237(1):41-8 - PubMed
  15. Nord Vet Med. 1978 Nov;30(11):465-73 - PubMed
  16. J Biomed Sci. 2018 Nov 9;25(1):79 - PubMed
  17. Theriogenology. 1985 Feb;23(2):283-96 - PubMed
  18. Aust Vet J. 1971 Nov;47(11):529-37 - PubMed
  19. Prev Vet Med. 2017 Oct 1;146:34-43 - PubMed
  20. Vet J. 2010 Nov;186(2):137-47 - PubMed
  21. Diseases. 2019 Nov 12;7(4): - PubMed
  22. Mycotoxin Res. 2014 Aug;30(3):171-86 - PubMed
  23. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2015 Dec;157(12):689-96 - PubMed
  24. Can Vet J. 2013 May;54(5):491-5 - PubMed
  25. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 01;8(8):e70215 - PubMed
  26. Aust Vet J. 2007 May;85(5):169-76 - PubMed
  27. Porcine Health Manag. 2016 Sep 14;2:21 - PubMed
  28. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 1999 Apr;27(2):114-21 - PubMed
  29. Vet J. 2012 Dec;194(3):392-7 - PubMed
  30. Vet Rec. 2017 Nov 18;181(20):539 - PubMed
  31. Animal. 2014 Sep;8(9):1479-97 - PubMed
  32. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2003 Oct;26(5):355-60 - PubMed
  33. Br Vet J. 1986 Jul-Aug;142(4):364-70 - PubMed
  34. Vet Res Forum. 2012 Summer;3(3):217-20 - PubMed
  35. Res Vet Sci. 2011 Aug;91(1):125-8 - PubMed
  36. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2015 Nov 15;6(4):99-109 - PubMed
  37. Acta Vet Scand. 1996;37(3):293-313 - PubMed
  38. Animal. 2018 Dec;12(12):2609-2618 - PubMed
  39. J Anim Sci. 2014 Dec;92(12):5444-54 - PubMed
  40. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009 Nov;395(5):1355-72 - PubMed
  41. Animal. 2019 Sep;13(9):2007-2017 - PubMed

Publication Types