Evaluation of the prevalence of stomach ulcers in slaughtered pigs in a Swiss -abattoir

INTRODUCTION

The development of gastric ulcers in pigs has various reasons. In Switzerland, the last survey on the prevalence of gastric ulcers and possible risk factors was performed in 2005. We aimed to reassess gastric ulcers prevalence today, in 2021. A total of 1005 stomachs from fattening pigs from 136 batches and around 87 herds were evaluated at a Swiss abattoir. The Pars oesophagea of the stomach was scored from 0=healthy to 10=severe ulceration and strictures. Scores were compared between pigs produced under the labels «Integrierte Produktion Schweiz» (IPS, n=242 stomachs, 18 farms) and «Qualitätsmanagement-Schweizerfleisch» (QM, n=649, 58 farms) and others (n=114). The results showed a prevalence of 27,2 % mild mucosal changes (Scores 1-3), 14,9 % moderate mucosal changes (Scores 4-6) and 19,1 % severe mucosal changes (Scores 7-10). Only 38,8 % of the stomachs were rated 0 and thus considered healthy. Compared to the results from 2005, there is no difference concerning the lowest scores (0-2) and the highest scores (9-10). However, there was a shift from the medium scores (3-4) to higher scores (5-8). Stomach scores turned out to be herd specific. There were differences (p < 0,01) between labels, indicating that IPS pigs had less affected stomachs. Stomachs that were empty at slaughter showed higher scores (p < 0,001). The mean carcass weight of the pigs in the slaughter groups was negatively correlated (p < 0,05) to their median stomach score. Confiscations were not related to stomach scores. The results suggest that pig stomach health has not improved since 2005. The differences between labels seem to have resulted from different regulations prescribing a minimum particle size of enrichment material in IPS. The reasons for gastric ulcer development, including those on the individual herd within label, still have to be further clarified in order to allow targeted countermeasures. Given apparent farm-specificity, scoring of a limited number of stomachs per herd during the slaughter process could facilitate the establishment of a feedback scheme.

[Interventions and treatments of farm animals by non-veterinarians: quo vadis?]

INTRODUCTION

The increasing professionalization and the cost pressure on farms combined with a decreasing availability of veterinary expertise procures the demand for treatments and interventions performed by non-veterinarians. A current survey resulting in 56 responses of food animal practitioners showed that a majority delivered pour-on anthelmintics, drugs for oral application and ointments after respective instruction to farmers. Udder injectors, antimicrobials and vaccines were handled more restrictively, but even hormones were committed by more than half of the veterinarians to livestock owners. In respect to interventions, most practitioners supported that farmers perform functional foot trimming, administration of boli, inseminations, dehorning and castrations of calves. By contrast, many veterinarians refused that farmers apply intravenous injections, insert a trocar or treat sole ulcers. In respect to the future development, implications of non-veterinarian interventions on animal welfare, consumer protection and drug safety have to be considered. Indispensable are qualification and skills of the person performing interventions which can be acquired by certificated training courses. Moreover, a basic conception and taking responsibility in particular for application of veterinary drugs is mandatory - in this respect, at present marked deficits exist among many farmers. Based on the current legal situation, several interventions can be delegated to non-veterinarians, but the technical responsibility for the proper implementation is due to the veterinarian. This includes an evaluation of interventions and treatments on a regular basis together with the farmer. On this basis, the assessment of clinical symptoms as well as the initial treatment can be useful and appropriate to ensure a rapid therapy especially in animals suffering from factorial diseases. Having in mind profound differences in respect to the competence of non-veterinarians, general procedures to deliver drugs and to delegate interventions have to be rejected. Advanced diagnostic procedures and the prescription of veterinary drugs remain an exclusive mission of the veterinarian.

[Pathologic consequences of a severe influenza outbreak (swine virus A/H1N1) under natural conditions in the non-immune sow at the beginning of pregnancy]

Pathological consequences of a severe outbreak of swine influenza (H1N1 virus) in the non immune sow at the beginning of pregnancy, under natural conditions. A sudden acute outbreak of fever, depression, anorexia and coughing in a group of nulliparous sows from a herd that was currently under epidemiological investigation lead to build a particular disposal of observation. The clinical signs were daily recorded including rectal temperature. Blood was taken from the sows at the beginning of the troubles and 3 weeks later for the detection of Aujesky's disease, coronavirus TGE-like, Influenza viruses A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. Viral detection was attempted from nasal swabs and aborted fetuses during the acute phase. The clinical study showed fever reaching near 41 degrees C on most of the pigs and lasting usually from 2 to 5 days. The diagnosis of Influenza (virus swine H1N1) was established both on serology (massive seroconversion) and on the detection of the virus from the nasal swabs and from an aborted fetus. The control of the lungs of sows "not in pig" and culled showed extended lesions of bronchopneumonia and Pasteurella multocida was found. The technical consequences of this severe outbreak of Influenza on reproduction were mainly important at the beginning of pregnancy. Over 13 sows inseminated less than 1 week before the outbreak, only 3 farrowed (respectively 5.5 and 12 piglets); 7 returned to oestrus and 3 "not a pig" at 21 days (echotomography) did not show signs of heat and were culled. Over 8 pregnant sows (1 month of pregnancy), 6 farrowed normal litters and total embryonic resorption occurred in 2 sows. Over 18 pregnant sows (more than 45 days gestation) one aborted.