its management and treatment history.
○ Results • Overall, 71.4% of the farms and 50.1% of the litters were positive for C. suis at least once; the prevalence on the farms varied from 0.0 to100%.
• Diarrhoea was seen in samples from 53.1% of the farms (9.6% of the litters) and C. suis was diagnosed on 80.8% of the farms, of those diagnosed with C. suis, 60.8% of them did not have diarrhoea.
• There was not a significant correlation between C. suis positivity and the number of faeces samples scored as diarrhoeic, but samples from litters with a reported previous occurrence of diarrhoea were significantly more often positive (p = 0.003).
• Pasty faeces had significantly more positive results than the other sample consistencies (p = 0.000).
• Oral treatment with toltrazuril was applied on 30 farms and of these, 53.3% had diarrhoeic samples and 66.7% were positive for C. suis compared to 19 farms that did not use toltrazuril in which 52.6% had diar- rhoeic samples and 79.0% were positive for C. suis (p > 0.005).
• A disinfectant with activity against coccidia was used only on two farms, and C. suis was not detected in these cases.
○ Conclusions The C. suis control programmes appeared to be insuffi- cient on most of the farms examined, even though most of them used a coccidiosis control programme based on oral treatment with toltrazuril. These findings highlight the importance of the correct application of medications (dose and timing) and effective accompanying hygiene management. To maintain effective parasite control, effi- cacy monitoring for the control measures should also be implemented. Late treatment with oral toltrazuril may be less effective, probably because of the under-dosing of piglets when fixed doses are used.
Figure 4 - Level of iron deficiency anaemia according to the product type and route of administration. Based on percentage of anaemic piglets at the time of weaning, Gleptoferron outperformed the other products tested. 40%
34.3% (70) 20%
Figure 3 - Haemoglobin levels in different countries included in the survey, shown at different anaemia thresholds (10 g/dL and 9 g/dL).
15
10
Anemia threshold at 10 Anemia threshold at 9
5
0
Austria Belgium Czech Denmark France Country
Country
Austria France
Belgium Germany
Czech Republic Holland
Denmark Portugal
○ Field evaluation of the haemoglobin levels at weaning in EU countries (Šperling et al., 2020) IDA is the most recognised clinical condition in fast-growing piglets and is currently considered an emerging problem in the main swine-producing coun- tries worldwide, including in the EU. The most common parameter used to detect IDA is Hb concentration. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of IDA in selected EU countries and to identify its main associated risk factors.
○ Material and methods Eight countries were included in this survey, and 2,349 piglets (one large, one medium, and one small piglet per litter) were tested (Austria n = 90, Belgium n = 300, the Czech Republic n = 510, Denmark n = 300, France n = 360, Germany n = 210, Holland n = 291, and Portugal n = 288). Litters from different parity sows were random- ly selected (10 litters/30 piglets per farm) and Hb was measured with a HemoCue® (Hb 201+). Piglet anaemia was classified as follows: Hb < 90 g/litre = anaemic, Hb ≥ 90 g/litre and < 110 g/litre = suboptimal, and Hb ≥ 110 g/litre = optimal. The effects of the piglet size, iron type, and sow parity were also evaluated.
16.2% (180) 7.9% (65) 0% Dextran Gleptoferron Iron treatment Oral
○ Results In total, 14.7% (317) piglets were anaemic in this survey, and there were significant differences between the countries (p < 0.0001). The highest prevalence of IDA was observed in Belgium and France (34% and 18.1%, re- spectively) where the oral form of iron was frequently
5 Germany Holland Portugal
Percentage of anemia (hb < 9)
Hemoglobin level
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
