Farm |
L. intracellularis |
B. hyodysenteriae |
B. pilosicoliPositive PCR |
Salmonella sp. Positive pool |
Weeks-old pigs /antibiotic |
1 |
15.8% (19) |
0 |
0 |
16.7% (4) |
8, 9 = A16, 17=T/C |
2 |
10.8% (13) |
0 |
0 |
8.3% (2) |
7, 10= A13, 14= T/C18,19= C/TY |
3 |
7.5% (9) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5, 10, 12= A10, 11, 16, 17= T/C |
4* |
35% (42) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5=A12, 13, 19, 20= T |
5 |
15% (18) |
0 |
0 |
4.2% (1) |
8, 9, 16, 17= A |
6* |
14.2% (17) |
5.9% (7) |
0 |
0 |
10,11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23=L |
7* |
3.8% (3) |
7.4 % (6) |
0 |
6.3% (1) |
7, 8, 14, 16, 19, 20= T |
8* |
24.2% (29) |
0 |
0 |
16.7% (4) |
11, 12, 17, 18=T/C16, 19=N |
Total |
16.3% (150) |
1.41% (13) |
0 |
6.5% (12) |
|
Table 1: Proportion and absolute frequency (between parentheses) of identification of enteropathogens and antibiotic usage in each farm with (*) or without diarrhea
T/C: tiamulin/chlortetracycline (220 ppm + 580 ppm); T: tiamulin (220 ppm);
L: lincomycin (140 ppm); A: amoxicillin (400 ppm); C/TY: chlortetracycline/tylosin (580 ppm +100 ppm) ; N: norfloxacin (400 ppm).
|
Weeks-old pigs |
|
|||||
Farms # |
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
24 |
Serotype Salmonella |
1 |
|
|
|
|
++* |
++* |
Javiana |
2 |
|
|
++** |
|
|
|
Tennessee |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
+** |
Subsp I 3,10:z10:- |
7 |
|
|
|
+** |
|
|
Derby |
8 |
|
+* |
|
+** |
++* |
|
Typhimurium I 4,12:i:- |
Table 2: Salmonella serovars isolated in each farm, number of positive pools by age of pigs with and without diarrhea
Farm |
Stool scores |
|||||||||||||||||
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Total |
||||||||||||
Li |
Bh |
Total |
Li |
Bh |
Total |
Li |
Bh |
Total |
Li |
Bh |
Total |
Li |
Bh |
Total |
Li |
Bh |
Total |
|
1 |
4 |
0 |
65 |
6 |
0 |
32 |
7 |
0 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
19 |
0 |
120 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
62 |
4 |
0 |
38 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
120 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
62 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
4 |
0 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
120 |
4 |
18 |
0 |
66 |
8 |
0 |
25 |
10 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
42 |
0 |
120 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
65 |
8 |
0 |
30 |
4 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
0 |
120 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
66 |
9 |
4 |
45 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
7 |
120 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
39 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
0 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
80 |
8 |
10 |
0 |
59 |
10 |
0 |
34 |
7 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
29 |
0 |
120 |
Total |
53 |
0 |
484(10.9%) |
45 |
4 |
254(17.7%) |
39 |
3 |
153 |
0 |
6 |
14 |
13 |
0 |
15 |
150 |
13 |
920 |
Table 3: Detection frequency of Lawsonia intracellularis (Li) and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae (Bh) and its relationship with stool score (L. intracellularis)
Lawsonia intracellularis detection |
|||
Variable levels |
OR |
95% CI |
|
Farm 1 |
4.5 |
17.4-1.1 |
|
Farm 4 |
14.8 |
54.2-4.0 |
|
Farm 5 |
3.7 |
14.3-1 |
|
Farm 6 |
4.0 |
15.3-1.0 |
|
Farm 8 |
8.8 |
32.8-2.3 |
|
14 weeks of age |
7.4 |
26.1-2.1 |
|
17 weeks of age |
12.3 |
43.1-3.5 |
|
20 weeks of age |
30.8 |
106.1-8.9 |
|
24 weeks of age |
47.4 |
163.1-13.8 |
|
Score 1 |
2.4 |
4.0-1.4 |
|
Score 2 |
4.7 |
8.2-2.7 |
|
Score 4 |
32.1 |
157.2-6.5 |
|
Salmonella sp. isolation |
|||
|
OR |
95% CI |
|
20 weeks of age |
4.6 |
13.6-1.5 |
|
24 weeks of age |
5.4 |
16.7-1.7 |
|
Table 4: Results of logistic regression for L. intracellularis and Salmonella sp.
OR= risk of isolation; CI= confidence interval
Only statistically significant variables are shown.
Tables at a glance