Batch medication of intestinal infections in nursery pigs-A randomised clinical trial on the efficacy of treatment strategy, type of antibiotic and bacterial load on average daily weight gain

Prevalences and excretion levels of Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira pilosicoli and Escherichia coli F4 and F18 in fecal sock samples from Danish weaner and finisher pig batches and the association with diarrhea

Background

Bacterial enteritis in growing pigs is a matter of concern in Danish pig production challenging herd health as well as production economy, and antimicrobial usage. The aim of this observational study using fecal sock samples was to determine the prevalence and excretion level of Lawsonia intracellularis (LI), Brachyspira pilosicoli (BP), Escherichia coli F4 (F4) and F18 (F18) and to investigate associations between prevalence or excretion levels of the bacteria and diarrhea. The study was performed in the late weaner and the early finisher period in herds with a history of diarrhea. Every weaner and finisher herd contributed with one sample each.

Results

In total, 47 weaner and 59 finisher herds were sampled. The overall prevalence and excretion levels (median and range in log(10) copies/gram of feces) were for LI 84.0% (median 6.2; range 3.0–7.7), for BP 45.2% (median 5.6; range 3.0–6.6), for F18 20.8% (median 5.7; range 4.7–7.7), and for F4 4.7% (median 5.5; range 5.2–6.0). In both diarrheic and non-diarrheic samples, the most prevalent bacteria were either LI alone or LI and BP in combination. In general, no association was found between increasing total bacterial excretion levels and diarrhea, but prevalence (p = 0.04) and excretion (p < 0.01) level of F18 was found to be significantly higher in diarrheic samples. Further, a significant association was found between low LI excretion level and lack of diarrhea in weaner herds (p = 0.03). A significant positive correlation was found between excretion levels of LI and BP in diarrheic weaner herd samples (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Enteric pathogens were prevalent in a wide range of bacterial excretion levels in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic samples. Especially LI and BP were frequently found and with a positive correlation between excretion levels. Even in the absence of diarrhea, high prevalence and excretion levels of LI and BP were detected, thus making the status of diarrhea an insufficient tool for assessing the severity of their infections.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

Toward rational selection criteria for selection of probiotics in pigs

An accurate understanding of properties of probiotics is a prerequisite for selecting probiotic organisms for use in swine production. This review aims to review selection criteria for probiotic organism in swine. The systematically investigated ecological history rather than the source of isolates should be regarded as the natural origin of probiotic strains, which helps to correct the inconsistencies arising from incorrect identification of the source. Moreover, in vivo studies are suggested as follow-up assessment to validate the characteristics of probiotic predicted by in vitro experiments. In addition, the intended probiotic effect depends on the age of the animal and disease prevention in young animals may require different probiotic strains when compared to growth promotion in older animals. With adequate selection criteria, the inclusion of probiotic in feed supplementation is a promising way to exert positive effects on sows, newborns, weanling animals and grower-finisher pigs. Both host-adapted probiotics and nomadic probiotics can be applied for pathogen inhibition but host adapted organisms appear to have a different mode of action. Host-adapted probiotic strains are likely to be associated with exclusive colonization while the nomadic or environmental strain exert better immune stimulating functions. Strains with potent enzymatic activity are fitter for grower pigs favoring feed digestion and enhancing growth performance.

Comparison of antimicrobial resistance in E. coli isolated from rectal and floor samples in pens with diarrhoeic nursery pigs in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

The prudent use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine necessitates the selection of antibiotic compounds with narrow-spectrums targeted against the specific pathogens involved. The same pathotype of enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) was recently found both in diarrhoeic pigs and in samples from the pen floor where the pigs were housed. The first objective of this study was to compare resistance profiles from ETEC isolates and Non-ETEC isolates. The second objective was to evaluate the agreement between resistance profiles of ETEC isolated from pen floor samples and from individual rectal samples from pigs. Across three Danish pig herds, faecal samples were collected from the floors of 31 pens that had a within-pen diarrhoea prevalence of >25%, and from rectal samples of 93 diarrhoeic nursery pigs from the same pens. A total of 380 E. coli isolates were analysed by PCR and classified as ETEC when genes for adhesin factors and enterotoxins were detected. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of 13 antimicrobial agents were determined by the broth micro dilution method. Isolates were classified as resistant based on clinical breakpoints.

RESULTS

Based on logistic regression models, the odds of Non-ETEC isolates (n=291) being pan-susceptible were significantly higher compared to ETEC isolates (n=89), (P<0.001, OR=20.22, CI95%=6.35-64.35). The odds of ETEC isolates having multidrug resistance were significantly higher compared to Non-ETEC isolates (p<0.001, OR: 7.21, CI95%: 2.87-18.10). The odds of an isolate being resistant were significantly higher in ETEC isolates compared to Non-ETEC isolates for ampicillin (p<0.001), apramycin (p=0.003), sulphamethoxazole (p<0.001) and trimethoprim (p<0.001). No overlap of resistance patterns between the three study herds was observed in the sampled ETEC isolates. In addition, there was generally good or excellent agreement when comparing resistance profiles from isolates from the same pen (pen floor and pig samples), and perfect agreement (Kappa=1.000, SE=0.316) was observed for ampicillin, apramycin, gentamycin, sulphamethoxazole, tetracycline and trimethoprim.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ETEC isolates were more resistant than Non-ETEC isolates. Furthermore, this study indicates that resistance testing of ETEC isolates from pen floor samples can be used as a convenient sampling method for resistance testing and in the selection of clinically relevant antimicrobial agents in the treatment of diarrhoeic pigs. The herd-level variation of resistance in ETEC isolates emphasises the importance of performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing at farm level when selecting antimicrobial agents for the treatment of E. coli-related diarrhoea.

Comparison of bacterial culture and qPCR testing of rectal and pen floor samples as diagnostic approaches to detect enterotoxic Escherichia coli in nursery pigs

Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) are a major cause of diarrhoea in weaned pigs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement at pen level among three different diagnostic approaches for the detection of ETEC in groups of nursery pigs with diarrhoea. The diagnostic approaches used were: bacterial culturing of faecal samples from three pigs (per pen) with clinical diarrhoea and subsequent testing for virulence genes in E. coli isolates; bacterial culturing of pen floor samples and subsequent testing for virulence genes in E. coli isolates; qPCR testing of pen floor samples in order to determine the quantity of F18 and F4 genes. The study was carried out in three Danish pig herds and included 31 pens with a pen-level diarrhoea prevalence of > 25%, as well as samples from 93 diarrhoeic nursery pigs from these pens. All E. coli isolates were analysed by PCR and classified as ETEC when genes for one or more adhesin factors and one or more enterotoxins were detected.

RESULTS

A total of 208 E. coli colonies from pig samples and 172 E. coli colonies from pen floor samples were isolated. Haemolytic activity was detected on blood agar plates in 111 (29.2%) of the 380 colonies that were isolated. The only adhesin factor detected in this study was F18. When comparing bacterial culture or qPCR testing of pen floor samples with detection of ETEC-positive diarrhoeic pigs by culture, agreement was found in 26 (83.9%, Kappa = 0.665) and 23 (74.2%, Kappa = 0.488) of the pens, respectively. Agreement was observed between the detection of ETEC by bacterial culture and qPCR in the same pen floor sample in 26 (83.9%, Kappa = 0.679) pens.

CONCLUSION

We observed an acceptable agreement for the detection of ETEC-positive diarrhoeic nursery pigs in pen samples for both bacterial culture of pen floor samples and qPCR. This study showed that both bacterial culture and qPCR testing of pen floor samples can be used as a diagnostic approach for detecting groups of ETEC-positive diarrhoeic nursery pigs.