Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDiana, Alessia
dc.contributor.authorBoyle, Laura
dc.contributor.authorLeonard, Finola C
dc.contributor.authorCarroll, Ciaran
dc.contributor.authorSheehan, Eugene
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Declan
dc.contributor.authorManzanilla, Edgar G
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-03T16:03:49Z
dc.date.available2020-07-03T16:03:49Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-26
dc.identifier.citationDiana, A., Boyle, L.A., Leonard, F.C. et al. Removing prophylactic antibiotics from pig feed: how does it affect their performance and health?. BMC Vet Res 15, 67 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1808-xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11019/2155
dc.descriptionpeer-revieweden_US
dc.description.abstractBackground Antibiotics (AB) are an important tool to tackle infectious disease in pig farms; however some research indicates that their frequent mis/over-use may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance and the WHO has declared that this issue should be addressed. Little is known about the long term consequences of withdrawing prophylactic AB from pig feed; hence we aimed to assess its effects on performance and health of pigs from weaning to slaughter. Six batches of 140 pigs each were monitored on a commercial farm through the weaner and finisher stages to slaughter. In-feed antibiotics were not added to the feed for half of the pigs (NOI) and were added in the other half (ABI) within each batch for the whole weaner stage. Individual pigs in both treatments were treated with parenteral administrations if and when detected as ill or lame. Productive performance, parenteral treatments and mortality were recorded on farm and the presence of respiratory disease was recorded at slaughter. Pen was considered the experimental unit. Results ABI pigs showed higher growth (P = 0.018) and feed intake (P = 0.048) than NOI pigs in the first weaner stage but feed efficiency was not affected (NOI = 1.48 vs. ABI = 1.52). Despite an initial reduction in performance, NOI pigs had similar performance in finisher stage (ADG: NOI = 865.4 vs. ABI = 882.2) and minimal effects on health compared to ABI pigs. No difference between treatments was found at the abattoir for the percentage of pigs affected by pneumonia, pleurisy, pleuropneumonia and abscesses (P > 0.05). Mortality rate was not affected by treatment during the weaner stage (P = 0.806) although it tended to be slightly higher in NOI than ABI pigs during the finisher stage (P = 0.099). Parenteral treatments were more frequent in NOI pigs during the weaner stage (P <  0.001) while no difference was recorded during the finisher stage (P = 0.406). Conclusions These data suggest that the removal of prophylactic in-feed antibiotics is possible with only minor reductions in productive performance and health which can be addressed by improved husbandry and use of parenteral antibiotics.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBiomed Centralen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBMC Veterinary Research;
dc.subjectAntibiotic usageen_US
dc.subjectHealthen_US
dc.subjectPerformanceen_US
dc.subjectpigen_US
dc.subjectProphylactic banen_US
dc.subjectSwineen_US
dc.subjectTreatmenten_US
dc.titleRemoving prophylactic antibiotics from pig feed: how does it affect their performance and health?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.date.updated2019-03-03T04:14:18Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s).
dc.identifier.rmis6497
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1808-x
dc.contributor.sponsorTeagasc Walsh Fellowship Programmeen_US
refterms.dateFOA2020-07-03T16:03:49Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
12917_2019_Article_1808.pdf
Size:
601.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record