Our new contribution to the National Hog Farmer was written by Dr. Talita Resende, a PhD candidate at the University of Minnesota under the supervision of Dr. Connie Gebhart. Talita’s research focuses on swine ileitis and models to better understand its pathogen: Lawsonia intracellularis. Today, she explains how she uses enteroids.
The small intestine is largely responsible for nutrient digestion and absorption in the gastrointestinal tracts of pigs, but it is also an ideal colonization site for enteric pathogens. The investigation of the interactions between host and enteric pathogens can be conducted in vivo, or in vitro, with advantages and disadvantages for each of the models. Enteroids, small intestinal organoids, represent a new in vitro approach to investigate those interactions. But why are enteroids a new approach and what are their advantages in comparison to the current models?
Enteroids are three-dimensional structures originated from embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent cells or adult stem cells from intestinal tissue. Therefore, they present all the cell types and a structural organization similar to crypts and villi found in the small intestine. This complex structure offers ideal conditions to investigate the mechanisms by which Lawsonia intracellularis causes proliferative enteropathy – also known as ileitis – in pigs.
The objectives of the study are to describe the occurrence of PRRSv in the filtered sow herd population within MSHMP and to assess the associations between farm-level factors and the introduction of PRRSv into filtered sow herds. The results of the study may guide practitioners and veterinarians to modify their management and biosecurity practices in filtered sow herds.
Who can enroll?
All filtered sow herds of MSHMP participants will be eligible for the study. The database will be used together with the PRRSv incidence measure to understand occurrence of PRRS before and after filters were installed. A survey has been created to collect farm specific data such as:
Date when herd was filtered
Type of ventilation (negative or positive)
Back draft prevention methodology
Type of pre-filter and filter
Pre-filter and filter replacement frequency
Number of barns and load outs
Frequency of gilt introduction and weaning events
If you are interested in participating, please contact Dr. Cesar Corzo at corzo(at)umn.edu
A fair part of our audience originates from Spanish-speaking countries. Our researchers appreciate your support and your interest in our work. Recently, Drs. Matthew Sturos and Fabio Vannucci published an article in the journal Albeitar regarding Senecavirus A and its tropism for reproductive organs.
Se trata de un virus patógeno emergente en el ganado porcino. En este artículo se proporciona información general sobre el virus y el conocimiento actual de la patogénesis y las características de la enfermedad.
We know that pigs are social animals and that they naturally form social structures to maintain a cohesive group. However, we have little understanding of how those group dynamics affect deleterious behavior like tail-biting. To answer the question of the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs, the researchers created 18 groups of 8 pigs.
6 groups were Littermates: all the 8 pigs were born from and nursed by the same sow.
6 groups were Half-group of littermates: 4 pigs were born from the same sow whereas the 4 others came from the litter of another sow.
6 groups were Non-littermates: all 8 pigs were born from a different sow.
Each group was housed in a nursery pen after weaning where the pigs stayed for the duration of the study until they reached 10 weeks of age. Researchers analyzed growth performances, tail injuries, and behavior.
Growth performances did not differ among groups in this study. However, littermates showed a higher incidence of tail-biting with 15% of the pigs showing chewing or puncture wounds with visible blood but no infection.
Behavior was analyzed by videotaping the pigs 2 weeks after they were placed into their pens, 1 week later when each group was moved together to a new pen and 1 week after the move. The video recordings were viewed by a trained researcher to determine association interactions among pigs. Pigs were considered associated with each other if they were lying together frequently and with more than 50% or more of their bodies in contact with each other. For each pig (white circle in the figure above), researchers measured the direct association between each individual pig and its penmates (1) as well as the peripheral association among the penmates (2).
At the individual pig level, littermates had lower direct association than non-littermates and half-group of littermates, suggesting that littermates might be less socially connected directly among themselves. However, the indirect association among penmates did not vary.
Another interesting observation, although statistically insignificant, is that littermates appeared to spend less time in the lying posture than other groups.
Overall, littermates had a lower strength of social connections, more absent ties, and fewer weak ties, compared to non-littermates and half-group of littermates. Less social connection with pen-mates might predispose pigs in littermate pens to development of tail-biting. Regardless of litter origin, most pigs appeared connected by weak social ties and few pigs formed strong social ties with their pen mates.
The objective of this study was to investigate the association between social structure and incidence of tail-biting in pigs. Pigs (n = 144, initial weight = 7.2 ± 1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates, non-littermates, and half-group of littermates. Six pens (8 pigs/pen) of each litter origin were studied for 6 weeks. Incidence of tail injury and growth performance were monitored. Behavior of pigs was video recorded for 6 h at 6 and 8 weeks of age. Video recordings were scanned at 10 min intervals to register pigs that were lying together (1) or not (0) in binary matrices. Half weight association index was used for social network construction. Social network analysis was performed using the UCINET software. Littermates had lower network density (0.119 vs. 0.174; p < 0.05), more absent social ties (20 vs. 12; p < 0.05), and fewer weak social ties (6 vs. 14, p < 0.05) than non-littermates, indicating that littermates might be less socially connected. Fifteen percent of littermates were identified as victimized pigs by tail-biting, and no victimized pigs were observed in other treatment groups. These results suggest that littermates might be less socially connected among themselves which may predispose them to development of tail-biting.
The majority of veterinarians consider it important to classify sow herd PRRS status.Our survey showed that 8/21 follow AASV guidelines, with the others using alternative criteria.
Half of the surveyed veterinarians use processing fluids as part of their testing protocol for determining sow herd PRRS status.
Most of the respondents mentioned that AASV PRRS classification guidelines should be re-visited.
Twenty-one veterinarians from 12 participant systems and 1 non-participant group completed the questionnaire accounting approximately for 1.5 million sows.
When asked how important it was to classify sow farm PRRS status, 12/21 (57%) answered very important, 8/21 (38%) answered important. Among the most important reasons requiring PRRS status were:
Commingling of pigs downstream,
Timing the Depopulation/Re-population of growing sites with continuous flow, and
Defining gilt acclimation and introduction procedures.
The testing protocol to classify a farm as stable varied across and within systems. However, the most frequent sample collected was due-to-wean blood sampling. Other samples are shown in the figure below.