Until a year ago, the only way of fighting the disease was by using medication in feed or water. But with the arrival of Enterisol® ileitis, swine technicians have a new instrument for fighting the problems caused by this disease and which can entail major economic losses for the producer.

The objective of this study was to compare the results obtained after vaccination on three commercial farms monitored by the MAPORC team of swine consultants in the Segovia area, evaluating the results and the benefits obtained in the different cases.

In all cases, the problems began in October 2005, coinciding with the advent of Enterisol® Ileitis on the market. It was first used on farm 1 and subsequently on those where the problem had not been controlled with medication.

The costs of the medication reported in these trials include the medication costs of the different starter, pre-fattening and fattening feeds with different concentrations of drugs that fight against enteric diseases (oxytetracycline and tylosin, lincomycin, valnemulin, tiamulin and zinc oxide), besides the costs of the injectable (tylosin and enrofloxacin), and soluble medicines (tylosin, colistin, neomycin, lincomycin and spectinomycin).

FARM 1

The facility was a sanitised, genetic-management closed farm of 800 sows, operating in three-week periods.

The animals were positive only to Lawsonia intracellularis and Streptococcus suis, and were negative to the other frequent conditions in swine. They had been positive for Lawsonia since they arrived, and in the feeding place problems due to ileitis had always been present. But there had been an increase in mortality since October 2005, and a substantial decrease in animal growth.

This was the first farm vaccinated in October 2005. Vaccination was performed on the piglets individually with an oral syringe.

The results of the vaccination on this farm were excellent (Table 1). Five months after the beginning of vaccination, the data indicate a very substantial reduction in the percentage of deaths (67 per cent) and in animal delayed growth (97 per cent). Medication costs fell by 64 per cent.

Finally, the results also indicate a substantial improvement in all animal growth (+12 per cent). The economic return of vaccination with Enterisol® Ileitis is very positive.

FARM 2

Farm 2 was a closed farm of 120 sows. On this farm the feed had never been medicated before the condition appeared in the feeding place. However, the disease circulated continuously due to pregnancy, accounting for two per cent of sow deaths.

Vaccination started on this farm in January 2006.

Post-vaccination results have been very good (Graph 1). Vaccination has made it possible to withdraw medication from feed, maintaining only some medications in water for episodes of colibacillar diarrhoea in fattening pigs, and periodically in piglets. An important reduction in the percentage of deaths has also been observed.

Consumption of medicine on the farm peaked in January, surpassing €1500 in products for enteric problems alone. By April, all the piglets had been vaccinated (bright yellow columns in Graph 1) and the vaccinated piglets began to enter the feeding place (yellow columns in Graph 1). By June, all the swine in the feeding place had been immunised with Enterisol® Ileitis and there was a decrease in mortality and a return to regular consumption of medication, now mainly due to the cost of the vaccine.

Graph 1: Cost of the medication (Euros/month) and percentage of deaths before and after vaccination on Farm 2.

FARM 3

Farm 3 had 400 sows. The presence of swine dysentery (Brachyspira hyodisenteriae) had been diagnosed on this farm for some years, whereby initially we, the consultants, thought that vaccination might entail an added cost to medication expenses.

Historically, the percentage of mortality between weaning and the slaughterhouse was very high, surpassing 25% in some months (October 2005 and January 2006).

Vaccination on this farm began in February 2006. By April all the piglets had been vaccinated and by August all the animals of the feeding place.

The results (Graph 2) indicate that medication costs have decreased, even with the presence of dysentery on the farm. Consumption of medication was higher before vaccination started, and fell as more animals were immunised with Enterisol® Ileitis. The number of deaths also dropped very substantially, reaching seven per cent in August.

Graph 2: Consumption of medicines (Euros/month) and percentage of deaths before and after the vaccinations on Farm 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The first field experiences of our team of consultants in the Segovia area allow us to state that in order to obtain good results with the vaccinations of Enterisol® Ileitis:

1. The ileitis must be properly diagnosed, and the existence of other digestive conditions on the farm should be known.
2. The sanitation of the drinking water, particularly in transition and fattening, must be very strictly controlled.
3. Post-vaccination results improve faster as the number of vaccinated animals increases. For this reason, not all medication should be withdrawn from the first animals vaccinated, but should be withdrawn gradually, and as infection pressure falls.
4. The vaccination of individual batches does not usually bring good results. It is important that infection pressure be reduced in transition and fattening.
5. The experience of the vaccinations of future breeders before they are brought to the farm was also very positive.
6. The drop in the percentage of deaths, the reduction of retarded animals in the feeding place and the consumption of medicine is farm-specific, although, and as was seen on Farm 1, where the animals were weighed and monitoring was more exhaustive, the economic return from vaccination with Enterisol® Ileitis is very substantial.