Perception about the Major Health Challenges in Different Swine Production Stages in Spain
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire Description and Distribution
- General questions: Number of farms, number of sows (1) or animals (2), (3) and location.
- Frequency of occurrence of each pathogen: The responses correspond to the frequency with which the participants encountered the pathogens on all the farms they manage. It was measured with the 6-point Likert scale, although it does not correspond to the objective measure of frequency. A range of 0 to 5 was established to determine the frequency of occurrence of each pathogen/disease, with 1 being very infrequent, 5 very frequent, and 0 never observed.
- The most significant pathogen/disease: Among those selected with a 5.
- Most used tools for controlling these pathologies: Vaccination, antibiotic treatment, sacrifice, other.
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Gestation and Lactation
3.1.1. Frequency of the Pathologies
3.1.2. Importance of the Pathologies According to Responses of Participants
3.1.3. Most Used Tools
3.2. Nursery
3.2.1. Frequency of the Pathologies
3.2.2. Importance of the Pathologies According to Responses of Participants
3.2.3. Most Used Tools
3.3. Fattening
3.3.1. Frequency of the Pathologies
3.3.2. Importance of the Pathologies According to Responses of Participants
3.3.3. Most Used Tools
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Opriessnig, T.; Giménez-Lirola, L.G.; Halbur, P.G. Polymicrobial respiratory disease in pigs. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2011, 12, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauffold, J.; Wehrend, A. Reproductive disorders in the female pig: Causes, manifestation, diagnostics and approach in herd health care. Tierarztl. Prax. Ausg. G. Grosstiere Nutztiere 2014, 42, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
- Holtkamp, D.J.; Kliebenstein, J.B.; Neumann, E.J.; Zimmerman, J.J.; Rotto, H.F.; Yoder, T.K.; Wang Ch Yeske, P.E.; Mowrer, C.L.; Haley, C.A. Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on United States pork producers. J. Swine Health Prod. 2013, 21, 72–84. [Google Scholar]
- Nathues, H.; Alarcon, P.; Rushton, J.; Jolie, R.; Fiebig, K.; Jimenez, M.; Geurts, V.; Nathues, C. Cost of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus at individual farm level—An economic disease model. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 142, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thacker, E.; Minion, F.C. Streptococcus suis. In Diseases of the Swine, 11th ed.; Gottschalk, M., Segura, M., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 934–945. [Google Scholar]
- Brockmeier, S.L.; Halbur, P.G.; Thacker, E.L. Porcine respiratory disease complex. In Polymicrobial Diseases; Brogden, K.A., Guthmiller, J.M., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 231–258. [Google Scholar]
- VanderWaal, K.; Deen, J. Global trends in infectious diseases of swine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11495–11500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bach, K.E.; Jørgensen, H. Digestive Physiology of Pigs; Lindberg, J.E., Ogle, B., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 109–120. [Google Scholar]
- Robbins, R.C.; Almond, G.; Byers, E. Swine Diseases and Disorders. Encycl. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroll, J.J.; Roof, M.B.; Hoffman, L.J.; Dickson, J.S.; Harris, D.L.H. Proliferative enteropathy: A global enteric disease of pigs caused by Lawsonia intracellularis. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2005, 6, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alvarez-Ordóñez, A.; Martínez-Lobo, F.J.; Arguello, H.; Carvajal, A.; Rubio, P. Swine Dysentery: Aetiology, Pathogenicity, Determinants of Transmission and the Fight against the Disease. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 1927–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wieler, L.H.; Ilieff, A.; Herbst, W.; Bauer, C.; Vieler, E.; Bauerfeind, R.; Failing, K.; Klös, H.; Wengert, D.; Baljer, G.; et al. Prevalence of enteropathogens in suckling and weaned piglets with diarrhoea in Southern Germany. J. Vet. Med. B 2001, 48, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segura, M.; Aragon, V.; Brockmeier, S.L.; Gebhart, C.; de Greeff, A.; Kerdsin, A.; O’dea, M.A.; Okura, M.; Saléry, M.; Schultsz, C.; et al. Update on Streptococcus suis Research and Prevention in the Era of Antimicrobial Restriction: 4th International Workshop on S. suis. Pathogens 2020, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA). Principales Indicadores Económicos. El Sector de la Carne de Cerdo en Cifras. 2020. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/estadisticas/indicadoreseconomicossectorporcino2020_tcm30-379728.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2020).
- Meléndez-Arce, R.; Vargas-Leitón, B.; Steeneveld, W.; van Nes, A.; Stegeman, J.A.; Romero-Zuñiga, J.J. Stochastic model to assess bioeconomic impact of PRRS on pig farms in Costa Rica. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023, 220, 106032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corzo, C.A.; Mondaca, E.; Wayne, S.; Torremorell, M.; Dee, S.; Davies, P.; Morrison, R.B. Control and elimination of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Virus Res. 2010, 154, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Havas, K.A.; Brands, L.; Cochrane, R.; Spronk, G.D.; Nerem, J.; Dee, S.A. An assessment of enhanced biosecurity interventions and their impact on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus outbreaks within a managed group of farrow-to-wean farms, 2020–2021. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 9, 952383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lunney, J.K.; Fang, Y.; Ladinig, A.; Chen, N.; Li, Y.; Rowland, B.; Renukaradhya, G.J. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV): Pathogenesis and Interaction with the Immune System. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2016, 4, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arruda, A.G.; Friendship, R.; Carpenter, J.; Greer, A.; Poljak, Z. Evaluation of Control Strategies for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) in Swine Breeding Herds Using a Discrete Event Agent-Based Model. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opriessnig, T.; Wood, R.L. Erysipelas. In Diseases of Swine, 10th ed.; Zimmerman, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.W., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Opriessnig, T.; Forde, T.; Shimoji, Y. Erysipelothrix Spp.: Past, Present, and Future Directions in Vaccine Research. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Segura, M. Streptococcus suis Research: Progress and Challenges. Pathogens 2020, 9, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madsen, L.W.; Nielsen, B.; Aalbæk, B.; Jensen, H.E.; Nielsen, J.P.; Riising, H.J. Experimental infection of conventional pigs with Streptococcus suis serotype 2 by aerosolic exposure. Acta Vet. Scand. 2001, 42, 303–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bonifait, L.; Veillette, M.; Letourneau, V.; Grenier, D.; Duchaine, C. Detection of Streptococcus suis in bioaerosols of swine confinement buildings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 3296–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bossé, J.T.; Janson, H.; Sheehan, B.J.; Beddek, A.J.; Rycroft, A.N.; Kroll, S.; Langford, P.R. Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae: Pathobiology and pathogenesis of infection. Microbes Infect. 2002, 4, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sassu, E.L.; Bossé, J.T.; Tobias, T.J.; Gottschalk, M.; Langford, P.R.; Hennig-Pauka, I. Update on Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae—Knowledge, gaps and challenges. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 72–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiers, K.; Donné, E.; Van Overbeke, I.; Ducatelle, R.; Haesebrouck, F. Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infections in closed swine herds: Infection patterns and serological profiles. Vet. Microbiol. 2002, 85, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karuppannan, A.K.; Opriessnig, T. Lawsonia intracellularis: Revisiting the Disease Ecology and Control of This Fastidious Pathogen in Pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kroll, J.J.; Roof, M.B.; McOrist, S. Evaluation of protective immunity in pigs following oral administration of an avirulent live vaccine of Lawsonia intracellularis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2004, 65, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corn, J.L.; Cumbee, J.C.; Barfoot, R.; Erickson, G.A. Pathogen Exposure in Feral Swine Populations Geographically Associated with High Densities of Transitional Swine Premises and Commercial Swine Production. J. Wildl. Dis. 2009, 45, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Group | Infectious Agent/Pathology | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/R | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | ||
Reproductive | PRRSV | 13.6 | 7.7 | 7.0 | 7.6 | 4.6 | 17.5 | 18.2 | 16.9 | 22.8 | 25.8 | 32.3 | 24.6 | 21.2 | 18.5 | 17.5 | 10.6 | 20.0 | 8.8 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
Respiratory | SIV | 19.7 | 20.0 | 17.5 | 36.4 | 32.3 | 19.3 | 18.2 | 13.8 | 22.8 | 18.2 | 18.5 | 24.6 | 6.1 | 13.8 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
M. hyopneumoniae | 21.2 | 13.8 | 7.0 | 34.8 | 32.3 | 10.5 | 10.6 | 21.5 | 22.8 | 15.2 | 20.0 | 29.8 | 12.1 | 9.2 | 22.8 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 | |
P. multocida | 19.7 | 16.9 | 7.0 | 45.5 | 27.7 | 26.3 | 16.7 | 30.8 | 28.1 | 10.6 | 15.4 | 19.3 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 17.5 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | |
App | 28.8 | 23.1 | 8.8 | 36.4 | 35.4 | 15.8 | 15.2 | 18.5 | 24.6 | 13.6 | 15.4 | 17.5 | 4.5 | 6.2 | 24.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 8.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
B. bronchiseptica | 33.3 | 23.1 | 45.6 | 36.4 | 38.5 | 22.8 | 15.2 | 21.5 | 19.3 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 3.0 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 1.8 | |
Septicemic | G. parasuis | 28.8 | 6.2 | 22.8 | 25.5 | 10.8 | 35.1 | 24.2 | 21.5 | 24.6 | 10.6 | 29.2 | 10.5 | 9.1 | 20.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
S. suis | 7.6 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 13.6 | 4.6 | 29.8 | 22.7 | 7.7 | 26.3 | 19.7 | 21.5 | 17.5 | 19.7 | 23.1 | 10.5 | 15.2 | 40.0 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | |
E. rhusiopathiae | 42.4 | 66.2 | 42.1 | 37.9 | 26.2 | 29.8 | 10.6 | 6.2 | 14.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | |
Digestive | PCV2 | 24.2 | 9.2 | 15.8 | 40.9 | 43.1 | 45.6 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 19.3 | 6.1 | 18.5 | 8.8 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 1.5 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 |
L. intracellularis | 36.4 | 40.0 | 10.5 | 36.4 | 40.0 | 14.0 | 7.6 | 9.2 | 29.8 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 14.0 | 9.1 | 4.6 | 21.2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 8.8 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.8 | |
TGE (Transmissible Gastroenteritis) | 66.7 | 64.6 | 64.9 | 24.2 | 24.6 | 24.6 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 3.1 | 7.0 | |
PED (Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea) | 34.8 | 35.4 | 47.4 | 33.3 | 35.4 | 22.8 | 18.2 | 12.3 | 24.6 | 7.6 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | |
E. coli | 4.5 | 1.5 | 14.0 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 31.6 | 28.8 | 15.4 | 28.1 | 10.6 | 14.6 | 21.1 | 34.8 | 32.3 | 1.8 | 15.2 | 21.5 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | |
C. perfringens type A | 15.2 | 46.2 | 45.6 | 31.8 | 32.3 | 28.1 | 24.2 | 13.8 | 12.3 | 22.7 | 3.1 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 5.3 | |
C. perfringens type C | 18.2 | 44.6 | 38.6 | 19.7 | 32.3 | 33.3 | 30.3 | 12.3 | 14.0 | 15.2 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 6.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 4.6 | 3.5 | |
Coccidia | 9.1 | 72.3 | 77.2 | 30.3 | 20.0 | 14.0 | 25.8 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 16.7 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 5.3 | |
C. difficile | 22.7 | 58.5 | 59.6 | 39.4 | 26.2 | 17.5 | 21.2 | 9.2 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 4.6 | 8.8 | |
Rotavirus | 24.2 | 53.8 | 57.9 | 24.2 | 26.2 | 28.1 | 19.7 | 12.3 | 7.0 | 13.6 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 7.0 | |
Gastric ulcers | 21.2 | 58.5 | 12.3 | 33.3 | 30.8 | 28.1 | 25.8 | 3.1 | 29.8 | 6.1 | 4.6 | 22.8 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 |
Group | Infectious Agent/Pathology | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | N/R | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | G-L | N | F | ||
Reproductive | PRRSV | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 33.3 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
Respiratory | SIV | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 45.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 27.3 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
M. hyopneumoniae | 18.2 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 45.5 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 41.7 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
P. multocida | 18.2 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 36.4 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
App | 9.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 36.4 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 27.3 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 8.3 | |
B. bronchiseptica | 27.3 | 25.0 | 33.3 | 27.3 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 9.1 | 41.7 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 16.7 | |
Septicemic | G. parasuis | 9.1 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 36.4 | 8.3 | 33.3 | 27.3 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 |
S. suis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 27.3 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 41.7 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
E. rhusiopathiae | 27.3 | 58.3 | 33.3 | 36.4 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
Digestive | L. intracellularis | 36.4 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 36.4 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 8.3 |
PCV2 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 41.7 | 18.2 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
TGE (Transmissible Gastroenteritis) | 54.5 | 50.0 | 58.3 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
PED (Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea) | 9.1 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 27.3 | 8.3 | 33.3 | 27.3 | 41.7 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
E. coli | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 25.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 36.4 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
C. perfringens type A | 0.0 | 41.7 | 75.0 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
C. perfringens type C | 0.0 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 9.1 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
Coccidia | 0.0 | 58.3 | 83.3 | 45.5 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
C. difficile | 0.0 | 50.0 | 75.0 | 27.3 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
Rotavirus | 0.0 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 41.7 | 16.7 | 27.3 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 27.3 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |
Gastric ulcers | 18.2 | 58.3 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 16.7 |
Differences | Pathogen | Variable | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Sign. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between consultants and field veterinarians | SIV | Con. | 0.0 | 10.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.045 * |
Vet. | 17.0 | 40.4 | 17.0 | 21.3 | 4.3 | 0.0 | |||
TGE | Con. | 60.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.022 * | |
Vet. | 70.8 | 21.3 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
C. perfringens type A | Con. | 0.0 | 22.2 | 11.1 | 22.2 | 11.1 | 33.3 | <0.001 ** | |
Vet. | 11.7 | 35.1 | 20.2 | 28.7 | 3.2 | 1.1 | |||
C. perfringens type C | Con. | 0.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | 0.049 * | |
Vet. | 16.3 | 18.5 | 35.9 | 17.4 | 6.5 | 5.4 | |||
C. difficile | Con. | 0.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | <0.001 ** | |
Vet. | 17.6 | 40.7 | 29.7 | 7.7 | 4.4 | 0.0 | |||
Between autonomous communities | E. rhusiopathiae | A and C | 24.6 | 47.4 | 10.5 | 15.8 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.045 * |
Rest | 45.9 | 45.9 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
Between size of farms | Rotavirus | 1 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | <0.001 ** |
2 | 77.8 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
3 | 13.3 | 36.7 | 23.3 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 10.0 | |||
4 | 5.9 | 14.7 | 29.4 | 35.3 | 11.8 | 2.9 | |||
5 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 25.0 |
Differences | Pathogen | Variable | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Sign. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between consultants and field veterinarians | M. hyopneumoniae | Con. | 36.4 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 45.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.049 * |
Vet. | 14.6 | 27.0 | 24.7 | 18.0 | 14.6 | 1.1 | |||
PED | Con. | 18.2 | 9.1 | 54.5 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.031 * | |
Vet. | 32.2 | 37.9 | 14.9 | 9.2 | 1.1 | 4.6 | |||
C. perfringens type A | Con. | 45.5 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.006 * | |
Vet. | 44.2 | 31.4 | 18.6 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | |||
C. difficile | Con. | 54.5 | 18.2 | 9.1 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.021 * | |
Vet. | 56.5 | 32.9 | 9.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
Between autonomous communities | SIV | A and C | 20.8 | 37.5 | 10.4 | 25.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.017 * |
Rest | 16.7 | 21.4 | 26.2 | 11.9 | 23.8 | 0.0 | |||
L. intracellularis | A and C | 38.8 | 30.6 | 8.2 | 12.2 | 10.2 | 0.0 | 0.021 * | |
Rest | 35.7 | 45.2 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | |||
PED | A and C | 42.6 | 36.2 | 8.5 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.044 * | |
Rest | 16.7 | 35.7 | 26.2 | 11.9 | 2.4 | 7.1 |
Differences | Pathogen | Variable | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Sign. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between consultants and field veterinarians | C. perfringens type C | Con. | 50.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.017 * |
Vet. | 37.2 | 33.3 | 11.5 | 16.7 | 1.3 | 0.0 | |||
Between autonomous communities | SIV | A and C | 17.1 | 24.4 | 31.7 | 22.0 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0.045 * |
Rest | 13.5 | 10.8 | 29.7 | 16.2 | 29.7 | 0.0 | |||
L. intracellularis | A and C | 9.3 | 7.0 | 32.6 | 25.6 | 11.6 | 14.0 | 0.006 * | |
Rest | 5.4 | 18.9 | 37.8 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 8.1 | |||
G. parasuis | A and C | 34.9 | 39.5 | 23.3 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.008 * | |
Rest | 13.5 | 35.1 | 21.6 | 18.9 | 10.8 | 0.0 | |||
PED | A and C | 60.5 | 23.3 | 14.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.002 ** | |
Rest | 21.6 | 24.3 | 45.9 | 2.7 | 5.4 | 0.0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meléndez, A.; Tejedor, M.T.; Mitjana, O.; Falceto, M.V.; Garza-Moreno, L. Perception about the Major Health Challenges in Different Swine Production Stages in Spain. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11020084
Meléndez A, Tejedor MT, Mitjana O, Falceto MV, Garza-Moreno L. Perception about the Major Health Challenges in Different Swine Production Stages in Spain. Veterinary Sciences. 2024; 11(2):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11020084
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeléndez, Alba, María Teresa Tejedor, Olga Mitjana, María Victoria Falceto, and Laura Garza-Moreno. 2024. "Perception about the Major Health Challenges in Different Swine Production Stages in Spain" Veterinary Sciences 11, no. 2: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11020084