ASSESSING GASTRIC ULCERATION IN FATTENING PIGS HOUSED WITHOUT OR WITH STRAW AND ADDITIONAL SPACE – A MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSCOPIC STUDY ON A CONVENTIONAL AUSTRIAN FARM

Ines Krauss, Lukas Schwarz, Katharina Schodl, Christian Knecht, René Brunthaler, Barbara Metzler-Zebeli, Christine Leeb, Isabel Hennig-Pauka

Abstract


Gastric ulcerations in finishing pigs can cause growth restriction, sudden death and contamination of the carcass by invading microorganisms. The aim of the study was to compare macroscopic and histological findings of the stomach mucosa in fattening pigs kept at 1m²/pig and provided with long straw (10 groups, 113 pigs) with a control group kept at 0.7m²/pig without straw (11 groups, 120 pigs). At slaughter, the gastric health of pigs was assessed by macroscopic and histological scoring of 233 stomachs ranging from 0 (no alteration of mucosa) to 3 (ulceration). Gastric scores were correlated with organ alterations, carcass lesions and blood parameters. Based onto histological findings after gold standard sensitivity and specificity of macroscopic findings for ulceration (score 3) were 53 % and 98 %, respectively. While the extent of mucosal alterations can be assessed by macroscopic scoring easily at slaughter, histological examination reveals the depth of alterations. Median group prevalences of gastric ulcerations diagnosed by macroscopic examination were 5 % in the control group (range 0–40 %) and 18 % in the straw group (range 0–50 %), with no significant difference between both groups. Macroscopic scores were significantly higher in the straw group. Prevalence of ear-tip lesions was positively correlated with gastric health (p < 0.05). Analysis of particle size distribution in feed revealed, that more than 50 % of the feed consist of particles with less than 0.5 mm in diameter. The fine-ground diet in this herd was therefore identified as an important risk factor for the development of gastric ulceration on this farm.
As a conclusion, the known risk factor of a high proportion of small particles in diet was not compensated by possible positive effects of straw and more space, and should be eliminated with high priority.

Key words: ear tip lesions; histology; mucosa alterations; stomach; straw; swine

 

OCENJEVANJE GASTRIČNIH ULKUSOV PRI PRAŠIČIH PITANCIH, NASTANJENIH Z NASTILJEM ALI BREZ NASTILJA IN DODATNEGA PROSTORA – MAKROSKOPSKA IN MIKROSKOPSKA ŠTUDIJA NA KONVENCIONALNIH AVSTRIJSKIH KMETIJAH

Gastrične ulceracije pri prašičih pitancih v zaključni fazi lahko povzročijo omejevanje rasti, nenadno smrt in kontaminacijo trupa z invazivnimi mikroorganizmi. Cilj raziskave je bil primerjava makroskopskih in histoloških ugotovitev v sluznici želodca pri pitovnih prašičih, ki so nastanjeni na 1m²/prašiča in imajo nastilj sestavljen iz dolge slame (10 skupin, 113 prašičev) v primerjavi s kontrolno skupino, ki je bila nastanjena na 0,7 m²/prašiča in z nastiljem brez slame (11 skupin, 120 prašičev). Pri zakolu je bilo želodčno zdravje prašičev ocenjeno z makroskopskim in histološkim točkovanjem, opravljenem na 233 želodcih, z ocenami, ki se gibljejo od 0 (brez spremembe sluznice) do 3 (ulceracija). Rezultate opazovanj sluznice želodcev smo nato povezali s spremembami organa, poškodbami trupa in krvnimi parametri.
Medtem ko se obseg sprememb sluznice lahko oceni z makroskopskim merjenjem pri zakolu, histološki pregled razkrije globino sprememb. Mediana prevalenca želodčnih ulkusov, diagnosticiranih z makroskopskim pregledom, je bila 5 % v kontrolni skupini (razpon od 0 do 40 %) in 18 % v skupini z nastiljem iz slame (razpon od 0 do 50 %), pri čemer ni bilo opaziti značilne razlike med skupinama. Makroskopski rezultati so bili precej višji v skupini z nastiljem iz slame. Razširjenost poškodb ušes je bila pozitivno povezana z zdravjem želodca (p <0,05). Analiza porazdelitve velikosti delcev v krmi je pokazala, da več kot 50 % krme sestavljajo delci s premerom manj kot 0,5 mm. Prehrana z drobno zmleto krmo je bila v čredi opredeljena kot pomemben dejavnik tveganja za razvoj razjed želodca.
Znani faktor tveganja z velikim deležem majhnih delcev v prehrani ni bil kompenziran z morebitnimi pozitivnimi učinki slame in več prostora, zato ga je treba iz reje čim prej odpraviti.

Ključne besede: poškodbe na vrhu ušesa; histologija; spremembe želodčne sluznice; želodec; slama; prašiči

 


Full Text:

PDF

References


(1) Guise HJ, Carlyle WWH, Penny RHC, et al. Gastric ulcers in finishing pigs: their prevalence and failure to influence growth rate. Vet Rec 1997; 141: 563–6.

(2) Swaby H, Gregory NG. A note on the frequency of gastric ulcers detected during post-mortem examination at a pig abattoir. Meat Sci 2012; 90: 269–71.

(3) Elbers ARW, Hessing MJC, Tielen MJM, et al. Effect of oesophagogastric lesions on growth performance of finishing pigs. Kenya Vet 1984; 18: 87–9.

(4) Straw B, Henry S, Nelssen J, et al. Prevalence of lesions in the pars esophagea of normal and sick pigs. In: Proceedings of the 12th IPVS Congress. The Hague, Netherlands, 1995: 386.

(5) Doster AR. Porcine gastric ulcer. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2000; 16: 163–74.

(6) Embaye H, Thomlinson JR, Lawrence TLJ. Histopathology of oesophagogastric lesions in pigs. J Comp Pathol 1990; 103: 253–64.

(7) Ayles HL, Friendship RM, Ball RO. Effect of dietary particle size on gastric ulcers, assessed by endoscopic examination, and relationship between ulcer severity and growth performance of individually fed pigs. Swine Health Prod 1996; 4: 211–6.

(8) Grosse Liesner V, Taube V, Leonhard-Marek S, et al. Integrity of gastric mucosa in reared piglets: effects of physical form of diets (meal/pellets), pre‐processing grinding (coarse/fine) and addition of lignocellulose (0/2.5%). J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2009; 93: 373–80.

(9) Maxwell CV, Reimann EM, Hoekstra WG, et al. Effect of dietary particle size on lesion development and on the contents of various regions of the swine stomach. J Anim Sci 1970; 30: 911–22.

(10) Wondra KJ, Hancock JD, Behnke KC, et al. Effects of particle size and pelleting on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and stomach morphology in finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 1995; 73: 757–63.

(11) Cole JT, Gookin JL, Gayle JM, et al. Endoscopy via a gastric cannula to monitor the development of ulcers in the pars esophagea in pigs after consumption of a finely ground feed combined with a period of withholding of feed. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63: 1076–82.

(12) Cappai MG, Picciau M, Pinna W. Ulcerogenic risk assessment of diets for pigs in relation to gastric lesion prevalence. BMC Vet Res 2013; 8: e36 (8 pp.). https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-9-36

(13) Mößeler A, Wintermann MF, Beyerbach M, et al. Effects of grinding intensity and pelleting of the diet – fed either dry or liquid – on intragastric milieu, gastric lesions and performance of swine. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2014; 194: 113–20.

(14) Hessing MJC, Geudeke MJ, Scheepens CJ, et al. Mucosal lesions in the pars esophagus in swine: prevalence and the effect of stress. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 1992; 117: 445–50.

(15) Lawrence BV, Anderson DB, Adeola O, et al. Changes in pars esophageal tissue appearance of the porcine stomach in response to transportation, feed deprivation, and diet composition. J Anim Sci 1998; 76: 788–95.

(16) Eisemann JH, Argenzio RA. Effects of diet and housing density on growth and stomach morphology in pigs. J Anim Sci 1999; 77: 2709–14.

(17) Eisemann JH, Morrow WEM, See MT, et al. Effect of feed withdrawal prior to slaughter on prevalence of gastric ulcers in pigs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 220: 503–506.

(18) Guy JH, Rowlinson P, Chadwick JP, et al. Health conditions of two genotypes of growing-finishing pig in three different housing systems: implications for welfare. Livest Prod Sci 2002; 75: 233–43.

(19) Amory JR, Mackenzie AM, Pearce GP. Factors in the housing environment of finisher pigs associated with the development of gastric ulcers. Vet Rec 2006; 158: 260–64.

(20) Bolhuis JE, Van den Brand H, Staals S, et al. Effects of pregelatinized vs. native potato starch on intestinal weight and stomach lesions of pigs housed in barren pens or on straw bedding. Livest Sci 2007; 109: 108–10.

(21) Di Martino G, Capello K, Scollo A, et al. Continuous straw provision reduces prevalence of oesophago-gastric ulcer in pigs slaughtered at 170 kg (heavy pigs). Res Vet Sci 2013; 95: 1271–3.

(22) Jensen KH, Jørgsen L, Haugegaard S, et al. The dose-response relationship between the amount of straw provided on the floor and gastric ulceration of pars oesophagea in growing pigs. Res Vet Sci 2017; 112: 66–74.

(23) Nerbas E. Aktualisierung von Blutparametern beim Schwein: Dissertation. Hannover: University of Veterinary Medicine, 2008.

(24) Mackin AJ, Friendship RM, Wilcock BP, et al. Development and evaluation of an endoscopic technique permitting rapid visualization of the cardiac region of the porcine stomach. Can J Vet Res 1997; 61: 121–7.

(25) Friendship RM. Gastric ulceration in swine. Swine Health Prod 2004; 12: 34–5.

(26) Schleicher S, Scheriau I, Kopacka S, et al. Analysis of the variation in meat inspection of pigs using variance partitioning. Prev Vet Med 2013; 111: 278–85.

(27) Nielsen EK, Ingvartsen KL. Effects of cereal disintegration method, feeding method and straw as bedding on stomach characteristics including ulcers and performance in growing pigs. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2000; 50: 30–8.

(28) Herskin MS, Jensen HE, Jespersen A, et al. Impact of the amount of straw provided to pigs kept in intensive production conditions on the occurrence and severity of gastric ulceration at slaughter. Res Vet Sci 2016; 104: 200–6.

(29) Luthersson N, Nielsen K, Harris P, et al. Risk factors associated with equine gastric ulceration syndrome (EGUS) in 201 horses in Denmark. Equine Vet J 2009; 41: 625–30.

(30) Mattiello S, Canali E, Ferrante V, et al. The provision of solid feeds to veal calves: II. Behavior, physiology, and abomasal damage. J Anim Sci 2002; 80: 367–75.

(31) Ekkel ED, Savenije B, Schouten WGP, et al. Health, welfare, and productivity of pigs housed under specific-stress-free conditions in comparison with two-site systems. J Anim Sci 1996; 74: 2081–7.

(32) Bergeron R, Badnell-Waters AJ, Lambton S, et al. Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function. In: Mason G, Rushen J, eds. Stereotypic animal behaviour. Fundamentals and applications to welfare. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CABI, 2006: 19–57.

(33) Cheeke PR, Dierenfeld ES. Digestive physiology: autoenzymatic digesters. In: Cheeke PR, Dierenfeld ES, eds. Comparative animal nutrition and metabolism. Wallingford: CABI, 2010: 11–21.

(34) Dybkjaer L, Vraa-Andersen L, Pailey LG, et al. Associations between behaviour and stomach lesions in slaughter pigs. Prev Vet Med 1994; 19: 101–12.

(35) Bindelle J, Leterme P, Buldgen A. Nutritional and environmental consequences of dietary fibre in pig nutrition: a review. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 2008; 12: 69–80.

(36) Kirchgessner M, Stangl GI, Schwarz FJ, et al. Schweinefütterung. In: Kirchgessner M, Hrsg. Tierernährung: Ein Leitfaden für Studium, Beratung und Praxis. 14. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: DLG-Verlags, 2014: 243–354.

(37) Noblet J, Le Goff G. Effect of dietary fibre on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 2001; 90: 35–52.

(38) Kamphues J, Coenen M, Wolf P, et al. Ernährung verschiedener Spezies. In: Kamphues J, Hrsg. Supplemente zur Tierernährung für Studium und Praxis. 12. Aufl. Hannover: M. & H. Schaper, 2014: 296.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26873/SVR-444-2017

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


SLOVENIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH, Veterinary Faculty
Gerbičeva 60, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, T: +386 (0)1 47 79 100, 47 79 129, F: +386 (0)1 28 32 243, E: slovetres@vf.uni-lj.si
Published by computing.si