IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i11p1143-d679154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Protectivity and Safety of Two Vaccines against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in a Field Study

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Hölzen

    (Vet-Team GmbH, Bokerner Damm 39, 49377 Vechta, Germany)

  • Tobias Warnck

    (Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Ludwigstraße 23, 35390 Gießen, Germany)

  • Steffen Hoy

    (Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Ludwigstraße 23, 35390 Gießen, Germany)

  • Kathleen Schlegel

    (Hochschule Anhalt—Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Strenzfelder Allee 28, 06406 Bernburg (Saale), Germany)

  • Isabel Hennig-Pauka

    (Field Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, 49456 Bakum, Germany)

  • Horst Gaumann

    (Vet-Team GmbH, Bokerner Damm 39, 49377 Vechta, Germany)

Abstract

Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae causing porcine pleuropneumoniae is responsible for lowered productivity and reduction of performance indicators such as daily weight gain and increase of losses in the swine industry worldwide. To control the disease, vaccination is used to reduce clinical signs and production losses. A randomized, blinded field trail was conducted to compare two licensed A. pleuropneumoniae vaccines in 600 finishing pigs in terms of lung lesions, mortality, medication, weight gain and safety, in a farm in northeast Germany. After weaning, pigs were allocated randomly in two groups resulting in group sizes of 300 individuals. Nursery pigs were vaccinated at the age of 7 to 10 weeks either with a A. pleuropneumoniae bacterin, containing ApxI-III toxoids (group 1), or with a subunit purified A. pleuropneumoniae toxoid vaccine (group 2). Blinded lung lesion scoring at slaughter following the Ceva Lung Program methodology revealed a significantly lower proportion of lungs affected with pleurisy in group 1 compared to group 2. Weighing of the animals did not show a significant difference ( p = 0.092); however, at the end of finishing animals of group 1 showed a 1.59 kg higher weight (100.40 ± 10.15 kg) compared to animals in group 2 (98.81 kg ± 11.56 kg). Mortality and antimicrobial medication were significantly lower in group 1 compared to group 2 (13 losses and 17 antimicrobial medications in group 2, 4 losses and 1 antimicrobial medications in group 1). Injection site and systemic adverse reactions were recorded on both days of vaccination and did not differ significantly between the groups ( p > 0.05). In this study, the efficacy of vaccination with a commercially available A. pleuropneumoniae bacterin containing ApxI-III toxoids was superior to that of a commercially available A. pleuropneumoniae subunit toxoid vaccine in preventing pulmonary lesions associated with A. pleuropneumoniae infection.Grzegorz Woźniakowski

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Hölzen & Tobias Warnck & Steffen Hoy & Kathleen Schlegel & Isabel Hennig-Pauka & Horst Gaumann, 2021. "Comparison of Protectivity and Safety of Two Vaccines against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in a Field Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1143-:d:679154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1143/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1143/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1143-:d:679154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.