Objective—To determine types and doses of
injectable medications given to periparturient sows
and reasons for administering those medications, and
to compare medication practices among farms of different
Procedure—A survey was used to obtain information
regarding medications given to sows during the farrowing
period. State and federal veterinary medical
officers completed surveys during their final interview
with producers who had participated in the National
Animal Health Monitoring System's (NAHMS) Swine
95 study. Data were summarized and treatment regimens
compared among farms of different sizes.
Results—More than a third of the sows received
medications during the farrowing period. The most
common reasons for administering medications were
routine preventive treatment and treatment of dystocia,
uterine discharge, and poor appetite. The most
commonly used medications for treatment of sick
sows were oxytocin, procaine penicillin G, and B vitamins.
A high percentage of medications were either
not indicated for the specific condition or used at
greater or less than the approved dose. In general,
treatment rates and medications used did not differ
among farms of different sizes.
Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—Better treatment
protocols are needed to provide more appropriate
treatment of sick sows. (J Am Vet Med Assoc
Objective—To estimate the annual cost of infections
attributable to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome
(PRRS) virus to US swine producers.
Sample Population—Data on the health and productivity
of PRRS-affected and PRRS-unaffected breeding
herds and growing-pig populations were collected
from a convenience sample of swine farms in the
midwestern United States.
Procedure—Health and productivity variables of
PRRS-affected and PRRS-unaffected swine farms
were analyzed to estimate the impact of PRRS on
specific farms. National estimates of PRRS incidence
were then used to determine the annual economic
impact of PRRS on US swine producers.
Results—PRRS affected breeding herds and growing-pig
populations as measured by a decrease in reproductive
health, an increase in deaths, and reductions
in the rate and efficiency of growth. Total annual economic
impact of these effects on US swine producers
was estimated at $66.75 million in breeding herds and
$493.57 million in growing-pig populations.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—PRRS imposes
a substantial financial burden on US swine producers
and causes approximately $560.32 million in
losses each year. By comparison, prior to eradication,
annual losses attributable to classical swine fever
(hog cholera) and pseudorabies were estimated at
$364.09 million and $36.27 million, respectively
(adjusted on the basis of year 2004 dollars). Current
PRRS control strategies are not predictably successful;
thus, PRRS-associated losses will continue into
the future. Research to improve our understanding of
ecologic and epidemiologic characteristics of the
PRRS virus and technologic advances (vaccines and
diagnostic tests) to prevent clinical effects are warranted.
(J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:385–392)