Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Eric J. Bush x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

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 sizes.

Design—Survey.

Sample Population—301 farms; 231,016 periparturient sows.

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 2000;216:510–515)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To estimate the annual cost of infections attributable to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus to US swine producers.

Design—Economic analysis.

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)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association