Camprodon, A.; Jordà*, R.
*Corresponding author (ramon.jorda@hipra.com)
HIPRA, Amer (Girona), Spain
INTRODUCTION
Vaccination against Swine Erysipelas (SE), Porcine Parvovirus (PPV) and Leptospira infections in sows during lactation is part of the infertility prevention plan on pig breeding farms1-3. The safety of reproductive vaccines is a concern, because the risk of postinoculation side effects during this phase may affect the sow’s milk production and consequently, the piglets’ performance. ERYSENG® PARVO is a new vaccine against SE and PPV adjuvanted with HIPRAMUNE® Gd.
The aim of this study was to compare the safety of ERYSENG® PARVO versus two commercial reproductive vaccines against SE, PPV and Leptospira in gilts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Safety was assessed in 4 groups (G1-G4) of 10 gilts each. G1- G3 were injected intramuscularly with vaccine A (ERYSENG® PARVO), vaccine B or vaccine C, respectively. The vaccines were administered twice (V1 and V2) three weeks apart, following the manufacturer’s instructions. The control group (G4) received PBS. Safety was evaluated by recording rectal temperatures (RT) and systemic and local reactions after each shot.
RESULTS
The highest mean RT values were recorded at 6 hours postvaccination (hpv). They exceeded the physiological range (>40ºC) in G2 and G3, and were significantly higher than G1 and G4 (p<0.05). At this point, ≥ 80% of sows in G2 and 100% in G3 showed a
substantial increase in RT (>40ºC) after each shot.
Similarly, the rise in RT over the basal RT (pre-V1 and pre-V2) in G2 and G3 at 6 hpv, showed a statistically significant increase compared to G1 and G4 in V1 and V2 (p<0.05).
As regards local reactions after injection, G3 had a larger number of affected animals (> 80.0%) and longer lasting local reactions (>72 hpv) than G4 (p<0.05). No significant differences between G1 and G2 were observed in comparison with G4. Two sows in G3 showed depression at 6 and 24 hpv after the booster (V2).
CONCLUSIONS
This study reveals significant differences between three widely used reproductive vaccines in terms of post-injection side effects under field conditions. The data presented shows the optimum performance obtained with the new vaccine ERYSENG® PARVO, with
safer results than its competitors.
Further studies would be required to identify if the causes of these safety differences are due to Leptospira antigens and/or the adjuvant of each vaccine.
These differences may be important during the lactation period because they could trigger lower feed intake by the sow, affect the sow’s milk production4 and consequently result in a lower weight gain by the piglets.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank UCAM, CEYC and DIAGNOS staff from HIPRA for their technical assistance.
REFERENCES
1Adler B and De la Peña Moctezuma A, 2010, Vet Microbiol., 140:292-4.
2Mengeling WL et al., 1979 Am J Vet Res., 40(2):204-7.
3Haesebrouck F et al., 2004, Vet Microbiol., 100:260-1.
4 Pluske, JR. et al., 1998. Journal of Animal Science. 76: 1165-71.
