You are on page 1of 2

Comparative Efficacy of Different One-Dose Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae Vaccines to Lung Score and Performance of Pigs in Field Conditions

Metta Makhanon, Massuda Srisinlapakorn, and Wilasinee Ritthiwigrom Novartis (Thailand) Ltd., Bangkok. metta.makhanon@novartis.com, wilasinee.rithiwigrom@novartis.com

Summary
Vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) by bacterin vaccine is the normal practice in pig farms. The conventional vaccine is a twodose application. The new, more practical vaccination protocol is to use a one-dose application in piglet during weanling1,3. Although many studies showed that M. hyo bacterin vaccination cannot prevent the transmission of M. hyo organisms between pigs, the vaccinated pigs have fewer lung lesions and better ADG than non-vaccinated pigs in the same field conditions1,3,4,7. There are many available one-dose protocol is to use a bacterin

vaccines. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two different one-dose M. hyo vaccines to lung score and performance at slaughter in field conditions.

MSP (conventional vaccine, used on the farm for the past year). All pigs were fed and managed in the same conditions and medication program as shown in Table 1. Lung scoring was conducted at the slaughterhouse by palpation and visually appraisal5. Average ADG, % loss and FCR were measured for the whole group. Statistical analysis of lung scoring and present lung score was calculated by Oneway ANOVA (p<0.05) and Odd Ratio (95% Confidence Interval:CI) to measure the risk of different vaccines.

Materials and Methods


A 2,000 sow farm with breeder and fattening are in different sites. One-dose M. hyo bacterin vaccine was routine application in weanlings before moving to the fattening unit. Two groups of 1,000 weanling pigs were vaccinated with two different M. hyo vaccines, group 1 PneumoStar Myco (Novartis Animal Health Inc., USA) and group 2 Vaccine

Table 1. Feed medication program


Age (wks old) 3-9 Feed Medication None Tiamulin (Denagard) 10-15 Amoxicillin 16-18 19-20 21 till slaughter Amoxicillin CTC None 500 300 400 0 3 wks 2 wks 0 wks ppm 0 200 6 wks Duration (wk) 0 wks

Results and Discussion


Mean lung score, present lung score and performance were showed in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Discussion
In this study the mean lung score of the two groups were significantly different, p<0.001. The Odd Ratio at the value 8

shows that there was an eight-fold increased risk of lung lesions for pigs receiving the Vaccine MSP compared to those receiving PneumoStar Myco6. The average group performance of pigs which received PneumoStar Myco were noteably better. This result appears to support previous studies of risk factors for pig pneumonia1,2,3. Not only is M. hyo vaccination a factor in the risk equation but also different vaccines can result in different levels of

lung lesions and pig performance under the same field conditions and medication program. Furthermore, this study shows that M. hyo vaccination on its own may not be enough to eliminate mycoplasmas and other respiratory diseases in swine herds1,2,4,7. The use of antimicrobial treatment together with M. hyo vaccination was necessary for effective prevention and control of mycoplasmal pneumonia and other respiratory diseases.

Table 2. Mean lung score


Group PneumoStar Myco Vaccine MSP Mean Lung Score 2.12+/-3.856 6.14+/-6.602 p-value <0.001

Table 3. Present lung score


Group PneumoStar Myco Vaccine MSP No. pigs Present Lung Score Lesion 17 40 No Lesion 34 10 (3.236,19.777) Odd ratio (95% CI) 8 <0.001 p-value

Table 4. ADG and FCR performance


Group PneumoStar Myco Vaccine MSP ADG (g/d) 702.55 617.14 % Loss 1.15 3.25 FCR 2.80 2.81
7. Villarreal, I. et al., (2010). Vet. J. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.024.

References
1. Maes, D. et al., (2008). Vet. Microbiol. 126: 297-309. 2. Meyns, T. et al., (2006). Vaccine. 4: 7018-7086. 3. Raynold, S.C. et al., (2009). Vet J. 181: 312-320.

4. Sibila, M. et al., (2007). Vet. Microbiol. 121: 352-356. 5. Thanawongnuwech, R. (2005). PRRS Diagnostic Pathology. Point Graphic, Bangkok. pp 140-144. 6. Thrusfield, M. (2005). Veterinary Epidemiology, 3rd edition. Blackwell Science, UK. pp 305-330.

Denagard is a registered trademark of Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland. 2011 Novartis Animal Health Inc.