71 Drug Therapy and
Prophylaxis
Robert M. Friendship and John F. Prescott
This chapter gives an overview of some of the major
drugs and biological agents used in swine, with a partic-
ular focus on antimicrobial drugs and the basic princi-
ples on which effective drug use are based.
USE OF DRUGS: MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS
Managing the effective use of drugs or biological agents
for prevention and treatment of disease is an important
responsibility of swine veterinarians, which involves de-
tailed knowledge of these agents, including the risks in-
volved in their use and the national and sometimes in-
ternational regulations governing their use. The major
regulatory and industry consideration is the production
of safe, uncontaminated meat, followed by considera-
tions of the welfare of the animals, cost, efficacy, and
ease of application. However, many other factors need
to be considered (Table 71.1) before implementing drug
treatment or prophylactic use, with the underlying
recognition that all such use involves a calculation that
benefits of use exceed the risks involved in using most
drugs or biological agents. The underlying goal is to
make the minimum use of drugs in swine consistent
with the production of healthy animals in a humane,
cost-effective, and consumer and environmentally safe
manner. Changes in swine production practices have re-
duced reliance on antimicrobial drugs, but there is still
considerable room for further reduction in their untar-
geted use in many countries.
Routes of Drug Treatment
In general, individual animal treatment through injec-
tion is reserved for serious, rapidly developing infec-
tions such as acute systemic infections (septicemia,
acute pneumonia, or streptococcal meningitis), but
mass medication is preferred because of ease, efficacy,
and lack of necessity to handle and disturb animals.
Intramuscular (IM) injection is preferred for serious in-
fections since it usually results in more complete absorp-
tion of drug and higher tissue concentrations than oral
administration. Parenteral therapy of individual ani-
mals by IM injection is administered just behind the ear
on the lateral side of the neck. This site is chosen in case
the drug preparation causes local tissue damage as well
as to prevent the possible additional effect of sciatic
nerve damage if the ham muscles were used.
Oral medication is easier to apply to groups of pigs
and reduces injection-related problems of broken nee-
dles, abscesses, and tissue damage. Water medication is
a more rapid method of treating a group of sick pigs
than feed medication, with the advantages of immedi-
ate implementation and that sick pigs will drink when
they will not eat. However, the disadvantages are that
not all drugs are water soluble, that water may be spilled,
and that some drug carriers may block nipple watering
systems. Administration of drugs by water is through an
in-line proportioner containing a concentrated drug so-
lution or by a water tank containing the appropriately
dosed drug. Pigs drink about 8–10% of their body
weight daily (Table 71.2), depending on environmental
temperature and palatability of the drug. An approxi-
mate rule is that pigs should be dosed through water at
5–6 liters (1.32 U.S. gallons) per 60 kg weight (145 lbs).
In-feed medication is the most common route of ad-
ministration of anthelmintic and antimicrobial drugs.
The disadvantage for treatment of acute infections is not
only that sick pigs may not eat but also that existing
nonmedicated feed needs to be either removed or eaten.
For this reason, in-feed medication is often reserved for
long term use in the prevention or treatment of chronic
infections.
Principles of Treatment
The general principle of treatment is to maximize thera-
peutic efficacy while minimizing adverse effects such as
toxicity, antimicrobial resistance, harmful tissue resi-
dues, or adverse environmental impact. This implies a
confirmed or reasonable clinical diagnosis with the ac-
tual drug chosen according to the required purpose and
administered to give optimal effect, consistent usually
1131
1132 SECTION V VETERINARY PRACTICE

Table 71.1. Considerations in drug use in swine

Major Consideration Further Considerations

Human safety Direct drug toxicity to user; toxicity to consumer through tissue residues.
Animal welfare Prevention or reduction of disease; ease of administration for animal.
Host damage and adverse effects Direct toxicity to pig; tissue damage; adverse drug interactions. Indirect adverse effects: resistance
in microorganisms; disruption of microflora.
Regulations Availability of products; national regulations on use; international regulations for export; extra-
label drug use (AMDUCA in U.S.); veterinary-client relationship; withdrawal period.
Efficacy and cost Assessment of efficacy; cost: benefit of treatment.
Drug dosage and application Route, ease of administration; physicochemical properties; pharmacokinetic properties; pharma-
codynamic properties.
Principles of treatment Dosage; dosage modification; duration; clinical evidence; drug trial data.
Principles of prophylaxis Dosage; duration; clinical evidence; drug trial data.
Record keeping Drug use records.
Stability of drug Storage conditions.

Table 71.2. Average daily water consumption
Weight or Type of Pig Liters/Head/Day
7–20 kg body weight 2–4
20–50 body weight 4–6
50–100 body weight 6–8
Pregnant sow 8–12
Lactating sow 16–20
with labeled dosage and always within regulations con-
cerning the use of the drugs. For antimicrobial drugs,
discussed below, many of the principles of optimal treat-
ment are well established. Duration of treatment de-
pends on the drug and disease process but should be
based on scientific data and/or on clinical experience.
Evaluation of Clinical Trials
The best method for evaluating animal health interven-
tions and to guide clinical decision-making is to con-
duct on-farm clinical trials (Dohoo et al. 2003). In a clin-
ical trial, exposure to disease occurs naturally and the
pigs are housed and managed under normal farm condi-
tions but the treatment is randomly assigned with a sec-
ond group used as a control population. Clinical trials
are difficult to conduct and there is considerable poten-
tial for errors in design and misinterpretation of find-
ings. The consequences of these failings may be inap-
propriate therapeutic recommendations and overall
lack of success in treatment programs. Practitioners
need to be aware of proper methodology as it relates to
design and interpretation in order to evaluate therapeu-
tics either by conducting a trial on a client’s farm, or in
interpreting claims for a new drug as presented by a
pharmaceutical company.
First, a study should have a limited number of objec-
tives, generally one primary and possibly two or three
secondary objectives, and these must be clearly stated
(Dewey 1999). For example, a trial examining the use of
a drug to control pneumonia in a finishing unit might
have decreased mortality as its primary objective, and as
secondary objectives the researchers may be interested
in improved growth rate and reduced weight variation.
The design of the trial would likely be different if the pri-
mary objective was reduced weight variation.
Other important elements of a clinical trial include a
defined study population, random allocation of sub-
jects, masking or blinding of the observer, thorough
follow-up, and appropriate analysis (Dewey 1999). A
common error in the design of a trial is to base the sta-
tistical analysis on individual pigs but to assign treat-
ments on the basis of pen or even barn. Statistical analy-
sis should be conducted at the smallest level at which
the treatment can be applied. Therefore, in a feed trial
where all the pigs in a pen are assigned one feed and all
the pigs in the next pen are given a second feed, the pen
is the unit of concern. The number of animals or pens or
barns required to assess whether a drug is beneficial or
not can be calculated using formulas that can be found
in standard statistics text books. The number of units
will depend on the variation you expect and the magni-
tude of the difference you consider important. For ex-
ample, if one assumes a coefficient of variation (mean ÷
standard deviation) of 7% for growth rate, one would
need approximately 43 pens per treatment to detect a
difference in average daily gain of 5%. Whereas it would
require only 12 pens per treatment to detect an average
daily gain of 10%.
Typically, the confidence interval is chosen to be
95%, implying that the probability that the results were
real and not due to chance alone is 95%. The P-value or
level of significance is the opposite (i.e., P = 0.05 means
there is a 5% chance that the results are due to chance
alone). Statistical power is typically set at 80%, implying
that there is an 80% probability that we will find a dif-
ference when a difference truly exists. Therefore, 20% of
the time such a trial will not distinguish a difference be-
tween treatment and control when there really is a dif-
ference. Statistical power can be increased by increasing
sample size.
It is important that bias is minimized wherever pos-
sible. Therefore, subjects need to be assigned to a treat-

ment group in a truly random manner, and if this is not
possible, an alternatively systematic assignment may be
used. The intervention given to the control group needs
to be similar to the treatment group. For example, if the
treatment group needs to be restrained and injected
with a product, the controls need to be handled in a
similar manner and given a placebo. Ideally, the animal
care givers and whoever records the clinical observa-
tions should be kept blind to which animals are in the
treatment group and which are in the control group.
Even when animals are assigned in a random man-
ner and trials are carefully designed, confounding fac-
tors and other sources of error can be introduced so that
a great deal of care is needed in assessing the informa-
tion gained from a clinical trial, but this is still the best
basis to judge efficacy of therapeutic measures, and no
amount of in vitro studies can match the value of this
type of on-farm assessment.
ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS
Major Classes of Antimicrobial Drugs
A brief overview of some key aspects of the major classes
of antimicrobial drugs, their antimicrobial activities,
pharmacokinetic properties, toxic or other adverse ef-
fects, and major clinical applications is given in Table
71.3. Further details are available through manufac-
turer’s package inserts or through pharmacology and re-
lated textbooks (Prescott et al. 2000).
Antimicrobial Therapy
Rational use of antimicrobial therapy first requires a di-
agnosis. This may be made clinically and preferably con-
firmed by laboratory diagnosis, which would include
antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Antimicrobial treat-
ment will, however, usually start before laboratory re-
sults are available. The selection of a particular drug de-
pends on knowledge of the likely or actual susceptibility
of the microorganism, knowledge of factors affecting
drug concentration (dosage, pharmacokinetic proper-
ties) and activity (pharmacodynamic properties) at the
site of infection, knowledge of drug toxicity and factors
that enhance it, cost of treatment, and consideration of
regulations about drug use, including withdrawal times.
The ideal drug is one to which the organism is most sus-
ceptible and that achieves effective concentration at the
site of infection without damaging the host. Bacterici-
dal drugs are required in serious life-threatening infec-
tions, when host defenses are impaired, and in infec-
tions of vital tissues such as meninges, endocardium,
and bones where host defenses are also not fully func-
tional. In other cases bacteriostatic agents may be
equally useful. Where feasible, a narrow spectrum drug
may be more appropriate than a broad spectrum anti-
bacterial because the narrow spectrum drug interferes
less with the normal microbial flora and is less likely to
select for widespread resistance.
CHAPTER 71 DRUG THERAPY AND PROPHYLAXIS 1133
To some extent, drug dosage can be tailored to the
susceptibility of the organism, the site of infection, and
the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties
of the selected antimicrobial agent. However, in vitro
susceptibility data are laboratory-derived and the stan-
dardized conditions under which the susceptibility data
are generated do not exist at the site of infection. Factors
involved in tailoring a dosing regimen include, among
other things, the susceptibility of the pathogen in terms
of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), the con-
centration of the antimicrobial agent at the site of infec-
tion in active form (pharmacokinetic properties of the
drug), and the pharmacodynamic properties of the an-
timicrobial agent. Some antimicrobials (aminoglyco-
sides, fluoroquinolones) are concentration-dependent
(optimum action of the drug depends on concen-
tration of the drug above MIC), whereas others (beta-
lactams, lincosamides, macrolides, trimethoprim-
sulfamethazine) are time-dependent (optimum activity
depends on time above MIC). The complex issues in-
volved in optimal antimicrobial therapy are beyond the
scope of this chapter although it can be concluded that
some dosage recommendations for drugs licensed in the
past have not taken modern understanding into ac-
count and are suboptimal or inappropriate. Labeled rec-
ommendations can therefore be expected to change in
the future. In the United States, the Food and Drug
Administration’s professional flexible labeling approach
allows veterinarians to adjust the dose based on the MIC
of the pathogen. Although a number of factors deter-
mine optimal dosage, the factor that most frequently
limits dosage is toxicity. The upper level of the recom-
mended dosage should not be exceeded, because this is
often determined by toxicity. Sometimes, however, a
drug’s antibacterial effects may be limiting and may de-
termine the upper level of dosage. For example, the
killing rate of beta-lactam drugs has an optimal concen-
tration, whereas that of the aminoglycosides or fluoro-
quinolones is proportional to drug concentration.
Penicillin G is virtually nontoxic in nonallergenic pa-
tients, but its dosage is limited by its antibacterial ac-
tion. By contrast the dosage of aminoglycoside is lim-
ited not by antibacterial effects but by its toxicity.
In terms of duration of treatment, the variables af-
fecting length of treatment have not been defined.
Responses of different types of infections to antimicro-
bial drugs vary, and clinical experience with many in-
fections is important in assessing response to treatment.
For acute infections, it will usually be clear within 2 days
whether or not therapy is clinically effective. If no re-
sponse is seen by that time, both the diagnosis and
treatment should be reconsidered. Treatment of acute
infections should be continued for at least 2 days after
clinical and microbiologic resolution of infection. For
serious acute infections, treatment should probably last
7–10 days. For chronic infections, treatment will be con-
siderably longer.
Table 71.3. Overview of major classes and identities of antimicrobial drugs used in swine, their antimicrobial activities, pharmacoki-
netic properties, toxic or other adverse effects, and major clinical applications

Specific Agent or Antibacterial Pharmacokinetic Toxic or

Drug Class Example of Agents Activity, Resistance Properties Adverse Effects Major Applications
Sulfonamides Sulfamethazine Bacteriostatic; broad- Rapidly absorbed from Violative kidney Minor value; largely
intermediate spectrum, gram+, intestine, well dis- residues from feed growth promo-
acting; others gram— aerobes; tributed in tissues use through recy- tional, possible dis-
also used anaerobes; acquired cling, feed contami- ease prevention
resistance very wide- nation if feed not
spread. Active intra- withdrawn 15 days
cellular bacteria, pro- before slaughter
tozoa
Sulfonamide- Sulfamethazine- Bactericidal; gram+, Rapidly absorbed from Wide safety margin Largely IM use for
diaminopy- trimethoprim gram— aerobes; intestine, well dis- acute infections
rimidine anaerobes. Myco- tributed in tissues; (pneumonia, strep-
combinations plasma, Leptospira crosses uninflamed tococcal meningi-
resistant blood-brain barrier tis). In feed for at-
rophic rhinitis
Beta-lactam Penam penicillins, Bactericidal; highly ac- Poorly absorbed from Safe drug; possible Excellent for IM use in
Group 1: tive many gram+, intestine, relatively anaphylaxis or pro- erysipelas, strepto-
Penicillin G some fastidious poorly distributed caine-induced ex- coccal infections in-
gram— aerobe, e.g., H. in tissues; crosses citement cluding meningitis,
parasuis, P. multocida; only inflamed clostridial infec-
anaerobes; Leptospira. blood-brain barrier. tions. Some bacter-
Enteric bacteria and Procaine penicillin ial pneumonias
Mycoplasma resistant is long-acting form
for IM use since un-
conjugated drug
rapidly excreted
Beta-lactam Penam penicillins, As penicillin G, broader As penicillin G, but Safe drug Similar to penicillin G.
Group 4: ampi- activity against better absorbed Addition of beta-
cillin, amoxy- gram— aerobes, but orally and distrib- lactamase inhibitors
cillin resistance widespread uted through tissues (e.g., clavulanic
acid) has resurrected
penam penicillins
use in other species
Beta-lactam Group 4, “third Bactericidal; gram— Poorly absorbed from May predispose to Excellent for IM use in
generation” aerobes especially, intestine, relatively Clostridium difficile gram— aerobic in-
cephalosporins; including E. coli, poorly distributed colitis if used in fections, including
ceftiofur Salmonella, gram+ in tissues; crosses neonatal pigs. colibacillosis, sal-
aerobes, anaerobes. only inflamed Resistance emerging monellosis, gram—
Mycoplasma resistant blood-brain barrier in Salmonella may bacterial pneumo-
represent human nias
health hazard
Aminoglycoside Gentamicin, Bactericidal; gram— Poorly absorbed from Nephrotoxic with pro- Gentamicin IM for
neomycin aerobes, including intestine, relatively longed parenteral neonatal E. coli in-
enterics poorly distributed use; persistent kid- fections; neomycin
in tissues ney residues orally for E. coli
infection
Aminocyclitol Apramycin, Bactericidal; gram— Poorly absorbed from Nephrotoxic with pro- Orally for E. coli infec-
spectinomycin aerobes, including intestine, relatively longed parenteral tion
enterics poorly distributed use; persistent kid-
in tissues ney residues
Lincosamide Lincomycin Bacteriostatic; gram+ Well absorbed from Safe drug in swine Oral use for control of
aerobes, anaerobes in- intestine and well Brachyspira; oral or
cluding B. hyodysente- distributed in tis- IM use for control of
riae; Mycoplasma sues Mycoplasma
Macrolide Tylosin Bacteriostatic; gram+ Well absorbed from Safe drug in swine; IM Oral use for control of
aerobes, anaerobes, intestine and well irritant, may cause proliferative en-
some gram— aerobes; distributed in edema, pruritis, teropathy, atrophic
Mycoplasma tissues anal protrusion rhinitis, possibly
leptospirosis

1134
 CHAPTER 71 DRUG THERAPY AND PROPHYLAXIS 1135

Table 71.3. (continued)

Specific Agent or Antibacterial Pharmacokinetic Toxic or

Drug Class Example of Agents Activity, Resistance Properties Adverse Effects Major Applications
Pleuromutilin Tiamulin Bacteriostatic; gram+ Well absorbed from Safe drug in swine Oral use for control of
aerobes, anaerobes, intestine and well Brachyspira, Myco-
some gram— aerobes; distributed in tis- plasma, chronic
Mycoplasma. More sues pneumonias, prolif-
active than tylosin erative enteropathy,
leptospirosis
Tetracyclines Oxy-, Chlor-, Bacteriostatic; classi- Well absorbed from Safe drugs in swine Oral use as “feed”
tetracycline cally broad-spectrum, intestine and well drugs for growth
gram+, gram— but ac- distributed in tis- promotion and
quired resistance ex- sues nonspecific disease
tremely widespread. prophylaxis in
Erysipelothrix, Haemo- countries where al-
philus, Leptospira, lowed. Used in feed,
Pasteurella are excep- occasionally IM, for
tions treatment of infec-
tions caused by bac-
teria listed as being
susceptible

Treatment failure has many causes. The antimicro-
bial selected may be inappropriate because of misdiag-
nosis, inactivity at the site of infection, failure to culture
infections, inaccurate or inapplicable laboratory results,
resistance of pathogens, chronic nature of the infection
(which may affect metabolic state of the pathogen), or
errors in sampling. These factors are more likely to cause
failure than inadequate dosage although this may also
be important. It is important that producers comply
with dosing instructions. When failure occurs, diagno-
sis must be reassessed and samples collected for labora-
tory analysis.
Principles of Prophylaxis
Antimicrobial drugs are administered to swine for the
prevention of particular diseases. The generally ac-
cepted principles of antimicrobial prophylaxis are:
• Medication should be directed against specific patho-
gens or diseases.
• Prophylaxis should be used only where efficacy is es-
tablished. Prophylaxis should be of a duration that is
as short as possible consistent with efficacy.
• Dosage should be the same as that used therapeu-
tically.
• Adverse effects itemized earlier should be minimized.
In general, as discussed below, antimicrobial drugs of
therapeutic importance in both humans and animals
have been markedly overused for both growth promo-
tional and disease prophylactic purposes in swine, in a
manner inconsistent with generally accepted principles
of prophylaxis. Alternatives to these antimicrobial use
practices need to be found, as discussed below.
One reasonable prophylactic practice is that of
“pulse medication,” whereby a therapeutic level of a
specific drug is included in the feed at therapeutic con-
centrations for a short period for the prevention of en-
demic diseases, such as proliferative enteropathy or en-
zootic pneumonia before the predictable onset of these
diseases in a particular setting.
Regulations
The use of antimicrobial drugs in animals is regulated by
law in many countries, so that veterinarians need to
know and abide by the regulations. The regulations in-
volve an approval process of drugs produced by a partic-
ular manufacturer only if they meet human and animal
safety standards as well as being shown to be efficacious
at specified dosages for particular purposes (the labeled
dose/purpose). An example of regulated use of antimi-
crobial drugs, that of the United States, is outlined in
Table 71.4. In the United States, failure to comply with
the regulations may result in fines or imprisonment.
Antimicrobial Drug Withdrawal
Most antimicrobial drugs must not be used near slaugh-
ter, to avoid any significant residues in meat products.
The precise period varies with the drug and the dosage.
For drugs used at the labeled dosage, this will be speci-
fied on the package insert. For extra-label drug use,
withdrawal information may be obtained from the
manufacturer or in some cases from national or interna-
tional databases such as, in the United States, the Food
Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (toll-free number
in the United States, 1-800-USFARAD). Examples of
preslaughter medication withdrawal time in the United
States are shown in Table 71.5.
1136 SECTION V VETERINARY PRACTICE

Table 71.4. Regulation of antimicrobial drug use for food animals in the United States.

Drug Category or Regulation Description

Production feed drugs
Over-the-counter drugs
Prescription drugs
Professional flexible labeling
Veterinary Feed Directive
Extra-label use
Growth promotion and feed efficiency including subtherapeutic or therapeutic use for specified
purposes in feed. Strict dose, duration, withdrawal period specified. Nonprescription.
Drugs for oral or parenteral use available without prescription. Strict dose, duration, withdrawal
period specified.
Veterinary prescription parenteral use only. Strict dose, duration, withdrawal period specified.
Approved products have expanded dosage ranges for veterinarian use.
Used in feed only under direction of a veterinarian. Strict recording requirements.
Regulation under Animal Medicinal Drug Clarification Act (AMDUCA) when actual or intended
use of a drug is not in accordance with approved labeling. Only when available labeled products
ineffective. Strict recording and other requirements, including prohibited uses.

Table 71.5. Examples of preslaughter withdrawal times from last medication for swine in the United States

Dosage Form Drug for Labeled Use Days

Parenteral drug Ceftiofur 0
Gentamicin (neonatal pigs only) 40
Procaine penicillin 7
Oral, water-soluble drugs Bacitracin 1
Chlortetracycline 5
Neomycin 20
Tylosin 2
Oral, feed forms (maximum time Apramycin 28
may vary with dose) Chlortetracycline, procaine penicillin, sulfamethazole 15
Tiamulin 0–2

The Antimicrobial Resistance Crisis and Its
Impact on Antimicrobial Drug Use in Swine
There is both need and considerable scope to reduce the
use of antimicrobial drugs in swine. Human medicine is
experiencing an antimicrobial resistance crisis because
of the surge of resistance in important human patho-
gens in the last decade. The emergence of this crisis has
resulted from many causes, including widespread use
and overuse of some drugs for many years, changing so-
cial practices including daycare centers and group
homes for the elderly, the increasing number of im-
munosuppressed people, and possibly changes in the
drugs being used. As medical science tries to reduce re-
sistance, it again focuses on the widespread use of an-
timicrobial drugs in farm animals. Agriculture uses
about half of all antimicrobials produced, with use in
swine being a major component. Why antimicrobials
can be administered to animals on a wide scale over long
periods to promote growth and prevent endemic disease
cannot be understood by physicians desperate to pre-
serve effective antimicrobials. The extent of the contri-
bution of farm animal use to resistance in human
pathogens has been the subject of vigorous debate for
many years. Although it is easy to document that bacte-
ria, including resistant bacteria, move from farm ani-
mals including swine to people, the scale and to some
extent the importance of the movement is unclear. The
extent and type of resistance in commensal E. coli iso-
lated from swine has been shown to be directly propor-
tional to the extent and type of antimicrobial use in pigs
(Dunlop et al. 1998). On a broader scale, the use of
antimicrobial drugs over many years may not only have
selected for resistant bacterial pathogens and an enor-
mous reservoir of resistance genes in commensal bac-
teria, but it may also have promoted or enhanced the
ability of bacteria to move resistance and other genes
through enhancement of mobile genetic elements such
as transposons, plasmids, and integrons, and thus per-
haps to change more rapidly. There is a high frequency
of resistance to multiple antimicrobial drugs in porcine
enterotoxigenic E. coli, with some evidence that the
emergence of resistant new serotypes with apparently
enhanced virulence may have virulence genes linked to
those of resistance (Noamani et al. 2003), so that use of
antimicrobial drugs may not only maintain resistant
but also virulent bacteria.
In 1999, the European Union banned the use of
growth-promoting antimicrobial drugs in food animals.
The impetus for the ban on avoparcin, bacitracin, spi-
ramycin, tylosin, and virginiamycin was because of the
entry of Sweden into the Union. Sweden had banned
these growth promoters in 1986 but, because it needed to
harmonize its regulations with those of the EU, it per-
suaded the EU to change the Union’s regulations. This
ban was supported by Denmark and Danish pork produc-
ers, who had agreed on a voluntary ban shortly before
1999. The impetus for the Danish ban was the convincing
evidence that avoparcin use in poultry, swine, and calves

was selecting for vancomycin-resistant enterococci
(VREs), which were reaching the European population
through the food chain (Bager et al. 1997). Vancomycin-
resistant enterococci have become major nosocomial
pathogens in human hospitals, particularly in the United
States. Enterococcus faecium are innately highly resistant
bacteria for which vancomycin is often the only drug to
which they are susceptible; VREs are essentially untreat-
able infections. The ban on these growth promoters in
Denmark led to an over 50% reduction in antimicrobial
drug use, a dramatic reduction in enterococci resistant to
the growth promoters and a minor increase in the cost of
production of swine estimated at about one Euro (World
Health Organization 2002).
Numerous reports have recommended that all stake-
holders concerned with the use of antimicrobials in
both food animals and humans must be involved in an
overarching global strategy to contain resistance (e.g.,
World Health Organization 2000a) and have recom-
mended steps to enhance the prudent use of antimicro-
bials in animals, including the removal of growth pro-
moters if these drugs are important in human medicine
(e.g., World Health Organization 2000b). At the interna-
tional level, the World Organization for Animal Health
(Office International des Epizooties) (2003, 2004) con-
tinues to formulate recommendations and options for
risk management relating to antimicrobial use in ani-
mals. Outside the EU, other countries are in the process
of assessing or starting to reassess the use of antimicro-
bial drugs in food animals based on the importance of
the drug in human medicine and the likelihood of ex-
posure of humans to resistant bacteria or resistance
genes arising from animals (e.g., Health Canada 2002;
Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration 2004).
In recent years many countries have started to moni-
tor resistance in both important pathogens (e.g., Cam-
pylobacter jejuni, Salmonella) as well as “indicator” com-
mensal bacteria (e.g., Enterococcus species) isolated from
animals, foodstuffs, and humans. For example, in the
United States the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System (NARMS) established in 1996 is de-
signed to document emerging resistance problems, as
well as to provide data on which public health policy de-
cisions can be made for the use of antimicrobial drugs in
food-producing animals. In Canada, the Canadian Inte-
grated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveil-
lance has taken a similar approach to NARMS.
One emerging resistance problem that will likely be-
come of even greater concern in the future is expanded-
spectrum cephalosporin resistance in multidrug-
resistant E. coli and Salmonella serovars (Winokur et al.
2001; Zhao et al. 2003), in which the cmy-2 gene encod-
ing expanded-spectrum cephalosporin resistance may
be found on several different plasmids that can readily
be transferred through bacterial conjugation (Caratolli
et al. 2002).
CHAPTER 71 DRUG THERAPY AND PROPHYLAXIS 1137
Prudent Use Guidelines
The widespread concern about antimicrobial resist-
ance and the animal-human resistance link has led
most major national veterinary organizations to im-
prove antimicrobial drug use by development of pru-
dent use guidelines. Such guidelines represent first
steps in the more judicious use of antimicrobial drugs
that may become considerably more complex over
time if they address antimicrobial drug choice for par-
ticular diseases. An example of such guidelines, that of
the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, is
shown in Table 71.6.
Drug Selection for Specific Diseases
Table 71.7 contains recommendations for treatment of
specific bacterial disease conditions commonly encoun-
tered in North America. It is beyond the scope of this
Table 71.6. American Association of Swine Veterinarians Basic
Guidelines of Judicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials in Pork
Production
(1) Preventive strategies, such as appropriate husbandry and
hygiene, routine health monitoring, and immunization,
should be emphasized.
(2) Other therapeutic options should be considered prior to or
in conjunction with antimicrobial therapy.
(3) Judicious use of antimicrobials, when under the direction of
a veterinarian, should meet all requirements of a veterinarian-
client-patient relationship.
(4) Prescription, Veterinary Feed Directive, and extra-label use
of antimicrobials must meet all the requirements of a valid
veterinarian-client-patient relationship.
(5) Extra-label antimicrobial therapy must be prescribed only in
accordance with the Animal Medicinal Drug Use
Clarification Act amendments to the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act and its regulations.
(6) Veterinarians should work with those responsible for the
care of animals to use antimicrobials judiciously regardless
of the distribution system through which the antimicrobial
was obtained.
(7) Regimens for therapeutic antimicrobial use should be opti-
mized using current pharmacological information and prin-
ciples.
(8) Antimicrobials considered important in treating refractory
infections in human or veterinary medicine should be used
in animals only after careful review and reasonable justifica-
tion. Consider using other antimicrobials for initial therapy.
(9) Utilize culture and susceptibility results to aid in the selec-
tion of antimicrobials when clinically relevant.
(10) Therapeutic antimicrobial use should be confined to appro-
priate clinical indications.
(11) Therapeutic exposure to antimicrobials should be mini-
mized by treating only for as long as needed for the desired
clinical response.
(12) Limit therapeutic antimicrobial treatment to ill or at risk
animals, treating the fewest animals indicated.
(13) Minimize environmental contamination with antimicro-
bials whenever possible.
(14) Accurate records of treatment and outcome should be used
to evaluate therapeutic regimens.
Note: The AASV website elaborates on these basic guidelines
listed above (http://www.aasp.org/aasv/jug.html).
Table 71.7. Antimicrobial drug selection for specific bacterial diseases (Warning—These dosages may not conform to government
regulations or label instructions.)

Diagnosis Causative Agent Comments Suggested Drug(s)

ENTERIC DISEASES
Clostridial enteritis Clostridium perfringens Treatment of sick piglets affected Bacitracin in sow diet (100 gm per
type A and C with type C is not effective. ton of feed)
Medicate sows to reduce shedding. Ampicillin (6 mg/kg, oral)
Coccidiosis Isospora suis Treatment must begin before diarrhea Toltrazuril (20–30 mg/kg, oral)
occurs (3- to 6-day-old piglets). Amprolium 9.6%, (2 ml per
piglet/day for days 3–5)
Colibacillosis Escherichia coli Neonatal piglets must be treated promptly Neonates:
and provision of electrolytes helps Gentamicin (5 mg per kg, oral)
minimize effects of dehydration. Post- Neomycin (7 mg per kg, oral)
weaned pigs best treated with antibiotics Spectinomycin (50 mg twice a day)
in water. Weanlings:
Apramycin (12.5 mg/kg per day, in water)
Colitis Brachyspira pilosicoli Disease is often mild and responds to
change in feed, but if more severe, treat
in similar fashion to swine dysentery
Proliferative Lawsonia intracellularis All-in/all-out management and good hy- Tylosin (100 g per ton of feed)
enteropathy giene may minimize the need for anti- Lincomycin (100 g per ton of feed)
biotics. Feed medication can prevent Tiamulin (35 g per ton of feed)
clinical signs.
Salmonellosis Salmonella typhimurium Antimicrobials may be contraindicated in
and other serovars that they prolong shedding and promote
resistance.
Swine dysentery Brachyspira hyodysen- Resistance against older drugs is common. Tiamulin (200 g/ton of feed to treat)
teriae Treatment for extended period after (35 g/ton to prevent)
clinical signs disappear is necessary. Carbadox (50 g/ton of feed)
Water medicate in acute outbreak.
MULTISYSTEMIC DISEASES
Actinobacillus Actinobacillus suis A. suis is sensitive to most antibiotics but Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
Septicemia disease occurs acutely so treatment may
not be in time.
Erysipelas Erysipelothrix rhusio- Resistance to penicillin does not appear to Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
pathiae be a problem. but also tylosin, tetracyclines, or
lincomycin
Glasser’s disease Haemophilus parasuis High dosages, administered parenterally to Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM or
all members of the affected group. Some higher
resistance to penicillin. Ceftiofur, 3 mg/kg IM
Trimethoprim-sulfadoxine 16 mg/kg IM
Mycoplasma poly- Mycoplasma hyorhinis High dosages, administered parenterally, Lincomycin 10 mg/kg IM
serositis but results tend to be poor. Tylosin 9 mg/kg IM
Tiamulin 11 mg/kg IM
Salmonellosis Salmonella choleraesuis Vigorous treatment early can reduce dura- Ceftiofur 3 mg/kg IM
tion and severity. Trimethoprim-sulfadoxine 16 mg/kg IM
MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES
Foot rot Arcanobacterium pyogenes Improved flooring and sanitation. Topical Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
Fusobacterium necro- disinfectants may help. Generally poor Oxytetracycline 6.6 mg/kg IM
phorum response to treatment.
Mycoplasma arthritis Mycoplasma hyosynoviae Injectable antibiotics and possibly corti- Lincomycin 10 mg/kg IM
costeroids. Tiamulin 11 mg/kg IM
Tylosin 9 mg/kg IM
Neonatal polyarthritis Staphylococcus spp. Treatment is ineffective unless started early. Procaine pencillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
Streptococcus spp.
and others
Suppurative arthritis Arcanobacterium pyogenes Treatment is generally ineffective. Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
Oxytetracycline 6.6 mg/kg IM
NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES
Edema disease Escherichia coli Sick pigs eat and drink very little and must Trimethoprim-sulfadoxine 16 mg/kg IM
be treated parenterally. Ceftiofur 3mg/kg IM
Otitis media (Middle Staphylococci spp. Abscesses can occur and relapses are Trimethoprim-sulfadoxine 16 mg/kg IM
ear infection) Streptococci spp. common. Ceftiofur 3 mg/kg
Arcanobacterium pyogenes
Tetanus Clostridium tetani Poor prognosis.

1138
 CHAPTER 71 DRUG THERAPY AND PROPHYLAXIS 1139

Table 71.7. (continued)

Diagnosis Causative Agent Comments Suggested Drug(s)

REPRODUCTIVE DISEASES
Leptospirosis Leptospira spp. Antibiotics may not eliminate carrier state. Streptomycin 25 mg/kg IM
Chlor or oxytetracycline at 600–800
g/ton of feed
Mastitis and/ Generally gram- Attention needs to be paid to cross-fostering Ampicillin 6 mg/kg IM
or metritis negative bacteria piglets. Treatment varies depending on
microorganism and sensitivity.
RESPIRATORY DISEASES
Enzootic pneumonia Mycoplasma hyopneu- Preferably sick animals are treated parenter- Oxytetracycline 6.6 mg/kg
moniae and secon- ally to achieve high tissue levels. Trimethoprimsulfadoxine 3 mg/kg IM
daries Ceftiofur 3 mg/kg IM
Tulathromycin 2.5 mg/kg IM
Pleuropneumonia Actinobacillus pleuro- Parenteral treatment because acutely sick Same as above
pneumoniae pigs eat and drink very little. Tilmicocin (181–363 g/ton of feed)
Progressive Atrophic Bordetella bronchiseptica Responsive to housing/management and Oxytetracycline 20 mg/kg IM
Rhinitis and toxigenic strains vaccination programs. Sulfamethazine 400–2000 g/ton of feed
of Pasteurella multocida in nursery ration
SKIN DISEASE
Exudative epidermitis Staphylococcus hyicus May see resistance to penicillin, need to Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
(Greasy pig disease) treat fresh wounds topically.
URINARY TRACT DISEASE
Cystitis Actinobaculum suis and Relapses are common. Procaine penicillin G 20,000 IU/kg IM
possibly others Ampicillin 6 mg/kg IM
Chlor or oxytetracycline 600–800
gm/ton of feed

text to discuss all product indications and cautions, but Vaccines

the user should always review the information provided
by the package insert and the product label. Nor is it
within the scope of this text to include all possible treat-
ment options; instead, this table should be considered a
general guideline.
ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS
Management and Biosecurity
Modern housing and husbandry methods that tend to
segregate age groups, allow for cleaning of the environ-
ment between production groups, and minimize the
risk of disease introduction through strict biosecurity
measures, are the most important methods of reducing
the use of antimicrobials and other therapeutic prod-
ucts. Immune system stimulation results in decreased
feed efficiency and growth rate whether or not clinical
disease occurs. The value of in-feed antibiotics is ques-
tionable when high-health status grower-finisher pigs
are raised in a clean, biosecure environment (Van Lunen
2003). However, even under ideal management there
are circumstances when treatment is required and suc-
cess of therapy very much depends on the diligence of
stockpeople to identify clinical signs of illness early, to
treat appropriately, and to provide an environment for
the sick pig that promotes healing.
Vaccines are extensively used in swine production, and
in fact there are few diseases for which a vaccine is not
available. Unfortunately, the fact that a vaccine is li-
censed and available does not mean it works (Ribble
1990). The usefulness of vaccination varies from disease
to disease and even from herd to herd. Despite rapid ad-
vances in the fields of immunology and molecular biol-
ogy there are still diseases for which vaccines have only
moderate to poor efficacy (Haesebrouck et al. 2004).
Details of the mechanisms of pathogenesis and immune
response are covered elsewhere in this text.
There are a number of important considerations that
a veterinarian needs to evaluate in order to decide upon
a vaccination program for a particular herd. The cost-
benefit of vaccination needs to be considered, and this
includes estimating the cost of the program, including
labor to administer the vaccine; estimating the improve-
ment one would expect from the vaccination program,
which requires a knowledge of the vaccines efficacy and
an understanding of the disease costs present in the
herd; and evaluating the value of alternative control
measures. In addition, the veterinarian needs to be
aware of possible negative side effects, such as a poten-
tial tissue reaction that might lead to trimming losses or
a transient loss of appetite that could cause a reduction
in growth.
1140 SECTION V VETERINARY PRACTICE
The decision to institute a vaccination program is
complex, and unfortunately there is a scarcity of unbi-
ased data regarding the efficacy of vaccines used under
practical farm conditions (Moon and Bunn 1993). There
are good examples of vaccines that have worked well in
controlled experimental infection models but are of no
value in the field. Many of the important diseases of
swine are a complex of one or more infectious agents
and of host, environmental, and management factors.
Swine practitioners are sometimes faced with an un-
expected vaccination failure in a situation when using a
product that has worked well under similar circum-
stances in the past. Possible causes of a failure include
improper storage and handling of the vaccine, such as
failure to refrigerate or protect from light; incorrect ad-
ministration, such as subcutaneous injection when an
intramuscular injection is required; or possibly omitting
to vaccinate whole groups of animals. In the case of vac-
cines administered via the drinking water, there are a
number of concerns but possibly the most important is
chlorine present in the water, which may kill live atten-
uated bacteria in vaccines (Kolb 1996).
Timing of a vaccination program is often a problem.
In order to maximize compliance and minimize labor,
the swine industry prefers to use combination vaccines
that require a single injection to be given at a time
when animals are ordinarily handled (such as at wean-
ing). Among the problems associated with this ap-
proach is the concern that for newly weaned pigs there
may still be high levels of passive immunity present to
interfere with the stimulation of immunity from vacci-
nation. Therefore, one has to weigh the consequences
of vaccinating at a time of greatest convenience versus
the extra labor costs and stress to the animals of vacci-
nating at the most appropriate time to ensure vaccine
efficacy.
Passive Immunity
Spray-dried animal plasma has been widely used in diets
for newly weaned pigs and is associated with increased
growth rates in the order of 27% (van Dijk et al. 2001).
The mode of action of spray-dried animal plasma is not
fully understood but is assumed to be at least partly due
to the presence of immunoglobulins, which may pro-
vide a certain level of protection to the newly weaned
piglet at a time when the supply of immunoglobulins
from sow’s milk has ceased. The ability of plasma pro-
teins to neutralize the effect of specific organisms is de-
pendent on the immunizations and disease history of
the pigs from which the blood is collected.
Specific antibodies from chicken egg-yolk have been
examined as a source of passive immunity for newly
weaned pigs as well. Laying hens are vaccinated against
specific pig pathogens such as E. coli. Antibodies are se-
creted into the yolk of the egg (IgY) in large quantities
(up to 200 mg/egg) (Marquardt and Li 2001), and dried
yolk is incorporated in nursery pig rations. Trials using
specific egg-yolk products to prevent postweaning E. coli
diarrhea have produced inconsistent results (Cherny-
sheva et al. 2004). Stability of the product during feed
processing and passage through the pig’s gastrointesti-
nal system are major concerns.
Other Biological Products
Direct-Fed Microbials (Probiotic). Probiotics are de-
fined as live microbials provided in the feed in an at-
tempt to encourage proliferation in the intestine of the
specific microorganism fed with the objective of provid-
ing health benefits to the host animals (Fuller 1989).
The most commonly used probiotics include species of
Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Saccha-
romyces (Alverez-Olmos and Oberhelman 2001; Holzap-
fel et al. 2001; Rolfe 2000). Most studies involving probi-
otics have concentrated on improving intestinal health,
particularly during the weaning period when the pig gut
microflora undergoes dramatic change.
It is generally accepted that with careful attention to
the criteria used to select the particular probiotic strain,
there may be a place for probiotics in prevention of en-
teric disease, but results to date are inconsistent. There
are a number of criteria that potential probiotic strains
must meet in order to be considered for use as a probi-
otic, including the ability to demonstrate predictable
and measurable health benefits. The screening and se-
lection of a probiotic includes testing in vitro or in vivo
of the following criteria:
• It must be nonpathogenic and proven safe.
• It must have stability in an acid environment, in the
presence of bile, and resistant to degradation by diges-
tive enzymes.
• It must adhere to gut epithelial tissue and be able to
persist in the gastrointestinal tract of the host.
In addition, the microbials used as probiotics must re-
tain viability and stability during commercial produc-
tion, feed processing, storage, and delivery, and must be
cost-effective.
The main mechanisms whereby probiotics exert pro-
tective or therapeutic effects are not fully understood,
but several ways have been postulated. Probiotics pro-
duce antimicrobial substances such as organic acids,
fatty free acids, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, and bac-
teriocins (Alverez-Olmos and Oberhelman 2001). In ad-
dition, probiotics may enhance specific and nonspecific
host immunity (Kailasapathy and Chin 2000), and pro-
biotics may prevent colonization of pathogenic mi-
croorganisms by competitive inhibition for microbial
adhesion sites.
Inconsistent findings have been observed when pro-
biotics have been used in trials to control pig disease or
improve growth performance (Conway 1999). It is un-
likely they will be capable of replacing antibiotics in the
control of disease but they may have a place alongside

other techniques for improving the health of the gut
microflora and reducing the shedding of pathogens
such as Salmonella.
There is considerable interest in the use of fermented
liquid feed and there appears to be an association be-
tween its use and a reduction in Salmonella prevalence
(van der Wolf et al. 2001). A possible explanation for the
beneficial effect of fermented liquid feed is that the re-
duced pH of the diet and the presence of large numbers
of organic acid producing bacteria in the feed have a
positive effect on the gut microflora and create an envi-
ronment unsuitable for Salmonella and other coliform
bacteria.
Bacteriophages. Bacteriophages or phages are bacter-
ial viruses that invade bacterial cells and in the case of
lytic phages, disrupt bacterial metabolism and cause the
bacterium to lyse (Sulakvelideze et al. 2001). From a clin-
ical standpoint, phages appear to be innocuous, do not
attack normal gut flora, and are extremely common in
the environment. In spite of all the positive properties
of lytic phages, they are not commonly used prophylac-
tically or therapeutically and their efficacy is still a mat-
ter of controversy almost 100 years after their initial
discovery.
Nutrients
There are a plentiful supply of physiologically active
feed ingredients that can improve pig performance and
health by modifying the environment of the digestive
tract (Pettigrew 2003). Zinc oxide added to nursery ra-
tions at a level of 2500 ppm for 2 weeks will result in in-
creased growth rate and reduced prevalence of diarrhea
(Jensen-Waern et al. 1998). In vitro studies have shown
that zinc has antimicrobial effects, but in vivo studies
show no reduction in E. coli numbers and no change in
function of circulating neutrophils. There are concerns
that high levels of zinc oxide will cause liver toxicity if
fed longer than 3–4 weeks.
Likewise, copper sulfate at levels of up to 250 ppm
has been added to pig feed to promote growth. However,
the combination of zinc and copper does not result in
an additive growth response (Hill et al. 2000). In the
case of both copper and zinc, there are environmental
concerns regarding their use because of the build up of
these minerals in manure.
The quest for alternatives to antibiotics in pig feed
has caused interest in natural remedies, including herbs,
spices, botanicals, and essential oils. These products
may improve performance by improving feed palatabil-
ity and by exerting antibacterial effects, but there needs
to be further evidence of their effectiveness (Pettigrew
2003).
Organic acids (fumaric, formic, and lactic) are com-
monly added to feed or water in order to improve
growth and reduce diarrhea during the postweaning pe-
riod (Tsiloyiannis et al. 2001). Modes of action claimed
CHAPTER 71 DRUG THERAPY AND PROPHYLAXIS 1141
for the growth-promoting effect of organic acids include
decreased gastric pH, reduced coliform population,
stimulated pancreatic exocrine secretion, increased
pepsin activation, altered gut morphology, and im-
proved intake and digestibility (Partanen 2001).
Response to acidification has been variable and may
be attributed to feed and animal factors as well as differ-
ences in the properties of the various organic acids. Two
problems that are associated with the use of high levels
of organic acids are the acids may have a negative effect
on palatability and the feed is corrosive to cement and
steel in swine housing (Canibe et al. 2001).
An alternative approach to altering the gut mi-
croflora is to feed nondigestible material that provide a
substrate for beneficial bacteria such as lactic acid-
producing bacteria. These products are often referred to
as prebiotics. In order for a feed to be classified as a pre-
biotic it must be neither hydrolyzed nor absorbed in the
upper part of the gastrointestinal tract, be a selective
substrate for one or a limited number of potentially ben-
eficial commensal bacteria, and induce luminal or sys-
temic effects that are beneficial to the host’s health
(Roberfroid 2001). Nondigestible oligosaccharides are
the most common type of prebiotics, including fructo-
oligosaccharides and mannan-oligosaccharides. In gen-
eral, prebiotics are considered to provide small but posi-
tive improvements in growth rate, and are widely used
in the swine industry. However, their role in providing
health benefits, such as reducing Salmonella shedding,
needs to be clarified.
Enzymes added to feed to encourage improved feed
efficiency and in some cases potential health benefits
are used widely. For example, feed can be supplemented
with phytase to allow swine to digest plant phosphorus
that is in the form of phytate. It has been hypothesized
that the use of enzymes may allow the industry to uti-
lize coarse feed particle size as a means of reducing gas-
tric ulcers and the prevalence of Salmonella but still
maintaining acceptable feed conversion.
There is a possibility that in-feed antimcriobials for
growth promotion could be reduced through a combi-
nation of feeding manipulations, such as the use of var-
ious combinations of liquid feeds or coarse particle size,
enzymes, probiotics, prebiotics, and acidifiers.
OTHER THERAPEUTICS
Anesthetics, Tranquilizers
There are few products licensed for use in swine. Most
commonly a combination of drugs used in an off-label
manner are employed in order to provide satisfactory
anesthesia in the field. This has become a controversial
area because the swine industry has come under pres-
sure to reduce the potential suffering of pigs during and
following routine surgical procedures, such as castration
or after a traumatic injury, and yet minimize the use of
drugs without proper licensing approval.
1142 SECTION V VETERINARY PRACTICE
Table 71.8. Common swine anthelminitics and dosages
Product Dosage
Dichlorvos 11.2–21.6 mg/kg body weight in feed with 1/3
of regular ration
Doramectin 300 µg/kg body weight IM
Fenbendazole 9 mg/kg body weight over 3–12 days via
feed
Ivermectin 300 µg/kg SQ or 100 µg/kg body weight for 7
days via feed
Piperazine 275–440 mg/kg body weight in feed or water
Pyrantel tartrate 22 mg/kg of body weight as 1 day treatment
or 96 g/ton of feed as prophylactic dose
Antiparasitics
In modern confinement operations, there are few para-
sitic problems (Roepstorff and Jorsal 1989). Under con-
ditions of good hygiene and management, the regular
application of anthelminitics may be of little or no ben-
efit (Roepstorff 1997). Ascariasis is generally the main
concern, and strategic medication with a wide range of
effective products can easily control this parasite.
External parasitism caused by mange mites and lice
is no longer a significant problem because of good
husbandry practices and effective drugs, particularly
the avermectins. Failure to control sarcoptic mange or
lice infestation is generally due to a poor understanding
of the epidemiology of the organisms and apathy on
the part of the herdsman (Cargill et al. 1997). Antipara-
sitic products and their application are presented in
Table 71.8.
Hormones
Oxytocin is widely used as an aid in stimulating partu-
rition and milk letdown. Prostaglandin F 2a or a syn-
thetic analog can be used to induce parturition.
Puberty can be induced in gilts by treatment with a sin-
gle injection of 200 IU of human chorionic go-
nadotropin and 400 IU of equine chorionic gonado-
tropin. The injection of follicular stimulating hormone
at weaning and an injection of luteinizing hormone ap-
proximately 72–80 hours later has been shown to in-
duce a predictable ovulation (Barnabe 2002) and can be
used in artificial insemination programs where these
hormones are licensed for this purpose. Estrus can be
synchronized by administering a progestin for 14–18
days. The progestin inhibits follicular maturation until
the progestin is withdrawn.
Hormones are also used in certain countries for
growth manipulation. Daily injection of porcine soma-
totropin (PST) strongly influences feed efficiency,
growth, and carcass composition. Ractopamine, a
phenethanolamine or ß-agonist is used as a feed addi-
tive in several countries. Its function is as a repartition-
ing agent causing improved feed efficiency and a lean
carcass at slaughter.
REFERENCES
Alvarez-Olmos MI, Oberhelman RA. 2001. Probiotic agents and in-
fectious diseazees: A modern perspective on a traditional ther-
apy. Clin Inf Dis 32:1567–1576.
Bager F, Aarestrup FM, Madsen M, Wegener HC. 1999. Glycopep-
tide resistance in Enterococcus faecium from broilers and pigs fol-
lowing discontinued use of avoparcin. Microb Drug Resist
5:53–56.
Bager F, Madsen M, Christensen J, Aarestrup FM. 1997. Avoparcin
used as a growth promoter is associated with the occurrence of
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in Danish poultry
and pig farms. Prev Vet Med 31:95–112.
Barnabe RC, Viana CHC, Candini PH, Gama RD, Carbone A,
Stantos ICC, Vianna WL. 2002. Evaluation of a synchroniza-
tion of ovulation protocol in sows according to the day of oe-
strous cycle. Rev Brasileira Repro Anim 26:177–179.
Canibe N, Zteien SH, Øverland M, Jensen BB. 2001. Effect of k-
diformate in starter diets on acidity, microbiota and the
amount of organic acids in the digestive tract of piglets and on
gastric alterations. J Anim Sci 79:2123–2133.
Carattoli A, Tosini F, Giles WP, Rupp ME, Hinrichs SH, Angulo FJ,
Barrett TJ, Fey PD. 2002. Characterization of plasmids carrying
CMY-2 from expanded-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant
Salmonella strains isolated in the United States between 1996
and 1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46:1269–1272.
Cargill CF, Pointon AM, Davies PR, Garcia R. 1997. Using slaughter
inspections to evaluate sarcoptic mange infestation of finishing
swine. Vet Parasitol 70(1–3):191–200.
Center for Veterinary Medicine, US Food and Drug Admini-
stration. 2004. Department Guidance for Industry #144—
Preapproval Information for Registration of New Veterinary
Medicinal Products for Food-Producing Animals with Respect
to Antimicrobial Resistance—VICH GL27, Final Guidance,
April 27, 2004. See USFDA CVM website.
Chernysheva LV, Friendship RM, Gyles CL, Dewey CE. 2004. The
effect of dietary chicken egg-yolk antibodies on the clinical re-
sponse in weaned pigs challenged with a K88+ Escherichia coli
isolate. J Swine Health Prod 12:119–122.
Conway PL. 1999. Specifically selected probiotics can improve
health and performance of pigs. In Manipulating Pig
Production VII. PD Cranwell, ed. Werribee: Australasian Pig
Science Association, pp. 220–224.
Dewey CE. 1999. From the editor. Swine Health Prod 7:253.
Dobson KJ, Davies PR. 1992. External parasites. In Diseases of
Swine, 7th ed. AD Leman, BE Straw, WL Mengeling, S D’Allaire,
DJ Taylor, eds. Ames: Iowa State Univ Press, pp. 668–679.
Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. 2003. Controlled trials, In
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown: AVC Inc.,
pp. 185–206.
Dunlop RH, McEwen SA, Meek AH, Clarke RC, Black WD, Friend-
ship RM. 1998. Associations among antimicrobial drug treat-
ments and antimicrobial resistance of fecal Escherichia coli of
swine on 34 farrow-to-finish farms in Ontario. Prev Vet Med
34:283–305.
Fuller R. 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bact 66:365–
378.
HaesebrouckF, Pasmans F, Chiers K, Maes D, Ducatelle R, Decostere
A. 2004. Efficacy of vaccines against bacterial diseases in swine:
What can we expect? Vet Microbiol 100:255–268.
Health Canada. 2002. Use of Antimicrobials in Food Animals in
Canada: Impact on Resistance and Human Health. Ottawa:
Veterinary Drugs Directorate.
Hill GM, Cromwell GL, Crenshaw TD, Dove CR, Ewan RC, Knabe
DA, Lewis AJ, Libal GW, Mahan DC, Shurson GC, Southern LL,
Veum TL. 2000. Growth promotion effects and plasma changes
from feeding high dietary concentrations of zinc and copper to
weanling pigs (regional study). J Anim Sci 798:1010–1016.