Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:13:02.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of meloxicam (Metacam®) on post-farrowing sow behaviour and piglet performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2011

E. Mainau ,
J. L. Ruiz-de-la-Torre ,
A. Dalmau ,
J. M. Salleras  and
X. Manteca
E. Mainau*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Science, School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
J. L. Ruiz-de-la-Torre
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Science, School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
A. Dalmau
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
J. M. Salleras
Affiliation:
Boehringer Ingelheim España, S.A., Prat de la Riba, 50, 08174 Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona), Spain
X. Manteca
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Food Science, School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
Get access

Abstract

Farrowing is an intrinsically risky process for both the sow and the piglets that can cause welfare and economic problems. The effects of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug meloxicam on post-farrowing behaviour of sows, and the performance of piglets were investigated. A total of 48 sows were randomly allocated at the day of farrowing (day 0) into two homogeneous groups regarding parity, and treated with either meloxicam or saline solution as placebo. For each sow, number of position changes, total time lying and standing or sitting, feed intake and rectal temperature (RT) were recorded during 3 days after farrowing. Piglets were individually weighed at farrowing and at weaning. The number of position changes did not show significant differences between treatments (P = 0.79). Sows spent significantly less time lying during day +3 after farrowing in the meloxicam group than in the placebo group (P = 0.04). Feed intake and RT showed a parity effect (P < 0.001 in both cases); however, no treatment effect was observed (P = 0.67 and P = 0.47, respectively). Pre-weaning mortality rate in piglets was not affected by treatment. In litters from multiparous sows, piglets of low birth weight (defined as percentile 15: BW <1180 g) had an average daily gain significantly higher in the meloxicam group than in the placebo group (196.6 ± 7.2 v. 166.6 ± 9.1 g/day; P = 0.03). Although the administration of meloxicam 90 min after farrowing showed a positive effect on the total time lying of the sows, additional investigations are required to better qualify relevant indicators of pain following farrowing in sows and to specify the analgesic effects of meloxicam on piglet performance.

Keywords

behaviourfarrowingsowsmeloxicamperformance
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 3: 61th EAAP Annual Meeting, 2010, Heraklion, Greece: 10th International Workshop on Biology of Lactation in Farm Animals (BOLFA) and Session “Evolution of mammary gland and milk secretion: consequences for lactation in farm animals” , 27 January 2012 , pp. 494 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahlström, S, Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB 2002. Savaging gilts are more restless and more responsive to piglets during the expulsive phase of parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Spilsbury, M, Ramírez-Necoechea, R, González-Lozano, M, Mota-Rojas, D, Trujillo-Ortega, ME 2007. Piglet survival in early lactation: a review. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 6, 76–86.Google Scholar
Alonso-Spilsbury, M, Mota-Rojas, D, Villanueva-García, D, Martínez-Burnes, J, Orozco, H, Ramírez-Necoechea, R, López, MA, Trujillo, ME 2005. Perinatal asphyxia pathophysiology in pig and human: a review. Animal Reproduction Science 90, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, IL, Berg, S, Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC, Hutson, GD 2001. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Y 1998. Drugs used in the treatment of disorders of the endocrine system: corticosteroids. In The veterinary formulary (ed. Y Bishop), pp. 345–366. Pharmaceutical Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Borges, VF, Bernardi, ML, Bortolozzo, FP, Wentz, I 2005. Risk factors for stillbirth and foetal mummification in four Brazilian swine herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 70, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bussières, G, Jacques, C, Lainay, O, Beauchamp, G, Leblond, A, Cadoré, J-L, Desmaizières, L-M, Cuvelliez, SG, Troncy, E 2008. Development of a composite orthopaedic pain scale in horses. Research in Veterinary Science 85, 294–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canario, L, Roy, N, Gruand, J, Bidanel, JP 2006. Genetic variation of farrowing kinetics traits and their relationships with litter size and perinatal mortality in French Large White sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassar, G, Kirkwood, RN, Friendship, R, Poljak, Z 2005. Sow and litter performance following farrowing induction with prostaglandin: effect of adjunct treatments with dexamethasone or oxytocin. Journal of Swine Health and Production 13, 81–85.Google Scholar
Coffey, MT, Diggs, BG, Handlin, DL, Knabe, DA, Maxwell, CV, Noland, PR, Prince, TJ, Gromwell, GL 1994. Effects of dietary energy during gestation and lactation on reproductive performance of sows: a cooperative study. S-145 Committee on Nutritional Systems for Swine to Increase Reproductive Efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 72, 4–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, GM, Smith, JA, Hodge, FM, Hemsworth, PH 1994. The behaviour of primiparous sows around farrowing in response to restraint and straw bedding. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drackley, JK 1999. Biology of dairy cows during the transition period: the final frontier? Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2259–2273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grummer, RR, Mashek, DG, Hayirli, A 2004. Dry matter intake and energy balance in the transition period. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 20, 447–470.Google ScholarPubMed
Damm, BI, Forkman, B, Pedersen, LJ 2005. Lying down and rolling behaviour in sows in relation to piglet crushing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damm, BI, Bildsøe, M, Gilbert, C, Ladewig, J 2002. The effects of confinement on periparturient behaviour and circulating prolactin, prostaglandin F2α and oxytocin in gilts with access to a variety of nest materials. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, MGH, Bilkei, G 2004. Cross fostering of low-birthweight piglets. Livestock Production Science 90, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobromylskyj, PA, Flecknell, PA, Lascelles, BD, Livingston, A, Taylor, P, Waterman-Pearson, A 2000. Pain assessment. In Pain management in animals (ed. P Flecknell and A Waterman-Pearson), pp. 53–79. WB Saunders, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2002. Perinatal mortality in the pig: environmental or physiological solutions? Livestock Production Science 78, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E, Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, G 1996. Pharmacology of meloxicam, a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with an improved safety profile through preferential inhibition of COX-2. British Journal of Rheumatology 35, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, G, Trummlitz, G 1990. Biological activity of the main metabolites of meloxicam. Drugs Under Experimental Clinical Research 16, 53–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, G, Bögel, R, Schnitzler, C, Utzmann, R 1996. Meloxicam: influence on arachidonic acid metabolism. Part II. In vivo findings. Biochemical Pharmacology 51, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
English, PR, Smith, WJ 1975. Some causes of death in neonatal piglets. Veterinary Annual 15, 95–114.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary Record 17, 357.Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1984. The role of behavior in swine production: a review of research. Applied Animal Ethology 11, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1990. Behavioural perspectives on piglet survival. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 40, 355–370.Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA 1989. Lethargy and low water intake by sows during early lactation: a cause of low piglet weight gains and survival? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friton, GM, Philipp, H, Schneider, T, Kleemann, R 2003. Investigation on the clinical efficacy and safety of meloxicam (Metacam®) in the treatment of non-infectious locomotor disorders in pigs. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 116, 421–426.Google ScholarPubMed
Friton, GM, Schmidt, H, Schrödl, W 2006. Clinical and anti-inflammatory effects of treating endotoxin-challenged pigs with meloxicam. The Veterinary Record 159, 552–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgoulakis, IE, Petridou, E, Filiousis, G, Alexopoulos, C, Kyriakis, SC, Papatsas, I 2006. Meloxicam as adjunctive therapy in treatment and control of porcine respiratory disease complex in growing pigs. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14, 253–257.Google Scholar
Harris, MJ, Gonyou, HW 1998. Increasing available space in a farrowing crate does not facilitate postural changes or maternal responses in gilts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haussmann, MF, Lay, DC, Buchanan, HS, Hopper, JG 1999. Butorphanol tartrate acts to decrease sow activity, which could lead to reduced pig crushing. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2054–2059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, AC, Philipp, H, Kleemann, R 2003. Investigation on the efficacy of meloxicam in sows with mastitis–metritis–agalactia syndrome. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 26, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hötzel, MJ, Pinheiro Machado, FLC, Wolf, FM, Dalla Costa, OA 2004. Behaviour of sows and piglets reared in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, McLean, KA, Calvert, SK, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Lawrence, AB 1999. The responsiveness of sows to their piglets in relation to the length of parturition and the involvement of endogenous opioids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Van der Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J, Calvert, SK 2001. The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, M, Alban, L, Kjærsgård, HD, Bækbo, P 2004. Factors associated with suckling piglet average daily gain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 63, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keita, A, Pagot, E, Prunier, A, Guidarini, Ch 2010. Pre-emptive meloxicam for postoperative analgesia in piglets undergoing surgical castration. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 37, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, KW, Curtis, SE 1978. Effects of heat stress on rectal temperature, respiratory rate and activity rates in peripartal sows and gilts. Journal of Animal Science 46, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, GJ, Willoughby, RA, Hacker, RR 1972. Fluctuations in rectal temperature of swine at parturition. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 13, 72–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y, Dial, GD, Pettigrew, JE, Marsh, WE, King, VL 1996. Characterization of feed intake patterns during lactation in commercial swine herds. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1202–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krieter, J, Engler, J, Tölle, K-H, Timm, HH, Hohls, E 2009. Control charts applied to simulated sow herd datasets. Livestock Science 121, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, GJ, De Lange, A 1986. Pre- and post-farrowing behaviour in primiparous domesticated pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenhouwers, JI, Wissink, P, van der Lende, T, Paridaans, H, Knol, EF 2003. Stillbirth in the pig in relation to genetic merit for farrowing survival. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2419–2424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainau, E, Dalmau, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Manteca, X 2009. Validation of an automatic system to detect position changes in puerperal sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainau, E, Dalmau, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Manteca, X 2010. A behavioural scale to measure ease of farrowing in sows. Theriogenology 74, 1279–1287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant, JN, Broom, DM, Corning, S 2001. The influence of sow behaviour on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science 72, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S, Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. The Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noakes, DE 2001. Parturition and the care of parturient animals. In Arthur's veterinary reproduction and obstetrics (ed. DE Noakes, TJ Parkinson and GCW England), pp. 155–187. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
Österlundh, I, Hultén, F, Johannisson, A, Magnusson, Ulf 2002. Sows intramammarily inoculated with Escherichia coli at parturition: I. Functional capacity of granulocytes in sows affected or non-affected by clinical mastitis. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 90, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J, Gaudré, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, PNP, Knaus, EE 2008. Evolution of nonesteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): cyclooxigenase (COX) inhibition and beyond. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 11, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozeboom, DW, Pettigrew, JE, Moser, RL, Cornelius, SG, Kandelgy, SM 1996. Influence of gilt age and body composition at first breeding on sow reproductive performance and longevity. Journal of Animal Science 74, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, CE 1998. Fundamentals of pain perception in animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Špinka, M, Illmann, G, de Jonge, F, Andersoon, M, Schuurman, T, Jensen, P 2000. Dimensions of maternal behaviour characteristics in domestic and wild × domestic crossbred sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverne, MAM 1992. Physiology of parturition. Animal Reproduction Science 28, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH, Herskin, MS 2002. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, CG, Millman, ST, McKnight, DR, Duffield, TF, Leslie, KE 2010. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for neonatal calf diarrhea complex: effects on calf performance. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2019–2028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valros, A, Rundgren, M, Špinka, M, Saloniemi, H, Algers, B 2003. Sow activity level, frequency of standing-to-lying posture changes and anti-crushing behaviour – within sow-repeatability and interactions with nursing behaviour and piglet performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Lende, T, Knol, EF, Leenhouwers, JI 2001. Prenatal development as a predisposing factor for perinatal losses in pigs. Reproduction Supplement 58, 247–261.Google ScholarPubMed
Weary, DM, Pajor, EA, Fraser, D, Honkanen, AM 1996. Sow body movements that crush piglets: a comparison between two types of farrowing accommodation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Niel, L, Flower, FC, Fraser, D 2006. Identifying and preventing pain in animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischner, D, Kemper, N, Stamer, E, Hellbruegge, B, Presuhn, U, Krieter, J 2009. Characterisation of sows’ postures and posture changes with regard to crushing piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, YX, Heo, S, Jin, Z, Yun, JH, Choi, JY, Yoon, SY, Park, MS, Yang, BK, Chae, BJ 2009. Effects of lysine intake during late gestation and lactation on blood metabolites, hormones, milk composition and reproductive performance in primiparous and multiparous sows. Animal Reproduction Science 112, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed