<b>Effects of meloxicam or essential oil supplementation during lactation and nursery phase in pigs with insights into public perception of the U.S. swine industry through social and online media</b>
Creators: name: Fisk, Alexandra Elizabeth
Publisher: name: Purdue University Graduate School
Year: 2025
Subjects: classificationCode: 300303
subject: Animal nutrition
classificationCode: 300304
subject: Animal protection (incl. pests and pathogens)
classificationCode: 380101
subject: Agricultural economics

description: Modern sows have been genetically selected for higher prolificacy and litter size resulting in greater nutrient demand and physiological stress on sows. With growing public concerns and restricted use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is an increasing need for an effective alternative for antibiotics particularly for sows and nursery pigs. Compounded medications that do not require FDA approval and phytogenic feed additives such as essential oils (EOs) have gained attention in recent years as potential alternatives for antibiotics but are still relatively underdeveloped and under-researched. All data in this dissertation were analyzed using various procedures in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), QIIME2 (v2022.8) and R (v4.2.3).The study conducted in Chapter 2 evaluated the effects of a novel oral drench compound of meloxicam, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), on the body temperature of sows in the first 24 hours post-farrowing, piglet survivability, and growth performance on a commercial farm. The study was comprised of 837 sows that were randomly assigned to receive no treatment (CON, n=418) or a single, 90 mg dose of meloxicam (MEL; 6 mL of a 1.5% suspension, ~0.4 mg/kg of body weight; Veterinary Pharmaceutical Solutions, St. Peter, MN) at the completion of farrowing. Rectal temperatures were recorded on all sows at the end of farrowing, and 12 and 24 hours post-farrowing. A 2x2 factorial was unintentionally created due to the standard operating procedure (SOP) of the farm requiring all sows with a rectal temperature ≥ 39.70°C to be treated with flunixin (an NSAID) and ampicillin for three consecutive days producing an additionally medicated (MEDS) and not additionally medicated (NOMEDS) groups. Litters were weighed and counted within 12 to 24 hours post-farrowing and the day before weaning with piglet mortality recorded daily. The main effects of MEL/CON and MEDS/NOMEDS as well as their interaction and the effect of parity class were evaluated. In the first 12 hours post-farrowing, MEL reduced rectal temperatures by 0.10°C (P = 0.009) and by 0.18°C in sows in the MEDS group (P = 0.038). Additionally, parity 1 (P1) sows in the MEL group had a lower incidence of pre-weaning diarrhea in their litters compared to P1 sows in the CON group (18.8 vs. 35.6%, respectively; P = 0.001). Preweaning mortality and growth performance were not significantly impacted by MEL in this study. This study indicates that a single, oral dose of compounded meloxicam is an effective option to reduce fever in sows compared to standard treatment practices, decrease the incidence of preweaning diarrhea in piglets, and improve worker safety while being a more efficient method to improve sow welfare post-farrowing.Chapter 3 was a pilot study exploring the effects of Agolin® Pig, a microencapsulated blend of essential oils, on sow feed intake, body condition, milk composition, piglet growth performance, and gut microbiota structure in late gestation and throughout lactation. A total of 25 sows were blocked by parity and randomly assigned to either the control group (CON, n = 13) or to receive 200 ppm of Agolin® Pig (AGO, n = 12) for approximately 2 weeks pre-farrowing until the end of lactation. Sow body condition scores (BCS), body weights, and Knauer sow caliper measurements were recorded at the start of the trial, 1 week post-farrowing, and at weaning to evaluate changes in overall sow body condition during lactation. At the start of farrowing, daily feed intake was measured. Piglets were weighed within 24 hours of farrowing as an initial body weight and again on days 7, 14, and at weaning to calculate average daily gain (ADG). Colostrum samples were collected within two hours of the onset of farrowing with transition milk collected on d 3 and mature milk collected on d 14 post-farrowing. Milk total protein, IgG and IgA concentrations, and fat creamatocrit (fat content) were determined for all time points. There were no differences observed between AGO and CON in sow ADFI, piglet ADG, or colostrum and milk composition during lactation. While there was no effect of AGO on the change in sow body weight or BCS during lactation, there was significantly less body condition loss as measured by the Knauer caliper during lactation (P = 0.010). Phylogenetic diversity as measured by the Unweighted Unifrac procedure was lower on d 8 of lactation in AGO-supplemented sows compared to CON (P = 0.029). On d 8 and 16 of lactation, there was an increase in the abundance of Clostridium and Streptococcus in the CON group but not in the AGO group. However, there were no other meaningful alterations in the gut microbiota structure in this study. The findings in this preliminary study support further research into the supplementation of Agolin® Pig based on the mitigation of body condition loss as measured by the Knauer caliper and shifts in some potentially pathogenic bacteria.An alternative essential oil supplementation in sows was investigated in Chapter 4 of this dissertation. This was a two-part study with Study 1 aimed at evaluating the effects of increasing concentrations of water-delivered oregano essential oil (OEO) to sows in lactation on sow body condition measures, feed intake, water intake, subsequent reproductive performance, and piglet growth performance. A total of 182 sows were blocked by parity, estimated farrowing date, and genetics and randomly allotted to receive 0 mL/L (CON; n = 46), 0.24 mL/L (L-OEO; n = 45), 0.37 mL/L (M-OEO; n = 46), or 0.49 mL/L (H-OEO; n = 45) of OEO (Ecodiar Liquid, Nutrinae, Palo Alto, CA) in the water. This study was conducted across 5 farrowing group in 3 seasons (spring, summer, and fall). Sow body weight, ADFI, and daily water intake were measured throughout the study. Piglets were individually weighed within 24 hours of birth, on d7 post-farrowing, and at weaning. Piglet therapeutic treatments were recorded daily. Days to first service were recorded for all sows while sows from the first 3 farrowing groups underwent rectal ultrasound measurements to measure follicle size and estimate the time to ovulation. Study 2 was a preference study including 20 sows that had access to both CON and M-OEO water lines upon entry to the farrowing house until weaning (25 days) to evaluate water intake when sows are given a choice between the two. Feed intake was greater in week 1 of lactation in the average of all OEO-supplemented groups as evaluated using repeated measures compared to CON (P = 0.089). While there were no statistically significant effects of OEO supplementation on feed intake other than higher feed intake on d 4 in the L-OEO group (quadratic contrast, P = 0.049), there was roughly an 8% increase in ADFI by the end of the first week of lactation in sows supplemented with OEO regardless of concentration compared to CON. Water intake did not differ among treatment groups. There was a quadratic tendency for sows in the L-OEO and M-OEO groups to have lost less body weight (P = 0.054) and BCS (P = 0.087) than CON and H-OEO. While there was no effect of treatment on piglet growth performance, piglets in the H-OEO groups tended to have fewer therapeutic treatments (4.5%) than all other groups in this study (CON=6.7%, L-OEO=9.0%, and M-OEO=7.7%; P=0.067). Seasonal effects were observed regardless of treatment with feed intake and piglet weights reduced and therapeutic treatments increased in the summer months. Interestingly, the cubic contrast showed that sows from the M-OEO treatment tended to have a longer wean-to-estrus interval (5.2 d) than all other treatments (CON=4.8 d, L-OEO=4.9 d, and H-OEO=4.8 d; P=0.061) In Study 2 in this chapter, sows consumed equal amounts of CON and M-OEO water until the last week of lactation when a preference to consume CON water consumption increased compared to M-OEO. The lack of overall preference for M-OEO and no differences in water intake in Study 1, even at the highest concentration indicate no adverse effects of water-delivered OEO on water intake in sows. Oregano EO water supplementation can improve sow feed intake in early lactation and reduce the loss of body condition in lactating sows.In Chapter 5, we aimed to evaluate the carryover effect of OEO supplementation using the last farrowing group of Chapter 4 in Study 1 on the subsequent growth performance of piglets in the nursery period all the way to market. Additionally, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of OEO supplementation in the water of nursery pigs on growth performance and therapeutic treatment rates from weaning to market. Pigs were blocked based on body weight, parity (P1 vs P2+), genetics, and lactation treatment described in the previous chapter (CON, L-OEO, M-OEO, and H-OEO), and randomly allotted to one of two water-delivered treatments: 0 mL/L of OEO (CON; n = 198 pigs) or 0.37 mL/L of OEO (OEO; n = 198 pigs; Ecodiar Liquid, Nutrinae, Palo Alto, CA). Delivery of OEO in the water occurred during the first 10 days of the nursery post-weaning. The nursery phase duration was from d 0 to 38 post-weaning. The grow-finish period was from d 38 to 143. Pigs and pen feeders were individually weighed on d 0, 10, 38, and 143, and feed intake was recorded to calculate ADG, ADFI, and G:F. All therapeutic treatments were recorded for the duration of the study. In the first 10 days of the nursery period, pigs receiving OEO had improved ADG and G:F compared to CON, but not from d 10 to 38 or d 38 to 143, indicating that OEO supplementation was effective during the time it was administered at improving pig growth performance and efficiency. While there were no differences in overall therapeutic treatment rates between nursery treatment groups, treatment rates for reasons other than enteric disease, lameness, and unthriftiness from d 0 to 10 and from d 0 to 143 were lower in OEO-supplemented pigs than CON pigs. There were no consistent carryover effects of lactation treatment on nursery or grow-finish growth performance or therapeutic treatment rates indicating that exposure to the OEO supplement used in this study in lactation does not affect offspring subsequent performance. There was a parity effect observed in this study with pigs from P1 sows having more therapeutic treatments than P2+ sows. Overall, this study demonstrated that OEO supplementation in nursery pigs is efficient at improving ADG and G:F during the period it is administered but has no effect on therapeutic treatment rates or long-term growth performance to market. Previous exposure to OEO in lactation did not affect nursery or grow-finish growth performance or therapeutic treatment rates in this study. Providing OEO supplementation immediately post-weaning may aid in piglet growth performance in the weaning transition period.Chapter 6 evaluates the effects of providing an EO supplement in creep feed to piglets during lactation and varying levels of EO in the feed of nursery pigs. Dual Defender™ is a microencapsulated blend of OEO and a prebiotic (Ralco Agriculture, Marshall, MN) designed to improve feed integrity and freshness while also supporting immune system function in pigs. Litters were blocked by parity, genetics, weaning age, litter size, and litter weight and randomly allotted to one of two creep feed diets including a basal creep feed (C; n = 35) or basal creep feed + 0.10% Dual Defender™ (LD; n = 17) which was provided for 7 days before weaning. Individual piglet weights were recorded at the start of the treatment (7 days pre-weaning) and at weaning. At weaning, pigs were blocked by weaning weight within creep feed treatment groups and randomly allotted to nursery treatments. The C creep feed group was randomly allotted to one of four dietary treatments: 1. Control diet (C-NC), 2. Control diet + carbadox (55 mg/kg; C-PC), 3. Control diet + 0.10% Dual Defender (C-LD), or 4. Control diet + 0.16% Dual Defender (C-HD). The LD creep feed group was randomly allotted to either the Control diet + 0.10% Dual Defender (LD-LD) or the Control diet + 0.16% Dual Defender (LD-HD). There were 10 pens per nursery treatment with 8 or 9 mixed sex pigs per pen evenly distributed among body weight blocks. Overall, C-PC had the greatest ADG and feed efficiency across the entire nursery period compared to the NC and Dual Defender nursery groups regardless of creep feed treatment. Pigs that received C creep feed and HD in the nursery and pigs that received LD creep feed and LD in the nursery showed similar increases in ADFI, ADG, and G:F which were greater than the other nursery Dual Defender supplemented groups. This indicates that HD should be used in the nursery if no supplementation is provided through creep feeds in lactation, or, if LD is provided in lactation creep feed, then LD is a more optimal level of DD in the nursery. Pigs that received LD or HD in the nursery had fewer therapeutic treatments for unthriftiness and lameness compared to C-PC, indicating a possible health benefit. Overall, this study indicated that carbadox supplementation in the nursery was more efficient at improving growth performance compared to Dual Defender™ regardless of concentration. Additionally, exposure to Dual Defender™ in lactation did not appear to affect subsequent growth performance in the nursery period. However, supplementing Dual Defender™ to nursery pigs may prove beneficial in reducing the incidence of unthriftiness or lameness in nursery pigs.Public perception and demand have been key drivers for reducing or banning the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Additionally, social licensing often dictates swine production practices and pork demand. To explore public perceptions of the U.S. swine industry, the study outlined in Chapter 7 utilized an online and social media listening and data analytics tool to identify and quantify online and social media associated with the U.S. swine industry from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023. The search parameters for online and social media included terms related to pork and pigs resulting in a total of 41,093,309 mentions. Specific topics were explored within the general search including food and cooking (20,580,068 mentions), price (2,866,548 mentions), welfare (1,615,208 mentions), sustainability (771,819 mentions), and top authors/organizations within the U.S. swine industry (1,430 mentions). The overall search and special topics spanned geographic locations within the overall U.S. (and U.S. Minor Outlying Islands), the top 5 most populous states, and the top 5 pork-producing states. X/Twitter was overwhelmingly the largest domain for nearly all mentions related to the U.S. swine industry (&gt;70%). Food/cooking was the topic with the most media presence, specifically with interest in ways to cook pork and how to store bacon. The top authors/organizations selected in this study are designed to bridge the divide between consumers and producers and market pork products to consumers yet were found to have minimal impact on the overall online conversation and had no detectable online presence in the top 5 most populous states. Except for major events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, H1N1 Swine Flu, environmental events, and increases in pork prices due to inflation, the overall net sentiment towards the U.S. swine industry was positive across all four years and geographies in this study. Data from this study provides a glimpse into public perception and conversation drivers related to the U.S. swine industry to aid in data-driven decision-making on production practices and marketing strategies.Collectively, these studies support the need for additional research into the composition of EO products, dosage, timing of administration, and potential targeted supplementation to optimize their benefits in sows and nursery pigs. Additionally, with public perception driving changes in legislation across the U.S., swine producers need to utilize information centered on public communications and areas of interest to make data-driven decisions and be more proactive regarding social expectations and demands while building on the generally positive public perception the U.S. pork industry has.<br>