• home
  • about us
  • contact us
Browse by Issue
Products
Enterisol® Ileitis
Enterisol® SC-54
Ingelvac® ERY-ALC
Ingelvac® HP-1/HPE-1
Ingelvac® M. hyo
Ingelvac® PRRS ATP
Ingelvac® PRRS MLV
Reprocyc PRRS/PLE
Diseases
Atinobacillus Pleuropneumoniae
B. hydysenteriae
E. Coli
Erysipelas
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae
Haemophilus parasuis
Ileitis
Leptospira
Mycoplasma hyponeumoniae (M. hyo)
Parvo Virus
PCVAD
PCV2
PMWS
PRRS
PRV
Salmonella choleraesuis
Salmonellosis
SIV
Worms

Print This Article

Placing Enterisol Ileitis vaccine for maximum benefit

As with any vaccine, proper timing plays a key role in protecting pigs against ileitis. Once exposure timing is understood, using serology or PCR, then vaccine may be placed for best benefit.

Timing vaccination

Like many other vaccines, it takes around four weeks to develop protection from vaccination against ileitis. This four-week window, known as the onset of immunity, allows the pig to respond to the vaccine and develop protective immunity. When the pig is subsequently exposed to the virulent field organism, it's ready to protect itself.

Most pigs can be successfully vaccinated in the middle or late nursery stage, between six and 10 weeks of age. For replacement breeding animals, vaccinate as soon as a medication-free ration can be provided, and at least four weeks before entry into the sow herd. In some cases, vaccination at different ages may be needed to allow for sufficient onset of immunity.

Vaccine delivers known protection

Medications protect against ileitis only when present in the feed or water. Vaccination delivers long lasting protection. For example, gilts vaccinated at 12 weeks of age are now approaching their second litter without clinical signs, even though housed in an ileitis-contaminated environment. This would be over 300 days later, suggesting protection may be long lasting.

Positive protection drives positive returns

Field trials utilizing Enterisol Ileitis vaccine in growing/finishing pigs have demonstrated high returns to using vaccine to control ileitis. Below is a table that compares the economics of using Enterisol Ileitis versus feed medication alone. Vaccine and administration cost was assumed to be $1 per pig placed. Feed medication costs were averages from several references. Vaccination to control ileitis averaged a benefit cost ratio of more than 7:1 compared to conventional feed medication programs for ileitis control, making vaccination more profitable than medication for raising pigs. In several cases, eliminating the need of continuous feed medication reduced cost enough to pay for the vaccine and more! Standard feed medications used in control groups included 100 and 40 grams per ton tylosin and 500 grams/ton chlortetracycline. Even without these medications in vaccinated groups, feed efficiency was unchanged.

Trial Vx age % ↑ADG % ↓Mort/Cull % ↓FC B:C*
Grow Fin 8 wks 7.2% 35% Equal meds 7.3
Gilt Fin 6 wks 4.7% 35% Equal meds 7.2
Gilt Fin 6 wks 7.6% 34% Equal meds 12.1
Grow Fin 10 wks 5.2% Not diff Equal meds 4.9
Gilt Fin 7 wks 5.6% 13% Equal meds 7.9
AVERAGE 6.0% 23% Equal meds 7.6
* Benefit/cost ratio

Application

Three keys

Several steps aid vaccination via drinking water — in less time than it takes to read Insight. See the photos on page 4.

Measure consumption — Measure “stock solution” intake (using tap water) for a four-hour period, at 24 hours before the time of vaccination.

Use Ready Packs Handy packs to neutralize chlorine and view drinking water containing vaccine. Use Ready Packs when vaccinating, not before or after.

Bleed lines — Be sure to run the furthest drinker(s) to prime all drinking lines with vaccine.

In 15 minutes, you can safely and effectively vaccinate thousands of pigs. Several small steps can save big amounts of time!

More information

Waddell J, et al. Immunization against Lawsonia intracellularis in a new genetic multiplier system. Proc IPVS 2002. P 221. www.ipvs2002.vetmed.iastate.edu/home.asp

McOrist S, et al. Estimate of direct financial losses due to porcine proliferative enteropathy. Vet Record (1997) 140:579-581. www.vetrecord.co.uk

Back to Top