title: The effect of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus challenge on growing pigs I: Growth performance and digestibility.
abstract: Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) are two diseases costly to the U.S. swine industry. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of PRRS virus and PED virus, alone or in combination, on growth performance, feed efficiency, and digestibility in grower pigs. Forty-two gilts (16 ± 0.98 kg BW) naïve for PRRS and PED were selected and allocated to 1 of 4 treatments. Treatments included 1) a control, 2) PRRS virus infected, 3) PED virus infected, and 4) PRRS+PED coinfection (PRP). Pigs in treatments 2 and 4 were inoculated with a live field strain of PRRS virus via intramuscular and intranasal routes at 0 d after inoculation (dpi). Treatments 3 and 4 were orally inoculated with a cloned PED virus at 15 dpi. Infection with PRRS virus was confirmed by quantitative PCR and seroconversion. Infection with PED virus was confirmed with PCR. Control pigs remained PRRS and PED virus negative throughout the study. All pigs were offered, ad libitum, a standard diet with free access to water. During the test period, PRRS reduced ADG and ADFI by 30 and 26%, respectively ( < 0.05), compared with control pigs, whereas PRP decreased ADG, ADFI, and G:F by 45, 30, and 23%, respectively ( < 0.05). Additional reductions in ADG and G:F were detected in PRP pigs compared with singular PED or PRRS treatments (33 and 16%, respectively). The impact of PED, alone or in combination, on performance (15-21 dpi) reduced ADG (0.66 vs. 0.35 vs. 0.20 kg/d; < 0.01), ADFI (1.22 vs. 0.88 vs. 0.67 kg/d; = 0.003), and G:F (0.54 vs. 0.39 vs. 0.31; = 0.001) compared with control pigs. Compared with control pigs, PRRS infection did not reduce apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients and energy. However, PED infection, alone or in combination, decreased ATTD of DM and energy by 8 and 12%, respectively ( < 0.05). Compared with control pigs, PRP reduced N and OM ATTD by 13 and 3%, respectively ( < 0.05). No significant differences in apparent ileal digestibility (AID) were detected between virus challenges. However, Lys AID tended to be reduced in both PED treatments compared with the control (10 and 12%; = 0.095). Altogether, PRRS reduced growth but did not alter digestibility. Pigs challenged with PED and, to a greater extent, the coinfection of PED and PRRS viruses had reduced ADG, ADFI, G:F, and ATTD of nutrients and energy.
authors.forename: W P
authors.initials: WP
authors.lastname: Schweer
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Schwartz
authors.forename: E R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: Burrough
authors.forename: K J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Yoon
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Sparks
authors.forename: N K
authors.initials: NK
authors.lastname: Gabler
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D060085:Coinfection / Q000662:veterinary / Q000821:virology; D018352:Coronavirus Infections / Q000473:pathology / Q000662:veterinary*; D004063:Digestion; D004734:Energy Metabolism; D005260:Female; D019318:Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome / Q000473:pathology / Q000821:virology*; D053485:Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus; D019316:Porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus; D011897:Random Allocation; D013552:Swine