Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:24:39.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management - Disease interactions in pigs 3: Nutrition - disease interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

B.G. Miller ,
M.Bailey ,
E. Telemo ,
C.R. Stokes  and
F.J. Bourne
B.G. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
M.Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
E. Telemo
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
C.R. Stokes
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
F.J. Bourne
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DU
Get access

Extract

Both level of feeding and dietary composition have been demonstrated to influence bacterial colonisation and diarrhoea in the weaned pig (Smith & Hall 1968, Bertschinger et al 1978, Lecce et al 1983). Kenworthy and Allen 1966 proposed that “the stimulus to bacterial growth derives from the hosts response mechanisms to intestinal irritation” and that the enterotoxigenic E Coli “Acts as an exacerbating agent rather than a primary pathogen” (Kenworthy et al 1967).

Several workers have suggested that the primary intestinal response is villus atrophy, an elevation in crypt cell mitosis (by up to x10) and crypt cell hyperplasia, associated with malabsorption, mal-digestion and increased intra-epithelial lymphocytes. Such a response is characteristic of a T cell mediated type IV hypersensitivity (Ferguson 1980). Miller et al (1984) have therefore suggested that one of the factors which may contribute to the aetiology of postweaning diarrhoea is a transient hypersensitivity to dietary antigens prior to the development of oral tolerance.

Type
Management - Disease Interactions in Piglets
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1988 , March 1988 , pp. 34
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

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

Bertshinger, H.U., Eggenberger, E., Jucker, H., Pfirter, H.P. (1978) Vet Microbiol 3, 281–290.Google Scholar
English, P.R. (1980) Proc Pig Vet soc. 4, 31.Google Scholar
Ferguson, A. (1980) First Food Allergy Workshop. Pub Medical Education Services Ltd, Oxford. 28–38 Google Scholar
Kenworthv, R., Allen, W.D. (1966) J Comp Path. 76, 31–44.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, R., Stubbs, J.M., Syme, G. (1967) J Path Bact. 93, 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecce, J.G., Clare, D.A., Balsbaugh, R.K., Collier, D. (1983) J Clin Microbiol. 17, 689–690.Google Scholar
Miller, B.G., Brown, A.J., Lightfoot, A., Bourne, F.J. (1986) Animal Prod. 42, 459 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Lightfoot, A.L., Miller, B.G., Spechter, H.H. (1987) Animal Prod. 44, 490 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Miller, B.G., Newbv, T.J., Stokes, C.R., Bourne, F.J. (1984) Res Vet Sci. 36, 187–195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newby, T.J., Miller, B.G., Stokes, C.R., Hampson, D., Bourne, F.J. (1985) in Recent Developments in Pig Nutrition. Butterworths Ed DJA, Cole & W., Haresign Google Scholar
Smith, H.W., Halls, S. (1968) J Med Microbiol. 1, 45–59 Google Scholar