Search

Objective: To assess the value of s-methylmethionine sulphonium chloride (SMMSC) (200 mg/kg) on nutritional performance of pigs and as prevention or therapy for oesophagogastric ulcers. Design: Sixty pigs from a high health status herd with continuing oesophagogastric ulcer problems were endoscopically assessed for the presence or absence of oesophagogastric ulcers. Forty-eight pigs were then selected and allocated according to an initial oesophagogastric epithelial (ulcer score) classification to replicated treatment groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Weight gain and feed intake were measured over 49 d, after which pigs were killed and stomachs were collected, re-examined and scored for oesophagogastric ulceration. Results: There was no difference over the 49 d in weight gain, feed intake and backfat in pigs with and without SMMSC supplementation between pigs with or without fully developed oesophagogastric ulcers at the start of the study. In pigs with an initially low ulcer score, feeding SMMSC did not prevent further oesophagogastric ulcer development. No significant effect of SMMSC was apparent when final mean oesophagogastric ulcer scores were compared in pigs with existing high ulcer score. However, further analysis of the changes in individual pig oesophagogastric ulcer scores during the experiment showed that the observed reductions in scores of the high ulcer group was significantly different from all other groups. Conclusion: This study has indicated that supplementation of pig diets with SMMSC cannot be justified unless the slight ulcer score improvement observed could be translated to some commercial production advantage such as a reduction in pig mortalities due to oesophagogastric ulcers. This study has further confirmed the benefit of endoscopy as a tool to enable objective assessment of oesophageal gastric health.

Objective: To assess the value of s-methylmethionine sulphonium chloride (SMMSC) (200 mg/kg) on nutritional performance of pigs and as prevention or therapy for oesophagogastric ulcers. Design: Sixty pigs from a high health status herd with continuing oesophagogastric ulcer problems were endoscopically assessed for the presence or absence of oesophagogastric ulcers. Forty-eight pigs were then selected and allocated according to an initial oesophagogastric epithelial (ulcer score) classification to replicated treatment groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Weight gain and feed intake were measured over 49 d, after which pigs were killed and stomachs were collected, re-examined and scored for oesophagogastric ulceration. Results: There was no difference over the 49 d in weight gain, feed intake and backfat in pigs with and without SMMSC supplementation between pigs with or without fully developed oesophagogastric ulcers at the start of the study. In pigs with an initially low ulcer score, feeding SMMSC did not prevent further oesophagogastric ulcer development. No significant effect of SMMSC was apparent when final mean oesophagogastric ulcer scores were compared in pigs with existing high ulcer score. However, further analysis of the changes in individual pig oesophagogastric ulcer scores during the experiment showed that the observed reductions in scores of the high ulcer group was significantly different from all other groups. Conclusion: This study has indicated that supplementation of pig diets with SMMSC cannot be justified unless the slight ulcer score improvement observed could be translated to some commercial production advantage such as a reduction in pig mortalities due to oesophagogastric ulcers. This study has further confirmed the benefit of endoscopy as a tool to enable objective assessment of oesophageal gastric health.

Objective: To assess the value of s-methylmethionine sulphonium chloride (SMMSC) (200 mg/kg) on nutritional performance of pigs and as prevention or therapy for oesophagogastric ulcers. Design: Sixty pigs from a high health status herd with continuing oesophagogastric ulcer problems were endoscopically assessed for the presence or absence of oesophagogastric ulcers. Forty-eight pigs were then selected and allocated according to an initial oesophagogastric epithelial (ulcer score) classification to replicated treatment groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Weight gain and feed intake were measured over 49 d, after which pigs were killed and stomachs were collected, re-examined and scored for oesophagogastric ulceration. Results: There was no difference over the 49 d in weight gain, feed intake and backfat in pigs with and without SMMSC supplementation between pigs with or without fully developed oesophagogastric ulcers at the start of the study. In pigs with an initially low ulcer score, feeding SMMSC did not prevent further oesophagogastric ulcer development. No significant effect of SMMSC was apparent when final mean oesophagogastric ulcer scores were compared in pigs with existing high ulcer score. However, further analysis of the changes in individual pig oesophagogastric ulcer scores during the experiment showed that the observed reductions in scores of the high ulcer group was significantly different from all other groups. Conclusion: This study has indicated that supplementation of pig diets with SMMSC cannot be justified unless the slight ulcer score improvement observed could be translated to some commercial production advantage such as a reduction in pig mortalities due to oesophagogastric ulcers. This study has further confirmed the benefit of endoscopy as a tool to enable objective assessment of oesophageal gastric health.

Objective: To assess the value of s-methylmethionine sulphonium chloride (SMMSC) (200 mg/kg) on nutritional performance of pigs and as prevention or therapy for oesophagogastric ulcers. Design: Sixty pigs from a high health status herd with continuing oesophagogastric ulcer problems were endoscopically assessed for the presence or absence of oesophagogastric ulcers. Forty-eight pigs were then selected and allocated according to an initial oesophagogastric epithelial (ulcer score) classification to replicated treatment groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Weight gain and feed intake were measured over 49 d, after which pigs were killed and stomachs were collected, re-examined and scored for oesophagogastric ulceration. Results: There was no difference over the 49 d in weight gain, feed intake and backfat in pigs with and without SMMSC supplementation between pigs with or without fully developed oesophagogastric ulcers at the start of the study. In pigs with an initially low ulcer score, feeding SMMSC did not prevent further oesophagogastric ulcer development. No significant effect of SMMSC was apparent when final mean oesophagogastric ulcer scores were compared in pigs with existing high ulcer score. However, further analysis of the changes in individual pig oesophagogastric ulcer scores during the experiment showed that the observed reductions in scores of the high ulcer group was significantly different from all other groups. Conclusion: This study has indicated that supplementation of pig diets with SMMSC cannot be justified unless the slight ulcer score improvement observed could be translated to some commercial production advantage such as a reduction in pig mortalities due to oesophagogastric ulcers. This study has further confirmed the benefit of endoscopy as a tool to enable objective assessment of oesophageal gastric health.