JORGE NETO, P. N.

LEAL, D. F.

MARQUES, M. G.

VIANA, C. H. C.

Infoteca-e

COMUNICADO TÉCNICO572Concórdia, SCJune, 2020Application of real-time ultrasonography as a tool to increase reproductive efficiency of female pigs ISSN 0100-8862Photos: Diego Feitosa LealMariana Groke MarquesDiego Feitosa LealPedro Nacib Jorge NetoCarlos Henrique Cabral Viana2Application of real-time ultrasonography as a tool to increase reproductive efficiency of female pigs11 Mariana Groke Marques, Veterinarian, Ph.D in Animal Reproduction, researcher at Embrapa Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, SC. Diego Feitosa Leal, Veterinarian, M.Sc in Animal Reproduction, Ph.D student in Animal Reproduction at Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia of Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP. Pedro Nacib Jorge Neto, Veterinarian, M.Sc in Animal Reproduction, Ph.D student in Animal Reproduction, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia of Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP. Carlos Henrique Cabral Viana,  Veterinarian, Ph.D in Animal Reproduction, associate professor at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Poços de Caldas, MG. IntroductionOver the past 40 years the pig pro-duction landscape has changed dra-matically, influenced by several factors including the massive application of te-chnological tools coupled with advanced feeding strategies, improvements in herd health management, advances in hou-sing systems and environments, as well as increased awareness for sustainable farming taking into consideration animal welfare principles. All these features have contributed to the industrialization of pig farming, bringing about many benefits for the major pork-producing countries. Notwithstanding the advances seen in many areas of pig production, precise methods for troubleshooting re-productive dysfunction in pig operations are still lacking, which results in econo-mic losses.In this context, real-time ultrasono-graphy (RTU) is an invaluable tool to optimize reproductive efficiency in pig herds. Indeed, trans-abdominal RTU can be used to characterize reproducti-ve dysfunction (Castangna et al., 2004; Kauffold et al., 2005), to assess ovulation (Waberski et al., 2000), the attainment of puberty (Kauffold et al., 2004) and for early diagnosis of pregnancy (Flowers et al., 1999; Maes et al., 2006). The ability to assess the sows’ re-productive tract in real-time and make a precise diagnosis assumes great im-portance when the current culling rates are observed. Indeed, it is estimated that as many as 40% to 50% of breeding sows are culled each year; of these, 30% are culled by third parity. Reproductive failure is one of the major reasons for in-voluntary culling (Tani et al., 2018), with disappointing litter size, anestrus and return to estrus following insemination as major underlying causes for removal of young sows. Nevertheless, aside from been caused by intrinsic imbalances, 3reproductive failures can be influenced by external factors such as deficient es-trus detection, incorrect timing of insemi-nation, poor semen quality, and disease. Hence, the information obtained through RTU examination would substantiate the decision for removal, enabling producers to re-inseminate, treat or remove fema-les from the breeding herd (Flowers et al., 2000; De Rensis et al., 2000; Maes et al., 2006), reducing the number of non-productive days (Willians et al., 2008) and maximizing reproductive efficiency.Use of RTU in pig reproductionReal-time ultrasonography utilizes sound waves of high frequency emitted from transducers that travel in different patterns. It is a non-invasive and biolo-gically safe technique for both operator and sow. Upon contact with tissues, the ultrasound waves are reflected back to the transducer, where they are converted into electrical signals and displayed on a monitor as a two-dimensional image in greyscale (Flowers et al., 2000). The image displayed on the screen varies from white to light grey, representing dense tissues such as bone and muscle, and from dark grey to black, correspon-ding to fluid-filled structures such as bla-dder and uterus (Knox; Flowers, 2006).Pregnancy diagnosis Transcutaneous RTU is preferentiallyused for pregnancy diagnosis in pigs because it is readily accessible and qui-cker to perform (Kauffold et al., 2019). To visualize the gravid uterus, the transdu-cer should be placed on the right abdo-minal wall, just above the most caudal mammary glands. The transducer should be pointed towards the spine in a 45-de-gree angle and directed dorsocaudally and dorsocranially. Ultrasound gel must be applied to the transducer surface in order to maximize wave propagation and contact between the skin and the trans-ducer. Both the 3.5 MHz and 5.0 MHz transducers can be used for pregnancy diagnosis (Knox; Flowers, 2006); howe-ver, according to Kauffold et al. (2019) if a single transducer frequency should be selected, 5 MHz is preferred as lower frequencies typically provide for lower resolution.The non-gravid uterus is characteri-zed by circles (cross-section of uterine horns) of moderate echogenicity. It is worth mentioning that the non-gravid uterus is more difficult to visualize, which poses a challenge for the inexperienced operator to rule out pregnancy. The vi-sualization of multiple fluid-filled pockets within the uterus, representing the em-bryonic vesicles, can be considered as the first sign of pregnancy. Embryonic vesicles, measuring from 10 mm  to 20 mm, can easily be visualized on day 20 of pregnancy (Figure 1A). After day 21 of pregnancy the embryos can be obser-ved; they are represented by echogenic 4Figure 1. Transabdominal ultrasonographic images of the gravid uterus. Day 20 of pregnancy (A); around day 35 of pregnancy (B); > 90 days of pregnancy (the stomach and the spine of the embryos can be seen).Photos: Diego Feitosa Lealstructures within the vesicles. Around day 30 of pregnancy it is possible to dis-tinguish the head, the abdomen, and the limbs of the embryos (Figure 1B). From day 60 it is possible to visualize the ocu-lar orbits, the spine, the stomach and the beating foetal heart (Figure 1C).Using RTU for pregnancy diagno-ses is advantageous when compared to other methods, as sows’ pregnancy status can be determined early and reliably, allowing pig producers to make quick decisions, limiting the number of non-productive days (Maes et al., 2006). Table 1 summarizes the outcomes of testing for pregnancy at various days post-insemination.  A B C Table 1. Sensitivity (%), specificity (%), overall accuracy (%) and predictive values (%) of preg-nancy diagnoses from day 17-21 post-insemination.17 18 19 20 21Sensitivity 51.43 73.68 93.02 100.00 100.00Specificity 42.86 12.50 62.50 100.00 100.00Accuracy 48.98 63.04 88.24 100.00 100.00Positive predictive value 69.23 80.00 93.02 100.00 100.00Negative predictive value 26.09 9.09 62.50 100.00 100.005Ultrasonographic examina-tion of the ovaries: follicu-lar dynamics and ovulationThe employment of RTU to monitorfollicular dynamics and the time of ovu-lation, as part of the reproductive mana-gement in pig herds, could constitute a valuable strategy to increase reproduc-tive efficiency as it make possible to de-termine the best moment for insemina-tion, maximizing farrowing rate and litter size, and also identify non-cyclic females (anestrus). Both transrectal and transabdominal routes can be applied for ovary scanning. Transabdominal scanning is performed by placing the transducer on the lower flank above the mammary glands in the inguinal area in a similar way as in preg-nancy diagnosis (Figure 2). The ovaries are localized dorsocranially in relation to the hind leg; the transducer should be pointed upwards toward the spine and angled slightly back and forth to visualize the bladder, which serves as a reference to localize the ovaries; in the ultrasound image, the ovaries will appear cranially to the bladder. When performed trans-rectally, the transducer is hand-held and manually guided through the rectum. The ovaries are localized ventrally in relation to the rectum and approximately 30 cm - 40 cm inside. It is important to mention that the transrectal examination requires the prior removal of faeces in order to have an adequate tissue/probe interface to obtain a high-quality imaging (Kauffold et al., 2019).Figure 2. Transducer positioning for ovary scanning and pregnancy diagnosis through the transabdominal route.Photo: Diego Feitosa Leal  6The transrectal approach is often preferred because the transabdominal scanning requires more practice to ac-quire a good image. However, from the authors’ experience, good results are obtained using transabdominal scanning after 50 examinations (Viana, 1998).The main limitations of transabdomi-nal scanning are related to obliteration of the ovaries by surrounding tissues (i.e. colon), especially on the left abdominal wall. Moreover, a detailed image of the ovarian structures is often difficult to obtain due to constant movement of the sow. On the other hand, transrectal scanning allows for a better and detailed scanning of the ovaries; it is even possi-ble to count ovarian structures.In both techniques the fluid-filled folli-cles appear as non-echogenic ovarian structures of 3 mm - 11 mm in late proes-trus and estrus. Attention should be paid to differentiate the follicles from surrou-nding blood vessels, cysts and corpora hemorrhagica. According to Waberski et al. (2000) the echogenicity of corpo-ra lutea is similar to that of the ovarian stroma, being only visible for well-trained investigators in approximately 50% of sows.To identify the time of ovulation, repe-ated sonographic investigations  (Figure 3) are required and the time of ovulation is considered to have occurred halfway between the two investigation intervals in which follicles were last detected and subsequently disappeared (Waberski et al., 2000).Figure 3. Transabdominal ultrasonographic images of the ovaries showing pre ovulatory folliclesFotos: Diego Feitosa Leal   7Using rtu for diagnosis ovarian and uterine pathologiesUsing the transabdominal route, ova-rian cysts can be easily identified during the examination with both 3.5 MHz and 5 MHz transducers. They appear as fluid-filled ovarian structures measuring more than 12 mm and can be classified as follicular or luteal cysts. It is noteworthy that the ovarian cystic degeneration can affect 10% of sows in a herd, being an important cause of reproductive failure (Castagna et al., 2004). With the aid of RTU ovarian cysts can be readily iden-tified, avoiding economic losses and the unnecessary culling of breeding sows.Pyometra is another uterine condition that can be diagnosed using RTU. The echographic image of affected sows shows heterogeneous echogenic ma-terial inside an enlarged uterine lumen. Note that some sows may not have vulvar discharge as a sign of uterine infection; these cases can only be qui-ckly identified through ultrasonographic examination.Biosecurity considerations Ultrasound machines can serve as fomites for transmission of diseases, putting farm biosecurity at risks. Indeed, ultrasound machines have been found to function as a carrier of pathogenic microorganism such as Streptococcus spp. and the PRRS viral RNA (Kauffold et al., 2010). Our recommendation is that ultrasound machines should be cleaned and disinfected after each use. Its use between farms should be limited to a minimum. In case of movement betwe-en pig farms, the equipment down time should be respected. In order to avoid damage, only the manufacturers recom-mended sanitizers should be applied onto the ultrasound machine (Kauffold et al., 2007).Concluding remarksThe use of RTU is an invaluable technological tool to aid in the process of decision making on pig farms. Using this tool, it becomes possible to exami-ne the reproductive tract of sows with reproductive disorders and an accurate decision can be made either to remove the sow or to implement correction me-asures. This is of particular importance for young sows which are removed from the breeding herd chiefly for reproduc-tive failure, increasing sow retention. Finally, it should be emphasised that the technique of RTU does not increase re-productive efficiency and correct mana-gement deficiencies per se; it is how the information gathered is interpreted and implemented on the farm that will count.8ReferencesCASTAGNA, D. C.; PEIXOTO, H. C.; BORTOLOZZO, P. F.; WENTZ, I.; NETO, B. G.; RUSCHEL, F. Ovarian cysts and their consequences on the reproductive performance of swine herds. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 81, p. 115-123, 2004.DE RENSIS, F.; BIGLIARDI, E.; PARMIGIANI, E.; PETERS, A. Early diagnosis of pregnancy in sows by ultrasound evaluation of embryo development and uterine echotexture. Veterinary Research, v. 147, n. 10, p. 267-270, Sep. 2000. DOI: 10.1136/vr.147.10.267.FLOWERS, W. L.; ARMSTRONG, J. D.; WHITE, S. L.; WOODARD, T. O.; ALMOND, G. W. Real-time ultrasonography and pregnancy diagnosis in swine. Journal of Animal Science, v. 77, Issue suppl_E, p. 1-9, 2000. DOI: 10.2527/jas2000.00218812007700ES0037x.KAUFFOLD, J.; ALTHOUSE, G. C. An update on the use of B-mode ultrasonography in female pig reproduction. Theriogenology, v. 67, p. 901-911, 2007.KAUFFOLD, J.;WEHREND, A.; SCHWARZ, B. A.; KNAUF, D.;WILLIG, R.; SCHAGEMANN, G.; SCHMOLL, F. Exhaust expulsion of the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) through ultrasound machines. Tierärztliche Praxis, v. 38, p. 285–292. 2010.KAUFFOLD, J.; PELTONIEMI, O.; WEHREND, A.; ALTHOUS, G. C. Principles and clinical uses of real-time ultrasonography in female swine reproduction. Animals, v. 9, n. 11, 2019. KNOX, R.; FLOWERS, W. L. Using real-time ultrasound for pregnancy diagnosis in swine. FactSheet. Pork Information Gateway, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2006. Disponível em: http://porkgateway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/using-real-time-ultrasound-for-pregnancy-diagnosis-in-swine.pdf. Acesso em: 17 jun. 2020.MAES, D.; DEWULF, J.; VANDERHAEGHE, K.; CLAEREBOUT, K.; DE KRUIF, A. Accuracy of trans-abdominal ultrassound pregnancy diagnosis in sows using a linear or sector probe. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, v. 41, p. 438-443, 2006.TANI, S.; PINEIRO, C.; KOKETSU, Y. Culling in served females and farrowed sows at consecutive parities in Spanish pig herds. Porcine Health and Management, v. 4, p. 1-9, 2018. DOI: 10.1186/s40813-018-0080-y.VIANA, C. H. C. Relações entre as características intervalo desmame-cio, duração do cio e momento da ovulação pela ultra-sonografia e dosagem de progesterona sérica em fêmeas da espécie suína. 1998. Dissertação (Mestre em Reprodução Animal) - Universidade de São Paulo, SP.WABERSKI, D.; KUZ-SCHMIDT, A.; BORCHARDT NETO, G.; RITCHER, L.; WEITZE, K .F. Real-time ultrasound diagnosis of ovulation and ovarian cysts in sows and its impact on artificial insemination efficiency. Journal of Animal Science, v. 77, p. 1-8, 2000. DOI: 10.2527/jas2000.00218812007700ES0037x.WILLIANS, S. I.; PINEYRO, P.; LUZBEL DE LA SOTA, R. Accuracy of pregnancy diagnosis in swine by ultrasonography. Canadian Veterinary Journal, v. 49, n. 3, p. 269-273, Feb. 2008.9Local Publications CommitteePresidentMarcelo MieleSecretaryTânia Maria Biavatti CelantMembersAirton Kunz, Clarissa Silveira Luiz Vaz, Gerson Neudi Scheuermann, Jane de Oliveira Peixoto e Monalisa Leal PereiraEditorial supervisionTânia Maria Biavatti CelantTechnical review Elsio Antônio P. de FigueiredoVitor Hugo GringsGrammar proofreaderMonalisa Leal PereiraBibliographic NormalizationClaudia Antunez ArriecheCollection graphic designCarlos Eduardo Felice BarbeiroDesktop publishingVivian FracassoCover photoMariana Groke MarquesTranslation Diego Feitosa LealCopies of this editioncan be purchased at:Embrapa Suínos e AvesBR 153 - KM 110P.O. Box 32189.715-899, Concórdia, SCPhone: (49) 3441 0400Fax: (49) 3441 0497www.embrapa.brwww.embrapa.br/fale-conosco/sac1st editionElectronic version (2020)CGPE 16041

Application of real-time ultrasonography as a tool to increase reproductive efficiency of female pigs.

http://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/1123462/1/final9480.pdf

Application of real-time ultrasonography as a tool to increase reproductive efficiency of female pigs.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Infoteca-e