The clinical case affected a 2000-sow farm working in a three site production system. The replacement animals come from a company owned multiplication unit with external gilt grow-outs to rear the future replacement gilts from 20 to 100 kg. After that, the gilts are introduced into the farm. A large part of the health and monitoring program is performed in these grow-outs, before the gilts enter the production farm. The recipient farm is producing 6-kg piglets and its health status is PRRS positive stable, negative for swine dysentery, mange and Atrophic Rhinitis.
The selection program is based on the following points:
The idea is to complete the vaccination program by 36-38 weeks of age, one month before entering the mating area. For different health reasons, it was decided to stop the introduction of animals from the existing source farm and, therefore, the production farm was left without replacement animals (figure 1). The consequences of this decision were:

To reach the mating goals it was decided to buy gilts from an external source. Gilts were introduced at 100 kg, with a higher health status to that of the recipient farm and also with better technical indicators of prolificacy.
These gilts entered a distant area, and the acclimation program, which was essentially the one that had been routinely applied to the previous gilts from their own multiplier, was initiated. In order to reduce the timings, however, a combination of vaccinations was carried out with a three-week interval between vaccination and revaccination.
Efficiency of external gilts
The reproductive efficiency of the batch was good. Less than 2% of the incoming gilts were culled and the return rate was lower than 6%. At farrowing, they had a higher number of total born (increased by 1.2 piglets). As it was already expected, the birth weight of the piglets was lower and weight variability increased.
Start of the clinical problem
On the first days after farrowing of those new gilts, a diarrhoea process was seen in their piglets that caused an important loss of body condition (photo 1). The antibiotic treatments did not correct the symptoms, although they reduced the severity of the process and the mortality amongst piglets. In other words, there was an increase in the number of piglets that lost weight and ended up dying or generating a significant increase in the number of poor-doing piglets.

Diarrhoea and poor-doing piglets caused a loss of mammary gland development on the sows, due to the partial emptying of the mammary gland (Photo 2).

The loss of piglet quality was reflected at the nursery, generating more runts due to the low quality of the weaned pigs.
Diagnostic approach
The environmental and housing conditions were evaluated and the management conditions were later reviewed.
We used a basic checklist, to go through the possible causes of diarrhoea that have an origin in the farrowing management (Table 1)
Table 1: Farrowing management.
| Risk conditions | Effect | Optimal conditions | Effect | ||
| Environment | Farrowing room temperature | >28ºC <14ºC | • ↓ Feed consumption and milk production • Welfare reduction |
Sow thermoneutral zone (18-22ºC) without drafts | • ↑ farrowing feed consumption • ↑ milk |
| Temperature of heating pads | Cold | Crushing | • Paper bedding • Heating pad at 36-38ºC • Extra heat lamp • Fast piglet drying |
• Piglets resting on the heat pad • ↓crushing |
|
| Sow Feeding | Sow drinkers | Water flow under 2 L/min | • ↓ Milk production • ↓ Physical, chemical and microb iological quality of the water |
• >2 L/min |
• ↑ Farrowing feed consumption • ↑ milk |
| Sow feeders | Dirtiness Food leftovers Fermentation |
• Hygiene • Accessibility |
|||
| Feeding program | Inadequate feeding level from the second half to the end of gestation. | Potential mammary gland oedema |
Review gestation and farrowing feeding levels |
↑ colostrum and milk production at the start of next lactation | |
| Feed | Type and consumption level | ||||
| Down time , cleaning and disinfection | Down time | <3 days after cleaning Humidity |
• ↑ Infection pressure • Presence of diarrhoea |
• Dry rooms • >3 days |
↓ Infection pressure |
| Cleaning and disinfection | Lack of cleaning and disinfection | • Detergent • Pit cleaning • Disinfectant rotation |
Samples were sent to the laboratory: rectal swabs and intestinal content from a gut portion (table 2) of unmedicated piglets. Coronavirus PCR was requested and also virulence factors of E. coli. If conclusive data were not obtained in this first approach, histopathology was the next step.
Table 2: Results of the intestinal content samples
| Test requested | Faeces pool |
| Rotavirus A | + |
| Transmissible
gastroenteritis. (TGEV) |
- |
| Porcine Epidemic Diarrhoea (PEDV) | - |
An E. coli without virulence factors was isolated from the swabs (Table 3), which almost in all likelihood complicated the clinical picture of the piglets and caused higher mortality.
Table 3: Results of the swab samples
| Strain | Adhesins | Toxins | |||||||
| F4 (K88) | F5 (K99) | F41 | F6 (987P) | F18 | LTI | ST-Ia | ST-II | Stx2 | |
| E. coli spp | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| E. coli spp | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| E. coli spp | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Only translucent intestines were detected at the necropsies, which led to suspect an important loss of the intestinal villi. Rotavirus causes a destruction of mature enterocytes, their replication sites. The proliferation of immature enterocytes gives rise to diarrhoea due to their secretory activity. Some congestion of the intestine and yellowish diarrhoea was observed in some of the animals.
The use of antibiotics for the treatment of these diarrhoeas, in which the primary agent is a virus and then bacteria complicate the clinical picture, induces important variations of the piglet's microbiota and its intestinal integrity, thus preventing its correct development (Photo 3).

Therapeutic approach
First, faecal feedback from affected animals can be used by giving faecal material to pregnant gilts a month before farrowing. This measure usually brings good results, although it has some drawbacks and a very important health risk. The potential practical inconveniences when performing this practice include:
For all of these disadvantages, we are of the opinion of not using or recommending faecal feedback.
In this case, the actions taken to solve this problem included:

Conclusions
The increase in prolificacy that has been seen in recent years, has reduced the intake of colostrum by the individual piglet: lower birth weight reduces their vitality, and therefore, reduces their capacity of a good colostrum intake.