NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 22

1.4
Placebo
Guaifenesin-treated

Depression score

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Day 0

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

*Day 8

(p=0.0406)

Figure 3. Average depression scores of pigs (n=10 per treatment)
challenged with SIV on d0 and P. multocida on d3. Scores: 0=Normal,
1=Mild, 2=Moderate, 3=Severe.
1.6
Placebo
Guaifenesin-treated

Resipratory score

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Day 0

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

treated group displayed a continual reduction in respiratory scores after that day,
while the placebo group did not (day 6, 7,
8 placebo: 1.00, 0.75, 1.00, respectively
vs guaifenesin: 0.44, 0.22, 0.25, respectively). Scores were tending toward statistical difference on day 7 (p=0.0810), and
became significant on day 8 (p=0.0313).

*Day 8

The average SIV lung lesion score (Fig. 5)
was higher in the placebo group than in the
guaifenesin treated group (placebo: 8.0 vs
guaifenesin: 5.7). The average P. multocida lesion score (Fig. 6) was also higher in
the placebo group than in the guaifenesin
treated group (placebo: 18.3 vs guaifenesin: 8.0). The total lung lesion score (Fig.
7) was consequently higher in the placebo
group than in the guaifenesin treated group
(placebo: 26.30 vs guaifenesin: 13.70).

p=0.0313

Figure 4. Average respiratory scores of pigs (n=10 per treatment)
challenged with SIV on d0 and P. multocida on d3. Scores: 0=Normal,
1=Mild, 2=Moderate, 3=Severe.

Both treatment groups started with average respiratory scores of 0 on day 0 (Fig.
4). Both groups responded with a peak
in respiratory scores after the SIV challenge (day 1), and after the P. multocida
challenge (day 4) with the placebo group
having a higher average score than the
guaifenesin treated group on both days
(day 1 placebo: 0.90 vs guaifenesin: 0.67;
day 4 placebo: 1.44 vs guaifenesin: 1.11).
There was a statistically significant difference between the treatment group average
respiratory scores on day 3 (placebo: 0.40
vs guaifenesin: 0.00, p=0.0332). The guaifenesin treated group did have a higher
average respiratory score than the placebo
group on day 5 (placebo: 1.0 vs guaifenesin: 1.33). However, the guaifenesin

Lung scores exhibited more uniformity
in the guaifenesin treated group for total
lung score, SIV lung lesion average, and
P. multocida lesion average. No statistical
difference was found between the lung
lesion scores.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated interesting trends
and some significant effects of guaifenesin
at diminishing specific clinical parameters
associated with a SRD complex of viral
and bacterial pathogens, and may serve
as the basis for more statistically robust
studies. Previous experiments in human
cell cultures established that guaifenesin
reduced mucus production, viscosity, and
elasticity in a dose-dependent manner. The
water-miscible guaifenesin preparation
used in this study facilitated the delivery
of the normally-insoluble active ingredient
via drinking water. The dose chosen for


http://asp-inc.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NC Pork Report - Fall 2017

Letter From the President
Industry News
Producer Profile
Legislative Update
Profile: Brandon Hartman
Sustained Excellence in Swine Production
Youth News
Pork Checkoff Announces
Advertiser Index
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Intro
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - cover1
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - cover2
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 3
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 4
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 5
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Letter From the President
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 7
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Industry News
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 9
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 10
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 11
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 12
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 13
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 14
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Producer Profile
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 16
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 17
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 18
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 19
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 20
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 21
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 22
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 23
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Legislative Update
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 25
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Profile: Brandon Hartman
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 27
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Sustained Excellence in Swine Production
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 29
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 30
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 31
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Youth News
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 33
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Pork Checkoff Announces
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 35
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 36
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - 37
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - Advertiser Index
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - cover3
NC Pork Report - Fall 2017 - cover4
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0118
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0417
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0317
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0217
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0117
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0416
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0316
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0216
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0116
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0415
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0315
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0215
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0115
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0414
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0314
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0214
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0114
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0413
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0313
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0213
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/NCPQ/NCPQ0113
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0412
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0312
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0212
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0112
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0411
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0311
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NCPQ0211
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com