Welfare benefits of single versus multiple injections for vaccinating gestating sows
4 affiliations
- 1HIPRA S.A, Girona, Spain
- 2AWEC Advisors SL, Ed. Eureka, Parc de Recerca de la UAB, Bellaterra, Barcelona, 08193 Spain
- 3School of Veterinary Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, 08193 Spain
- 4Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis (Interlab-UMU), Veterinary School, Regional Campus of International Excellence ‘Campus Mare Nostrum’, University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, Espinardo, Murcia, 30100 Spain
Abstract
Vaccination is essential for disease prevention in swine production; however, repeated intramuscular (IM) injections can compromise animal welfare. This study evaluated the impact of two vaccination protocols in gestating sows under commercial farm conditions: one involving a single IM injection (VAC1) and the other involving three separate IM injections (VAC3). Each vaccination protocol was administered twice (6 and 3 weeks before the expected farrowing day; dose 1 and dose 2, respectively). Sixty-four pregnant sows were randomly assigned to either VAC1 or VAC3. The main variables were the time required for vaccination and welfare assessments, including behavioural observations, vocalizations, and fear responses. Additionally, health parameters and salivary biomarkers (salivary haptoglobin, chromogranin A, oxytocin) were evaluated before and after vaccination. The VAC1 protocol reduced handling time per sow (13.3 ± 1.39 s/sow in VAC1 vs. 38.3 ± 2.23 s/sow in VAC3; p < 0.0001). Health parameters and farrowing performance did not show relevant differences between protocols under the conditions of this study. Both protocols led to decreased activity and altered resting behaviour, likely due to discomfort at the injection site. These changes were mild and consistent with normal post-vaccination responses. However, sows in the VAC3 treatment displayed more pronounced behavioural indicators of pain and fear during injection, including a higher incidence of rushing or retreat attempts (37.4% ± 9.41 in VAC1 vs. 62.1% ± 9.47 in VAC3; p = 0.0139), back arching (17.2% ± 5.11 in VAC1 vs. 39.6% ± 6.67 in VAC3; p = 0.0127), and high-pitched vocalizations. These findings support the use of a single-injection protocol (VAC1) to improve on-farm applicability and sow welfare. Further research is warranted to investigate the long-term effects of single versus multiple intramuscular injections on animal welfare, with particular attention to the human–animal relationship, chronic stress biomarkers, and productive performance.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4.
Related
- Vaccinating ecosystems against invasive plants
- Data paper: Cross-species datasets on individual associative learning to regulate access to shared resources in group-housed gestating sows and lactating dairy cows
- Can AI Do Formal Demography? Why Vaccinating the Oldest Saves Both the Most Lives and the Most Years of Life
- INSTAR: reporting items for invertebrate welfare in research
- Toward welfare indicators: leg condition and aversive stimuli modulate defensive behavior in Opilones
BibTeX
@article{puigredon2026welfare,
title = {{Welfare benefits of single versus multiple injections for vaccinating gestating sows}},
author = {Alba Puigredon and Raúl David Guevara and Joaquín Miguel and Meritxell Simon-Grifé and Mireia Fontseca and Jordi Montané and Xavier Gibert and Isaac Ballarà and María Botía and Pol Llonch and Eva Mainau},
journal = {BMC Veterinary Research},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Welfare benefits of single versus multiple injections for vaccinating gestating sows
AU - Alba Puigredon
AU - Raúl David Guevara
AU - Joaquín Miguel
AU - Meritxell Simon-Grifé
AU - Mireia Fontseca
AU - Jordi Montané
AU - Xavier Gibert
AU - Isaac Ballarà
AU - María Botía
AU - Pol Llonch
AU - Eva Mainau
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/06
JO - BMC Veterinary Research
DO - 10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4
AB - Vaccination is essential for disease prevention in swine production; however, repeated intramuscular (IM) injections can compromise animal welfare. This study evaluated the impact of two vaccination protocols in gestating sows under commercial farm conditions: one involving a single IM injection (VAC1) and the other involving three separate IM injections (VAC3). Each vaccination protocol was administered twice (6 and 3 weeks before the expected farrowing day; dose 1 and dose 2, respectively). Sixty-four pregnant sows were randomly assigned to either VAC1 or VAC3. The main variables were the time required for vaccination and welfare assessments, including behavioural observations, vocalizations, and fear responses. Additionally, health parameters and salivary biomarkers (salivary haptoglobin, chromogranin A, oxytocin) were evaluated before and after vaccination. The VAC1 protocol reduced handling time per sow (13.3 ± 1.39 s/sow in VAC1 vs. 38.3 ± 2.23 s/sow in VAC3; p < 0.0001). Health parameters and farrowing performance did not show relevant differences between protocols under the conditions of this study. Both protocols led to decreased activity and altered resting behaviour, likely due to discomfort at the injection site. These changes were mild and consistent with normal post-vaccination responses. However, sows in the VAC3 treatment displayed more pronounced behavioural indicators of pain and fear during injection, including a higher incidence of rushing or retreat attempts (37.4% ± 9.41 in VAC1 vs. 62.1% ± 9.47 in VAC3; p = 0.0139), back arching (17.2% ± 5.11 in VAC1 vs. 39.6% ± 6.67 in VAC3; p = 0.0127), and high-pitched vocalizations. These findings support the use of a single-injection protocol (VAC1) to improve on-farm applicability and sow welfare. Further research is warranted to investigate the long-term effects of single versus multiple intramuscular injections on animal welfare, with particular attention to the human–animal relationship, chronic stress biomarkers, and productive performance. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-026-05774-4.
SN - 1746-6148
ER -