Abstract Sow shoulder sores are sources of infection and a persistent welfare concern in modern swine production. They are addressed under the National Pork Board’s We Care® “Animal Care” initiative. According to PQAPlus™ guidelines, open sores must receive appropriate treatment. Prior studies (Renner; Supple) demonstrated that aluminum-based products and iodine sprays are less effective than antibiotic ointments and a novel antibiotic-free formulation, Healicin™-ABF. This evaluation compared the healing efficacy of Healicin™-ABF with Alu-Mend™ under commercial conditions in a sow farrowing house. Our objective was to assess the relative performance of Healicin-ABF and Alu-Mend in promoting wound healing of sow shoulder sores during the farrowing period. Fifty-eight sows were enrolled in the farrowing crate (day of farrowing-14 days post-farrowing). Only newly identified, previously untreated, sows with shoulder sores were included. A coin flip determined the treatment for the first sow and treatments were applied to alternating sows as identified. Sows received one of the two topical treatments for five consecutive days. There was a two-day cessation of treatment before reevaluation. Wound area (cm²) was quantified using digital photographs paired with SketchNCalc™ software at day 0 and day 7, allowing precise measurement of irregular wound shapes. Parity and lactation day at enrollment were recorded. Product utilization was recorded by weighing cans at the beginning and end of each treatment day to determine total usage per wound to estimate cost of treatment. Both products reduced wound area over time (mean= -1.4 cm2). Healicin-ABF consistently trended (P = 0.158) to reduce lesion size compared to Alu-Mend, (means=-2.48 cm2, -1.23 cm2, respectively). Parity did not significantly influence initial wound size or overall healing rate (P = 0.598), although enrollment timing (days post-farrowing) affected response to treatment, with larger wounds tending to heal to a greater numerical extent. Healing progression was greatest in sows enrolled later in lactation (P = 0.0029) and sows were enrolled younger lactation in Healicin-ABF than Alu-Mend (means= 5.91 and 8.00 days, respectively; P = 0.0025) which may have muted the trending benefit for Healicin-ABF. Healicin-ABF provided better wound visibility on subsequent days of application and ease of application. Under commercial farrowing conditions, Healicin-ABF outperformed Alu-Mend in healing sow shoulder sores, supporting its use as an effective antibiotic-free treatment. Findings align with previous research demonstrating improved healing with Healicin-treated wounds in sows and tail-bite wounds in finishing pigs. Cost of treatment between sprays was negligible for the farm. A larger study, blocking by lactation day, could be conducted. Additionally, the application of SketchNCalc proved valuable for standardized wound assessment. Beyond treatment efficacy, opportunities remain to enhance sow welfare through earlier lesion detection and preventive interventions, such as protective padding for high-risk pressure points. Collectively, these results reinforce that treatment product matters when treating wounds.
Payne et al. (Wed,) studied this question.