Effect of a homeopathic complex on reproductive performance in a commercial pig farm

Background and aimAlternative therapies based on homeopathy can be effective in improving reproductive performance in intensive pig breeding. In this study, the effect of a homeopathic complex on reproductive performance of sows under intensive farming has been investigated.Material and methodsOver period of three years, 186 sows were recruited from a farm where a large proportion of animals were suffering from prolonged weaning-to-oestrus intervals (WEI) and weaning-to-service intervals (WSI). Sows were allocated to two groups; once per month, one group was given a homeopathic complex (Borax 10 mK plus Lycopodium 10 mK), while the other group was given a hydro-alcoholic solution (placebo). The follow-up period started one week before the expected date of oestrus, continued for two pregnancies and ended after the weaning of the second farrowing. To evaluate reproductive performance, during the follow-up we collected data on quantitative parameters such as the average number of stillbirths, newborns, and repeat services per farrowing. Time-related data such as WEI, WSI, length of the two pregnancies and weaning periods were also collected to measure the length of the follow-up of each sow. Differences in quantitative parameters between the two groups were evaluated using parametric and non-parametric statistics. Time-related data were used to plot Kaplan–Meier curves and in Cox regression models to evaluate whether treated sows had a higher probability of experiencing a shorter follow-up in comparison to untreated sows.ResultsWe did not found significant differences in the number of newborns, while the number of stillbirths was higher in the treatment group, even if the difference was slightly significant (p-value = 0.03). The number of repeat services was lower in the treatment group, and this difference was highly significant (p-value < 0.001). Results from the Cox regression models suggest that the end of the follow-up was reached by sows of the treatment group at about twice the rate of sows of the control group (model 2, Hazard Ratiotreatment = 2.27; 95%CI: 1.56–3.24).