Limits...
The Effects of Using a Ramp and Elevator to Load and Unload Trailers on the Behavior and Physiology of Piglets.

McGlone J, Sapkota A - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Bottom Line: Sitting, feeding and blood parameters did not show a significant treatment by time effect (p > 0.05).Standing behavior did not differ between CON and HAN piglets nor between RAM and ELE piglets (p > 0.05); however, CON and HAN piglets stood more than RAM and ELE piglets during treatment (p < 0.05).The heart rate of ELE piglets decreased 6.3% after treatment; whereas the heart rate of RAM piglets remained elevated 2.4% (p < 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. john.mcglone@ttu.edu.

ABSTRACT
Transport is an inevitable process in the modern U.S. swine industry. The loading process is a novel and potentially stressful experience. This study uses behavior, heart rate and leukocyte counts to compare stress one hour before, during and after loading via ramp or elevator. Piglets were held in a home pen (control (CON)), walked up and down an aisle (handled (HAN)), or walked to a truck and loaded via elevator (ELE) or ramp (RAM). Sitting, feeding and blood parameters did not show a significant treatment by time effect (p > 0.05). Standing behavior did not differ between CON and HAN piglets nor between RAM and ELE piglets (p > 0.05); however, CON and HAN piglets stood more than RAM and ELE piglets during treatment (p < 0.05). After treatment, drinking behavior was increased in RAM piglets (p < 0.05). The heart rate of ELE piglets decreased 6.3% after treatment; whereas the heart rate of RAM piglets remained elevated 2.4% (p < 0.05). In terms of heart rate, loading by elevator appears to be less stressful than loading by ramp.

No MeSH data available.


Percentage of pigs showing drinking behavior an hour before (A), during (B) and after (C) each treatment (control, handling, ramp and elevator).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494311&req=5

animals-04-00535-f004: Percentage of pigs showing drinking behavior an hour before (A), during (B) and after (C) each treatment (control, handling, ramp and elevator).

Mentions: There was a significant time × treatment interaction for drinking behavior (p < 0.01). During the time of treatment, the percentage of CON (11.70 ± 1.96%) and HAN (7.50 ± 1.96%) piglets showing drinking behavior did not differ (p > 0.05). ELE and RAM piglets did not show any drinking behavior during the time of treatment. When piglets were brought back to the home pen, drinking behavior was higher in RAM (15.80 ± 1.96%) piglets compared to CON (8.90 ± 1.96%) and HAN (5.40 ± 1.96%) piglets (p < 0.05). The percentage of ELE piglets showing drinking behavior after treatment (13.90 ± 1.96%) was not different from CON, HAN and RAM piglets. Figure 4 shows the percentage of piglets drinking at each time point.


The Effects of Using a Ramp and Elevator to Load and Unload Trailers on the Behavior and Physiology of Piglets.

McGlone J, Sapkota A - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Percentage of pigs showing drinking behavior an hour before (A), during (B) and after (C) each treatment (control, handling, ramp and elevator).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494311&req=5

animals-04-00535-f004: Percentage of pigs showing drinking behavior an hour before (A), during (B) and after (C) each treatment (control, handling, ramp and elevator).
Mentions: There was a significant time × treatment interaction for drinking behavior (p < 0.01). During the time of treatment, the percentage of CON (11.70 ± 1.96%) and HAN (7.50 ± 1.96%) piglets showing drinking behavior did not differ (p > 0.05). ELE and RAM piglets did not show any drinking behavior during the time of treatment. When piglets were brought back to the home pen, drinking behavior was higher in RAM (15.80 ± 1.96%) piglets compared to CON (8.90 ± 1.96%) and HAN (5.40 ± 1.96%) piglets (p < 0.05). The percentage of ELE piglets showing drinking behavior after treatment (13.90 ± 1.96%) was not different from CON, HAN and RAM piglets. Figure 4 shows the percentage of piglets drinking at each time point.

Bottom Line: Sitting, feeding and blood parameters did not show a significant treatment by time effect (p > 0.05).Standing behavior did not differ between CON and HAN piglets nor between RAM and ELE piglets (p > 0.05); however, CON and HAN piglets stood more than RAM and ELE piglets during treatment (p < 0.05).The heart rate of ELE piglets decreased 6.3% after treatment; whereas the heart rate of RAM piglets remained elevated 2.4% (p < 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. john.mcglone@ttu.edu.

ABSTRACT
Transport is an inevitable process in the modern U.S. swine industry. The loading process is a novel and potentially stressful experience. This study uses behavior, heart rate and leukocyte counts to compare stress one hour before, during and after loading via ramp or elevator. Piglets were held in a home pen (control (CON)), walked up and down an aisle (handled (HAN)), or walked to a truck and loaded via elevator (ELE) or ramp (RAM). Sitting, feeding and blood parameters did not show a significant treatment by time effect (p > 0.05). Standing behavior did not differ between CON and HAN piglets nor between RAM and ELE piglets (p > 0.05); however, CON and HAN piglets stood more than RAM and ELE piglets during treatment (p < 0.05). After treatment, drinking behavior was increased in RAM piglets (p < 0.05). The heart rate of ELE piglets decreased 6.3% after treatment; whereas the heart rate of RAM piglets remained elevated 2.4% (p < 0.05). In terms of heart rate, loading by elevator appears to be less stressful than loading by ramp.

No MeSH data available.