Limits...
Establishing Sprinkling Requirements on Trailers Transporting Market Weight Pigs in Warm and Hot Weather.

Kephart R, Johnson A, Sapkota A, Stalder K, McGlone J - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Bottom Line: Experiment 2 used 82 loads in WARM- and 54 loads in HOT weather to determine the sprinkling effects on transport losses (non-ambulatory, dead, and total transport losses).Experiment 2 found that, in WARM and HOT weather, sprinkling did not affect non-ambulatory, dead, or total transport losses (p ≥ 0.18).Although the current study did not find any observed sprinkling effects for pig measures or transport losses it is extremely important to note that the inference space of this study is relatively small, so further studies should be conducted to see if these results are applicable to other geographical regions and seasons.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA. rkdavis@iastate.edu.

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted July of 2012 in Iowa, in WARM (<26.7 °C) and HOT (≥26.7 °C) weather. Four sprinkling methods were compared, with one treatment being randomly assigned to each load: control- no sprinkling (not applied in HOT weather), pigs only, bedding only, or pigs and bedding. Experiment 1 used 51 loads in WARM- and 86 loads in HOT weather to determine sprinkling effects on pig measures (surface temperature, vocalizations, slips and falls, and stress signs). Experiment 2 used 82 loads in WARM- and 54 loads in HOT weather to determine the sprinkling effects on transport losses (non-ambulatory, dead, and total transport losses). Experiment 1 found that, in WARM weather, there were no differences between sprinkling treatments for surface temperature, vocalizations, or slips and falls (p ≥ 0.18). However, stress signs were 2% greater when sprinkling pigs- or bedding only- compared to control (p = 0.03). Experiment 2 found that, in WARM and HOT weather, sprinkling did not affect non-ambulatory, dead, or total transport losses (p ≥ 0.18). Although the current study did not find any observed sprinkling effects for pig measures or transport losses it is extremely important to note that the inference space of this study is relatively small, so further studies should be conducted to see if these results are applicable to other geographical regions and seasons.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Experiment 1. Effects of THI at unloading on surface temperature of market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.35).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494380&req=5

animals-04-00164-f002: Experiment 1. Effects of THI at unloading on surface temperature of market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.35).

Mentions: The current study observed surface temperature ranging 29.3 °C to 36.2 °C in WARM weather and 30.1 °C to 38.7 °C in HOT weather (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Although past research reported surface temperature for market weight pigs ranging between 38.6 °C to 39.5 °C [21,22], a review by Fox [23] in Canada reported that sprinkled pigs had 10% lower surface temperature than those pigs which were not sprinkled. Based on the surface temperatures seen in this study, it seems pigs in this study were not heat stressed and in turn this may indicate that the pigs’ physiological responses combined with the sprinkling treatments could be effective at mitigating heat stress.


Establishing Sprinkling Requirements on Trailers Transporting Market Weight Pigs in Warm and Hot Weather.

Kephart R, Johnson A, Sapkota A, Stalder K, McGlone J - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Experiment 1. Effects of THI at unloading on surface temperature of market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.35).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494380&req=5

animals-04-00164-f002: Experiment 1. Effects of THI at unloading on surface temperature of market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.35).
Mentions: The current study observed surface temperature ranging 29.3 °C to 36.2 °C in WARM weather and 30.1 °C to 38.7 °C in HOT weather (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Although past research reported surface temperature for market weight pigs ranging between 38.6 °C to 39.5 °C [21,22], a review by Fox [23] in Canada reported that sprinkled pigs had 10% lower surface temperature than those pigs which were not sprinkled. Based on the surface temperatures seen in this study, it seems pigs in this study were not heat stressed and in turn this may indicate that the pigs’ physiological responses combined with the sprinkling treatments could be effective at mitigating heat stress.

Bottom Line: Experiment 2 used 82 loads in WARM- and 54 loads in HOT weather to determine the sprinkling effects on transport losses (non-ambulatory, dead, and total transport losses).Experiment 2 found that, in WARM and HOT weather, sprinkling did not affect non-ambulatory, dead, or total transport losses (p ≥ 0.18).Although the current study did not find any observed sprinkling effects for pig measures or transport losses it is extremely important to note that the inference space of this study is relatively small, so further studies should be conducted to see if these results are applicable to other geographical regions and seasons.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA. rkdavis@iastate.edu.

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted July of 2012 in Iowa, in WARM (<26.7 °C) and HOT (≥26.7 °C) weather. Four sprinkling methods were compared, with one treatment being randomly assigned to each load: control- no sprinkling (not applied in HOT weather), pigs only, bedding only, or pigs and bedding. Experiment 1 used 51 loads in WARM- and 86 loads in HOT weather to determine sprinkling effects on pig measures (surface temperature, vocalizations, slips and falls, and stress signs). Experiment 2 used 82 loads in WARM- and 54 loads in HOT weather to determine the sprinkling effects on transport losses (non-ambulatory, dead, and total transport losses). Experiment 1 found that, in WARM weather, there were no differences between sprinkling treatments for surface temperature, vocalizations, or slips and falls (p ≥ 0.18). However, stress signs were 2% greater when sprinkling pigs- or bedding only- compared to control (p = 0.03). Experiment 2 found that, in WARM and HOT weather, sprinkling did not affect non-ambulatory, dead, or total transport losses (p ≥ 0.18). Although the current study did not find any observed sprinkling effects for pig measures or transport losses it is extremely important to note that the inference space of this study is relatively small, so further studies should be conducted to see if these results are applicable to other geographical regions and seasons.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus