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 2. Effects of density on trailers on total transport losses pigs per trailer in market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.36).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

animals-04-00164-f006: Experiment 2. Effects of density on trailers on total transport losses pigs per trailer in market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.36).

Mentions: In WARM weather, the one non-ambulatory occurred on a trailer with a density of 291 kg/m2. In WARM weather, no effects of density were observed on dead or total transport losses (p = 0.86, R2 = 0.01; p = 0.81, R2 = 0.03; data not presented). In HOT weather, no effects of density were observed on non-ambulatory pigs (p = 0.01, R2 = 0.32; Figure 4). In HOT weather, decreasing density from ~300 to 265 kg/m2 increased dead pigs/trailer by 2 (p = 0.01; Figure 5). In HOT weather, decreasing density from ~300 to 240 kg/m2 increased total transport losses by four pigs/trailer (p < 0.01; Figure 6). However the relationship between both dead and total transport losses and density was weak (R2 = 0.27 and R2 = 0.35, respectively). It is difficult to explain why dead and total transport losses increased with decreasing density, but pigs in this study were transported at similar density ranges compared to previous studies [7,8,9].


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 2. Effects of density on trailers on total transport losses pigs per trailer in market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.36).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

animals-04-00164-f006: Experiment 2. Effects of density on trailers on total transport losses pigs per trailer in market weight pigs at unloading in HOT weather (≥26.7 °C; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.36).
Mentions: In WARM weather, the one non-ambulatory occurred on a trailer with a density of 291 kg/m2. In WARM weather, no effects of density were observed on dead or total transport losses (p = 0.86, R2 = 0.01; p = 0.81, R2 = 0.03; data not presented). In HOT weather, no effects of density were observed on non-ambulatory pigs (p = 0.01, R2 = 0.32; Figure 4). In HOT weather, decreasing density from ~300 to 265 kg/m2 increased dead pigs/trailer by 2 (p = 0.01; Figure 5). In HOT weather, decreasing density from ~300 to 240 kg/m2 increased total transport losses by four pigs/trailer (p < 0.01; Figure 6). However the relationship between both dead and total transport losses and density was weak (R2 = 0.27 and R2 = 0.35, respectively). It is difficult to explain why dead and total transport losses increased with decreasing density, but pigs in this study were transported at similar density ranges compared to previous studies [7,8,9].

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