How Does On-farm Nursery Pig Approachability Pre- and Post-vaccination?

Animal Industry Report, Mar 2018

The objective of this study was to compare live and digital methodologies to measure nursery pig approachability pre- and post-vaccination. A total of 149 pens housing approximately 19 barrows and gilts/pen (a mix of approximately 50% barrows and 50% gilts; 0.3 m2/pig) were used. Pigs were approximately 6 weeks of age. The pen applied injection treatments were (1) Ingelvac CircoFLEX®/Ingelvac MycoFLEX® vaccine, (2) Circumvent® PCVM vaccine (3) Saline. Pre-injection were conducted at 1600h the day before injections were administered. Pigs received their treatments at 1000h on the consecutive day and post-injection was conducted, 6 h after treatments were administered and 24 h after pre-injection observations. An animal-human interaction tests was completed at pre- and post-injection time points using a live- and digital image methodology. The experimental unit was the pen of pigs. The statistical model evaluating methodologies used PROC GLIMMIX. A P ≤ 0.05 value was considered to be significant. There were no pre- or post-injection approach and not differences comparing the live and digital image evaluation methodologies. In conclusion, the live observation information is very useful when considering a real-time human-animal based measure during an on-farm assessment.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=ans_air

How Does On-farm Nursery Pig Approachability Pre- and Post-vaccination?

How Does On-farm Nurser y Pig Approachability Pre- and Post-vaccination? Shawna Weimer 0 1 2 Iowa State University 0 1 2 0 1 2 Locke Karriker 0 1 2 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica 0 1 2 0 Weimer , Shawna; Johnson, Anna; Stalder, Kenneth; Karriker, Locke; and Fangman, Thom as (2018) "How Does On-farm Nursery Pig Approachability Preand Post-vaccination? , " Animal Industry Report: AS 664, ASL R3270. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ans_air/vol664/iss1/68 1 Iowa State University , USA 2 Thi s Swine is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Research Reports at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Animal Industry Report by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information , please contact , USA Recommended Citation - AS 664 ASL R3270 How Does On-farm Nursery Pig Approachability Pre- and Post-vaccination? A.S. Leaflet R3270 Shawna Weimer, Graduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University; Anna Johnson, Associate Professor; Kenneth Stalder, Professor, Department of Animal Science; Locke Karriker, Associate Professor Veterinary Diagnostic and Animal Production Medicine, Iowa State University; Thomas Fangman, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc., St Joseph, Missouri Summary and Implications The objective of this study was to compare live and digital methodologies to measure nursery pig approachability pre- and post-vaccination. A total of 149 pens housing approximately 19 barrows and gilts/pen (a mix of approximately 50% barrows and 50% gilts; 0.3 m2/pig) were used. Pigs were approximately 6 weeks of age. The pen applied injection treatments were (1) Ingelvac CircoFLEX®/Ingelvac MycoFLEX® vaccine, (2) Circumvent® PCVM vaccine (3) Saline. Pre-injection were conducted at 1600h the day before injections were administered. Pigs received their treatments at 1000h on the consecutive day and post-injection was conducted, 6 h after treatments were administered and 24 h after pre-injection observations. An animal-human interaction tests was completed at pre- and post-injection time points using a live- and digital image methodology. The experimental unit was the pen of pigs. The statistical model evaluating methodologies used PROC GLIMMIX. A P ≤ 0.05 value was considered to be significant. There were no pre- or postinjection approach and not differences comparing the live and digital image evaluation methodologies. In conclusion, the live observation information is very useful when considering a real-time human-animal based measure during an on-farm assessment. Introduction When an animal is placed into a situation that it perceives as threatening it can react internally via physiological changes and externally using behavior. Animals can react in one of three ways; fight, flight, or freeze. Common husbandry procedures that improve animal welfare may be perceived by the animal as “aversive” for example vaccinations. Animal-human interaction tests have been used to determine the relative aversion for a procedure or situation and how long this aversion lasts. Weimer and colleagues (2014) compared a live- versus digital image methodology to classify pigs touching, orientating to a human or neither (Not). This work showed that when using the live methodology, more pigs were classified as classified as orientated and fewer not. What remains unknown is how these two methodologies compare to each other when nursery pigs are given a vaccine. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare live and digital methodologies to measure nursery pig approachability pre- and postvaccination. Materials and Methods Animal care and husbandry protocols for this experiment were overseen by the company veterinarian and farm manager. These protocols were based on the U.S. swine industry guidelines presented in the Swine Care Handbook and the Pork Quality Assurance Plus™ (2010). In addition, all procedures were approved by the Iowa State University IACUC committee. Animals and location: A total of 149 pens housing ~19 barrows and gilts/pen (a mix of approximately 50% barrows and 50% gilts; 0.3 m2/pig) were housed in four rooms within 2 barns (2 rooms in each barn). Barrows and gilts were approximately 6-wk of age from a commercial crossbred genetic line. The experiment was conducted in November 2011 at a commercial nursery site located near St. Joseph, Missouri. Diets, housing and husbandry: Pens measured 1.8 m width x 3 m length with steel dividers. Pens were situated with 10 pens on the right, 10 on the left and 20 in the center separated by two alleyways (91.4 cm wide). Feeders were located on the right or left side of the pen. Pigs were provided ad-libitum access to a pelleted diet (1549 kcal per kg metabolizable energy and 22% crude protein) formulated to meet or exceed NRC 2010) nutrient requirements. Each pen contained one stainless steel nipple drinker that was positioned between pens and opposite the feeder. Wire flooring was utilized in all pens. Average room temperature was 24°C. Caretakers observed all pigs twice daily. Animal-human interaction methodology: Upon entry to the nursery room the observer and the digital image photographer walked down the length of the nursery room to the farthest pen on the right side of the alleyway. The observer quietly set the nursery pen image capturing device at the midpoint at the front gate of the adjacent pen across the 91.4 cm alleyway and quietly stepped over and entered the nursery pen. In conjunction, the photographer quietly sat on a bucket behind the observer and leaned back on the front pen gate. At the conclusion of the 15-s period, the observer signaled to the photographer, by leaning back against the front gate, for the photographer to capture a digital image using a wireless remote. Nursery pen image capturing device: The device location was free-standing across the alleyway from each pen gate where the live human assessment occurred. A 2.5 cm radius PVC connector, and a second 40 cm height PVC pipe was added to the top of the 1.6 m height PVC pipe to create a total nursery pen image capturing device height of 2.0 m. The tripod head was angled at 47 degrees relative to the vertical PVC pipe. The camera was angled at 50 degrees relative to the horizontal tripod head and was secured into position. Injection treatment: The pen applied injection treatments were (1) Ingelvac CircoFLEX®/Ingelvac MycoFLEX® vaccine (Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc., St. Joseph, Missouri), (2) Circumvent® PCVM vaccine (Merck, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey) and (3) Saline (Hyclone Phosphate Buffered Saline, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri). Injection methodology: Pens were assigned a treatment in an alternating fashion across the alleyway. The same technician performed vaccination procedures for all treatments. Pigs were moved by a sort board towards the alley end of their home pen. Pigs were not individually handled in an effort to avoid any additional handling stressors on the pigs. To avoid injecting the same pig twice, a mark was placed between the pig’s scapula’s using an animal-safe crayon after injection. Pre-injection were conducted at 1600h the day before injections were administered. Pigs received their treatments at 1000h on the consecutive day and post-injection was conducted, 6 h after treatments were administered and 24 h after pre-injection observations. Measures: Pre- and post-injection behavior was classified as either live approach digital approach or not (Table 1). 1For the digital image, using Adobe Photoshop, a line was drawn from the midpoint between the pig’s eyes to the center of the snout, then extended towards the edge of the pen. If the line intersected the human, the pig was also classified as digital approach. Statistical Analysis: Researchers were blind to injection treatments until the data had been collected and statistical models were confirmed by a statistician. The experimental unit was the pen of pigs. All data were evaluated for normal distribution before analysis by using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure of SAS. The statistical model evaluating methodologies used PROC GLIMMIX including the fixed effect of methodology (live vs. digital) and random effects of barn and room nested within pen. A P ≤ 0.05 value was considered to be significant. Results and Discussion There were no pre- or post-injection approach and not differences comparing the live and digital image evaluation methodologies (Table 2). In conclusion, the live observation information is very useful when considering a real-time human-animal based measure during an on-farm assessment. Acknowledgements This work was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. The authors thank the personnel who provided animal care and husbandry. No. pens Pre-injection Approach, no. pigs/pen 9.1 ± 0.2 8.9 ± 0.2 Approach, % pigs/pen 45.2 ± 1.0 44.1 ± 1.0 Not, no. pigs/pen 11.1 ± 0.2 11.2 ± 0.2 Not, % pigs/pen 54.9 ± 1.0 55.9 ± 1.0 Post-injection Approach, no. pigs/pen 7.5 ± 0.2 7.7 ± 0.2 Approach, % pigs/pen 37.2 ± 1.2 38.2 ± 1.2 Not, no. pigs/pen 12.6 ± 0.2 12.4 ± 0.2 Not, % pigs/pen 62.8 ± 1.2 61.9 ± 1.2


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2383&context=ans_air

Shawna Weimer, Anna Johnson, Kenneth Stalder, Locke Karriker, Thomas Fangman. How Does On-farm Nursery Pig Approachability Pre- and Post-vaccination?, Animal Industry Report, 2018,