No abstract

Results of this study indicated significant differences in the survivability of lame and nonlame sows in a commercial herd. Parity and farrowing performance variables were factors influencing sow longevity in this herd. Producers need to minimize sow lameness and remove lame sows from a herd early (when treatment is not an option) to minimize economic loss.

The proportion of death among removed sows, especially lame sows, was higher during lactation than nonlactation. Results indicated that risk of death is not the same for sows throughout their lifetime.

Anil, L., Anil, S. S. and Deen, J. 2007. Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 87: 139-151. The average daily gain (ADG; kg d -1 ), pen efficiency (PE; kg ADG m -2 floor space) and welfare indicators (injury levels, salivary cortisol concentrations and behaviour) of grower-finisher pigs were evaluated in groups of 19 barrows, at four levels of floor space allowances calculated mathematically (area = k × BW 0.667 ) using a constant k, (with values 0.027, 0.031, 0.034, and 0.037) for a mean final market weight of 116 kg and in two levels of group weight composition (uniform and varying weights -based on uniformity and variation of body weights of pigs within a pen at the beginning of the experiment). The corresponding space allowances (m 2 pig -1 ) at the market weight of 116 kg were 0.64 (SA0.64), 0.74 (SA0.74), 0.81 (SA0.81), and 0.88 (SA0.88). The data were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVAs and independent sample T tests. The pigs in SA0.64 had a lower ADG (0.859 ± 0.017), spent a lower proportion of time lying in preferred areas (55.22 ± 1.644) and had higher total injury scores (4.581 ± 0.139) and higher number of aggressions (1.94 ± 0.286) (P < 0.05 for all) than those in SA0.88 (0.936 ± 0.020; 61.02 ± 1.203; 3.858 ± 0.208; 1.08 ± 0.212, respectively) and SA0.81 (0.916 ± 0.019; 59.77 ± 1. 417; 3.855 ± 0.112; 1.24 ± 0.238, respectively). Pigs in SA0.64 had higher (P < 0.05) overall PE (1.344 kg ADG m -2 floor space) than those in SA0.88 (1.063 ± 0.023) SA0.81 (1.131 ± 0.024) and SA0.74 (1.224 ± 0.029) allowance treatments. Pigs in the varying weight group spent a higher (P < 0.05) proportion of time lying in preferred areas (59.73 ± 0.942) than the uniform weight group (57.08 ± 1.078). Pigs in SA0.74 and SA0.64 spent lower proportion of time (P < 0.05) lying isolated (2.76 ± 0.441 and 2.18 ± 0.372, respectively) than pigs in SA0.81 (4.52 ± 0.467). The uniform weight group exhibited more (P < 0.05) exploratory behaviour (8.83 ± 0.448) than the varying weight group (7.25 ± 0.356). On fully slatted floors, space allotted considering the final market weight of barrows corresponding to k values of 0.037 and 0.034 were better (P < 0.05) than 0.027 in terms of growth rate and welfare indicators. ,88 (EA0,88). Les résultats ont fait l'objet d'une analyse de la variance avec mesures répétées et d'une analyse par test t sur des échantillons indépendants. Les sujets EA0,64 présentaient un GQM plus faible (0,859 ± 0,017), passaient moins de temps couchés dans leur coin préféré (55,22 ± 1,644) et montraient plus de blessures (4,581 ± 0,139) tout en connaissant un plus grand nombre d'agressions (1,94 ± 0,286) (P < 0,05 dans tous les cas) que les porcs EA0,88 (0,936 ± 0,020; 61,02 ± 1,203; 3,858 ± 0,208; 1,08 ± 0,212 respectivement) et EA0,81 (0,916 ± 0,019; 59,77 ± 1,417; 3,855 ± 0,112; 1,24 ± 0,238 respectivement). Les porcs EA0,64 profitent d'une meilleure (P < 0,05) ES globale (1,344 kg de GQM par m2 d'espace) que les sujets EA0,88 (1,063 ± 0...

Pain in nonhuman animals is a difficult concept to identify and measure. This article briefly describes the consequences of pain in animals on the farm and explains the reasons for the minimal use of analgesics in farmed animals. Pain can have implications for both animal welfare and economics. The reasons for a low use of analgesics in farmed animals include the lack of recognition of animal pain owing to the apparent lack of anthropomorphically identifiable behavioral changes, concern over human food safety, and lack of research efforts to develop safe analgesics for farm use. Treatment cost relative to the benefits expected is another hindering factor. Interventions to minimize pain must begin with developing objective and practical measures for pain identification and measurement at the farm level. A suggested use of a combination of different behavioral and physiological indicators would help to identify pain in animals. To facilitate continued usage of the methodologies on the farm it also is necessary to evaluate the economic implication of the pain alleviation intervention.