Body condition evaluation in sows

Charette, Robert; Bigras-Poulin, Michel; Martineau, G. P.

doi:10.1016/0301-6226(96)00022-x

Cited by 45 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analyses showed that for mice, predictions of body fat were markedly improved by the measurement of pelvic circumference. Circumference or girth measurements are used relatively infrequently in the ecological literature (Sweitzer and Berger 1993, Cook et al 2003, Hwang et al 2005), but they are used more commonly in the animal science literature (Gresham et al 1986, Charette et al 1996, Deeming et al 1996). In addition, abdominal girth is also used widely in measurements of humans (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which body condition index is best?

Labocha

Schutz

Hayes

2013

Oikos

162

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body condition indices are widely used by ecologists, but many indices are used without empirical validation. To test the validity of a variety of indices, we compared how well a broad range of body condition indices predicted body fat mass, percent body fat and residual fat mass in mice Mus musculus. We also compared the performance of these condition indices with the multiple regression of several morphometric variables on body fat mass, percent body fat and residual fat mass. In our study population, two ratio based condition indices – body mass/body length and log body mass/log body length – predicted body fat mass as well as or better than other ratio and residual indices of condition in females. In males one ratio based condition index (log body mass/log body length) and one residual index (residuals from a regression of pelvic circumference on body length) were best at predicting body fat mass. All indices were better at estimating body fat mass, and residual fat mass than at estimating percent body fat. The predictions of body fat were much better for females than for males. Multiple regressions incorporating pelvic circumference (i.e. girth at the iliac crests) were the best predictors of body fat mass, residual fat mass, and percent body fat, and these multiple regressions were better than any of the condition indices. We recommend 1) that condition be precisely defined, 2) that predictors of condition be empirically validated, 3) that pelvic circumference be considered as a potential predictor of fat content, and 4) that, in general, multiple regression be considered as an alternative to condition indices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which body condition index is best?

Labocha

Schutz

Hayes

2013

Oikos

162

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These parameters can be the input of scientific models to estimate important management information such as live weight (O'Connell et al, 2007) and body condition (Charette et al, 1996) both in sows and in pig growing. However, some scientific models have not been commercially implemented probably due to the tediousness in obtaining the animal parameters.…”

Section: In Vivo Animal Phenotypingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Structured Light Sensors Applications in Precision Agriculture and Livestock Farming

Rosell-Polo

Cheein

Gregorio

et al. 2015

Advances in Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Weight of sows in class 1 ranged from 90 to 170 kg (135.7 ± 19.7 kg), those in class 2 ranged from 171 to 210 kg (190.0 ± 12.0 kg), and those in class 3 ranged from 211 to 325 kg (254.0 ± 31.5 kg). For all sows BCS was also measured according to a scoring scheme ranging from 1 (very thin) to 5 (very fat) as described by Charette et al (1996). Furthermore, lameness and claw condition were assessed using the scoring system described by Bonde et al (2004).…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressure load on specific body areas of gestating sows lying on rubber mats with different softness1

Schubbert

Hartung

Schrader

2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rubber mats offer a possibility to increase lying comfort for sows with positive effects on sow lying behavior and health. However, until now, no information has been reported about the relationship between the softness of rubber mats and the pressure load on certain body areas of sows. We used a total of 68 (40 multiparous, 28 primiparous) German Landrace × German Landrace sows with a BW within the range of 90 to 330 kg (divided in 3 weight classes) to measure peak force and distribution of pressure during lying in the sternal and half recumbent position. Measures were done in an experimental pen that was equipped with a pressure sensor map system (5400 NTL; Tekscan Inc., Boston, MA). Three rubber mats differing in softness (penetration depth: hard mat, 4.0 mm [HM]; soft mat, 14.6 mm [SM]; very soft mat, 43.0 mm [VSM]) were tested and compared to concrete floor (CF) as a reference. Pressure load was analyzed in the sternal position for the sternum, belly, and ham body regions and also in the half recumbent position for the shoulder. For each lying position we determined the body region with the highest pressure load and analyzed the peak force (PF) and the contact area (CA) using a mixed model ANOVA (MIXED procedure of SAS Enterprise, version 4.3., SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with floor type, weight class of sows, and their interaction as fixed factors. Overall, the highest values for PF in the sternal position were found on the sternum (median: 1.62 N/cm(2)) and in the half recumbent position on the shoulder (median: 2.72 N/cm(2)). In the sternal position PF on the sternum was lower on VSM compared to CF (P = 0.001). In the half-recumbent position PF on the shoulder was lower on VSM compared to CF (P = 0.013) and compared to HM (P = 0.011). The weight of the sows affected PF on the sternum in the sternal position, with lower values in weight class 1 compared to weight class 2 (P = 0.001) and weight class 3 (P = 0.002). Contact area under the sternum was larger on SM (P = 0.016) and VSM (P = 0.008) compared to CF in the sternal position, and this was affected by weight class (P = 0.0002). In the half-recumbent position floor type did not affect CA under the shoulder, but CA was larger in weight classes 2 and 3 compared to weight class 1 (all P < 0.05). Assuming that a reduced PF in combination with pressure distributed over a larger area will increase lying comfort, hard rubber mats do not seem to offer a high lying comfort with regard to pressure load on debited body regions such as the sternum or shoulder.

show abstract

Body condition evaluation in sows

Cited by 45 publications

References 18 publications

Which body condition index is best?

Which body condition index is best?

Advances in Structured Light Sensors Applications in Precision Agriculture and Livestock Farming

Pressure load on specific body areas of gestating sows lying on rubber mats with different softness1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About