Sow behavioral responses to transient, chemically induced synovitis lameness

Parsons, R. L.; Millman, Suzanne T.; Coetzee, Johann F.; Karriker, Locke A.; Mohling, Caroline M.; Pairis‐Garcia, Monique D.; Stalder, K. J.; Johnson, Anna K.

doi:10.1080/09064702.2015.1110617

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Posture and posture changes have been measured before, during, and after painful events (64, 90), compared with controls/shams (68, 69, 73, 91–94), with and without anesthesia or analgesia (75, 76, 82, 95–98) and with the severity of painful conditions (99). …”

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The frequencies of posture changes and durations of postural behavior have been used in assessing pain in sows arising from farrowing (95–97, 99–101), the presence of shoulder ulcers (73), and lameness (82, 90, 98). Naloxone (an opioid antagonist) administration increased standing, lying ventrally, and postural changes in periparturient sows, indicating that endogenous opioids may have a role in reducing pain at farrowing, which is manifest by frequent posture changes (101).…”

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predictably, sows rendered lame by intra-articular chemical irritant injection showed increased lying and decreased standing behavior (90, 98). Chemically induced lame sows treated with meloxicam lay down less frequently than saline-treated individuals, although those treated with flunixin did not differ from those in the placebo group (98).…”

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Pain Assessment in Pigs

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a moral obligation to minimize pain in pigs used for human benefit. In livestock production, pigs experience pain caused by management procedures, e.g., castration and tail docking, injuries from fighting or poor housing conditions, “management diseases” like mastitis or streptococcal meningitis, and at parturition. Pigs used in biomedical research undergo procedures that are regarded as painful in humans, but do not receive similar levels of analgesia, and pet pigs also experience potentially painful conditions. In all contexts, accurate pain assessment is a prerequisite in (a) the estimation of the welfare consequences of noxious interventions and (b) the development of more effective pain mitigation strategies. This narrative review identifies the sources of pain in pigs, discusses the various assessment measures currently available, and proposes directions for future investigation.

show abstract

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pain Assessment In Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Pain Assessment in Pigs

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a lame animal is less likely to stand and eat, which could result in hunger, thirst and malnutrition (Anil et al 2009b). Parsons et al (2015) found that lying increased, frequency of sows at the drinker decreased and frequency of sows in their home pen increased in sows where lameness was induced. Although (Parsons et al, 2015) showed no differences in eating activity due to lameness, other studies indicate that lameness and discomfort or illness manifest as a decline in feed intake (Weary et al, 2009).…”

Section: Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Parsons et al (2015) found that lying increased, frequency of sows at the drinker decreased and frequency of sows in their home pen increased in sows where lameness was induced. Although (Parsons et al, 2015) showed no differences in eating activity due to lameness, other studies indicate that lameness and discomfort or illness manifest as a decline in feed intake (Weary et al, 2009). Enokida et al (2010) notes that sows in the highest category for claw lesions spent more time lying down than sows with fewer lesions.…”

Section: Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 97%

Dynamic space utilization of lame and non-lame sows as determined by their lying-standing sequence profile

Mumm¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this project was to determine the dynamic space utilization for lame and non-lame sows during a lying-standing postural sequence. A secondary objective was to characterize the postures and movements for multiparous lame and sound sows and to identify differences in the lying and standing sequence. A total of 85 multiparous sows were used. Each sow was evaluated for walking lameness between their gestation stall to a pen using a 3-point scale (1 = normal to 3 = severely lame). Individual sows were moved to a pen on day 30, 60 and 90 of gestation and a ceiling mounted camera was installed above the pen to record a single lying-standing event. Observations ceased when the sow laid-down and stood-up or if 2.5 hours elapsed from recording commencement. Lying and standing sequence still frames were combined into a single image and measured in Adobe Photoshop Elements by counting the pixel number associated with contouring the sows' body or; counting squares on a grid that was overlaid on the sow's image. A second video of the sows' profile while standing in a gestation stall was collected on 30, 60 and 90 days of gestation. From this video, postures and movements that occurred during the lying-standing sequence were identified. Time (seconds) from kneeling to shoulder rotation (KSR), shoulder rotation to lying (SRHQ) and total time to lie (TLIE) were determined. In addition, latency to lie (LATENCY; minutes) and number of attempts (ATTEMPTS) to successfully lie were recorded. Time (seconds) to stand was defined as the first leg fold to sit (TLS), time from sit to rise (TSR), and total time to rise (TRISE) were recorded from the standing sequence. Data was analyzed using mixed model equations. Lameness was reclassified as non-lame (score 1) and lame (scores ≥ 2) and parity was reclassified as 0, 1 and 2+. On average, sows used 1.2 ± 0.4 m 2 to lie and to stand and there was no difference in the space required between the two measuring methods used (P > 0.05). Space required to lie and stand v increased as gestation progressed (P < 0.05). Lameness was not a significant source of variation for any of the traits evaluated in this study (P > 0.05). On average, sows took 13.9 seconds for KSR, 7.7 seconds for SRHQ, 20.5 seconds for TLIE and 66.1 minutes for LATENCY. Furthermore, sows took 8.0 seconds for TLS, 6.9 sec for TSR, and 9.8 seconds for TRISE. Lame sows tended to take longer during KSR (15.5 vs. 11.9 ± 1.59 seconds for lame and sound sows, respectively; P = 0.08), and spent less time standing (54.1 vs. 69.8 ± 6.20 minutes for lame and sound sows, respectively; P = 0.06) when compared to sound sows. Additionally, lame sows tended to be more likely to sit while transitioning from lying to standing compared with sound sows (P = 0.07). Gestation day and parity were not associated with the time taken for the different movements in the lying down sequence (P > 0.05). There were no significant associations between gestation day, lameness status or parity and the sow's attempts to lie. Sows in their ...

show abstract