Can Fear Be Effectively Assessed in Swine? A Study Measuring Fear Levels during a Human Approach Test

This study evaluated the effect of experience and social companionship on the degree of fearfulness in pigs during a human approach test. Experience had no significant effect on fearfulness of pigs while social companionship significantly decreased number of vocalizations (156 (unpaired) vs. 54 sec (paired) P \u3c 0.05), latency to enter within 1 meter (97 (unpaired) vs. 50 sec (paired) P \u3c0.05), and 0.5 meter (133 (unpaired) vs. 70 sec (paired) P \u3c 0.05), as well as significantly increased number of contact bouts (5.7 (unpaired) vs. 7.75 (paired) P \u3c 0.05). These results suggest that experience with a novel environment and novel human will not necessarily decrease fear, but the social environment does play a large role in decreasing fearfulness in pigs. Producers can use the human approach test to evaluate levels of fear and implement positive management strategies to decrease fearfulness in the herd

A proactive blueprint to demonstrate on-farm animal welfare

Farm animal welfare has become an increasing area of consumer and customer interest globally and this has resulted in dramatic changes related to on-farm accountability. Some markets are demanding an-on farm, transparent and accountable animal welfare program. Knowing what key elements are required is critical. Key elements range from (a) caretaker qualities; (b) record keeping and standard operating procedures (SOP) (c) animal- and resource based measures (d) communication and (e) caretaker empowerment. The ultimate on-farm welfare program goal is to provide the highest animal care. This review paper will provide context to these key elements that in turn can be used to create or improve an-farm animal welfare program

Pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in mature swine after intravenous andoral administration

The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in mature swine after intravenous (IV) and oral (PO) administration. Six mature sows (mean bodyweight ± standard deviation = 217.3± 65.68 kg) were administered an IV or PO dose of meloxicam at a target dose of 0.5 mg/kg in a cross-over design. Plasma samples collected up to 48 hours post-administration were analyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) followed by non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. Mean peak plasma concentration (CMAX) after PO administration was 1070 ng/ml (645-1749 ng/ml). TMAX was recorded at 2.40 hour (0.50-12.00 hours) after PO administration. Half-life (T ½ λz) for IV and PO administration was 6.15 hours (4.39-7.79 hours) and 6.83 hours (5.18-9.63 hours) respectively. The bioavailability (F) for PO administration was 87% (39-351%). The results of the present study suggest that meloxicam is well absorbed after oral administration

Pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine in mature swine after intravenous, intramuscular and oral administration

The purpose of this study was to determine intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM) and oral (PO) FM PK in mature swine. Appropriate pain management for lameness in swine is a critical control point for veterinarians and producers, but science-based guidance on optimal housing, management and treatment of lameness is deficient. Six mature swine (121–168 kg) were administered an IV, IM, or PO dose of flunixin meglumine at a target dose of 2.2 mg/kg in a cross-over design with a 10 day washout period between treatments. Plasma samples collected up to 48 hours post-administration were analyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) followed by non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. No adverse effects were observed with flunixin meglumine administration for all routes. Flunixin meglumine was administered at an actual mean dose of 2.21 mg/kg (range: 2.05-2.48 mg/kg) IV, IM and PO. A mean peak plasma concentration (CMAX) for IM and PO administration was 3748 ng/ml (range: 2749–6004 ng/ml) and 946 ng/ml (range: 554–1593 ng/ml), respectively. TMAX was recorded at 1.00 hour (range: 0.50-2.00 hours) and 0.61 hours (range: 0.17-2.00 hours) after PO and IM administration. Half-life (T ½ λz) for IV, IM and PO administration was 6.29 hours (range: 4.84-8.34 hours), 7.49 hours (range: 5.55-12.98 hours) and 7.08 hours (range: 5.29-9.15 hours) respectively. In comparison, bioavailability (F) for PO administration was 22% (range: 11-44%) compared to IM F at 76% (range: 54-92%). The results of the present study suggest that FM oral administration is not the most effective administration route for mature swine when compared to IV and IM. Lower F and Cmax of PO-FM in comparison to IM-FM suggest that PO-FM is less likely to be an effective therapeutic administration route