Effects of Transportation and Electrolyte Administration on Lamb,Pig, and Calf Behavior,Distress, and Performance Traits |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey;2. Blaise Pascal University, OPGC, UMR-CNRS 6524 “Magmas et volcans”, 5 rue Kessler, 63038 Clermont-Ferrand, France;3. IUEM, UMR 6538 Domaines oceaniques, Universite de Bretagne Occidentale 6, Avenue Le Gorgeu, BP 809, 29285 Brest, France;1. College of Food Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China;2. College of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science Engineering, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China;3. National Beef Cattle and Yak Industry Technology System Hengdu Comprehensive Test Station, Zhumadian 463700, China;1. University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Science, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK;2. AHDB, Creech Castle, Taunton, Somerset TA1 2DX, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | The effects of electrolytes and transportation on lamb, pig, and calf production and behavior traits were evaluated in three twice-replicated trials. In all trials, animals were randomly allotted to three treatment groups stratified by sex, weight, and breed: 1) not transported, water (CW); 2) transported, electrolyte (TE); and 3) transported, water (TW). Comparisons of CW vs TW resulted in the determination of the effects of transportation when water was used; comparisons of TE vs TW allowed the determination of the effects of electrolyte use in transported animals. Each trial consisted of two transportation days 1 wk apart (transports 1 and 2). Each transportation day consisted of a 4-h rest period between two separate 80-km transports. Seventy-two Dorset lambs (average 105 d; 51 ewes and 21 wethers), 72 Yorkshire weaned pigs (average 51 d; 15 barrows and 57 gilts), and 39 Angus x Simmental cross heifers (average 265 d) were used. In the lamb trial, for transports 1 and 2, weight loss was not different (P>0.05) for TE vs TW; CW lost less (P<0.01) weight than did TW. Average consumption per animal in the TE treatment group was 2.00 kg water or electrolyte solution, and the average per animal consumptions in the TW and CW treatment groups were 2.06 and 2.67 kg water, respectively. In the pig trial, for transports 1 and 2, weight loss was less (P<0.01) for TE than for TW. Average consumption in the TE treatment group was 6.38 kg water or electrolyte solution, and the averages for the TW and CW treatment groups were 4.20 and 5.71 kg water, respectively. In the heifer trial, for transports 1 and 2, weight loss was not different (P>0.05) for TE vs TW; CW lost less (P<0.01) weight than TW. The average animal in the TE treatment group consumed 9.06 kg water or electrolyte solution; the average per animal consumptions in the TW and CW treatment groups were 9.87 and 10.45 kg water, respectively. There were no differences in the behaviors or activities (agonistic, movement, lying down, or loss of balance) of the groups during transport. Administration of electrolytes prior to and during a rest period between transportations appeared to decrease weight loss and increase fluid consumption. This was more pronounced in monogastrics than in ruminants. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
