Physiological and nonphysiological indicators of body condition score in weaner pigs 1

• Published in: Journal of animal science Vol. 93; no. 4; p. 1887
• Main Authors: Doyle, Rebecca E, Groat, Jillian, Wynn, Peter C, Holyoake, Patricia K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Champaign Oxford University Press 01.04.2015
• Subjects: Animal care; Animal euthanasia; Animal sciences; Breeding of animals; Hogs; Weaning
• ISSN: 0021-8812

The aim of this study was to identify parameters that may be used as objective measures of wellbeing in weaner pigs on farm. Eighty-six weaner pigs were categorized into 3 groups based on their BCS: very compromised (VC, BCS = 1), moderately compromised (MC, BCS = 2), or healthy (HY, BCS ≥ 3). Nonphysiological and physiological measures were then collected from the pigs. Nonphysiological measures included 3 subjective binary scores that assessed the activity, hairiness, and responsiveness of each pig. Physiological measures included rectal temperature, skin temperature, and 11 blood-based parameters. Each physiological measure was assessed in a ternary manner, with pigs being classed as being above, below, or within the normal physiological range. Fisher's exact tests (FET) were used to identify differences between the numbers of pigs in each BCS category for each variable, and ANOVA of physiological measures was also conducted. Correlations between all variables were also conducted. The FET results identified significant differences for 8 of the measures, with activity, hairiness, responsiveness, rectal temperature, and blood concentrations of glucose, creatinine kinase (CK), albumin, and globulin all differing significantly (all P < 0.05) according to category. Rectal temperature, glucose, and globulin concentrations were significantly different in ANOVA analyses. Of these measures, there were significant correlations between hairiness, rectal temperature, and glucose (all R > 0.30 and P < 0.05). Based on these results, rectal temperature, glucose, and hairiness all warrant further investigation as simple to apply, on-farm measures that can be used in conjunction with body condition and subjective assessment to aid management decisions on pig welfare.