SEARCH
Industry Partners
Prairie Swine Centre is an affiliate of the University of Saskatchewan
Prairie Swine Centre is grateful for the assistance of the George Morris Centre in developing the economics portion of Pork Insight.
Financial support for the Enterprise Model Project and Pork Insight has been provided by:
Clogging and flow reduction in soil materials by ponded hog manure
Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on January 1, 2000 | No Comments
Earthen manure storages (EMS) offer an economically viable means of storing manure as compared to concrete or steel tanks. However, ground water contamination is a concern if the EMS is not constructed properly. Research from Quebec suggests that liquid manure can cause clogging and a great reduction in seepage rates. To confirm these findings, a similar study was conducted. Findings showed that liquid hog manure does effectively clog soil pores, as flow rate was decreased 100 to 1000 times with little effect by texture. Clogging can be easily disturbed and appears to be a surface effect. Warmer temperatures and biological activity might also disrupt this clogging effect. Therefore, the presence of clogging should not be used as a substitute for properly chosen and well engineered earthen materials in manure storages.
The working environment in non-cage systems for laying hens.
Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments
Farming practices and the respiratory health risks of swine confinement buildings
Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments
The social environment influences the behavioural responses of beef cattle to handling.
Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments
Cattle responses to handling are probably not only a reaction to human, but also depend on other elements of the situation such as social context, physical environment, and the novelty of the situation. In particular, the social context may be important for cattle, which, in common with other species of domestic ungulates, are very gregarious. As handling can be stressful for farm animals, it can be hypothesised that social partners modify individual responses to handling. The present study investigated the effect of the presence or absence of social partners on behavioural reactions of beef calves in a handling test. At the age of 10 months, 38 calves from two breeds (Salers and Limousine) were individually subjected to the docility test (reactions to handling), once while in visual contact with four familiar peers, and once in the absence of peers. The docility test procedure included physical separation from peers (30 s; period 1), exposition to a stationary human (30 s; period 2), and handling by human (30 s to 2.5 min, according to the success in handling; period 3). In absence of human (period 1), calves in visual contact with their peers spent more time motionless than when peers were totally absent. The social environment also influenced the duration of handling (period 3); the human required more time to successfully handle calves when peers were present. In conclusion, the results of this study show that the presence of peers affects individual calves’ reactions to docility test.
Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy cattle handling practices.
Posted in: Welfare by admin on | No Comments
This paper evaluates a technique to assess the aversiveness of handling procedures in cattle. Cattle were moved through a chute or race to an area where the handling practices were performed. This process was repeated 9-12 times depending on the trial. It was expected, and confirmed, that the dairy cows would become hesitant to enter the race, would move more slowly, and require more force to be moved if the treatment they received was unpleasant or aversive. In the first study cows the ranking of treatments studied was, from most aversive to least, hitting and shouting, brushing, control (no handling), and a food reward. In the second study the most aversive treatments were an electric prod and shouting, compared to control, while hitting and a tail twist were intermediate. In the final study, using what were believed to be positive handling practices, no differences were found among hand feeding, gentling, and control. The authors conclude that this test is useful to identify aversive versus positive procedures, but is not very sensitive to differentiate among either positive or negative procedures.