Effects of ractopamine (RAC) on handling characteristics of market weight pigs
| Authors . | RAC dose . | Duration, d . | Pigs, # . | Methodology . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peterson et al., 2015 | 0, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 216 | The time to complete handling procedures was evaluated when pigs were moved individually through a handling course (total distance 50 m) with 1 of 3 handling intensity treatments: gentle, moderate, or aggressive handling. Pigs were then loaded on a trailer and transported for 1 h. Afterward, pigs were subjected to a final handling procedure, which consisted of moving pigs through the same handling course, but for a distance of 100 m and all pigs were moved at their own pace using gentle handling. | RAC did not affect the time to complete the initial or final handling procedures. |
| Puls et al., 2015 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 141 | Pigs were subjected to handling and transport procedures to evaluate the distance pigs moved voluntarily, ease of handling scores (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult), and the number of handler inputs (push or bump with a sorting board) needed. Pigs were moved 50 m through a handling course with 8 shocks from an electric prod (defined as aggressive handling), transported 30 min with 0.46 m2/pig, unloaded, and moved 100 m through the same original handling course with gentle handling applied. | RAC pigs voluntarily moved 7 m less than control pigs following handling, loading, and 30 min transportation (85.3 vs. 92.0 m for 0 and 10 mg/kg RAC, respectively). There was no difference in ease of handling during pre-transport handling, but there was a tendency (P = 0.06) for RAC fed pigs to be more difficult to handle during post-transport handling than controls (1.9 vs. 2.4, respectively). RAC pigs did not require more handler inputs during either pre- or post-transport handling. |
| Rocha et al., 20131 | 0 and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 1488 | Handler inputs (vocal sound, physical contact, and rattle noise), pig behaviors (slip/fall, overlap, 180° turn, back up, backward, underlap, vocalize, balk, and squeeze), and loading time were measured to assess RAC levels, castration method (immunocastration vs. surgical) and genetic type (A vs. B). Behavior during loading was recorded from the alley to the barn door and from the barn door to the trailer door. | RAC did not affect loading behavior. However, RAC fed pigs required more physical handling interventions during movement in the alley from their home pen to the trailer than control pigs (8.45 vs. 6.83 handling interventions, respectively). |
| Benjamin et al., 2006 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 288 | The number of handler interventions to maintain pig movement and the time needed to complete a handling course were measured as pigs were moved individually through an obstacle course on d 7 and 28. | The number of handler interventions and handling time was not different between RAC treatments. |
| Marchant-Forde et al., 2003 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 72 | Handling characteristics were evaluated during weekly movements from the home pen to the weigh scale. The characteristics evaluated included the number of pigs that voluntarily exited the home pen, latency to exit the home pen, duration and handler inputs needed to get pigs into the weigh scale, duration and handler inputs needed for pigs to exit the scale, and duration to return to the home pen. | RAC pigs were more difficult to handle, with 51% fewer RAC pigs exiting the home pen voluntarily (approximately 1.5 pigs on average). RAC pigs also took 136% longer to remove from the home pen (approximately 10 s), 83% longer to move from the home pen and into a weigh scale (approximately 5 s), and needed 52% more handler inputs (2 to 3 more pats, slaps, and pushes) than control pigs. |
| Miller, unpublished data2 | 0 and 20 mg/kg | 31 | 160 | Handling intensity (aggressive vs. gentle) and RAC level were evaluated by measuring the number of handler inputs, laps completed, and handling duration. Pigs were moved individually for 8 laps (approximately 200 m) through a handling course with 0 shocks (gentle handling) or 32 shocks (aggressive handling) from an electric prod. | Within the aggressive handling groups, RAC pigs required more pushes (2.98 vs. 1.64 pushes per pig, respectively), experienced more applications of an electric prod (35.6 vs. 33.0 prods, respectively), moved a shorter distance (7.6 vs. 7.9 laps, respectively), and took longer to complete the handling course (265.1 vs. 251.9 s, respectively) compared to control pigs. In the gentle handling groups, RAC pigs took longer to complete the handling course (411.8 vs. 374.6 s, respectively) than control pigs. |
| Authors . | RAC dose . | Duration, d . | Pigs, # . | Methodology . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peterson et al., 2015 | 0, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 216 | The time to complete handling procedures was evaluated when pigs were moved individually through a handling course (total distance 50 m) with 1 of 3 handling intensity treatments: gentle, moderate, or aggressive handling. Pigs were then loaded on a trailer and transported for 1 h. Afterward, pigs were subjected to a final handling procedure, which consisted of moving pigs through the same handling course, but for a distance of 100 m and all pigs were moved at their own pace using gentle handling. | RAC did not affect the time to complete the initial or final handling procedures. |
| Puls et al., 2015 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 141 | Pigs were subjected to handling and transport procedures to evaluate the distance pigs moved voluntarily, ease of handling scores (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult), and the number of handler inputs (push or bump with a sorting board) needed. Pigs were moved 50 m through a handling course with 8 shocks from an electric prod (defined as aggressive handling), transported 30 min with 0.46 m2/pig, unloaded, and moved 100 m through the same original handling course with gentle handling applied. | RAC pigs voluntarily moved 7 m less than control pigs following handling, loading, and 30 min transportation (85.3 vs. 92.0 m for 0 and 10 mg/kg RAC, respectively). There was no difference in ease of handling during pre-transport handling, but there was a tendency (P = 0.06) for RAC fed pigs to be more difficult to handle during post-transport handling than controls (1.9 vs. 2.4, respectively). RAC pigs did not require more handler inputs during either pre- or post-transport handling. |
| Rocha et al., 20131 | 0 and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 1488 | Handler inputs (vocal sound, physical contact, and rattle noise), pig behaviors (slip/fall, overlap, 180° turn, back up, backward, underlap, vocalize, balk, and squeeze), and loading time were measured to assess RAC levels, castration method (immunocastration vs. surgical) and genetic type (A vs. B). Behavior during loading was recorded from the alley to the barn door and from the barn door to the trailer door. | RAC did not affect loading behavior. However, RAC fed pigs required more physical handling interventions during movement in the alley from their home pen to the trailer than control pigs (8.45 vs. 6.83 handling interventions, respectively). |
| Benjamin et al., 2006 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 288 | The number of handler interventions to maintain pig movement and the time needed to complete a handling course were measured as pigs were moved individually through an obstacle course on d 7 and 28. | The number of handler interventions and handling time was not different between RAC treatments. |
| Marchant-Forde et al., 2003 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 72 | Handling characteristics were evaluated during weekly movements from the home pen to the weigh scale. The characteristics evaluated included the number of pigs that voluntarily exited the home pen, latency to exit the home pen, duration and handler inputs needed to get pigs into the weigh scale, duration and handler inputs needed for pigs to exit the scale, and duration to return to the home pen. | RAC pigs were more difficult to handle, with 51% fewer RAC pigs exiting the home pen voluntarily (approximately 1.5 pigs on average). RAC pigs also took 136% longer to remove from the home pen (approximately 10 s), 83% longer to move from the home pen and into a weigh scale (approximately 5 s), and needed 52% more handler inputs (2 to 3 more pats, slaps, and pushes) than control pigs. |
| Miller, unpublished data2 | 0 and 20 mg/kg | 31 | 160 | Handling intensity (aggressive vs. gentle) and RAC level were evaluated by measuring the number of handler inputs, laps completed, and handling duration. Pigs were moved individually for 8 laps (approximately 200 m) through a handling course with 0 shocks (gentle handling) or 32 shocks (aggressive handling) from an electric prod. | Within the aggressive handling groups, RAC pigs required more pushes (2.98 vs. 1.64 pushes per pig, respectively), experienced more applications of an electric prod (35.6 vs. 33.0 prods, respectively), moved a shorter distance (7.6 vs. 7.9 laps, respectively), and took longer to complete the handling course (265.1 vs. 251.9 s, respectively) compared to control pigs. In the gentle handling groups, RAC pigs took longer to complete the handling course (411.8 vs. 374.6 s, respectively) than control pigs. |
1There was a significant RAC × genotype method interaction for handler interventions (P < 0.05).
2There was a significant RAC × handling method interaction (P < 0.05).
Effects of ractopamine (RAC) on handling characteristics of market weight pigs
| Authors . | RAC dose . | Duration, d . | Pigs, # . | Methodology . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peterson et al., 2015 | 0, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 216 | The time to complete handling procedures was evaluated when pigs were moved individually through a handling course (total distance 50 m) with 1 of 3 handling intensity treatments: gentle, moderate, or aggressive handling. Pigs were then loaded on a trailer and transported for 1 h. Afterward, pigs were subjected to a final handling procedure, which consisted of moving pigs through the same handling course, but for a distance of 100 m and all pigs were moved at their own pace using gentle handling. | RAC did not affect the time to complete the initial or final handling procedures. |
| Puls et al., 2015 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 141 | Pigs were subjected to handling and transport procedures to evaluate the distance pigs moved voluntarily, ease of handling scores (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult), and the number of handler inputs (push or bump with a sorting board) needed. Pigs were moved 50 m through a handling course with 8 shocks from an electric prod (defined as aggressive handling), transported 30 min with 0.46 m2/pig, unloaded, and moved 100 m through the same original handling course with gentle handling applied. | RAC pigs voluntarily moved 7 m less than control pigs following handling, loading, and 30 min transportation (85.3 vs. 92.0 m for 0 and 10 mg/kg RAC, respectively). There was no difference in ease of handling during pre-transport handling, but there was a tendency (P = 0.06) for RAC fed pigs to be more difficult to handle during post-transport handling than controls (1.9 vs. 2.4, respectively). RAC pigs did not require more handler inputs during either pre- or post-transport handling. |
| Rocha et al., 20131 | 0 and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 1488 | Handler inputs (vocal sound, physical contact, and rattle noise), pig behaviors (slip/fall, overlap, 180° turn, back up, backward, underlap, vocalize, balk, and squeeze), and loading time were measured to assess RAC levels, castration method (immunocastration vs. surgical) and genetic type (A vs. B). Behavior during loading was recorded from the alley to the barn door and from the barn door to the trailer door. | RAC did not affect loading behavior. However, RAC fed pigs required more physical handling interventions during movement in the alley from their home pen to the trailer than control pigs (8.45 vs. 6.83 handling interventions, respectively). |
| Benjamin et al., 2006 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 288 | The number of handler interventions to maintain pig movement and the time needed to complete a handling course were measured as pigs were moved individually through an obstacle course on d 7 and 28. | The number of handler interventions and handling time was not different between RAC treatments. |
| Marchant-Forde et al., 2003 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 72 | Handling characteristics were evaluated during weekly movements from the home pen to the weigh scale. The characteristics evaluated included the number of pigs that voluntarily exited the home pen, latency to exit the home pen, duration and handler inputs needed to get pigs into the weigh scale, duration and handler inputs needed for pigs to exit the scale, and duration to return to the home pen. | RAC pigs were more difficult to handle, with 51% fewer RAC pigs exiting the home pen voluntarily (approximately 1.5 pigs on average). RAC pigs also took 136% longer to remove from the home pen (approximately 10 s), 83% longer to move from the home pen and into a weigh scale (approximately 5 s), and needed 52% more handler inputs (2 to 3 more pats, slaps, and pushes) than control pigs. |
| Miller, unpublished data2 | 0 and 20 mg/kg | 31 | 160 | Handling intensity (aggressive vs. gentle) and RAC level were evaluated by measuring the number of handler inputs, laps completed, and handling duration. Pigs were moved individually for 8 laps (approximately 200 m) through a handling course with 0 shocks (gentle handling) or 32 shocks (aggressive handling) from an electric prod. | Within the aggressive handling groups, RAC pigs required more pushes (2.98 vs. 1.64 pushes per pig, respectively), experienced more applications of an electric prod (35.6 vs. 33.0 prods, respectively), moved a shorter distance (7.6 vs. 7.9 laps, respectively), and took longer to complete the handling course (265.1 vs. 251.9 s, respectively) compared to control pigs. In the gentle handling groups, RAC pigs took longer to complete the handling course (411.8 vs. 374.6 s, respectively) than control pigs. |
| Authors . | RAC dose . | Duration, d . | Pigs, # . | Methodology . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peterson et al., 2015 | 0, 5, and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 216 | The time to complete handling procedures was evaluated when pigs were moved individually through a handling course (total distance 50 m) with 1 of 3 handling intensity treatments: gentle, moderate, or aggressive handling. Pigs were then loaded on a trailer and transported for 1 h. Afterward, pigs were subjected to a final handling procedure, which consisted of moving pigs through the same handling course, but for a distance of 100 m and all pigs were moved at their own pace using gentle handling. | RAC did not affect the time to complete the initial or final handling procedures. |
| Puls et al., 2015 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 141 | Pigs were subjected to handling and transport procedures to evaluate the distance pigs moved voluntarily, ease of handling scores (1 = very easy to 5 = very difficult), and the number of handler inputs (push or bump with a sorting board) needed. Pigs were moved 50 m through a handling course with 8 shocks from an electric prod (defined as aggressive handling), transported 30 min with 0.46 m2/pig, unloaded, and moved 100 m through the same original handling course with gentle handling applied. | RAC pigs voluntarily moved 7 m less than control pigs following handling, loading, and 30 min transportation (85.3 vs. 92.0 m for 0 and 10 mg/kg RAC, respectively). There was no difference in ease of handling during pre-transport handling, but there was a tendency (P = 0.06) for RAC fed pigs to be more difficult to handle during post-transport handling than controls (1.9 vs. 2.4, respectively). RAC pigs did not require more handler inputs during either pre- or post-transport handling. |
| Rocha et al., 20131 | 0 and 7.5 mg/kg | 28 | 1488 | Handler inputs (vocal sound, physical contact, and rattle noise), pig behaviors (slip/fall, overlap, 180° turn, back up, backward, underlap, vocalize, balk, and squeeze), and loading time were measured to assess RAC levels, castration method (immunocastration vs. surgical) and genetic type (A vs. B). Behavior during loading was recorded from the alley to the barn door and from the barn door to the trailer door. | RAC did not affect loading behavior. However, RAC fed pigs required more physical handling interventions during movement in the alley from their home pen to the trailer than control pigs (8.45 vs. 6.83 handling interventions, respectively). |
| Benjamin et al., 2006 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 288 | The number of handler interventions to maintain pig movement and the time needed to complete a handling course were measured as pigs were moved individually through an obstacle course on d 7 and 28. | The number of handler interventions and handling time was not different between RAC treatments. |
| Marchant-Forde et al., 2003 | 0 and 10 mg/kg | 28 | 72 | Handling characteristics were evaluated during weekly movements from the home pen to the weigh scale. The characteristics evaluated included the number of pigs that voluntarily exited the home pen, latency to exit the home pen, duration and handler inputs needed to get pigs into the weigh scale, duration and handler inputs needed for pigs to exit the scale, and duration to return to the home pen. | RAC pigs were more difficult to handle, with 51% fewer RAC pigs exiting the home pen voluntarily (approximately 1.5 pigs on average). RAC pigs also took 136% longer to remove from the home pen (approximately 10 s), 83% longer to move from the home pen and into a weigh scale (approximately 5 s), and needed 52% more handler inputs (2 to 3 more pats, slaps, and pushes) than control pigs. |
| Miller, unpublished data2 | 0 and 20 mg/kg | 31 | 160 | Handling intensity (aggressive vs. gentle) and RAC level were evaluated by measuring the number of handler inputs, laps completed, and handling duration. Pigs were moved individually for 8 laps (approximately 200 m) through a handling course with 0 shocks (gentle handling) or 32 shocks (aggressive handling) from an electric prod. | Within the aggressive handling groups, RAC pigs required more pushes (2.98 vs. 1.64 pushes per pig, respectively), experienced more applications of an electric prod (35.6 vs. 33.0 prods, respectively), moved a shorter distance (7.6 vs. 7.9 laps, respectively), and took longer to complete the handling course (265.1 vs. 251.9 s, respectively) compared to control pigs. In the gentle handling groups, RAC pigs took longer to complete the handling course (411.8 vs. 374.6 s, respectively) than control pigs. |
1There was a significant RAC × genotype method interaction for handler interventions (P < 0.05).
2There was a significant RAC × handling method interaction (P < 0.05).
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
