An ethogram of post-anesthetic recovery behaviors in horses: comparison of pre- and post-anesthetic behaviors

Pain management is an important post-operative concern. Pain scales may rely on the observer's subjective assessment of the level of discomfort and may not correlate with physiologic or pharmacologic measures of pain. The purpose of this study was to develop an objective measure of behavior in healthy pain-free horses recovering from anesthesia that could be used for comparison with the behavior of horses recovering from a surgical procedure.
Focal sampling with videotape and observation was done on five healthy horses before anesthesia to establish baselines. Behavioral measures included head turns, tail swishes, eyelid aperture/size, ear position, angle of neck, weight shifts, and ambulation. Physiologic measures included heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature. The horses were anesthetized for 2 hours with isoflurane, and in the recovery stall, data were collected continuously on videotape from the time of extubation to standing. Focal sampling of 15 minutes was repeated at 1, 2, 4, and 24 hours after the horses returned to their stalls. Video data were analyzed using the Noldus Observer Video Analysis System.
A wide variation in behavior was observed between horses in the recovery stall. Observations at 1, 2, and 4 hours revealed change from the up/forward ear position to the down ear position, and a decrease in weight bearing of the hind limb from a baseline of 11–12 minutes out of 15 minutes to 7–9 minutes with an increase in toe pointing. Time spent standing was similar to baseline of 93.8%, and the neck angle was not changed from baseline of 173.5°. Values had returned to baseline at 24 hours.
Changes in behavior were induced by anesthesia alone and must be taken into consideration when evaluating analgesic treatments.     

Effects of genetic line and supplemental dietary fat on lactation performance of Duroc and Landrace sows.

A total of 124 Duroc and 99 Landrace primiparous and multiparous sows were assigned, within breed and contemporary group, to control (N) or 10% added fat (F) diets on d 105 of gestation based on parity and genetic line (control or selected for improved sow productivity), to determine the effects of genetic line and fat addition to the lactation diet on sow and litter performance. Weekly feed intake was not affected (P greater than .10) by genetic line for Duroc and Landrace sows but feed intake was reduced (P = .08) during wk 1 to 4 for Duroc sows and during wk 1 and 4 for Landrace sows (P less than .05) when they were fed diet F compared with diet N. Select (S)-line Duroc and Landrace sows lost more weight during lactation (P less than .01) than did control (C)-line sows. Select-line Landrace sows lost more backfat during lactation (P less than .05) than did C-line sows. Landrace sows lost less weight during lactation (P less than .05) when fed diet F than when fed diet N. The total number of pigs born, born alive, and alive at 21 d and at weaning were higher (P less than .01) for S-line Duroc sows, and litter size at 21 d and at weaning was higher (P less than .01) for S-line Landrace sows than for C-line litters within each breed. Pig survival from birth to weaning was increased (P = .07) for Duroc sows fed diet F but not for Landrace sows.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Geographical information systems for studying the epidemiology of cattle diseases caused by Theileria parva

Data on selected variables which influence the epidemiology of cattle diseases caused by Theileria parva were assembled and entered in a computerised geographical information system. Variables studied included the distributions of major hosts (cattle and buffalo), the vector ticks (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and related species) and the reported presence of East Coast fever, corridor disease and January disease. In addition, the distribution of climatic suitability for R appendiculatus was assessed using the model CLIMEX run on an interpolated climate database developed for Africa. Distribution maps of each variable were produced. The potential value of geographical information systems in studies of disease epidemiology and control is discussed, with examples of how sensitivity may be enhanced by the inclusion of additional variables. In addition, subject areas in which poor data quality and inadequate data standardisation may limit the use of these systems are identified and discussed.     

The effects of crossfostering pigs on survival and growth

Data from 254 crossfostered pigs and 753 noncrossfostered pigs of Duroc and Landrace first-parity litters were used to assess the phenotypic effects of crossfostering on baby pigs. Differences between crossfostered and noncrossfostered pigs in the recipient litter were analyzed. Phenotypic correlations were calculated for selected individual pig traits (n = 1007, combined foster and nonfoster data). Birth weight was correlated positively with improved birth vigor (r = .40; P less than .01), survival to 21 d (r = .34; P less than .01) and weight at 21 d (r = .37; P less than .01). Improved birth vigor was correlated positively with pig survival to 21 d (r = .70; P less than .01) and to weaning (r = .66; P less than .01). These correlations indicate that baby pig size and strength are related and that these two characteristics influence survival and performance. Pigs that were not crossfostered (adjusted for birth vigor) had a 4.8% (P less than .10) higher rate of survival to 21 d and a 6.8% (P less than .05) higher rate of survival to weaning (42 d). However, crossfostered pigs had greater birth vigor (P less than .01). Unadjusted for vigor, crossfostered pigs had an 11.3% (P less than .01) higher rate of survival to 21 d and an 8.6% (P less than .05) higher rate of survival to weaning than noncrossfostered pigs. These results indicate that when average-strength pigs were crossfostered, livability was reduced. However, crossfostered pigs that were stronger than average had greater livability than pigs that were not crossfostered.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)