Upload
aron-lane
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Megan C. Morris, Dr. Angela Green, Dr. Ryan Dilger, Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Validation of an Automatic Liquid Feeding System in Piglets
Acknowledgments
A special thank you to:
The Animal Welfare and Environmental Systems Laboratory
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Animal Science
Conclusions
Testing did not yield satisfactory results for application of the system in a nutrition study.
Additional system troubleshooting resulted in the decision to make system adjustments to the physical and electronic components to improve component reliability.
Following the adjustments, further calibration is needed.
Introduction Objective:To calibrate and validate volume delivery of an automatic liquid feeding system for neonatal piglets.
Rationale:• Mimics traditional feeding from the sow• Eases management practices• Allows for the addition of various
nutritional components• Eliminates competition for nutrients
amongst littermates• Distributes several different diets at one
time• Removes human handling effects of
manual feeding
Abstract The use of piglets in biomedical research is becoming increasingly more common due to the similarities between swine and humans in both anatomy and physiology. In order to aid in testing the varying nutritional effects on piglet cognitive development, an automatic liquid feeding system was designed to distribute up to six different to up to 24 neonatal piglets simultaneously. Prior to this study, the system calibration procedure was completed and recorded to ensure the system dependably delivered accurate liquid volumes.
Methodology
Schematics:• A series of pumps, tanks and valves were
assembled for feed delivery• A computer-based system interface was
designed using LabView • 4 display pages for operator inputs• Feeding and Cleaning, Control,
Display, Flow Calibration• System designed to run both feeding
and cleaning cycles
Fig 2. Screenshot of the interface of the automatic system, including the 6 30-gallon feed tanks, tubing, solenoid, needle, and dump valves, and piglet cages. (Anliker, 2012)
Methods: • Quantify feed distribution from four feed lines
using two test feeding cycles and make
system adjustments to improve results.
Test 1• Established base flow rates • Input details for test conditions• 4kg piglet• Fed 23 times per day• Feeding rate of 300mL/kg•Collected all liquid dispensed to each cage
during one feeding cycle•Weighed individual containers to quantify
volume dispensed
Test 2•Made adjustments as needed and retested
• Adjustments made to drop needle
valves for any line with >30%
difference between actual feed
delivered and computer setting• Adjustments made to computer
code for valve open times•Repeated steps from test 1 to assess changes
in delivery
Results
Test 1: Establishing Base Rates
Future Research
• Complete adjustments to the system• Complete calibration of the system• Verify growth rates of piglets using the
automatic liquid feeding system• Test cognitive development of piglets on
various diets using the automatic liquid feeding system through behavioral analysis in a choice test maze
Fig 1. A photo taken of the system’s set-up within the biomedical laboratory at the University of Illinois
References
Anliker, L. (2012). Piglet feeding system operating manual.
Fig 5. A contrast of the percent differences between expected flow rates and actual flow rates and the error reduction between the two tests
Test 2:
Fig. 4 A comparison of the expected flow rate and the actual flow rate for Test 2 using the system
Fig. 3 A comparison of expected flow rates and actual flow rates during Test 1 running the system
1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-3 3-4 4-3 4-4 5-3 5-4 6-3 6-40
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Actual Flowrate, mL/min or g/min
Desired Flow Rate
Cage
Flow
Rat
e in
mL/
min
or g
/min
1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-3 3-4 4-3 4-4 5-3 5-4 6-3 6-40
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Actual Flowrate, mL/min or g/min
Desired Flow Rate
Cage
Flow
Rat
e, m
K/m
in o
r g/m
in
Cage Test 1 Perctnet difference Test 2 Percent Difference Error reduction
1-3 27.27 23.64 3.63
1-4 476.4 520 -43.6
2-3 214.5 360 -145.5
2-4 267.3 -90.9 358.2
3-3 32.73 -12.7 45.43
3-4 256.4 221.8 34.6
4-3 -30.9 -14.5 -16.4
4-4 -58.2 49.09 -107.29
5-3 187.3 123.6 63.7
5-4 298.2 107.3 190.9
6-3 96.36 101.8 -5.44
6-4 -83.6 -63.6 -20