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

AcknowledgmentsA special thank you to:

The Animal Welfare and Environmental Systems Laboratory

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Animal Science

ConclusionsTesting 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 dispensedTest 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

ReferencesAnliker, 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