Behavior and handling of physically- and immunologically-castrated market pigs at home and going to market Kimberly Guay, Guilherme Salgado, Garrett Thompson, Brittany Davis, Avi Sapkota, Wirawat Chaya, and John J McGlone. Pork Industry Institute, Texas

1
Behavior and handling of physically- and
immunologically-castratedmarket pigs at home and
going to marketKimberly Guay, Guilherme Salgado,
Garrett Thompson, Brittany Davis, Avi Sapkota,
Wirawat Chaya, and John J McGlone. Pork Industry
Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

• Abstract Physical castration is a common
  management practice on commercial pork farms in
  the USA. Castration is performed primarily to
  reduce the rate of boar taint (an offensive odor
  in the meat of intact male post-pubertal males)
  and aggressive behavior. One alternative to
  physical castration (PC) is to immunologically
  castrate (IC) male pigs by blocking gonadotropin
  releasing factor (GnRF) thus, reducing levels of
  LH, FSH, Testosterone and Androstenone and
  Skatole. The objectives of this study were to
  evaluate the effects of immunological castration
  on pig behavior, human-pig interactions, and
  handling during and after transport. Behaviors
  of PC barrows and IC barrows were sampled at
  three time points after entering finishing at 9
  wk of age 7 wk (prior to first injection), and
  16 wk (after immunization was complete) into
  finishing and one day before marketing (16 to 19
  wk into finishing). Handling during loading and
  unloading of trailers going to market were also
  quantified. Prior to the first injection, intact
  males showed increased aggression (P 0.014) and
  mounting (P 0.048) while the PC barrows spent
  more time feeding (P 0.003) than boars. The
  treatment by time interaction were significant
  for lying (P 0.018), aggression (P 0.0001)
  and standing (P 0.009) behaviors. Few
  differences were observed in pig-human
  interactions between PC barrows and IC barrows.
  IC approached people in the same amount of time
  as PC barrows, but were more aggressive in their
  chewing and rubbing on the test persons pant leg
  and boots. When handling and loading for
  processing in the home barn, PC barrows are more
  vocal than IC barrows (P lt 0.05). Fewer dead and
  down pigs were observed among IC (zero) compared
  with PC barrows (1.17). Immunological castration
  may result in similar or improved animal welfare
  compared to physical castration without pain
  relief.

Materials and Methods Pigs were in two adjacent
barns containing 48 pens per barn initially
stocked with 2,304 pigs. The experimental animals
were domestic swine on a commercial farm. Pigs
were a cross of widely used commercial lines,
high-performance animals of modern genetics. All
pigs were born the same week from a common set of
sow barns, and then transferred to a nursery for
approximately 7 wk, then moved to the test
grow-finish barns in pens of 24 pigs each. This
study was divided into three phases. Phase 1
pre-immunization period (week 6 in grow-finish
prior to the first immunization). One half of
male piglets had been physically castrated on day
3 of life. These animals were called PC barrows.
The other half of male piglets were not castrated
at processing and remained as intact males during
this phase Phase 2 post-immunization period
(week 16 in grow-finish). After the first and
second Improvest injections at weeks 11, 13, or
14 of finish phase, and Phase 3 Four to eight
weeks after the second dose final marketing
week with 19 weeks of finishing. Observers used
a scan sampling method to record behavior in each
pen every 12 min for 24 h. A modified fear test,
modified from that described by Gonyou and
Stricklin5 was used to assess pig fear. Handling
during loading and unloading of trailers going to
market were also quantified. Data were converted
to a percentage of pigs expressing each behavior
over time. Data were summarized by hour over the
24 h observation period. Data were then converted
to percentages of time each hour that pigs
expressed each behavior. Prior to analysis,
percentage data were subjected to square
root-arcsine transformation. Statistical Analysis
Systems (SAS) General Linear Models (GLM) were
used for all analyses.
Results and discussion Percentage of time each
pig was recorded showing a specific behavior
throughout the study (Phases 1-3) is shown in
Table 1. Prior to the first injection, intact
males showed increased aggression (P 0.014) and
mounting (P 0.048) while the PC barrows spent
more time feeding (P 0.003) than boars. The
treatment by time interaction were significant
for lying (P 0.001), aggression (P 0.0001)
and standing (P 0.009) behaviors. Few
differences were observed in pig-human
interactions between PC barrows and IC barrows.
IC approached people in the same amount of time
as PC barrows, but were more aggressive in their
chewing and rubbing on the test persons pant leg
and boots. When handling and loading for
processing in the home barn, PC barrows are more
vocal than IC barrows (P lt 0.05). Fewer dead and
down pigs were observed among IC (zero) compared
with PC barrows (1.17). Immunological castration
may result in similar or improved animal welfare
compared to physical castration without pain
relief.
Conclusion Castration of pigs largely eliminates
boar taint in commercial pigs. At the same time,
it causes acute and prolonged pain and
performance changes including increased marbling
and worse feed efficiency. Immunological
castration as an alternative to physical
castration may eliminate the pain of castration
while capturing some performance advantages.
Prior to immunization, intact male pigs showed a
small but significant increase in aggression and
mounting of each other, but did not differ in
pig-human interactions, compared with barrows.
Closer to harvest and after the second
immunization, PC barrows and IC barrows showed
similar levels of behavior. IC barrows were more
interactive with people in their pen.
Immunologically castrated pigs vocalized less and
had fewer dead and down pigs than contemporary
barrows. Handling going on the livestock
trailers and handling coming off the trailers
showed no issues with pig handling or pig-human
interactions. Behavioral or handling issues were
not identified among IC barrows compared with PC
barrows. At the processing plant, the rate of
dead and down pigs fell to zero among
immunologically castrated males while
conventional barrows had about 1 dead and down
pigs. Immunological castration may result in
improved animal welfare compared with physical
castration without pain relief, but a complete
animal welfare assessment would include both
improvements and detriments in pig welfare
generated by any alternative to physical
castration. Immunological castration is a viable
alternative to physical castration that on the
whole improves the welfare of male pigs. .
Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1. Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1. Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1. Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1. Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1. Table 2. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior. These data were collected before immunization treatments were applied (Oct, 2011). Values are expressed as percentage time engaged in each behavior averaged over 24 hours. Analyses were on transformed data. Phase 1.
Before injections Before injections Before injections P-values P-values
Behavior Barrow Intact male SE Treatment Treatment X Time
Number pens 12 12 -- -- --
Feeding 5.71 4.93b 0.659 0.005 0.31
Drinking 0.54 0.50 0.195 0.57 0.81
Aggression 0.09 0.21 0.134 0.01 lt.0001
Mounting 0.03 0.07 0.063 0.05 0.26
Social 1.19 1.18 0.50 0.70 0.59
Standing 6.63 6.80 1.11 0.90 0.08
Lying 85.8 86.3 1.58 0.42 0.03
Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05.
Table 3. Pig-human interactions and percentage of pigs with hernias at observation six weeks into finishing (Oct. 2011). Phase 1. Table 3. Pig-human interactions and percentage of pigs with hernias at observation six weeks into finishing (Oct. 2011). Phase 1. Table 3. Pig-human interactions and percentage of pigs with hernias at observation six weeks into finishing (Oct. 2011). Phase 1. Table 3. Pig-human interactions and percentage of pigs with hernias at observation six weeks into finishing (Oct. 2011). Phase 1. Table 3. Pig-human interactions and percentage of pigs with hernias at observation six weeks into finishing (Oct. 2011). Phase 1.
  Barrows 12 pens Intact males 36 pens SE P-value
Walking the Pens Walking the Pens Walking the Pens Walking the Pens Walking the Pens
Number of pigs in contact 0.25 0.25 0.086 1.00
Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test
Time for a pig to come within 1 m of human, s 2.08 1.67 0.742 0.61
Time for a pig to contact human, s 7.42 4.92 1.19 0.24
Aggressiveness of pig-human interaction (scale 1 to 5 with 5 being aggressive) 2.75 2.91 0.11 0.29
Mortality, 4.2 3.4 0.012 0.83
Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals.
Introduction. Physical castration (PC) is a
common management practice on commercial pork
farms in the USA. Castration is performed
primarily to reduce the rate of boar taint,
aggressive behavior in post-pubertal male pigs
and undesirable pregnancy at slaughter.
Androstenone and related steroids along with
skatole are responsible for the boar taint that
is often offensive to pork consumers. Skatole is
a byproduct of the bacterial metabolism of the
amino acid tryptophan in the large intestine.
Skatole is deposited in the adipose tissue of the
pig (Lundstrom and Zamaratskaia, 2006). The
industry favors marketing pigs at body weights
well past the onset of puberty. Therefore, to
prevent boar taint, male piglets are typically
physically castrated at less than 5 d of
age. Several consequences of physical castration
include a negative effect on the welfare of the
animals, as it causes pain and distress (McGlone
and Hellman, 1988 Prunier et al., 2005
Sutherland et al., 2010, Van Beirendonck et al.,
2011) which can lead to higher mortality and
morbidity rates. Attempts to reduce the pain and
distress by use of common local or general
anesthetics were unsuccessful to date (McGlone et
al., 1993 Sutherland et al., 2010 Rault and
Lay, 2011). One alternative to physical
castration is to immunologically castrate (IC)
male pigs. Immunological castration yields a
carcass without boar taint and may improve pig
welfare by reducing the stress of physical
castration (Bonneau et al., 1994 Dunshea et al.,
2001 Metz et al., 2002 Turkstra et al., 2002
Jaros et al., 2005). One method of immunological
castration blocks the activity of GnRF, reducing
levels of LH, FSH and testosterone and
androstenone and skatole. Furthermore, because
pigs can be immunologically castrated later in
life, compared to physical castration, the
increased lean growth and improved feed
efficiency of the boar can be maintained further
into finishing (Dunshea et al. 2001 DeRoest et
al., 2009 Schmidt et al. 2011). Zamaratskaia et
al. (2008) found that levels of testosterone and
skatole were decreased after the second
immunization with a GnRF conjugate.
Immunological castration changes the behavior of
male pigs (Baumgartner et al. 2010 Fabrega et
al. 2010 Pauly et al. 2009). The safety of
people who handle male pigs at the farm and at
the plant has not been assessed. Will the
immunologically castrated pigs act more like
barrows or boars in their aggressive and feeding
behaviors? Cronin et al. (2003) found that IC
barrows spent more time at feeders and spent less
time displaying sexual and aggressive behavior
than the boars. Cronin et al., (2003) also
reported that before the second immunization (at
17 wk of age) the IC barrows showed similar
aggressive behaviors as boars and higher than PC
barrows. The objectives of this study were to
evaluate the effects of immunological castration
on behaviors such as, human-pig interactions,
aggressiveness, feeding, social, mounting, and
lying behaviors as well as evaluating their
behavior during loading and unloading of pigs
going to market.
Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.   Table 5. Pig-human interactions and mortality at observation. Fifteen weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  
  Barrows IC barrows 11 wk    13 wk    14 wk SE P- values
Number of pens 12 12 12 12    
Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test Fear Test
Time for a pig to come within 1 m of human, s 2.9 2.2 1.5 2.3 0.74 0.61
Time for a pig to contact human, s 7.4 5.0 4.0 5.7 1.2 0.26
Aggressiveness of pig-human interaction (scale 1 to 5 with 5 being aggressive) 2.58a 3.08b 3.0b 3.0b 0.086 0.007
Mortality 4.2 3.5 2.8 4.2 1.23 1.23
Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05.
Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2. Table 4. Twenty-four hour observation of effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 3, 2012). Percent time engaged in each behavior. Phase 2.  
Immunized, second injection Immunized, second injection Immunized, second injection   P-values P-values  
IC barrow    
Behavior PC barrow 11wk injection 13wk injection 14wk injection   SE Treatment Treatment Time Treatment Time
Number pens 24 24 24 24   -- -- --
Feeding 4.69 4.79 4.96 4.75 0.444 0.26 0.024 0.024
Drinking 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.154 0.42 0.52 0.52
Aggression 0.013 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.03 0.10 0.74 0.74
Mounting 0.012 0.008 0.022 0.027 0.027 0.08 0.30 0.30
Social 0.528 .353 0.427 0.400 0.15 0.93 0.29 0.29
Standing 5.20 4.91 4.68 4.85 0.692 0.20 0.42 0.42
Lying 85.5a 86.4a 85.1b 86.3a 0.928 lt 0.0001 0.53 0.53
References 1. McGlone, J. J., R. I. Nicolson,
and J. M. Hellman, and D. N. Herzog. 1993. The
development of pain in young pigs associated with
castration and attempts to prevent
castration-induced behavioral changes. J. Anim.
SCi. 711441-1446. 2. Sutherland, M. A., B. L.
Davis, T. A. Brooks, and J. J. McGlone. 2010.
Physiology and behavior of pigs before and after
castration effects of two topical anesthetics.
Animal. 42071-2079. 3. Dunshea, F. R., C.
Colantoni, K. Howard, P. Jackson, K. A. Long, S.
Lopaticki, E. A. Nugent, J. A. Simons, J. Walker,
and D. P. Hennessy. 2001. Vaccination of entire
boars with Improvac eliminates boar taint and
increases growth performance. J. Anim. Sci.
7925242535. 4. . Metz C., K. Hohl, S.
Waidelich, W. Drochner, and R. Claus. 2002.
Active immunization of boars against GnRH at an
early age consequesnces for testicular function,
boar taint accumulation and N-retention. Livest.
Prod. Sci. 74147-157. 5. Gonyou, H. W. and W. R.
Stricklin. 1998. Effects of floor area allowance
and group size on the productivity of
growing/finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.
761326-1330.
 Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.  Table 6. Handling data for pigs being loaded and unloaded at 15 weeks into finishing (Jan 3, 2012). Phase 2.
Measure Barrow 11 wk 13 wk 14 wk SE P-value
Number pens 12 12 12 -- -- --
Vocalizations in home pen, number 16.1a 8.2b 5.8b -- 2.1 0.004
Time from scale to barn door, s 64.8 72.7 69.5 -- 5.3 0.58
Slips, falls and vocalizations 0 0 0 -- -- --
a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time. a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ, P lt 0.05. A lower value means pigs were more fearful The handling was excellent and zero slips, falls or vocalizations were recorded in the chute entering the livestock trailer. With no variation, statistical analyses are not appropriate. Pigs immunized at 14 weeks into the grow-finish phase were not marketed at this time.
Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2. Table 7. Main effects of barrow vs. intact males on pig behavior, after second injection (Jan 31, 2012) time engaged in each behavior, during treatment injections. Phase 2.
    P-values P-values
Behavior Barrow 11wk injection 13 wk injection 14 wk injection   SE Treatment Treatment Time
Number pens 12 12 12 12   -- --
Feeding 7.34 7.34 7.15 6.61 0.177 0.24 0.12
Drinking 0.93 1.04 1.05 1.25 0.023 0.42 0.48
Aggression 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.006 0.09 0.08
Mounting 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.007 0.14 0.68
Social 1.04 1.11 1.20 0.99 0.017 0.94 0.73
Standing 5.04a 3.95a 5.40a 4.53b 0.23 0.20 0.34
Lying 85.5a 86.4a 85.1a 86.3b 0.009 lt0.001 0.50
Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals. Each pen contained 21, 23 or 24 animals.
Table 8. Number of Dead and Down pigs off of trailers arriving at processing plant. Phase 3. Table 8. Number of Dead and Down pigs off of trailers arriving at processing plant. Phase 3. Table 8. Number of Dead and Down pigs off of trailers arriving at processing plant. Phase 3. Table 8. Number of Dead and Down pigs off of trailers arriving at processing plant. Phase 3.
Item PC barrow IC barrow Barrow/Gilts
Number of trailers 6 6 9
Number of pigs 1,011 1,011 1,454
Dead/killed on arrival 0.50 0.00 0.00
NANI1 0.67 0.00 0.21
NAI2 0.00 0.00 0.21
Total dead and down 1.17 0.00 0.42
1Non-ambulatory, non-injured. 2Non-ambulatory, injured. 1Non-ambulatory, non-injured. 2Non-ambulatory, injured. 1Non-ambulatory, non-injured. 2Non-ambulatory, injured. 1Non-ambulatory, non-injured. 2Non-ambulatory, injured.