The effect of experience of handling on pigs' willingness to move

Abbott, T.A.; Hunter, E.J.; Guise, H. J.; Penny, Ralph

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(97)00045-2

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following the normal practices of conventional raising conditions, CON pigs were, in fact, moved twice during their life, that is, from farrowing to nursery and from nursery to the growing unit, compared with AWIRS pigs that were transported only once (from the farrowing unit to nursery). Abbott et al (1997) also reported a greater willingness to move forward before slaughter in pigs being accustomed to walk through the farm alley before transport to slaughter. Studies of pigs' cognitive abilities have reported that pigs may remember a previ-ous handling experience for at least 4 to 5 wk (Abbott et al, 1997;Brajon et al, 2015).…”

Section: Animal Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the monitoring of animal welfare parameters predict pork meat quality variation through the supply chain (from farm to slaughter)?1

Rocha

Velarde

Dalmau

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between the animal welfare conditions evaluated through the supply chain and pork quality variation. A total of 4,680 pigs from 12 farms-5 animal welfare improved raising system (AWIRS) and 7 conventional raising system (CON) farms-were assessed from farm to slaughter through a comprehensive audit protocol merging the European Welfare Quality, the Canadian Animal Care Assessment, and American Meat Institute audit guide criteria. At the abattoir, a subsample of 1,440 pigs (120 pigs/farm) was randomly chosen out of 24 loads (2 farms per wk) transported by 2 drivers (driver A and driver B) for the assessment of stunning effectiveness, carcass bruises, blood lactate levels, and meat quality traits. Meat quality was assessed in the longissimus lumborum (LL) muscle 24 h postmortem by measuring ultimate pH (pHu), color (L*, a*, and b*), and drip loss. Data were analyzed by the MIXED, GLIMMIX, and NAPAR1WAY procedures of SAS. Spearman correlations were calculated to determine the relationship between audit scores and meat quality traits. Better animal welfare conditions, as showed by greater final scores for good housing (GHo; = 0.001) and good health ( = 0.006) principles, were recorded at AWIRS farms. Pigs from AWIRS farms handled by driver B displayed a greater percentage of turning back ( = 0.01) and slips ( < 0.001) during unloading and a greater ( = 0.02) frequency of falls in the stunning chute. A greater ( = 0.02) reluctance to move at loading was found in CON pigs loaded by driver A compared with driver B, whereas a greater ( < 0.001) reluctance to move was found in these pigs at unloading when they were unloaded by driver B. Drip loss was higher ( = 0.003) and pale, soft, and exudative pork percentage was greater ( < 0.001) in the LL muscle of the heavier AWIRS pigs. The GHO principle was best correlated with pHu ( = -0.75, = 0.01) and Minolta L* value ( = 0.87, < 0.001) of the LL muscle. Overall, drip loss variation in the LL muscle was correlated with the frequency of slips at unloading ( = 0.63, = 0.001) and in the restrainer area ( = 0.74, < 0.001). The results of this study showed that the quality of the raising system and truck driver skills as assessed by animal welfare audit protocols are important sources of variation in the behavioral response of pigs to preslaughter handling and may affect pork quality variation. However, the different live weight between CON and AWIRS pigs may have biased the meat quality results in this study.

show abstract

Section: Animal Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the monitoring of animal welfare parameters predict pork meat quality variation through the supply chain (from farm to slaughter)?1

Rocha

Velarde

Dalmau

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training also reduces the probability that cows would have their ears pinned back, tails clamped or be wide-eyed during milking (Kutzer et al 2015). Acclimating pigs to contact with people and moving them through the alleys makes them easier to move (Abbott et al 1997;Geverink et al (1998). Walking through pens of fattening pigs improves ease of handling at the slaughter plant (Transport Quality Assurance 2010).…”

Section: Assessment Of Livestock Handlingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Livestock-handling assessments to improve the welfare of cattle, pigs and sheep

Grandin¹

2018

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Assessing animal welfare during handling for veterinary procedures or loading onto a truck is simpler than is assessing welfare in housing. The first step is preventing acts of abuse that everybody who is interested in animal welfare would want stopped. Acts of abuse include beating animals, poking sensitive areas, dragging downed animals, deliberate slamming of gates on animals or deliberate driving animals over the top of downed animals. The next step is to implement objective numerical scoring of animal handling. The outcome measures that should be used are percentage of animals that fall, strike fences or gates, vocalise during restraint, are miscaught in the head stanchion or are moved with electric goads. Repeating these measurements over a period of time will make it possible to determine whether practices are improving or deteriorating. Further improvements in handling can be obtained with stockmanship training. Physiological measures of stress such as cortisol, lactate or glucose are useful for assessing handling methods because handling is a short-term stressor.

show abstract

“…As a result, it has been recommended that caretakers walk home pens and routinely handle pigs to minimize stress responses during the loading and marketing process (Grandin, 1997;Geverink et al, 1998b). Although there have been no published studies reporting a decrease in transport losses resulting from caretakers walking the pens during the grow-finish period, it is interesting to note that Abbott et al (1997) reported that pigs routinely handled and moved required less time to leave their home pens during the loading process than pigs that had not been previously moved (16 vs. 82 s). Likewise, Geverink et al (1998b) reported that market weight pigs that were routinely loaded into a transport box and transported for 2 min required 50% less time during loading than control pigs or pigs that were routinely handled within the pen.…”

Section: Previous Handlingmentioning

confidence: 99%

2011 AND 2012 EARLY CAREERS ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS: Farm and pig factors affecting welfare during the marketing process1,2

Johnson

Gesing

Ellis

et al. 2013

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to review the scientific literature to identify on-farm factors that contribute to market weight pig transportation losses. Transportation of market weight pigs is an essential element to the multisite pork production model used in the United States. In 2011 alone, approximately 111 million market weight pigs were transported from the finishing site to the abattoir. For pigs, the marketing process can present a combination of potentially novel, physical, and/or unfamiliar experiences that can be stressful. If the pig cannot cope with these sequential and additive stressors, then an increased rate of transportation losses could occur with a detrimental effect on pork carcass value. Current yearly estimates for transport losses are 1 million pigs (1%). A variety of market weight pig and farm factors have been reported to detrimentally affect transportation losses. By understanding how pigs interact with their environment during marketing, researchers, producers, and personnel at the abattoir may begin to identify, prioritize, and attempt to minimize or eliminate these stressors. This process will ultimately decrease transportation losses, improve pork quality, and increase profitability.aBtsraCt: The objective of this paper is to review the scientific literature to identify on-farm factors that contribute to market weight pig transportation losses. Transportation of market weight pigs is an essential element to the multisite pork production model used in the United States. In 2011 alone, approximately 111 million market weight pigs were transported from the finishing site to the abattoir. For pigs, the marketing process can present a combination of potentially novel, physical, and/ or unfamiliar experiences that can be stressful. If the pig cannot cope with these sequential and additive stressors, then an increased rate of transportation losses could occur with a detrimental effect on pork carcass value. Current yearly estimates for transport losses are 1 million pigs (1%). A variety of market weight pig and farm factors have been reported to detrimentally affect transportation losses. By understanding how pigs interact with their environment during marketing, researchers, producers, and personnel at the abattoir may begin to identify, prioritize, and attempt to minimize or eliminate these stressors. This process will ultimately decrease transportation losses, improve pork quality, and increase profitability.

show abstract

The effect of experience of handling on pigs' willingness to move

Cited by 32 publications

References 1 publication

Can the monitoring of animal welfare parameters predict pork meat quality variation through the supply chain (from farm to slaughter)?1

Can the monitoring of animal welfare parameters predict pork meat quality variation through the supply chain (from farm to slaughter)?1

Livestock-handling assessments to improve the welfare of cattle, pigs and sheep

2011 AND 2012 EARLY CAREERS ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS: Farm and pig factors affecting welfare during the marketing process1,2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About