Effects of Handling Procedures Effects of Handling Procedures and Transport Conditions and Transport Conditions

on Welfare and Meat Quality of Pigson Welfare and Meat Quality of Pigs

Tina WidowskiTina WidowskiDepartment of Animal & Poultry Science, University of GuelphDepartment of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Guelph

Effects of Handling Procedures Effects of Handling Procedures and Transport Conditions and Transport Conditions

on Welfare and Meat Quality of Pigson Welfare and Meat Quality of Pigs

Tina WidowskiTina WidowskiDepartment of Animal & Poultry Science, University of GuelphDepartment of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Guelph

• ~31.5 million pigs were marketed in Canada in 2008 (Stats Canada)

• Most of these were transported to reach their end market

• Estimated 0.08 - 0.22% of them died before reaching their destination (Haley et al, 2008)

• Many more experienced non-fatal stress

Factors Affecting the Stress ResponseFactors Affecting the Stress Response

Genetics Experience

HealthNutrition

Ambient temperature

Loading density

Handling

Mixing/ grouping

Truck/ facility design

Transport Lairage time

… … MultifactorialMultifactorial

Courtesy: M. Ellis

meltingtheice.wordpress.com/ tag/language/page/2

Pot-belly TruckPot-belly Truck

• Epidemiological studies on mortalityEpidemiological studies on mortality

• Focused studies on behaviour, Focused studies on behaviour, physiology and meat quality due to physiology and meat quality due to

• Trailer design and transport conditionsTrailer design and transport conditions

• Pigs and handling practicesPigs and handling practices

Recent & ongoing researchRecent & ongoing research

ResearchersResearchers• Charles Haley Charles Haley • Cate DeweyCate Dewey• Bob FriendshipBob Friendship

• Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of GuelphVeterinary College, University of Guelph

• Tina WidowskiTina Widowski

In-Transit LossesIn-Transit Losses

• Retrospective study of transport records from Retrospective study of transport records from all pigs marketed in Ontarioall pigs marketed in Ontario

• 4.76 million pigs from 4159 producers, 4.76 million pigs from 4159 producers, marketed through 117 transport companies to marketed through 117 transport companies to 33 abbatoirs in Canada and USA 33 abbatoirs in Canada and USA

• Pigs shipped to Ontario (82%), Quebec Pigs shipped to Ontario (82%), Quebec (13%), USA (4%), Manitoba (0.08%)(13%), USA (4%), Manitoba (0.08%)

Factors Associated with In-Transit Factors Associated with In-Transit Losses of Market Pigs in Ontario 2001Losses of Market Pigs in Ontario 2001

(Haley et al, CJVR, 2008)

• In-transit loss = 0.017% (16.7/10,000 pigs)In-transit loss = 0.017% (16.7/10,000 pigs)

• Farm of origin (25%)Farm of origin (25%) > abbatoir (16%) > > abbatoir (16%) > transporter (8%) explained variance in lossestransporter (8%) explained variance in losses

• Temperature-humidity indexTemperature-humidity index (combination of (combination of temperature and humidity) was highly predictive temperature and humidity) was highly predictive of lossesof losses

Factors Associated with In-Transit Factors Associated with In-Transit Losses of Market Pigs in Ontario 2001Losses of Market Pigs in Ontario 2001

(Haley et al, CJVR, 2008)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

Loss ratio %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 1

Month

200120022003

The highest losses in occurred in July 2003 - coincided with highest environmental temps (avg. 30.10C)

Transport Losses of Market Pigs in Ontario 2001-2003

From Charles Haley 2005

Pan-Canadian Pig Transport ProjectPan-Canadian Pig Transport ProjectEffects of Vehicle Design & Handling ProceduresEffects of Vehicle Design & Handling Procedures

RESEARCHERS:Harold Gonyou (Lead) - Prairie Swine Centre, SaskatchewanLuigi Faucitano (Lead), Agriculture Canada, QuebecRenee Bergeron, Alfred College, OntarioTrever Crowe, University of SaskatchewanLaurie Connor, University of ManitobaCate Dewey, University of GuelphNora Lewis, University of ManitobaStephanie Torrey, Agriculture Canada, QuebecTina Widowski, University of Guelph

GRADUATE STUDENTS:Jorge Correa, Laval UniversityEmily Toth, University of Guelph

Field Studies

Eastern Trials (Quebec)Eastern Trials (Quebec)Short hauls (2 hours)June-July 2007 and Feb-March 20082 different trailer designs

Western Trials (Saskatoon to Brandon)Western Trials (Saskatoon to Brandon) “Long” hauls (6 hours driving + 2 hours driver rest

period) Jan-Feb 2008 and June-July 2008

Eastern Trials(Quebec)Eastern Trials(Quebec)2 Trailer Designs2 Trailer Designs

3-deck pot belly (V230)

2-deck hydraulic lift (10R)

Eastern Trials(Quebec)Eastern Trials(Quebec)2 Trailer Designs2 Trailer Designs

•6 weekly trials each season•313 pigs shipped each week (~118 kg)

Environmental TemperatureEnvironmental Temperature

iButtons were suspended from the ceiling in several locations within each compartment

The iButton Data Logger

• Technology developed by Dallas SemiConductor™• Used in poultry transport (Crowe, unpublished data)

• Used once in Missouri for pig transport (Carr et al 2008,)

• 17mm X 6mm stainless steel can• 15 - 46°C range, 0.125°C accuracy• 2048 loggings, adjustable timing

BehaviourBehaviour

BehaviourBehaviour

BehaviourBehaviour

BehaviourBehaviour

PB

28 pigs3 0 5 3

5023

3 4

10W

14 pigs

4 3

4 3

Number of Pigs Sampled Weekly

14 + 28 = 42

Heart RateHeart Rate

Core Body TemperatureCore Body Temperature

iButton administered orally and then recovered from

viscera at slaughter

Blood Measures & Meat QualityBlood Measures & Meat Quality

Loin & HampH

LightnessDrip Loss

Meat Quality Classification

Stress MeasuresCreatine phosphokinase (CPK)

LactateCortisol

Data CollectionTeamData CollectionTeam

Data CollectionData Collection

Preparation Procedure

Twelve hours prior to loading pigs were:– weighed– belted for heart rate measurement – iButton administered– ear tagged and individually tattooed– mixed into shipping pens

Transport Process

• Loading began at 3am• Duration of loading 3.5 to 4 hours (PB always loaded first)

• No prod usage

• The duration of transport was two hours

• Both trucks left the farm and travelled together

The trucks waited at the plant ~15 minutes

Then were unloaded and the pigs were lairaged for 1 hour

Trailer Temperatures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Loadi

ng

Depar

ture

Arriv

al

Unload

ing

Tem

per

atu

re o

C

Pot-Belly

Doubledeck

* *

*Trucks were different P<0.05Gonyou et al, unpublished

Average for all compartments at single point in time

37.0

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

40.5

41.0

Pre-Loading Stationary In-Transit In-Lairage

Period of Transport

Av

era

ge

Bo

dy

Te

mp

era

ture

of p

igs

(C

)

10W

PB

The effect of the period of transport on mean body temperature of pigs in two trucks

* Tr*Pd p< 0.001

*

PB always loaded 1st with wait of ~ 1 hour (Toth-Tamminga et al 2008)

37.0

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

40.5

41.0

41.5

42.0

1 4 3 9 10 5 6 8

Compartment

Av

era

ge

Bo

dy

Te

mp

era

ture

of

pig

s (

C)

The effect of compartment within the PB during “Stationary”

1 = 4 > all other compartments p< 0.02

AB

(Toth-Tamminga et al 2008)

PB

228 pigs

Duration of Unloading

0

1

2

3

4

5

Duration of Unloading

Sec

on

ds/

pig

Pot-Belly

Doubledeck

*

*Trucks were different P<0.01(Torrey et al 2008)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

DD1 DD4 DD5 DD8 PB1 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6 PB8 PB9 PB10

Du

rati

on

(s

/pig

)

a

bb

a,b P<0.04

x,y P<0.08

x

y

12 34 56 781234

Duration Unloading(Torrey et al 2008)

Blood Values

0

5

10

15

20

CPK Lactate

Pot-BellyDoubledeck

P<0.07

P<0.06

U/L x 100 mmol/L (Correa et al 2008)

Meat Quality

Compartment 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

N 30 42 29 30 24 42 30 36

Quality category in the longissimus dorsi (% )

PSE 0 0 0 0 4 5 7 3

MODERATE PSE 0 3 0 3 0 5 7 3

PFN 33 21 41 30 17 14 33 30

NORMAL 60 71 52 60 71 71 50 64

MODERATE DFD 7 5 7 7 4 5 3 0

DFD 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

18 p

31 p

228 pigs 20 p

14 p

33 p

20 p 25 p

20 p

(Correa et al 2008)

Factors Leading to Variation in Pork Quality

RESEARCHERS:Peter PurslowKees deLangeIra MandelJim SquiresAndy RobinsonTina Widowski

GRADUATE STUDENT:Jennifer Brown

Experience

Walking the PensWalking the Pens

• 0,1, 2 or 3 times per week beginning ~12 weeks prior 0,1, 2 or 3 times per week beginning ~12 weeks prior to shippingto shipping

• Handler entered the pen and while holding a pig Handler entered the pen and while holding a pig board, made one complete circuit around the penboard, made one complete circuit around the pen

• Average time in the pen Average time in the pen was 39 was 39 .3 seconds .3 seconds

(Brown et al, 2006)

Behaviour in Home PenBehaviour in Home Pen

• One day each week, the responses of pigs to One day each week, the responses of pigs to the handler entering the pen were recordedthe handler entering the pen were recorded

% of pigs that showed “escape” - pigs rapidly % of pigs that showed “escape” - pigs rapidly moved away from the handler often piling along moved away from the handler often piling along the back of the penthe back of the pen

% of pigs that “approached” - pigs attempted to % of pigs that “approached” - pigs attempted to nose the board, boots or legs of the handlernose the board, boots or legs of the handler

(Brown et al, 2006)

% Pigs Showing “Escape” As % Pigs Showing “Escape” As Handler Entered Home PenHandler Entered Home Pen

0102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 x per week2 x per week3 x per week

Week of TrialWeek of Trial

(P<0.05)

a

b

b

(Brown et al, 2006)

% Pigs “Approaching” As % Pigs “Approaching” As Handler Entered Home PenHandler Entered Home Pen

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 x per week2 x per week3 x per week

Week of TrialWeek of Trial

(P<0.05)

a

b

b

(Brown et al, 2006)

BUT does a difference in fearfulness BUT does a difference in fearfulness of people in the home pen translate of people in the home pen translate into better handling when pigs are into better handling when pigs are

shipped?shipped?

Behaviour at the Abbatoir

Behaviour Measures At Plant

- Time in the pen (seconds)

- Pig behaviour in pen (frequency)Avoidance, falling, jamming

- Human intervention (frequency)Pushes, slaps, prods

(Brown et al, 2006)

Effect of walking pens on frequency of jamming in the crowd pen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 x per week1 x per week2 x per week3 x per week

Data from Farm 1a,b Means are different P<.05

a

ab

bb

(Brown et al, 2006)

Effect of walking pens on time in the crowd pen (seconds)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 x per week1 x per week2 x per week3 x per week

a,b Means are different P<.05

a

b

b

b

Data from Farm 2

(Brown et al, 2006)

Individual Differences in Pig’s Behaviour

Behaviour Tests24 pigs tested on each of 26 Commercial Farms

To determine whether behaviour at the farm predicts behaviour, stress, meat quality at the plant

Standardized tests:- Human approach test Time to approach and contact person

- Novel object testTime to approach and contact object

- Open door testTime to voluntarily exit pen

(Brown et al, 2008)

Open Door Test

Pen door is opened and the time for individual pigs to leave the pen is recorded

• exit < 60 sec = ‘Bold’• exit 61-180 sec = ‘Intermediate’ • remain after 180 sec = ‘Shy’

(Brown et al, 2008)

Individual Identification

Combination of coloured ear tags, spray paint markings, unique slap tattoo

Allows Tracking

Farm

Handling at Plant

Blood Collection

Meat & Tissue Samples

Effect of Temperament on Handling at Effect of Temperament on Handling at the Abbatoir – Data from 26 farmsthe Abbatoir – Data from 26 farms

Effect of Temperament on Handling at Effect of Temperament on Handling at the Abbatoir – Data from 26 farmsthe Abbatoir – Data from 26 farms

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

HandlerInteractions

Pig Incidents

ShyIntermediateBold

(Brown, unpublished data)

a

c

b

(P<.05)

a

bc

Shy pigs had paler loin muscle than Bold pigs L*=45.9 vs 45.2 P<0.05

• Two commercial farmsTwo commercial farms– Prior trials - one had good, the other had poor meat Prior trials - one had good, the other had poor meat

quality measuresquality measures

• 36 pens/farm with ~ 20-25 pigs/pen36 pens/farm with ~ 20-25 pigs/pen• Pens randomly assigned to 3 treatments for the Pens randomly assigned to 3 treatments for the

8 weeks prior to shipping8 weeks prior to shipping– ControlControl– Walking PensWalking Pens– CrowdCrowd

Effect of Temperament and Handling Effect of Temperament and Handling Handling at the AbbatoirHandling at the Abbatoir

Effect of Temperament and Handling Effect of Temperament and Handling Handling at the AbbatoirHandling at the Abbatoir

Handling TreatmentsHandling Treatments

• Pen walkPen walk– 2 x per week a handler 2 x per week a handler

walks through pen walks through pen encouraging pigs to move encouraging pigs to move away (~ 50 sec )away (~ 50 sec )

• Crowd treatmentCrowd treatment– 2x per week a handler 2x per week a handler

drives pigs through drives pigs through narrow passage (~2 min)narrow passage (~2 min)

MethodsMethods

• At end of 8 weeks ~27 pigs/treatment (80/farm) At end of 8 weeks ~27 pigs/treatment (80/farm) selected and marked for meat quality analysisselected and marked for meat quality analysis

• For each farm pigs from each treatment were For each farm pigs from each treatment were slaughtered on 3 separate daysslaughtered on 3 separate days

• Before shipping, ‘Open Door Test’ was used to Before shipping, ‘Open Door Test’ was used to identify ‘bold’ and ‘shy’ pigs (temperament) identify ‘bold’ and ‘shy’ pigs (temperament) within each treatment groupwithin each treatment group

Meat Quality MeasuresMeat Quality Measures

• For both the loin and hamFor both the loin and ham– Colour - lightness (L*) where higher score Colour - lightness (L*) where higher score

means paler pork means paler pork – % Drip Loss % Drip Loss – Final pH - lower value means more lactic acid Final pH - lower value means more lactic acid

which can lead to PSE porkwhich can lead to PSE pork

Effect of Temperament on Handling at Effect of Temperament on Handling at the Abbatoirthe Abbatoir

Effect of Temperament on Handling at Effect of Temperament on Handling at the Abbatoirthe Abbatoir

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

7

Handler Interactions Lightness value

ShyBold

(Brown et al, 2008)

(P<.05)

**

(L*/10)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Ham Drip Loss %

ControlCrowd TreatmentPen Walk

(Brown et al, 2008)

a ab

(P<.05)

Effect of Handling Treatment Effect of Handling Treatment on Ham Drip Losson Ham Drip Loss

Effect of Handling Treatment Effect of Handling Treatment on Ham Drip Losson Ham Drip Loss

Pigs in the “Crowd” treatment were more difficult to handle

a

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Research projects in this presentation were Funded by Ontario Pork, OMAFRA, Natural Science and

Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Agriculture-Agri-food Canada (MII)

Alberta PorkFederation of Quebec Pork Producers

Manitoba PorkOntario PorkSask Pork

F. Menard, Inc.Maple Leaf Fresh Foods

Animal Compassion Foundation (Whole Foods)