Effect of floor space during transport of market-weight pigs on the incidence of transport losses at the packing plant and the relationships between transport conditions and losses1

Abstract

Data on 74 trailer loads of finishing pigs (mean BW = 129.0, SEM = 0.63 kg) from wean-to-finish buildings on 2 farms within 1 production system were collected to investigate the effect of amount of floor space on the trailer (0.39 or 0.48 m2/pig) during transport on the incidence of losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) at the packing plant and to study the relationships between transport conditions and losses. Pigs were loaded using standard commercial procedures for pig handling and transportation. Two designs of flat-deck trailers with 2 decks were used. Floor space treatments were compared in 2 similarly sized compartments on each deck of each trailer type. Differences in floor space were created by varying the number of pigs in each compartment. The incidence of nonambulatory pigs at the farm during loading and at the plant after unloading, average load weight, load number within each day, event times, and temperature and relative humidity in the trailer from loading to unloading were recorded. Of the 12,511 pigs transported, 0.26% were non-ambulatory at the farm, 0.23% were dead on arrival, and 0.85% were nonambulatory at the plant. Increasing transport floor space from 0.39 to 0.48 m2/pig reduced the percentage of total nonambulatory pigs (0.62 vs. 0.27 +/- 0.13%, respectively; P < 0.05), nonambulatory, noninjured pigs (0.52 vs. 0.15 +/- 0.11%, respectively; P < 0.01), and total losses (dead and nonambulatory pigs) at the plant (0.88 vs. 0.36 +/- 0.16%, respectively; P < 0.05) and tended to reduce dead pigs (0.27 vs. 0.08 +/- 0.08%, respectively; P = 0.06). However, transport floor space did not affect the percentage of nonambulatory, injured pigs at the plant. Nonambulatory pigs at the farm were positively correlated with relative humidity during loading and load number within the day (r = 0.46 and 0.25, respectively; P < 0.05). The percentage of total losses at the plant was positively correlated to waiting time at the plant, unloading time, and total time from loading to unloading (r = 0.24, 0.51, and 0.36, respectively; P < 0.05). Average temperature during loading, waiting at the farm, transport, waiting at the plant, unloading, and average pig weight on the trailer were not correlated to losses. These results suggest that floor space per pig on the trailer and transport conditions can affect transport losses.

Loading gantry versus traditional chute for the finisher pig: Effect on welfare at the time of loading and performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility1

“…At FP, pigs loaded using the TC had similar results (1.6 pigs/load or 1%) when compared with other published trials (Ellis et al, 2003;Hambrecht et al, 2004;Ritter et al, 2006). Encouragingly, the PLG had signifi cantly fewer losses at FP (1.1 pigs/load or 0.6%).…”

Road transport of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal welfare

“…A number of studies based on large data sets from transport of commercial slaughter pigs to the slaughterhouse have found positive correlations between journey duration and mortality during transport (e.g. Ritter et al, 2006;Vecerek et al, 2006b;Malena et al, 2007). However, based on data from 739 journeys to the slaughterhouse, Averó s et al (2008) found that the risk of death increased with increasing journey duration only if the pigs had not been food deprived before the journey.…”

Use of electromyography to detect muscle exhaustion in finishing barrows fed ractopamine HCl1

“…Typically, fatigued pigs may recover if rested for 2 to 3 h after transport (Ritter et al, 2006), but many pigs likely die before they can recover (Hamilton et al, 2004). Ritter et al ABsTrAcT: The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of dietary ractopamine HCl (RAC) on muscle fiber characteristics and electromyography (EMG) measures of finishing barrow exhaustion when barrows were subjected to increased levels of activity.…”