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

Abstract

The objectives of these studies were to evaluate the loading system effects [traditional chute (TC) vs. prototype loading gantry (PLG)] on i) welfare measures at loading and ii) performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility for the market-weight pig (Sus scrofa). This study compared first pull (FP), which was the first group of pigs, and close out (CO), which was the last group of pigs marketed from a finishing facility. Experiment 1 evaluated 74 loads for welfare measures at loading on the farm, and Exp. 2 evaluated 497 loads for performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility. Data were analyzed using the PROC Mixed procedure for Exp. 1 and PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS for Exp. 2. In Exp. 1, pigs loaded using the PLG had fewer (P × 0.0002) electric prod touches, slips, falls, vocalizations, and pile ups compared with pigs loaded on the TC during FP and CO. In Exp. 2, there were no (P > 0.05) differences for any performance measures between loading systems or by pull. Pigs loaded using the prototype PLG loading gantry experienced fewer (P = 0.03) total transport losses than pigs loaded using the TC in the FP. In conclusion, the prototype loading gantry improved all welfare measures at the time of loading and reduced overall total transport losses. These studies demonstrate that loading systems that improve on-farm swine welfare at loading and reduce transport losses at the harvest facility can be designed. 4028ABSTRACT: The objectives of these studies were to evaluate the loading system effects [traditional chute (TC) vs. prototype loading gantry (PLG)] on i) welfare measures at loading and ii) performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility for the marketweight pig (Sus scrofa). This study compared fi rst pull (FP), which was the fi rst group of pigs, and close out (CO), which was the last group of pigs marketed from a fi nishing facility. Experiment 1 evaluated 74 loads for welfare measures at loading on the farm, and Exp. 2 evaluated 497 loads for performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility. Data were analyzed using the PROC Mixed procedure for Exp. 1 and PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS for Exp. 2. In Exp. 1, pigs loaded using the PLG had fewer (P × 0.0002) electric prod touches, slips, falls, vocalizations, and pile ups compared with pigs loaded on the TC during FP and CO. In Exp. 2, there were no (P > 0.05) differences for any performance measures between loading systems or by pull. Pigs loaded using the prototype PLG loading gantry experienced fewer (P = 0.03) total transport losses than pigs loaded using the TC in the FP. In conclusion, the prototype loading gantry improved all welfare measures at the time of loading and reduced overall total transport losses. These studies demonstrate that loading systems that improve on-farm swine welfare at loading and reduce transport losses at the harvest facility can be designed.

Factores de riesgo asociados con la presencia de cerdos fatigados durante el transporte y sus implicaciones en el pH muscular alto

“…Sin embargo, un pequeño porcentaje de animales mueren y otros presentan dificultad para caminar durante el desembarque, lo que se conoce comúnmente como «cerdos no ambulatorios» (Sutherland et al, 2009a;Johnson et al, 2013). La presencia de cerdos no ambulatorios o que mueren en cualquier etapa durante el proceso de comercialización se denominan «pérdidas por transporte» (Berry et al, 2012).…”

The Visual, Auditory, and Physical Environment of Livestock Handling Facilities and Its Effect on Ease of Movement of Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep

“…Garcia et al (2019) found that a pig's heart will beat faster on a steep ramp. The maximum recommended angle for a cattle is 20 • 2008) and for pigs 15 • (Berry et al, 2012).…”

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

“…These requirements included that 1) all facilities and handling equipment must be designed based on the behavioral and physiological attributes of the pigs, 2) design must provide a continuous unidirectional flow of pigs from the pen of origin to a target location, and 3) design must be compatible with site design, facility structure, and transport system. To facilitate these design requirements, key components include flooring profile and texture and slope of the loading chute (Berry et al, 2012).…”