Effects of Pen Size on the Stress Response at Loading and Unloading and Transport Losses from Market Weight Pigs

Thumbnail Image
Date
2011-01-01
Authors
Selsby, Joshua
Faga, Michael
Abrams, Steven
Whiley, Allen
Hill, Howard
Bailey, Ryan
Ritter, Matthew
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Altmetrics
Authors
Person
Selsby, Joshua
Professor
Person
Johnson, Anna
Professor Animal Behavior and Welfare
Person
Stalder, Kenneth
Professor
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of pen size on stress responses (during loading and unloading) and transport losses at the packing plant. This study took place between July and August. Twenty-six loads of split sex market weight pigs (n = 4,522) from three conventional grow-finish sites were used in a randomized complete block design. Each site had two rooms with both treatment groups represented in each room. The small pen (SP) treatment had 36 pigs/pen (0.59m2*pig-1). The large pen treatment (LP) had 324 pigs/pen (0.59m*pig-1). Both pen size treatments were sorted from pen mates at the time of marketing. Pigs were moved in groups of four to six using sort boards and electric prods, when necessary. Treatments were randomly assigned to a trailer deck (~0.42m2*pig-1). Straight deck trailers were used and pigs were transported ~1 h to a commercial harvest facility. During loading and unloading, the number of pigs displaying open mouth breathing (OMB), skin discoloration (SD), and muscle tremors (MT) were recorded. At the plant, dead and non-ambulatory pigs were recorded during unloading, and total losses were defined as the sum of dead and non-ambulatory pigs at the plant. Data was analyzed using Proc Glimmix of SAS. Statistical analysis could not be run on the incidence of muscle tremors or non-ambulatory pigs at loading or injured and deads on arrival (DOA) at the harvest facility because there were too many zeros in the dataset. Incidence of MT was 0.04% SP and 0.00% LP and there were no non-ambulatory pigs at loading from either treatment. Incidence of injured pigs was 0.00% SP and 0.04% LP. There were no DOA’s in either treatment. SP pigs had lower OMB (P = 0.0015) and SD (P = 0.0120) during loading compared to LP pigs. At unloading SP displayed higher (P < 0.0001) SD than LP. No (P > 0.05) differences existed between treatments for OMB, MT, fatigued, total non-ambulatory, or total losses existed. In conclusion, pen size did not impact the incidence of transport losses.

Comments
Description
Keywords
Citation
Source
Keywords
Copyright
Sat Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2011
Collections