Safe and effective animal movement

M. J. Ritter, M. A. Klassen, N. S. Pudenz, P. J. Rincker, and S. N. Carr

Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN, USA

Iowa Pork Congress

Des Moines, IA

January 26, 2012USSBUNON00083

Areas to Discuss

• Importance of pre-harvest handling– Transport losses in market weight pigs

– Carcass bruising and trim loss

– Pork quality defects

– Economic implications

• Discuss pre-disposing factors for transport losses

• What can you do to reduce transport losses?

USSBUNON00083

Importance of Pre-harvest Handling

• Humane handling is the right thing to do, and it is the

responsibility of every handler to ensure all pigs are

handled and transported in a humane manner

• Pre-harvest handling has important implications for

animal well-being and economics

• Pig handling / transport methods can impact:– Transport losses at the packing plant

– Carcass bruising and trim loss

– Fresh pork quality traits

Photo provided by: Pork Magazine

USSBUNON00083

Transport Losses: Definitions

• Dead on arrival (DOA): – A pig that died during transport

• Dead in Yard (DIY) or Dead in Pen (DIP)– A pig that died after unloading (usually in the lairage pen)

• Non-ambulatory pig: – A pig unable to move or keep up with contemporaries

– Subjects, slows, suspects, cripples, and stressors

• Transport losses: – The sum of dead and non-ambulatory pigs at the plant

USSBUNON00083

Classifying Non-ambulatory Pigs

Fatigued

(Stress related)

Injured

(Structure/injury related)

Ellis, M., F. McKeith, and M. Ritter. 2004. Handling Non-Ambulatory Pigs. Proceedings of the International Meat Animal Welfare

Research Conference, Kansas City, MO.USSBUNON00083

The Fatigued Pig Syndrome

• Signs of acute stress

– Open mouth breathing

– Skin discoloration

– Abnormal vocalizations

– Muscle tremors

• Metabolic state of acidosis

– High blood lactic acid (32.2 vs. 11.1 mmol/L)

– Low blood pH (7.11 vs. 7.35)

– High body temperature?

• Majority recover with 2-3 h rest

• 98% are HAL-1843 negative

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, N. L. Berry, S. E. Curtis, L. Anil, M. Benjamin, D. Butler, C. Dewey, B. Driessen, P. DuBois, J. Hill, J. Marchant-Forde, P.

Matzat, J. McGlone, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, J. Salak-Johnson, J. Sterle, C. Stull, T. Whiting, B. Wolter, S. R. Niekamp, and A. K. Johnson.

2009. Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. A review of definitions, incidence and economic impact. Professional Animal Scientist. 25:404-414.

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, G. R. Hollis, F. K. McKeith, D. G. Orellana, P. Van Genugten, and J. M. Schlipf. 2008. The frequency of the HAL-1843

mutation of the RYR gene in dead and non-ambulatory/non-injured pigs on arrival at the packing plant. J. Anim. Sci. 86:511-514. USSBUNON00083

Yearly Incidence of Dead Pigs at

USDA Inspected Plants (1991-2010)

FSIS. 2007. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar years of 1991 to 2006. FOIA Case #07-148.

FSIS. 2008. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar year of 2007. FOIA Case #08-120.

FSIS. 2009. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar year of 2008. FOIA Case #09-00071.

FSIS. 2010. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar year of 2009. FOIA Case #10-148.

FSIS. 2011. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar year of 2010. FOIA Case #10-69. USSBUNON00083

Non-ambulatory Pigs at the Plant

• National statistics are not available for non-ambulatory pigs

• A summary of 23 commercial field trials (2000-2007)

– 6,660,569 market weight pigs

– 39,572 trailer loads of pigs

Plant Losses Mean Minimum Maximum

Deads, % 0.25 0.00 0.77

Non-ambulatory, % 0.44 0.11 2.34

Total losses, % 0.69 0.14 2.39

~1 pig per load dies or becomes non-ambulatory at the plant

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, N. L. Berry, S. E. Curtis, L. Anil, M. Benjamin, D. Butler, C. Dewey, B. Driessen, P. DuBois, J.

Hill, J. Marchant-Forde, P. Matzat, J. McGlone, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, J. Salak-Johnson, J. Sterle, C. Stull, T.

Whiting, B. Wolter, S. R. Niekamp, and A. K. Johnson. 2009. Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. A review of

definitions, incidence and economic impact. Professional Animal Scientist. 25:404-414. USSBUNON00083

• Carcass bruising can be caused by:– Rough handling

– Poorly maintained facilities

– Overcrowding pigs during transport

– Fighting

Carcass Bruising and Trim Loss

Lonergan, S., E. Huff-Lonergan, and A. Johnson. 2006. Pork Quality. Proceedings of the Animal Care and Handling Conference, Overland Park, KS.

Faucitano, L. 2001. Causes of skin damage to pig carcasses. Can. J. Anm. Sci. 81:39-45.

Barton Gade, P. 1997. The effect of pre-slaughter handling on meat quality in pigs. Pages 100-123 in Manipulating Pig Production. P. D.

Cranwell, ed. Australasian Pig Science Association, Victoria, Australia.

(Photos courtesy of Lonergan et al., 2006)

USSBUNON00083

Variation in Fresh Pork Quality

PSE

Pale, soft, exudative

Normal

Red, firm, non-exudative

DFD

Dark, firm, dry

Photo provided by Floyd McKeithUSSBUNON00083

Pre-harvest Stress and Pork Quality

• Long term stress DFD pork

– Low muscle energy (glycogen)

– Normal rate of pH decline

– Meat has high ultimate pH

• Short term stress PSE pork

– Elevated body temperature

– Metabolic acidosis (high lactic acid)

– Increased rate of muscle pH decline

Gregory, N. G. 1994. Preslaughter handling, stunning and slaughter. Meat Sci. 36:45-56.

Buege, D. 1998. Variation in pork lean quality. National Pork Board. Des Moines, IA. Available:

http://www.meatscience.org/Pubs/factsheets/q-variationinporklean.pdf Accessed December 4, 2008.USSBUNON00083

Economic Implications

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, N. L. Berry, S. E. Curtis, L. Anil, M. Benjamin, D. Butler, C. Dewey, B. Driessen, P. DuBois, J. Hill, J. Marchant-

Forde, P. Matzat, J. McGlone, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, J. Salak-Johnson, J. Sterle, C. Stull, T. Whiting, B. Wolter, S. R.

Niekamp, and A. K. Johnson. 2009. Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. a review of definitions, incidence and economic impact.

Professional Animal Scientist. 25:404-414.

Stetzer, A. J. and F. K. McKeith. 2003. Quantitative strategies and opportunities to improve quality: phase I. In Benchmarking value in

the pork supply chain: quantitative strategies and opportunities to improve quality, American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL.USSBUNON00083

Pre-disposing Factors for Transport Losses

• Transport losses are a multi-factorial problem

• It is well established that transport losses are impacted by:

– HAL-1843 mutation (stress gene)

– Handling methods

– Facility design

– Crowding pigs during transport

– Extreme weather conditions

Ritter, M. J. 2008. A review of transport losses in market weight pigs. Page 6 in Proceedings of the Midwest Animal Science

Meetings, Des Moines, IA. USSBUNON00083

Handling Tool

• McGlone et al., 2004– Evaluated moving pigs with a sorting board, an electric prod, or a paddle.

– Concluded that a sorting board is the single most effective handling device

– Therefore, all handlers should use a sorting board when moving pigs

McGlone, J. J., R. L. McPherson, and D. L. Anderson. 2004. Case study: moving devices for finishing pigs:

Efficacy of electric prod, board, paddle, or flag. The Professional Animal Scientist. 20:518-523.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Board Electric prod Paddle

Moving device

Tim

e, sec a

b b

USSBUNON00083

Handling Intensity

• Gonyou, unpublished data

2.0

15.0

34.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gentle Handling Aggressive Handling Aggressive Handling

with Paddles with Paddles with Hot Shots

Fati

gu

ed

Pig

s, %

Elanco Trial #AF7CA0101. Data on file.

USSBUNON00083

Minimal Electric Prod Use?

• Ritter et al., 2008

– Moved 48 market pigs individually through a 164 ft course

– Compared 0 (paddles) vs. 2 vs. 4 shocks from a hot shot

– Pigs were allowed to move at their own pace

– Shock duration was ≤ 1 second

Post-handling Values 0 Shocks 2 Shocks 4 Shocks

Body Temperature, °F 102.6a

102.9ab

103.3b

Blood Lactic Acid, mmol/L 4.96a

5.30a

6.84b

a,b Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)

Handling Treatment

Ritter, M, J., M. Ellis, C. M. Murphy, B. A. Peterson, and A. Rojo. 2008. Effects of handling intensity, distance

moved, and transport floor space on the stress responses of market weight pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 86(E-Suppl. 3): 43. (Abstr.)USSBUNON00083

Group Size During Loading

• Used 45 loads to compare loading pigs (BW = 119.9 kg)

in groups of 4 vs. 8 when moved through a 76 cm aisle

0.0%

0.4%

0.8%

1.2%

1.6%

2.0%

Dead Non-ambulatory Total Losses

0.19%

0.36%

0.55%0.56%

0.70%

1.26%

Pig

s T

ran

spo

rted

, %

Groups of 4 Groups of 8

P < 0.01 P < 0.05 P < 0.01

Berry, N. L., M. Ritter, E. Brunton, W. Stremsterfer, B. Hoag, J. Wolfe, N. Fitzgerald, M. Porth, D. Delaney, and T. Weldon. 2009.

Effects of moving market weight pigs in different group sizes during loading on stress responses and transport losses at the packing

plant. Page 5 in Proceedings of the Midwest Animal Science Meetings, Des Moines, IA. USSBUNON00083

Handling Summary

• The single most effective handling tool is a sorting board

• Stress responses are minimized when pigs are:

– Moved at a slow and calm pace

– Moved in small groups

– Moved with paddles or with ≤ 2 shocks/pig from an electric prod

USSBUNON00083

Facility Design

• Used 33 loads to compare small pens (32

pigs/pen), not pre-sorted vs. large pens (192

pigs/pen), pre-sorted

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

Dead Non-ambulatory Total Losses

0.23%

0.66%

0.89%

0.01%

0.29% 0.30%

Pig

s T

ran

spo

rted

, %

Small pens, not pre-sorted Large pens, pre-sorted

P < 0.01

P < 0.05

P < 0.01

Johnson, A. K., L. J. Sadler, L. M. Gesing, C. Feuerbach, H. Hill, M. Faga, R. Bailey, K. J. Stalder, and M. J. Ritter. 2010. Effects of

facility system design on the stress responses and market losses of market weight pigs during loading and unloading. Professional Animal

Scientist. 26:9-17. USSBUNON00083

Transport Floor Space• Utilized 42 loads in spring and fall to determine the effects of

transport floor space on losses at the plant

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

4.26 4.47 4.70 4.97 5.26 5.60

188 179 169 161 152 144

Transport Floor Space

Tra

ns

po

rt L

os

ses

, %

Deads Fatigued Injured

pigs/load

ft2/pig

P < 0.001, SEM = 0.43, n = 252

NIAA 250 lbs = 4.26 ft2/pig

300 lbs = 4.79 ft2/pig

a

ab ab

bc

c

c

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, C. R. Bertelsen, R. Bowman, J. Brinkmann, J. M. DeDecker, K. K. Keffaber, C. M. Murphy, B. A.

Peterson, J. M. Schlipf, and B. F. Wolter. 2007. Effects of distance moved during loading and floor space on the trailer during

transport on losses of market weight pigs on arrival at the packing plant. Journal of Animal Science. 85: 3454-3461. USSBUNON00083

Seasonal Variation in the U.S.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Month

Tra

nsp

ort

lo

sses,

%

Deads Non-ambulatory Total Losses

Rademacher, C., and P. Davies. 2005. Factors associated with the incidence of mortality during transport

of market hogs. Pages 186-191 in Proceedings of the Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, St. Paul, MN.USSBUNON00083

What can you do to reduce

transport losses?

USSBUNON00083

Prepare Pigs for Transport

• Walk pens daily

• Routinely move pigs prior to loading

• Pre-sort pigs prior to loading (if feasible)

• Remove feed prior to loading (if feasible)

USSBUNON00083

Minimize Stress

• Minimize the use of electric prods during loading– Goal: ≤ 2 shocks/pig from barn pen to trailer compartment

• Move pigs in groups of 4 to 6 pigs at a slow/calm pace– Rule of thumb: you need to be able to reach the first pig

• Minimize the distance pigs are moved during loading

• Do not load stressed or fatigued pigs– Place these pigs in a recovery pen and allow them to rest and recover

• Use transport loading densities of ≤ 58 lbs/ft2

USSBUNON00083

Overall Summary• Pre-harvest handling has important implications for animal well-

being and economics as improper pre-harvest handling may cause:

– Transport losses

– Carcass bruising

– Pork quality defects

• ~0.7% of all market hogs transported die or become non-ambulatory

• Transport losses are a multi-factorial problem that are impacted by:– Porcine stress syndrome (stress gene)

– Handling methods

– Facility design

– Crowding pigs during transport

– Extreme weather conditions

• Transport losses can be minimized by better preparing pigs for transport and minimizing stress during the marketing process

USSBUNON00083

Free Monthly E-Newsletter

To subscribe go to:

www.hoghandlingupdate.com

USSBUNON00083

Back-up Slides

USSBUNON00083

Postmortem pH Decline and Pork Quality

• In postmortem muscle, glycogen is converted to lactic acid to produce energy

• The more lactic acid that is produced, the lower the pH of the muscle will be

• High carcass temperature and/or low pH pale color and high drip loss

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

pH

Hours post mortem

Normal

Acid meat

DFD

PSE

Buege, D. 1998. Variation in pork lean quality. National Pork Board. Des Moines, IA. Available:

http://www.meatscience.org/Pubs/factsheets/q-variationinporklean.pdf Accessed December 4, 2008. USSBUNON00083

Transport

Losses

Multi-factorial Problem

People Factors

Handling

Pig Factors

Genetics – PSS

Facility Design Factors

Pre-sorting

Transportation Factors

Floor Space

Plant Factors

Wait at the Plant

Environmental Factors

Season

Growers, loading crews, truck drivers, and handlers

at the plant can impact transport losses!

Ritter, M. J., M. Ellis, N. L. Berry, S. E. Curtis, L. Anil, M. Benjamin, D. Butler, C. Dewey, B. Driessen, P. DuBois, J.

Hill, J. Marchant-Forde, P. Matzat, J. McGlone, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, J. Salak-Johnson, J. Sterle, C. Stull, T.

Whiting, B. Wolter, S. R. Niekamp, and A. K. Johnson. 2009. Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. A review of

definitions, incidence and economic impact. Professional Animal Scientist. 25:404-414. USSBUNON00083

Large Pens and Pre-sorting

• Potential advantages

– Pigs have more room to exercise during the grow-finish period

– Pre-sorting allows pigs an opportunity to recover from the stress of being sorted from pen mates

– Pre-sorting reduces distance moved from pen to truck

– Feed withdrawal can be implemented on all pigs

– Little to no mixing of unfamiliar pigs

USSBUNON00083

Transport Floor Space

• Utilized 72 loads of pigs (BW = 128 kg) in summer and winter to

determine the effects of transport floor space on losses at the plant

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

August-September February-March

Tra

nsp

ort

Lo

sses, %

0.39 m2/pig 0.46 m2/pig 0.54 m2/pig

a

b

b

P = 0.02, SEM = 0.13, n = 431

b b b

Ritter, M. J. 2007. Pages 76-103 in Effects of animal handling and transportation factors on the welfare, stress responses, and

incidences of transport losses in market weight pigs at the packing plant. PhD Diss. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.USSBUNON00083

Monthly Incidence of Dead Pigs at

USDA Inspected Plants (2010)

FSIS. 2011. Market swine condemned ante-mortem for deads in USDA inspected plants for the calendar year of 2010. FOIA Case #10-69.

USSBUNON00083

Seasonal Variation in

Non-ambulatory Pigs

• Rate of non-ambulatory pigs increases in the Midwest

during late fall and early winter (Ellis & Ritter, 2006)

• Potential explanations:

– Temperature stress

– Heavier pigs

– Increased number of pigs transported

– Health status

– Summer is over!

Ellis, M., and M. Ritter. 2006. Impact of season on production: transport losses. Pages 205-207 in Proceedings of the 2006 Allen

D. Leman Swine Conference, St. Paul, MN.

USSBUNON00083

Prepare Pigs for Transport

Ellis, M., F. McKeith, D. Hamilton, T. Bertol, and M. Ritter. 2003. “Analysis of the current situation: what do downers cost the industry and

what can we do about it?” Pages 1-3 in Proceedings of the 4th American Meat Science Association Pork Quality Symposium, Columbia, MO.USSBUNON00083