Part I Safe and Effective Animal Movement, Animal Well Being Decisions for Modern Pork Production - Dr. Matt Ritter, Elanco Animal Health, from the 2012 Iowa Pork Congress, January 24 - 26, Des Moines, IA, USA.

1. 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, 2012
USSBUNON00083

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Classifying Non-ambulatory Pigs
Fatigued Injured
(Stress related) (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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Carcass Bruising and Trim Loss
(Photos courtesy of Lonergan et al., 2006)
• Carcass bruising can be caused by:
– Rough handling
– Poorly maintained facilities
– Overcrowding pigs during transport
– Fighting
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.
USSBUNON00083

10. Variation in Fresh Pork Quality
PSE Normal DFD
Pale, soft, exudative Red, firm, non-exudative Dark, firm, dry
Photo provided by Floyd McKeith
USSBUNON00083

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Handling Tool
• McGlone et al., 2004
– Evaluated moving pigs with a sorting board, an electric prod, or a paddle.
160
140
b b
120
a
Time, sec
100
80
60
40
20
0
Board Electric prod Paddle
Moving device
– 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.
USSBUNON00083

15. Handling Intensity
• Gonyou, unpublished data
40
34.0
35
30
Fatigued Pigs, %
25
20
15.0
15
10
5 2.0
0
Gentle Handling Aggressive Handling Aggressive Handling
with Paddles with Paddles with Hot Shots
Elanco Trial #AF7CA0101. Data on file.
USSBUNON00083

16. 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
Handling Treatment
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)
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

17. 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
2.0%
P < 0.01 P < 0.05 P < 0.01
Pigs Transported, %
1.6%
1.26%
1.2%
0.70%
0.8% 0.56% 0.55%
0.36%
0.4% 0.19%
0.0%
Dead Non-ambulatory Total Losses
Groups of 4 Groups of 8
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

18. 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

19. Facility Design
• Used 33 loads to compare small pens (32
pigs/pen), not pre-sorted vs. large pens (192
pigs/pen), pre-sorted
1.2% P < 0.01
Pigs Transported, %
P < 0.05 0.89%
1.0%
0.8% 0.66%
0.6% P < 0.01
0.29% 0.30%
0.4% 0.23%
0.2% 0.01%
0.0%
Dead Non-ambulatory Total Losses
Small pens, not pre-sorted Large pens, pre-sorted
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

20. Transport Floor Space
• Utilized 42 loads in spring and fall to determine the effects of
transport floor space on losses at the plant
3.0 a
Deads Fatigued Injured
2.5
Transport Losses, %
P < 0.001, SEM = 0.43, n = 252
ab ab
2.0
NIAA 250 lbs = 4.26 ft2/pig
300 lbs = 4.79 ft2/pig
1.5
bc c
1.0
0.5
c
0.0
ft2/pig 4.26 4.47 4.70 4.97 5.26 5.60
pigs/load 188 179 169 161 152 144
Transport Floor Space
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

21. Seasonal Variation in the U.S.
1.2
Deads Non-ambulatory Total Losses
1.0
Transport losses, %
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Month
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

22. What can you do to reduce
transport losses?
USSBUNON00083

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Free Monthly E-Newsletter
To subscribe go to:
www.hoghandlingupdate.com
USSBUNON00083

27. Back-up Slides
USSBUNON00083

28. 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
7.0 DFD
6.5
pH
6.0
PSE Normal
5.5
Acid meat
5.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Hours post mortem
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

29. Multi-factorial Problem
People Factors Transportation Factors
Handling Floor Space
Pig Factors Transport Plant Factors
Genetics – PSS Losses Wait at the Plant
Facility Design Factors Environmental Factors
Pre-sorting 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

30. 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

31. 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
0.8
a P = 0.02, SEM = 0.13, n = 431
Transport Losses, %
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
b b b
0.3
0.2 b
0.1
0.0
b
August-September February-March
0.39 m2/pig 0.46 m2/pig 0.54 m2/pig
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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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