Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:20:27.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of provision of toys during transport and lairage on stress responses and meat quality of pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. Peeters  and
R. Geers
E. Peeters
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, Zootechnical Centre, K.U.Leuven, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
R. Geers*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Quality Care in Animal Production, Zootechnical Centre, K.U.Leuven, Bijzondere weg 12, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
*
†Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Transport and accompanying mixing of pigs causes fights among pigs and stress resulting in decreased welfare and reduced meat quality. This study investigates the effect of toys available during transport and lairage on behaviour, stress responses, and meat quality of slaughter pigs. Cross-bred (Piétrain×Hypor) pigs (109·1±10·1 kg) were allocated to one of three treatments during transport and lairage: 1) no toys (control) 2) rubber toys and 3) balls. The rubber toy consisted of two fixed rubber sticks; the plastic ball was filled with pieces of maize, which became available for the pigs in small amounts by manipulating the ball. Per group of 11 pigs, two toys were provided. Totally, divided over 4 replicates, 144 pigs were involved, of which 72 were used for blood sampling and meat quality measurements. Five minutes scans during lairage revealed that treatment did not affect the percentage of pigs that lay (P=0·20), stood (P=0·83) or sat (P=0·12) and that in almost all scans at least one pigs was manipulating a ball, compared with half of the scans in which at least one animal was manipulating a rubber toy (P=0·02). However both toys resulted in a lower incidence of shoulder lesions compared with the control group (P=0·06; 31·1% and 28·9% of the pigs for the rubber toys and balls respectively, versus 51·1% for the control group). Blood sampling at sticking showed that pigs with the balls during transport and lairage tended to have lower cortisol concentrations (P=0·07) than pigs with the rubber toys. Also, a decrease in plasma lactate concentration was observed for these pigs in comparison with the control group (P=0·08), and a higher pH of the m. longissimus dorsi 45 min post mortem for the pigs with the balls was found than for the pigs with the rubber toys (P=0·01). These results indicate that enrichment of compartments during transport and lairage with balls reduced glycolysis in muscle resulting in a lower lactate production and a slower pH decline. The pH 45 min post mortem of the m. biceps femoris and the pH, electrical conductivity, colour, and water-holding capacity of the loin 48 h post mortem were not affected by treatment. In conclusion, environmental enrichment with toys during transport and lairage can decrease shoulder lesions and lower the pH decline 45 min post mortem, especially by provision of plastic balls filled with maize.

Keywords

behaviourcorticoidsmeat qualitypigstoys
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 591 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barton Gade, P., Warriss, P. D., Brown, S. N. and Lambooij, B. 1995. Methods of improving pig welfare and meat quality by reducing stress and discomfort before slaughter – methods of assessing meat quality. In New information on welfare and meat quality of pigs as related to handling, transport and lairage conditions (ed. Schütte, A.), pp. 23–32, Mariensee, Germany.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K., Thomas, F. J. and Lee, J. A. 1997. The effect of a fixed or free toy on the growth rate and aggressive behaviour of weaned pigs and the influence of hierarchy on initial investigation of the toys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1996. How well do farm animals cope with their environment during transport?. Fleischwirtschaft 76: 279–281.Google Scholar
Day, J.E.L., Spoolder, H. A.M., Burfoot, A., Chamberlain, H.L. and Edwards, S. A. 2002. The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faucitano, L. 2001. Causes of skin damage to pig carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geverink, N. C., Engel, B., Lambooij, E. and Wiegant, V. M. 1996. Observations on behaviour and skin damage of slaughter pigs and treatment during lairage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. D., McGlone, J. J., Fullwood, S. D. and Miller, M. F. 1998. Environmental enrichment influences on pig behavior, performance and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, R. G., Eikelenboom, G., Vanderwal, P. G., Merkus, G. and Zaar, M. 1986. The use of filter-paper to estimate drip loss of porcine musculature. Meat Science 18: 191–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambooij, E., Hulsegge, B., Klont, R. E., Winkelman-Goedhart, H. A., Reimert, H. G.M. and Kranen, R. W. 2004. Effects of housing conditions of slaughter pigs on some post mortem muscle metabolites and pork quality characteristics. Meat Science 66: 855–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambooij, E. and van Putten, G. 1993. Transport of pigs. In Livestock handling and transport (ed. Grandin, T.), pp. 213–231). CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
McGlone, J. J. 1985. A quantitive ethogram of aggressive and submissive behaviors in recently regrouped pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61: 559–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant-Forde, J. N. and Marchant-Forde, R. M. 2005. Minimizing inter-pig aggression during mixing. Pig News and Information. 26: 63N–71N.Google Scholar
Meaney, M. J., Bhatnagar, S., Larocque, S., McCormick, C., Shanks, N., Sharma, S., Smythe, J., Viau, V. and Plotsky, P. M. 1993. Individual differences in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress response and the hypothalamic CRF system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 697: 70–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, A. C. and Jones, S. D.M. 1994. The effect of mixing, feed restriction and genotype with respect to stress susceptibility on pork carcass and meat quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74: 587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakai, H., Saito, F., Ikeda, T., Ando, S. and Komatsu, A. 1975. Standard models of pork colour. Bulletin of the National Institute for Animal Industry, Chiba, Japan 29: 68–75.Google Scholar
Schaefer, A. L., Salomons, M. O., Tong, A. K.W., Sather, A. P. and Lepage, P. 1990. The effect of environment enrichment on aggression in newly weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serfling, R. J. 1980. Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics. Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1999–2000). SAS version release 8·02. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Warriss, P. D. 1996. Rapid on line assessment of meat quality. In Meat quality and meat packaging (ed.Taylor, S. A., Raimundo, A., Severini, M. and Smulders, F. J.M. ), pp. 233–242, European Consortium for Continuing Education in Advanced Meat Science and Technology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Warriss, P. D. 2003. Optimal lairage times and conditions for slaughter pigs: a review. Veterinary Record 153: 170–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, R. J., Carruthers, J. and Lawrence, A. B. 1994. The effect of a foraging device (the Edinburgh-foodball) on the behavior of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar