Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T22:22:05.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol at pig slaughterhouses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Dalmau ,
D Temple ,
P Rodríguez ,
P Llonch  and
A Velarde
A Dalmau*
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121, Monells. Girona, Spain
D Temple
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121, Monells. Girona, Spain
P Rodríguez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121, Monells. Girona, Spain
P Llonch
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121, Monells. Girona, Spain
A Velarde
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121, Monells. Girona, Spain
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to assess the sensitivity and feasibility of the Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocol for finishing pigs in 10 Spanish slaughterhouses. Sensitivity refers to the ability of the WQ assessment system to discriminate between slaughter conditions whilst feasibility denotes that the protocol is concise and easy to implement. On arrival at the plant, the incidence of dead, sick and panting animals was assessed in 1,002 (± 93) pigs per abattoir. During unloading, the percentage of pigs that slipped, fell, showed reluctance to move or turned back and were lame was also assessed. In the lairage pens, the stocking density and the percentage of pigs that were panting, shivering, and huddling was assessed in a total of 346 (± 81.0) pigs per abattoir. Stunning effectiveness, slaughter checks and skin lesions were also assessed in 60 animals per abattoir. For the majority of measures, any differences between slaughterhouses were found to be attributable to the installation itself and the management of the slaughterhouse, such as generalised fear, slipping and falling or stunning effectiveness, as opposed to measures taken to assess transport conditions or farm origin, such as lameness or sick and dead animals. The study protocol took 5.5 h for one observer to complete, in a slaughterhouse killing more than 550,000 pigs a year, although this time could increase dramatically in smaller abattoirs due to delays in the arrival of lorries. The protocol provides a general overview of the state of welfare of animals at the slaughterhouse and can readily identify specific problems in certain areas, such as stunning of animals.

Keywords

animal welfareassessment protocolpigslaughterhouseSus scrofaWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 497 - 505
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Boissy, A 1995 Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quartery Review of Biology 70: 165–191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Cameron, AC and Trivedi, PK 1998 Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmau, A, Fàbrega, E and Velarde, A 2009 Fear assessment in pigs exposed to a novel object test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 173–180Google Scholar
EC Council Directive 1993 The Protection of Animals at the Time of Slaughter or Killing 93/119/EC. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaün, M-C, Canali, E and Jones, RB 2007 A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiological Behaviour 92: 340–374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gloor, P 1986 Lesions on the integument. A mirror of behaviour and environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 194–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2001 Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 191–201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2003 Good Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning, Second Edition. AMI Meat Institute Foundation: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Huynh, TTT, Aarnink, AJA, Gerrits, WJJ, Heetkamp, MJH, Canh, TT, Spoolder, HAM, Kemp, B and Verstegen, MWA 2005 Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, DB and Perry, GC 1990 The effects of restraint, handling, simulated and real transport in the pig (with reference to man and other species). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 41–55Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Faucitano, L, Manteca, X and Diestre, A 2000 Survey of the effectiveness of stunning procedures used in Spanish pig abattoirs. Veterinary Record 146: 65–68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A, Algers, B, Bracke, MBM, Courboulay, V, D’Eath, R, Edwards, SA, Fàbrega, E, Forkman, B, Geers, R, Geverink, NA, Gispert, M, Guy, JH, Hautekiet, V, Keeling, L, Lammens, V, Lenskens, P, Meuleman, M, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Millard, F, Nordensten, L, van Nuffel, A, van Reenen, CG, Scott, K, Spoolder, HAM, van Steenbergen, L, Turner, S, Tuyttens, FAM, Vermeulen, K, Wemelsfelder, F and Dalmau, A 2007 Full monitoring system in sows and piglets. Second Welfare Quality stakeholder conference. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Ross, S and Fraser, D 1997 Vocalizations by isolated piglets: a reliable indicator of piglet need directed towards the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar