Sexual, Racial

1
Loading gantry versus traditional chute for the
finisher pig Effect on handling and welfare
parameters. N. Berry1, A. Johnson1, J. Hill2, T.
Baas1, L. Karriker1 and K. Stalder1 Iowa State
University1 and Premium Standard
Farms2 Department of Animal Science Enriching
lives through animals
2
Defining the Issue

• At the farm, major factors impacting behavioral
  and physiological responses of the pig during
  transport include genetics, slaughter weight,
  environmental conditions (temperature and
  humidity), health status, marketing strategy,
  time off feed, pre-transport experiences,
  facility design, and nature of handling during
  loading (Ritter et al., 2005).

3
Cost to the U.S. Swine Industry

• Pig mortalities from the farm to the harvest
  facility have been estimated to cost the U.S.
  swine industry over 55 million dollars annually.
• Welfare of our animals as well as the safety of
  our farm and plant personnel is an obligation
  that the U.S. pork industry needs to accept and
  work diligently to improve.

4
Terminology

• Loading Tool
• Traditional chute T
• Prototype loading gantry P
• Pull
• First pull FP
• Closeout CO

5
Null Hypothesis

• Loading tool does not influence the welfare
  parameters of market pigs at the time of loadout.

6
Traditional Loading Chute T

• External ramp to bottom deck
• Covered steel portable chute
• 3.7 m with swivel ends
• Approximately 20
• 80 cm width
• Cleats
• 3.8 cm height
• 20.3 cm between cleats

3.7 m
20
7
Internal Trailer Ramp

• Internal ramp to upper deck
• Pull down aluminum diamond plate
• 3.81 m with 23 angle
• Rounded cleats
• 4.5 cm tall
• 20.3 cm between cleats

3.81 m
20.3 cm
8
Prototype Loading Gantry P
9.1 m
7.9 m
6 - 18
3.05 m
9
Prototype Loading Gantry P

• Unique dock-bumper system
• Cover material will expand up to 500 percent
• Bubble effect created by trapping air exhausted
  from foam cushions
• Rear of chute is compressed against facility
  doorway
• Eliminates air and light

10
Flooring

• Animal movement area
• Vanberg Epoxy
• G Diamond Grit
• Stair step
• 17.2 cm tread width
• 5.1 cm step height
• Human return walkway
• SlipNot medium grit aluminum safety floor

11
Lighting

• First use of industrial rope lighting in
  agriculture
• Animal movement area
• 3 strands on each sidewall
• Human return walkway
• 1 strand on each ceiling/wall interface

12
Sidewalls

• Uniform concrete grey epoxy
• Rhino linings
• Completely smooth at pig level
• Patterned above 1.2 m to deflect light
• Patterned ceiling to deflect light

13
Methods Experiment 1

• Midwest over November 2006 January 2007
• 27 semi loads of crossbred finisher pigs
• Average weight 116.92 kg
• From a single finishing site
• Dataset 1
• Two loading tools
• FP
• No Paylean

14
Methods Experiment 2

• Midwest over November 2006 January 2007
• 15 semi loads of crossbred finisher pigs
• Average weight 116.10 kg
• From a single finishing site
• Dataset 2
• Two loading tools
• CO
• Paylean

15
Methods

• Pigs were loaded using the Swine Welfare
  Assurance ProgramTM (SWAP) market load
  assessment.
• Combines SWAP and the American Meat Institutes
  Animal Handling Audit.

16
Measures

• Electric prod use
• Slips
• Falls
• Vocalizations
• Piling

17
Statistical Analysis

• Least squares means - Proc Mixed procedure of SAS
• Fixed effects of loading tool, barn, load
  number and shipping day
• Linear covariate - number of pigs shipped

18
Results
19
Results
20
Conclusions

• Prototype loading gantry significantly lowered
  electric prod use, slips, falls, vocalizations
  and piling during FP loadouts.
• A significant difference was found for slips and
  falls, and a trend toward lower incidence of
  electric prod use was found in CO loads.
• Vocalization and pile ups for CO loads warrant
  further investigation.

21
Implications

• Loading tool plays an integral role in the
  welfare parameters of finisher pigs at the time
  of marketing.

22
Acknowledgements

• National Pork Board
• Mr. Jeff Hill, Premium Standard Farms
• ISU Faculty and Students