| Literature DB >> 35141312 |
Marlyn H Romero1, Jorge Alberto Sánchez1, Rick Obrian Hernandez2.
Abstract
Transport by land is an essential component for the commercialization of fattening pigs and can have a negative impact on animal welfare. In slaughterhouses, the presence of dead and non-ambulatory animals is an indicator of poor welfare during transport. The objective of the study was to identify risk factors associated with the frequency of dead and non-ambulatory pigs during transport. A survey was conducted in three Colombian slaughterhouses. Data were collected from 372 batches (n = 18,437 gilts barrows) and transported directly from the farms to the slaughterhouses. Each truck was individually evaluated; a structured survey was administered to drivers, non-ambulatory and dead pigs on arrival were identified and blood samples were obtained from non-ambulatory pigs to assess physiological indicators of stress. Mortality rates per batch at arrival ranged from 0.08 to 0.17% and prevalence of non-ambulatory pigs per batch ranged from 0.84 to 1.37%.The results of the multilevel mixed effects linear regression model identified the following as risk factors associated with the frequency of total transport losses: truck speed (P = 0.04), distance (P < 0.01), transport time (P < 0.01), load size (P < 0.01) and the driver (P < 0.01) including the farm as a fixed effect. This study identified risk factors that increased the probability of total transport losses during land transport under Colombian commercial conditions. But more research that involves commercial drivers is needed to develop effective strategies to improve Colombian pig's transportation chain.Entities:
Keywords: animal welfare; physiological stress; pigs; preslaughter; transport losses
Year: 2022 PMID: 35141312 PMCID: PMC8820205 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.790570
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Characteristics of the three slaughterhouses evaluated in this study.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Antioquia (6°13′00″N 75°34′00″W) | Bogotá (4°35′56″N 74°04′51″W) | Caldas (5°06′N; 75°33′O) |
| Farm System | Main producer of fattening pigs (64.6%) | 9.1% | 2.6% |
| Altitude (m.a.s.l) | 2,550 | 2,630 | 2,038 |
| Mean annual rainfall (mm/year) | 2,060 | 840 | 1,878 |
| Mean Temperature (°C) | 16.6 | 14.0 | 15.9 |
| Max (°C) | 19.1 | 16.3 | 18.5 |
| Min (°C) | 11.4 | 10.9 | 12.8 |
|
| |||
| Active % ( | 0 | 2.4% (4) | 0 |
| Passive % ( | 100% (141) | 97.6% (164) | 100% (63) |
| Slaughter capacity (pigs/day) | 1,000 | 1,500 | 350 |
| Slaughter rate (pigs/h) | 120 | 150 | 35 |
| Unloading ramps | Concrete non-slip floors | Concrete non-slip floors | Adjustable-slope metal ramp (8 m length) with an anti-skid floor |
| Driving tools | Flags | Electrical prod | Electrical prod |
| Stunning technique | Head-to-chest electrical stunner (model 11001.1, Sulmaq) in a 1.52 x 0.57 x 1 m box | CO2 narcosis system (Butina-Ydervan - DK 4300, Holbaek, Denmark), in a gondola with a dimension of 2.7 x 0.98 x 1.0 m (capacity of six pigs) | Head-only electrical stunner (model TL002 Gozlin) with a dimension of 65 cm x 35 cm x 18 cm |
| Stunning system characteristics | Head electrode: 320.43 ± 0.83 V, 0.56 ± 0.03 A. | CO2 concentration: 90.6% ±5.8 | 250 V and 1.3 A for 3 s |
Descriptive analysis of driver's sociodemographic information (age, transport training, educational status, and exclusive truck) and least square means of travel conditions (average travel speed, distance, number of stops, average stop time) during transport to three Colombian slaughterhouses.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 35.3 (±9) | 39.6 (±11.2) | 40.5 (±7.5) |
|
| |||
| Elementary school | 73.7% (104) | 50.6% (85) | 9.5% (6) |
| High school | 19.8% (28) | 42.8% (72) | 90.5% (57) |
| Professional school | 5.7% (8) | 5.9% (10) | 0 |
| University | 0.8% (1) | 0.7% (1) | 0 |
|
| |||
| Yes | 35.5% (50) | 97.6% (164) | 4.8% (3) |
| No | 64.5% (91) | 2.4% (4) | 95.2% (60) |
|
| |||
|
| 37.8% (51) | 55.6% (75) | 6.6% (9) |
|
| |||
| Yes | 92.9% (131) | 95.8% (161) | 98.4% (62) |
| No | 7.1%(10) | 4.2% (7) | 1.6% (1) |
| 56.2 (±17) | 38(±25.7) | 65.3(±27.5) | |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| One | 7.8% (11) | 62.5% (105) | 4.8% (3) |
| Two | 86.5% (122) | 36.3% (61) | 95.2% (60) |
| Three | 5.7% (8) | 0.2% (2) | 0% (0) |
|
| |||
| Yes | 75.9% (34) | 4.8% (8) | 90.5% (57) |
| No | 24.1% (107) | 95.2% (160) | 9.5% (6) |
| 100%(141) | 14.26%( | 85.71%(54) | |
| 60.3 (± 9.8) | 59.9 (± 9.2) | 52.1 (± 11.2) | |
| 2.78 (±1.3) | 3.49 (±2.4) | 2.17 (±0.5) | |
| 73.1 (±46.9) | 92.5 (±65.6) | 59.9 (±20.1) | |
| 1.5 (±1.2) | 1.5 (±0.6) | 2.1 (±0.8) | |
| 14.1 (±3.6) | 14.1 (±3.6) | 12.9 (±2.9) | |
| 0.57 (±0.08) | 0.47 (±0.1) | 0.48 (±0.04) | |
Different lower-case superscripts in the same row indicate differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Slaughterhouse SA (n = 141), Slaughterhouse SB (n = 168), Slaughterhouse SC (n = 63).
Figure 1Types of trucks surveyed in this study: (A) Specialized triple-deck truck (Slaughterhouse A), (B) single-deck and non-specialized truck (slaughterhouse B) and (C) specialized double-deck truck (slaughterhouse C).
Proportions of dead-on-arrival (DOA) and non-ambulatory pigs (NA) during transport to three Colombian slaughterhouses.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 0.08% (7) | 0.15% (9) | 0.17% (8) | |
| No | 92.9% (131) | 97.7% (164) | 87.3% (55) |
| Yes | 7.1% (10) | 2.3% (4) | 12.7% (8) |
| 0.6% (47) | 0.8% (45) | 1.2% (53) | |
| 0.3% (20) | 0.3% (19) | 0.2 % (10) | |
| 0.8% (67) | 1.0% (64) | 1,4% (63) | |
|
| 1:4 | 1:2 | 1:5 |
| Arrival | 76.1% (51) | 53.1% (34) | 8% (5) |
| Unloading | 1.5% (1) | 43.8% (28)b | 0 |
| Lairage | 22.4% (15) | 3.12% (2) | 92% (58) |
|
| |||
| Emergency slaughter | 97% (65) | 12.5% (8) | 15.9% (10) |
| Slaughter after rest | 3 % (2) | 87.5 % (56) | 84.1% (53) |
Different lower-case superscripts in the same row indicate differences statistically significant (p < 0.05). Slaughterhouse SA (n = 141, 7,933 pigs), Slaughterhouse SB (n = 168, 5,910 pigs), Slaughterhouse SC (n = 63, 4,594 pigs). .
Relationship between total transport losses (DOA + NA) per trip and transport variables.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.002 | 0.00 | <0.01 |
|
| −0.02 | 0.00 | <0.01 |
|
| −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.10 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
|
| −0.003 | 0.00 | <0.01 |
The relationship was measured through a multilevel mixed effects linear regression model.
Physiological welfare indicators in blood collected from non-ambulatory pigs at three Colombian slaughterhouses.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Rectal temperature (°C) | 39.7 ± 0.13 | 39.7 ± 0.12 | 39.5 ± 1.25 | |
| Respiratory rate (rpm) | 46.6 ± 2.12a | 43.5 ± 2.7b | 29.8 ± 1.68c | 8 – 18 |
| Hematocrit (%) | 41.2 ± 1.25a | 48.6 ± 0.61a | 49.4 ± 3.46b | 38.3 – 43.63 |
| Cortisol (μg/dL) | 14.8 ± 0.58a | 15.2 ± 1.09a | 13.2 ± 0.36b | 2.9 ± 0.10 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 5.4 ± 0.13a | 6.9 ± 0.30b | 5.1 ± 0.07a | 4.7 – 8.33 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 4.4 ± 1.03a | 4.5 ± 0.69a | 17.1 ± 19.6b | 3.1 – 3.55 |
| Urea (mmol/L) | 61.7 ± 36.1a | 72.9 ± 28.3b | 48.3 ± 14.9c | 7.1 – 10.7 |
| Creatinine (mmol/L) | 2.1 ± 0.49a | 2.3 ± 0.69a | 2 ± 0.59b | 3.1 – 3.55 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | 9.1 ± 3.4a | 5.9 ± 2.4b | 6.1 ± 2.5b | 0.5 – 5.50 |
| βHBA (mmol/L) | 0.1 ± 0.38a | 0.3 ± 0.36b | 0.6 ± 0.38c | 0.4 ± 0.03 |
| NEFA (mmol/L) | 0.7 ± 0.38a | 0.6 ± 0.3a | 8.2 ± 4.04c | ≤0.40 |
Slaughterhouse SA (n = 67 pigs), Slaughterhouse SB (n = 64 pigs), Slaughterhouse SC (n = 63 pigs). .
respirations per minute (rpm).
Reference values from Kaneko et al. (.
Relationships between physiological welfare indicators variables in blood from non-ambulatory pigs and transport distance and panting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.6 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.001 | <0.01 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.01 |
|
| −0.283 | 0.048 | <0.001 | 0.122 | 0.033 | <0.001 | 0.081 | 0.034 | 0.019 | −0.205 | 0.092 | 0.02 | −0.053 | 0.126 | 0.6 |
The relationship was measured through a multilevel mixed effects linear regression model.