Bedding and boarding while transporting pigs to slaughter-choosing the right amount

Similar documents
Establishing Bedding and Boarding Requirements for Finisher Pigs Through Scientific Validation Macro Study. NPB #11-181

Introduction. Objective MATERIALS AND MATERIALS AND METHODS 4/29/2010

Areas to Discuss. Facility design and transport: the welfare connection. Classifying Non-ambulatory Pigs. Transport Losses: Definitions

Effects of Facility Design on the Stress Response of Market Weight Pigs during Loading and Unloading

Transport Quality Assurance V6 Revision Update. Jamee Amundson, MS

Transport losses in market weight pigs: a review of definitions, incidence, and economic impact

Some contributors to poor animal health and performance

Clemens Food Group in Coldwater. Live Haul Training Summer 2017

Provide Proper Animal Handling and Care

Live Transportation Research and Improvement Initiatives

Pastured Pork Production Standards and Certification Form

Cattle Comfort Reducing Heat and Cold Stress

Environmental Conditions in a Bedded Hoop Barn with Market Beef Cattle

Many issues to consider when planning & designing a new dairy facility- Process Flows Water Flow Land Flow Manure Flow Cow Flow Feed Flow Traffic Flow

Determining Livestock Facility Needs

Rabbit Welfare Transportation and Processing Audit Tool and Standards

Managing Variable Costs on Dairy Farms Through Energy Use Assessment and Conservation

AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

Transportation. Sources of Information. USDA Handbooks

Pros and Cons of Centralized Calving J.F. Smith 1, J.P. Harner 1, M.J. Brouk 1, and S. Mosley 2

5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards Program Application: PIG FARMS

Malt Barley Drying & Storage

Composting - A Natural Way to Recycle. Composting Livestock Mortality November 5, How Do You Dispose of Mortalities?

Hog transportation. Danish experiences with transport equipment and practices. Leif Christensen, M.Sc. Danish Meat Research Institute

Enhance Air Quality for the Calf. David W. Kammel BSE- UW-Madison

Animal Industry Report

Key words: Beef feedlot, performance, natural supplement

Managing Dry Grain in Storage

Key Management Factors for. Successful Swine Production. in Hoop Structures

Air Quality and Indoor Environment of Compost Bedded Dairy Barns in Ohio

5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Program Audit Prep Tool Pigs

CORN NITROGEN RATE RESPONSE AND CROP YIELD IN A RYE COVER CROP SYSTEM. Introduction

The Use of Reflective and Permeable Pavements as a Potential Practice for Heat Island Mitigation and Stormwater Management

Post-Harvest Management

FACTORS AFFECTING DRY MATTER INTAKE BY LACTATING DAIRY COWS. M. J. Brouk and J. F. Smith

The Environment in Swine Housing

Feasibility of Hoop Structures for Market Swine in Iowa: Pig Performance, Pig

Cassandra Landry Marquette Climate & Sustainable Design Research

animals ISSN

Proportions of Calf Raising Cost. Calf Housing Costs (Birth to Weaning) Hutches. Calf Housing Hutches with protection for worker

Reducing Energy Costs on Vegetable Farms. Michael Bomford, PhD Kentucky State University College of Agriculture, Food Science & Sustainable Systems

Composting for Routine Disposal of Poultry and Livestock Mortalities

On-Farm Grain Storage Is It Your Weakest Link?

Two-litter Outdoor Farrowing System Budget

Demonstrating a Swedish Feeder Pig Production System in Iowa

Surveys Show Insuladd Saves Energy!

Effect of a rye cover crop and crop residue removal on corn nitrogen fertilization

Assessing Options for Ventilating Adult Cow Barns Making Sense of Too Many Choices!

Fall Calf Care Audit Form

Unloading Handling Storage

Economics of Finishing Pigs in Hoop Structures and Confinement: A Summer Group under Different Space Restrictions

Emission Measurements and Comparison with Management Techniques for Beef Deep- Bedded Mono-Slope Facilities. Objectives of the Presentation

Rubber Nugget Mulch (pictured below) Rubber Bark Mulch Bark 30lbs, Nugget 35lbs (bags) lbs (totes) Colours: Black, Red, Brown

Cow Comfort and Cooling. Joseph M. (Joe) Zulovich, Ph.D., P.E. Extension Agricultural Engineer University of Missouri

Livestock Farm Uses of Switchgrass and Miscanthus

Propane Saving in Poultry Farm through Waste Heat Recovery System

Conducted Under GEP (Y/N): Y Guideline Description: To Protocol

Controlling Dust and Odor From Open Lot Livestock Facilities. Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship

Performance response of growing-finishing pigs to an air-cooled environment during a simulated hot weather growth period

Animal Welfare at Waitrose

Title: Food Supplier Guideline Issued by: Food & Health Department

Warehouse Design Process

Quality of compost and bedding issues ---- Compost Bedded Loose Housing Dairy Barn

Overview. About Me. Why Confinement? Types of Confinements. Spacing Needs. Facility and Ventilation Concerns. Final Thoughts

Harvesting Fresh Trees on the Farm. Jeff Owen Area Extension Forestry Specialist NC State University

WHITE PAPER. HVLS Industrial Fans Evaluation Guide: 7 Defining Application Design Factors That Will Add Up to a Smart Investment

Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirement of Feed and Malting Barley Compared to Wheat, 2011

National Organic Standards Board Livestock Committee Animal Welfare Discussion Document Stocking Density. September 9, 2010

LOGISTEC WP5 - TEST REPORT

Nitrogen Application Effects on Forage Sorghum Biomass Production and Nitrates

Behavioral Associations during a Novel Object Test and Performance of Barrows Divergently Selected for ResidualFeed Intake

Performance response of growing-finishing pigs to an air-cooled environment during a simulated hot weather growth period

Cotton Crop Water Use. Craig W. Bednarz University of Georgia, Tifton

Management Guidelines for Optimizing PIC 337G Sired Pig Performance

New ISU Dairy MOOves In and Ahead

Refuse Collections Division Solid Waste Services Department Anchorage: Performance. Value. Results.

5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Program Audit Prep Tool Beef Cattle

Urban Ag Academy. A Look Into Iowa s Pork Industry. Gregg Hora Iowa Pork Producer IPPA President Elect

Economics of Farm Storage Buildings John Worley, Extension Engineer and Curt Lacy, Extension Economist

TECHNICAL DATA SHEET

MANAGING CHAFF TRAILS AND NITROGEN FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS IN STRIP-TILL SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION

FEEDLOT HEAT STRESS CHECKLIST

John Schaap. Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (P&P) Diversified Ag & Civil Engineering Firm. Project Experience. Tulare County, California

MARK M. MAHADY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consultant To The Turfgrass Industry

CHAPTER 5: OFFICIAL NORTH AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE AUDIT FORMS

Evaluation of a Novel Chlorine Dioxide Teat Dip on Teat End and Teat Skin Health

Watering Facilities for Managed Grazing Systems. By Kevin Ogles and Michael Hall USDA/NRCS ENTSC GLCI Grazing Lands Specialists

Confinement Sow Gestation and Boar Housing

Animal Welfare and Quality Standards

Natural ventilation and low energy building design

Cow/calf Management Winter and Spring

A Tale of Two Boxes Temperatures in Shipped Liner Boxes During Winter

MANAGING TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING STRESS

href=" 1d3227ea7bfd4d1085ec1738dce6dd611d">Pr esentation<

Shahid Mahmood, Walter T. Dixon, Heather L. Bruce Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science University of Alberta, Canada

Managing Compost Bedded-Pack Barn/Waste System

Opportunities with Low Profile Cross Ventilated Freestall Facilities

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR COMPOST BEDDED PACK BARNS

Amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations (Humane Transportation)

Footpad lesions in broiler chickens

Transcription:

Bedding and boarding while transporting pigs to slaughter-choosing the right amount Avi Sapkota, TTU Anna Butters-Johnson, Assoc. Professor, ISU John J. McGlone, PhD, Professor, TTU June 6 th, 2012

Overview and Background Total number of pigs transported each year: over 100 million Rate of DOA: 0.17% Rate of NA: > 0.2% Pigs with negative welfare problems during transport to market: over 40,000 per year

Overview and Background Issues: Welfare issue Public concern Economic impact for both farm and plant So, a major issue $$$$$$

Overview and Background At temperatures 0 to 5 C, less NANI pigs with dry bedding as compared to no bedding But overall, percentage of DOA and IOT pigs was less in dry bedding trailer as compared to no bedding, but percentage of NANI pigs was higher as compared to no or wet bedding. (Sutherland et al, 2009) DOA: dead on arrival, IOT: injured in trailer, NANI: down on trailer or before weighing (non ambulatory, non injured), N&D: total dead

Overview and Background Field data indicate that the rate of non-ambulatory, non-injured pigs increases in cold weather, but DOA rate increases with outside temperature (Sutherland, 2009).

DOA, % Background Field data indicate that the rate of DOA pigs increases in warm weather (Sutherland, 2009). Dead on Arrival (note linear increase above 70 F) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 Air Temperature, F y = 0.0062x - 0.1091 R 2 = 0.9774

How to reduce losses?? Selection of right breed Proper handling techniques Following a proper guideline and method Modifications in existing facilities

Ultimate?? The ultimate research goal is to develop industry recommendations for internal trailer environment management protocols that will optimize internal trailer temperature, maintain pig comfort and core body temperature and minimize transport losses.

TQA Program According to TQA Handbook, in driver code of ethics, Transporter must have access to clean bedding approved by the packer, and must be used during transport. Provide extra bedding (wood shavings, wheat straw, corn stubble) during winter

TQA Program TQA recommendations: * Minimum openings are needed for ventilation even in the coldest weather. Consider using sand or wetting bedding if it is not too humid and trucks are moving.

Bedding Study

Objective To define the bedding requirements of pigs during transportation in commercial settings during: Cold weather Mild weather Warm weather

Study Design and Sample Size Months Bedding levels, bales/trailer* Air Temperature Range Jan-Feb 6, 12 8 to 68 F -13 to 20 C March-May 3, 6, 12 28 to 70 F -2 to 21 C June-July 3, 5, 7, 9 61 to 113 F 16 to 45 C * 22.7 kg/bale or 50 lb 0.2 m 3 /bale or 7 ft 3 /bale

Background Number of bales/deck mm inches Eights of an inch 1 9.5 3/8 3/8 1.5 11.1 3.5/8 3.5/8 3 15.9 5/8 5/8 6 25.4 1 8/8 For a straight deck 53 X 102 trailer 1 Bale 3 Bales 6 Bales

Study Design and Sample Size Months Temperature Number Trailers Number pigs Jan-Feb Cold 174 28,855 March-May Mild 345 58,007 June-July Warm 254 41,824 Total -- 773 128,686

Materials and Methods At finishing site: Random assignment of bedding level Information on bedding level, number of loads on that bedding, boarding percentage Five sensors collected temperature and humidity in different four compartments and one outside the trailer from start of load to unload Handling methods, handling devices, intensity (on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the mildest; 5 being aggressive/abusive)

Materials and methods At finishing site: Number of vocalizations, slips/falls, signs of stress Management aspects of farms: type of barn, facilities like pen size, aisle, chute, floor type, walls etc., and weather information (temperature, humidity, and wind speed) Surface skin temperatures on the pigs flank/side of 10 randomly selected pigs (5 of first 50 and 5 of last 50 pigs loaded into the trailer) in each load using laser thermometer with sensitivity of 0.1 F

Materials and methods At plant: Air temperature, humidity, surface temperature of 10 pigs (as in finishing site) Handling device(s), handling intensity (as in finishing site), vocalizations, slips/falls, time of arrival, waiting and unloading Collected bedding samples to determine moisture % Record DOA, NA and D & D in each trip

Statistical Analysis Primary models, by season, effects of: Level of bedding Air temperature (in 5 C bins) Interaction of bedding and air temperature All data entered in Excel and analyzed using SAS (General Linear Model). Regression lines calculated using Excel and SAS.

Results Ranges of conditions during data collection: Load time: 13 to 94 min Transit time: 16 to 459 min Waiting time at plant: 0 to 198 min Total D & D in a trip: 0 to 8 Handing Intensity ranged: 1-5 43/440 (9.8%) loads at finishing sites had a handling intensity of 5 (aggressive, abusive) 1/429 (0.23%) observations at plants had a handling intensity of 5

D & D % DOA % NA % Results Jan-Feb Bedding Effects DOA % by Bedding level (P=0.13) NA % by Bedding level (P=0.73) 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 6 12 Bedding Level 0.00 6 12 Bedding Level D & D % by Bedding level (P=0.29) No effect of bedding 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 6 12 Bedding Level

Total dead and down % Non-ambulatory % Dead on arrival % 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Results Jan-Feb Temp Effects No interaction between bedding and air temperature 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 DOA% by outside temperature bin P-value>0.05 y = 0.0192x + 0.0341 R² = 0.8595-5 0 5 10 15 20 23 32 41 50 59 68 Outside temperature bin, C 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 D&D by outside temperature bin P-value>0.05 y = 0.0172x 3-0.1564x 2 + 0.4273x - 0.1901 R² = 0.9796-5 0 5 10 15 20 23 32 41 50 59 68 Outside temperature bin, C NA% by outside temperature bin P-value>0.05 y = 0.011x3-0.106x2 + 0.276x - 0.126 R² = 0.905-5 0 5 10 15 20 23 32 41 50 59 68 Outside temperature bin, C

DOA % Results March-May Bedding D & D % NA % Effects DOA % by Bedding level (Treatment not significant, P=0.21) NA % by Bedding level (Treatment not significant, P=0.84) 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0 3 6 12 0 3 6 12 bedding level bedding level D & D % by Bedding level (Treatment not significant, P=0.34) No effect of bedding 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 3 6 12 bedding level

Total dead and down % Dead on arrival % Non-ambulatory % 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Results March-May Temp Effects DOA% by outside temperature bin P-value>0.05 No interaction between bedding and air temperature y = 0.0059x 2-0.0265x + 0.1158 R² = 0.5552 0 5 10 15 20 25 32 41 50 59 68 77 Outside temperature bin, C 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ac 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 NA% by outside temperature bin P<0.05 a a y = 0.0282x 2-0.2797x + 0.7014 R² = 0.9065 b 0 5 10 15 20 25 32 41 50 59 68 77 Outside temperature bin, C D&D% by outside temperature bin P-value=0.07 a b b y = 0.0341x 2-0.3062x + 0.8171 R² = 0.8536 bc ab b ab ab 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 32 41 50 59 68 77 Outside temperature bin, C

DOA % Results June-July Bedding D & D % NA % Effects DOA % by Bedding Level P=0.054 NA % by Bedding Level P=0.206 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.40 a ab b ab 0.60 0.40 a b ab ab 0.20 0.20 0.00 3 5 7 9 Bedding Level 0.00 3 5 7 9 Bedding Level More bedding is harmful in warm weather 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 a D & D % by Bedding Level P=0.076 ab 3 5 7 9 Bedding Level b ab

Total dead and down % Dead on arrival % Non-ambulatory % Results June-July Temp Effects 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 DOA% by outside temperature bin P a ab ab y = -0.0201x 2 + 0.2168x - 0.2167 R² = 0.8438 b ab 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 NA % by outside temperature bin P a a y = -0.0374x 3 + 0.3191x 2-0.748x + 0.4968 R² = 0.9398 a b a 0.0-0.2 15 20 25 30 35 59 68 77 86 95 Outside temperature bin, C 0.0-0.2 15 20 25 30 35 59 68 77 86 95 Outside temperature bin, C No interaction between bedding and air temperature 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 D&D % by outside temperature bin P y = -0.0699x 3 + 0.5944x 2-1.3168x + 0.8446 R² = 0.9984 a a ab b ab 0.2 0.0-0.2 15 20 25 30 35 59 68 77 86 95 Outside temperature bin, C

Total dead and down, % Non-ambulatory, % Dead on arrival, % Overall DOA, NA and D&D % with outside temperature 1.0 Dead on arrival % 0.8 0.6 0.4 y = 0.0076x 2-0.0394x + 0.126 R² = 0.8148 bc b b 0.2 ac a a a a a 0.0-0.2-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature bins, C 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Non-ambulatory % y = -0.0023x 4 + 0.0456x 3-0.3037x 2 + 0.7553x - 0.4407 R² = 0.7526 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ab Total dead and down % ab 0.0-0.2 y = -0.0037x 4 + 0.0733x 3-0.4755x 2 + 1.1484x - 0.615 R² = 0.9 b ab a a ab -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature bins, C -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 c bc Temperature bins, C

Surface skin temperature, C Skin Surface Temperature Average skin surface temperature in relation to outside temperature bin 40 35 y = 0.3729x + 23.909 R² = 0.9459 P-value:<0.001 The warmer the outside temperature, the warmer was the pig surface 30 25 20 15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14 23 32 41 50 5 68 77 86 95 104 Outside temperature bin, C

Total dead and down, % Skin Surface Temperature and Dead and Downs 1.0 Total dead and down % 0.8 0.6 y = 0.1093x - 3.3455 R² = 0.8013 0.4 0.2 0.0 30 31 32 33 34 35 36-0.2 86 88 90 91 93 95 97-0.4 Average surface skin temperature, C

Results Fresh bedding (6 Bags) 3 bags, second load 6 bags, second load

Results 12 bags, first load, 26% moisture 12 bags, first load Fresh bedding with only 5% moisture 12 bags, second load, 51% moisture

Results Used bedding inside the trailer 73.87% moisture, 6 bags, 4 th load, 60% boarding

Temperature (*F) Results Inside trailer temperature 60.0 Temperature of Trailer Compartments 50.0 40.0 30.0 Front Top Front Bottom Rear Top Rear Bottom Outside 20.0 4:45 5:45 6:45 7:45 8:45

Relative Humidity (%) Results Inside trailer relative humidity 100.0 Relative Humidity of Trailer Compartments 90.0 80.0 70.0 Front Top Front Bottom Rear Top Rear Bottom Outside 60.0 50.0 4:45 5:45 6:45 7:45 8:45

Conclusions Bedding Season Cold weather Mild weather Warm weather Temp range Significant bedding effect? Conclusions < 32 F No Added bedding -- no advantage beyond 6 bales 32-70 F No Added bedding no advantage above 3 bales > 70 F Yes Added bedding negative effect on DOA Recom, Bales/trailer 6* * No data on less than 6 bales 3 3* * No data on less than 3 or 0 bedding

Economics of Bedding Use Item Approximate number of pigs processed per day in the USA Amount 420,000 Average pigs per truck/trailer 170 Approximate number of trucks/trailers/day 2,470 % fresh bedding used per truck/trailer 50% Trailers using new bedding/day 1,235

Economics of Bedding Use Item Trailers using new bedding/day 1,235 Number of daily bales at 3 extra bales/day (in summer) Number of daily bales at 6 extra bales/day (in winter) 30 days cold, added bedding cost 6 extra bales 120 days warm, added bedding 3 extra bales Amount Dollar amount, @ $6/bale 3,705 $22,230 7,410 $44,460 $1,333,800 $2,667,600 Total added bedding cost Per year $4,001,400

Conclusions Air Temperature Cold weather increased NA Warm weather increased DOA No interaction between bedding and air temperature

Conclusions Pig Surface Temperature Pig surface temperature changes with air temperature In warm weather, increased surface temperature predicts increased DOA

Conclusions Overuse of bedding causes: Increased bedding cost for no return Increased pigs losses (dead and down) At least a $ 4 million economic cost just by using extra bedding (exact pig losses due to extra bedding yet to be determined) per year unless bedding levels are adjusted A welfare problem in warm weather

What Next?? Is bedding needed and positive for the pig? Examine zero bales in the summer and less than 6 bales in cold weather for efficacy Define the boarding needs for the industry Define misting requirements

Boarding Study

Objective Determining the proper use weather boards/plugs in controlling the internal environment of the trailer to provide for the thermal comfort of the pig during cool temperatures.

Materials and Methods Air temperature, F Current TQA % Closed or boarded/plugs* Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 10-19 F 75 50 75 90 20-39 F 50 25 50 75 40-49 F 25 0 25 50 50-60 F 0 0 25 -- 100 trailers per temperature bin (400 trailers in total) will be used

Materials and methods Truck status at the farm - bedding depth, boarding rate, trailer type (straight deck vs. pot), air temperature and humidity (by Hobos; 4 inside per trailer and 1 outside on a sample of trailers), load time at the farm - A data sheet completed at the farm site and handed to the driver for delivery to researchers at the plant.

Materials and methods Truck status at the plant - bedding status, boarding rate, straight deck vs. pot, travel time - Times arrival time at the plant, wait time at the plant, time to unload - Environmental measurements at the plant: air temperature & relative humidity: internal on trailer at pig level & outside wind speed & wind chill index will be determined

Materials and methods Truck status at the plant - pig temperature (at least 10 pigs) skin surface temps - transport loss incidence (NANI, NAI, DOA; some plants collect only DOA and Non-ambulatory[NA]) - trim loss per trailer - audit of pigs coming off the truck slips & falls, vocalizations, incidence of frostbite, signs of stress (ex., open-mouth breathing, skin discoloration, muscle tremors)

Till now Only 74 trailers covered (out of 400 required), so analysis is not complete yet. Minimum temp: 32 F, Max: 73.2 F If boarding percentage <40%, then low (total: 29) and If boarding percentage 40-59%, then medium (total: 34) If boarding percentage >59%, then high (total:11)

Results DOA NANI 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.6 b 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0-0.2 a ab <40%, 40-59% >59% 0.4 0.2 0 <40%, 40-59% >59% NAI D&D 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0-0.2 <40%, 40-59% >59% 0.4 0.2 0 <40%, 40-59% >59%

Result 1.4 EOA 1.2 1 b 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 a a 0-0.2 <40%, 40-59% >59%

Conclusion DOA highest when boarded highest NANI, NAI, D & D did not differ significantly with boarding percentage EOA highest when highly boarded

Thank you Questions?