Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:45:05.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of rearing system and mixing at loading on transport and lairage behaviour and meat quality: comparison of free range and conventionally raised pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

P. Barton Gade
P. Barton Gade*
Affiliation:
Danish Meat Research Institute, Maglegaardsvej, 2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
*
E-mail: pbg@danishmeat.dk
Get access

Abstract

Free range pigs, born outdoors and reared after weaning in enriched indoor accommodation, were compared with conventionally raised pigs from a farm, matched for effects on meat quality, with respect to behaviour during transport and lairage, blood chemistry at slaughter and meat quality characteristics. Pigs were either kept in farm pen groups or were mixed at loading and kept in the groups, so formed, until slaughter. Free range pigs tended to settle faster during the 2½ h transport and 2 h lairage than conventionally raised pigs and were more likely to lie as resting posture during transport. Mixing at loading had no effect on posture during transport or during lairage for free range pigs but mixed conventionally raised pigs showed a greater variability in posture during lairage compared to non-mixed conventionally raised pigs, presumably as a result of disturbance from fighting conspecifics. Conventionally raised and free range pigs showed similar levels of aggression during transport but conventionally raised pigs were more aggressive during the lairage (average for mixed groups 12 v. 2 fights, P < 0.001). Aggressive interactions, such as one-way bites, were almost exclusively confined to mixed groups and all fights with mutual biting in mixed groups occurred solely between unfamiliar animals. The frequency of unacceptable skin damage in the middle and shoulder was highest in conventionally raised pigs and in mixed groups. Cortisol concentration and creatine kinase (CK) activity in slaughter blood were not affected by the rearing system. Mixing did not affect cortisol concentrations but led to higher CK activities compared to non-mixing (957 v. 588 U/l, respectively, P < 0.05). The rate of pH fall after slaughter was not affected by the rearing system but muscle temperatures early post mortem were highest in free range pigs. Mixing did not affect pH or temperature early post mortem. Neither rearing system nor mixing at loading affected ultimate pH or internal reflectance (meat quality marbling values).

Keywords

behaviourmeat qualitymixingpigsrearing system

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 8 , August 2008 , pp. 1238 - 1246
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barton Gade P 1997. The effect of pre-slaughter handling on meat quality in pigs. Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Conference of the Australasian Pig Science Association (ed. PD Cranwell), pp. 100–115. Werribee, Australia.Google Scholar
Barton Gade, P 2008. Effect of rearing system and mixing at loading on transport and lairage behaviour and meat quality: comparison of outdoor and conventionally raised pigs. Animal.Google ScholarPubMed
Barton Gade PA, Warriss PD, Brown SN and Lambooij E 1996. Methods of improving pig welfare and meat quality by reducing stress and discomfort before slaughter – methods of measuring meat quality. Proceedings of an EU-Seminar “New Information on Welfare and Meat Quality in Pigs as Related to Handling, Transport and Lairage Conditions”. Sonderheft 166, Mariensee, Germany, pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, O’Connell, NE, Moss, BW 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livestock Production Science 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, SN, Knowles, TG, Edwards, JE, Warriss, PD 1999. Relationship between food deprivation before transport and aggression in pigs held in lairage before slaughter. Veterinary Record 145, 630–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, LN, Cooper, JJ 2001. Observations on the pre- and post-weaning behaviour of piglets reared in commercial indoor and outdoor environments. Animal Science 72, 75–86.Google Scholar
De Jong, IC, Prelle, IT, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Blokhuis, HJ, Koolhaas, JM 2000. Effects of rearing conditions on behavioural and physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter handling and mixing at transport. Canadian Journal Animal Science 80, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Souza, DN, Dunshea, FR, Leury, BJ, Warner, RD 1999. Effect of mixing boars during lairage and pre-slaughter handling on pork quality. Australian Journal Agricultural Research 50, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, AF 2002. The effect of transport time from the assembly yard to the abattoir and resting time at the abattoir on pork quality. Canadian Journal Animal Science 82, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, A, Lundström, K 1992. Meat quality in pigs reared in groups kept as a unit during the fattening period and slaughter. Animal Production 54, 421–426.Google Scholar
Lebret, B, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Foury, A, Mormède, P, Dransfield, E, Dourmand, JY 2006. Influence of rearing conditions on performance, behavioural, and physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter handling, carcass traits, and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2436–2447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, NE, Beattie, VE 1999. Influence of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 8, 269–279.Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS, de Jonge, FH, Schuurman, T, Helmond, FA 1999. Poor rearing conditions and social stress in pigs: repeated social challenge and the effect on behavioural and physiological responses to stressors. Behavioural Processes 46, 201–215.Google Scholar
SAS 2002–2003. PROC MIXED procedure. SAS Inc., Cary, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Porcher, J, Fernandez, X 2005. Repeated handling of pigs during rearing. II. Effect of reactivity to humans on aggression during mixing and on meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1664–1672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P, Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warriss PD 1996. The consequences of fighting between mixed groups of unfamiliar pigs before slaughter. Meat Focus International, March, pp. 89–92.Google Scholar
Warriss, PD, Brown, SN, Barton Gade, P, Santos, C, Nanni Costa, L, Lambooij, E, Geers, R 1998a. An analysis of data relating to pig carcass quality and indices of stress collected in the European Union. Meat Science 49, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warriss, PD, Brown, SN, Knowles, TG, Edwards, JE, Kettlewell, PJ, Guise, HJ 1998b. The effect of stocking density in transit on the carcass quality and welfare of slaughter pigs: 2. Results from the analysis of blood and meat samples. Meat Science 50, 447–456.Google Scholar