1 / 32

Meet the Pig

Meet the Pig. Physical Characteristics of the Market Hog. 270+ lbs. Low center of balance Square on all 4’s Selectively bred for lean growth efficiency over the last 20+ years . Give it Up! You’ll Lose!!! . Pig’s Eyesight Not so Great at Times. They Can See Movement.

dannon
Download Presentation

Meet the Pig

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meet the Pig

  2. Physical Characteristics of the Market Hog • 270+ lbs. • Low center of balance • Square on all 4’s • Selectively bred for lean growth efficiency over the last 20+ years

  3. Give it Up!You’ll Lose!!!

  4. Pig’s Eyesight Not so Great at Times

  5. They Can See Movement

  6. Pig’s Range of Vision is 300º

  7. Floppy Eared Hogs Have a Harder Time Seeing

  8. Pig’s Personality CURIOUS

  9. Pig’s Personality Social • They like to be around other pigs

  10. Pig’s Personality CAUTIOUS

  11. Pig’s Personality SMART

  12. Pig’s Personality Long Memories • If you hurt them, they don’t forget it

  13. Flight Zone and Point of Balance (Photo courtesy of the National Pork Board’s TQA Handbook, 2004) National Pork Board. 2004. Trucker Quality Assurance Handbook. C. Stahl, ed. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA.

  14. Understanding the Flight Zone • Pigs that moved forward after a tap or shock at certain locations. Most effective area to tap or shock a pig is on the back McGlone, J. J., R. L. McPherson, and D. L. Anderson. 2004. Case study: moving devices for finishing pigs: Efficacy of electric prod, board, paddle, or flag. The Professional Animal Scientist. 20:518-523.

  15. At the Farm At the Plant Common Pig Handling Devices Sorting Board Flag Livestock Paddle Livestock Paddle Electric Prod Witch’s Cape (Photos courtesy of www.qcsupply.com and www.grandin.com)

  16. b b a Handling Device • Evaluation of moving pigs with a sorting board, an electric prod, or a paddle. • Concluded that a sorting board is the single most effective handling device • Therefore, all handlers should use a sorting board when moving pigs McGlone, J. J., R. L. McPherson, and D. L. Anderson. 2004. Case study: moving devices for finishing pigs: Efficacy of electric prod, board, paddle, or flag. The Professional Animal Scientist. 20:518-523.

  17. Handling Intensity • Comparison of moving pigs with aggressive or gentle handling • Aggressive: pigs moved rapidly with hot shots • Gentle: pigs moved at their own pace with plastic cane a,b,c Means with different superscripts differ Benjamin, M. E., H. W. Gonyou, D. J. Ivers, L. F. Richardson, D. J. Jones, J. R. Wagner, R. Seneriz, and D. B. Anderson. 2001. Effect of animal handling method on the incidence of stress response in market swine in a model system. Journal of Animal Science. 79(Suppl. 1):279. (Abstr.)

  18. Handling Intensity Elanco Trial #AF7CA0101. Data on file.

  19. Proper Handling Intensity • It is essential to move pigs at a slow and calm pace • If pigs are moving good on their own do not tap the pigs to encourage them to move faster • Use a calm and steady voice or noise when moving pigs • Yelling, shouting, and other load noises may frighten pigs and make them more difficult to handle • Do not lose your cool when handling pigs • If you become frustrated, take a deep breathe and count to ten

  20. Electric Prod Use • Moved pigs through a course with 3 different handling intensities: • Gentle • Moderate • Intense a,b,c Means with different superscripts differ Bertol, T. M., M. Ellis, D. N. Hamilton, and F. McKeith. 2002. Effect of handling intensity on blood acid-base balance in slaughter pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 80(Suppl. 2):86. (Abstr.)

  21. Minimal Electric Prod Use? Elanco trial # T2F170606. Data on file.

  22. Change in Use of Prods • Electric prods were used extensively not very many years ago. • Now, with the understanding of the metabolic consequences, many packers have totally forbidden the use of prods on their premises. • Many producers have eliminated the use of prods for all hog handling in the production units even including loading of the hogs for market. • Many truckers/transporters have also quit using prods totally or except in extreme circumstances.

  23. Group Size • Pigs that wedge or jam in the aisle during handling are more susceptible to becoming fatigued • To minimize stress during loading, move pigs in small groups of 4 to 6 pigs • Optimal group size is dependent upon: • Aisle width and pig weight • Need to be able to reach the first pig Anderson, D. B., D. J. Ivers, M. E. Benjamin, H. W. Gonyou, D. J. Jones, K. D. Miller, R. K. McGuffey, T. A. Armstrong, D. H. Mowrey, L. F. Richardson, R. Seneriz, J. R. Wagner, L. E. Watkins, and A. G. Zimmermann. 2002. Physiological responses of market hogs to different handling practices. Pages 399-400 in Proceedings of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, Kansas City, MO.

  24. Handling Summary • The single most effective handling device is a sorting board • The most effective place to tap a pig is on the back behind the point of balance • Stress responses are minimized when pigs are: • Moved at a slow and calm pace • Moved in small groups • Moved with paddles or boards

  25. Causes of Fatigued Pigs • Transport factors • Trailer design, mixing unfamiliar pigs, floor space on the trailer, transport time • Plant factors • Waiting time to unload, lairage time • Environmental conditions • Season, temperature, relative humidity Ritter, M., M. Ellis, M. Benjamin, E. Berg, P. DuBois, J. Marchant-Forde, A. Green, P. Matzat, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, M. Siemens, J. Sterle, T. Whiting, B. Wolter, and A. Johnson. 2005. The fatigued pig syndrome. Journal of Animal Science. 83(Suppl. 1):258. (Abstr.)

  26. Multi-factorial Problem Transportation Factors Floor Space People FactorsHandling Transport Losses Pig FactorsGenetics Plant FactorsWait at the Plant Facility Design Factors Pre-sorting Environmental Factors Season Growers, loading crews, truck drivers, and handlers at the plant can impact transport losses! Ritter, M., M. Ellis, M. Benjamin, E. Berg, P. DuBois, J. Marchant-Forde, A. Green, P. Matzat, P. Mormede, T. Moyer, K. Pfalzgraf, M. Siemens, J. Sterle, T. Whiting, B. Wolter, and A. Johnson. 2005. The fatigued pig syndrome. Journal of Animal Science. 83(Suppl. 1):258. (Abstr.)

  27. Free Monthly E-Newsletter To subscribe go to: www.hoghandlingupdate.com

  28. Pig Transportation: Early 1900s Ensminger, M. E. 1952. Page 326 in Swine Husbandry. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, IL

  29. Pig Transportation in the 1930s Smith, W. W. 1937. Pages 452 in Pork Production. The MacMillan Company, New York, NY.

  30. Non-ambulatory Pigs at the Plant Ensminger, M. E. 1952. Page 334 in Swine Husbandry. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, IL

  31. Questions? Comments?

  32. TM A Big Thanks to Elanco for providing these slides!

More Related