.._.._w MlCHIGm
THEfiis

a Mia'ltgifié‘late ll/I/ll/I/l/II/ll/ll/I/ll/I/ll

University

’

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A REVIEW OF FACILITY DESIGN AND STUDY OF

HANDLING METHODS 0N STRESS AND BEHAVIOR IN MARKET SWINE
presented by I

LORRIE R. BRUNDIGE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in ANIMAL SCIENCE

M K24

Major professor

Date J2 5/flbz BY

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES retum on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 W14

 

A REVIEW OF FACILITY DESIGN AND STUDY OF HANDLING METHODS ON
STRESS AND BEHAVIOR IN MARKET SWINE

By

Lorrie R. Brundige

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Animal Science

1 998

ABSTRACT

REVIEW OF FACILITY DESIGN AND STUDY OF HANDLING METHODS ON
STRESS AND BEHAVIOR IN MARKET SWINE

By

Lorrie R. Brundige

Ten Michigan Livestock Exchange® branches were surveyed for their
loading and handling facilities. The study revealed that there are difference in
design with respect to width and angle throughout MLE®’s facilities, but this may
not reflect the variety of designs used in the field to load market swine. This
study also revealed great variation in handling time during loading.

A second study examined the use of an electric prod or a hurdle, on pig
behavioral patterns and physiological responses during loading. Significant
responses were observed in body temperature and heart rate between handling
methods (P<.0001) and (P<.0001) respectively. Cortisol was not significant
between the two handling levels (P >.2621). Observations of pigs during handling
produced four behaviors between to two treatments that were significantly
different. Pig: vocalization (P<.0001), Jump (P<.0001), Climb (P<.OOO1) and Fall
(P<.0005) . Post handling observation revealed significant responses in two of
four pig behavioral patterns. Pig: Investigate (P<.0018), Root (P<.0001), Idle
(P>.1021), Step (P>.3983).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people to thank for their patience, support and guidance in
getting through this project. I feel Dr. Bob Deans deserves my most gracious and
humble thanks. Vlflthout Deans “giving a girl a chance” this whole thing would
not be possible. Dr. Adroaldo Zanella also deserves a much needed thank you
for giving me the opportunity to study animal behavior with him. I would also like
to express my appreciation to Dr. Mary Andrews, Dr. Cal Flegal, and Dr. Dale
Rozeboom for your unending patience and perseverance. Al Snedegar and his
staff were critical in making this project come alive at the farm. Thank you
Telmo Oleas for teaching me the right and wrongs ‘in lab’ and getting me through
the assays without catastrophe. Thank you Dr. Tucker and Larry Chapin for
letting me use the lab to complete assays before moving back to Anthony. Thank
you Jim Liesman for cradling me through the statistical analysis and your
untrying patience in understanding what it was I was after. Thank you to Dr.
Madona Gemus, Amy Martin, Bryan Harmison, Jill Fox, Heather Porter and
students at the MSU Swine farm for the early mornings, setting up and preparing
for treatment and control day sampling. Lastly, thanks Pat and Eugene Brundige

for “putting me up” and “putting up with me”.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES VI
LIST OF FIGURES VIII

INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF THESIS 1

Chapter 1
Literature Review

1.0.0 Introduction2
1.2.0 Poerualitylmplications 2
1.3.0 Welfare Implications4
1.4.0 Animal Reaction to Stimuli: Stress Defined 4
1.5.0 Pig BehavrorS
1.6.0 Short-term Behavioral and Physiological Stress Indicators ....... 11
1.7.0 EffectsofAcuteStressorsonthe Pi922

1.8.0 Interaction of Behavioral and Physiological Responses
to Stimuli 30

Chapter 2
Project I: The Collection Point Study

2.0.0 Introduction32
2.1.0 Methodsand Materials.....................................................32
2.2.0 ResultsofProjectl...........................................................36
2.3.0 Discussion ofProjectl 41

2.4.0 Conclusron41

Chapter 3
Project II: Pig Response to Two Levels of Handling:
Behavioral and Physiological Consequences

3.0.0 Introduction
3.1.0 Treatment Useand Identification
3.2.0 Methodsand Materials
3.3.0 Results ofProjectsll
3.4.0 DiscussionofProjectll......................................................

3.5.0 Conclusron

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Collection PointSurvey
APPENDIX B Video Analysis Worksheet

APPENDIX C Complete Collection Point Study Results

REFERENCES

.43

. ...47

.65
73

78

.81
.87
...89

......94

Chapter 2
Project l:

2,1

2.2

Chapter 3
Project II:

3.1

3.2

3.3
3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12

3.13

LIST OF TABLES

The Collection Point Study

Summary results of ramp design of 10

collection points visited

Summary results of pig handling differences

of8 collection points vusnted

Pig Response to Two Methods of Handling:
Some Behavioral and Physiological Observations

Summary of environmental temperatures during

during control day sampling

Summary of environmental temperatures during

treatment day sampling
Pig group composition and treatment allocation ...........

Sample collection schedule

Pig behavioral patterns and definitions identified

on control day

Pig behavioral patterns and definitions identified

on treatment day

.39

4O

.48

48

49

...52

62

.63

SAS model for pig physiology: Control and treatment days ....... 64

SAS model for pig behavior: Control day 64
SAS model for pig behaviorzTreatment day 64
Statistical comparison of pig behavior: Control day ................. 68
Statistical comparison of pig behavior: Treatment day ............. 69
Statisitcal comparison of pig physiology: Control day ............... 7O

Statisitcal comparison of pig physiology: Treatment day .......... 70

vi

APPENDICES

A.1 Complete Collection Point Study Results ..

vii

...89

Chapter 2
Project I:

2.1
2.2
2.3
Chapter 3
Project II:
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

3.7

3.8

LIST OF FIGURES

The Collection Point Study

Method usedto determine angle oframp
Anarrowloading ramp . .. ...........

Awide and narrow loading ramp

Pig Response to Two Methods of Handling:
Some Behavioral and Physiological Observations

Top view: Schematic of pig handling route
Designated prod points on the pig
Monitoring bodytemperature
Saliva collection using the Scoppette Jr.

Heart rate monitor adapted to pig

Comparison of cortisol response:

Control and treatments

Comparison of heart rate response:

Control and treatments

Comparison of body temperature responses:

Control and treatments

viii

.36

.37

.45

46
53

.58

.71

.72

.73

INTRODUCTION

Scope of Thesis

Two separate projects were completed and are presented in this thesis.
Project I, “The Collection Point Study” is a field study and is a survey of
Michigan Livestock Exchange® (MLE®) collection sites. Ten MLE‘” collection
sites were surveyed for their handling and loading facilities. lnforrnation was
gathered on the design of loading ramps and pig handling during loading.

Project II, “Pig Response to Two Methods of Handling: Some Behavioral
and Physiological Observations”, is a controlled experiment conducted at the
Michigan State University Swine Farm and examines pig behavioral and
physiological responses associated with two types of pre-slaughter handling
methods. Forty-eight pigs were selected and allocated to two handling
treatments. Data on behavior and physiology of the pig were collected and
analyzed for the presentation.

Both of the above studies are considered “methods studies” in that they
are precursors to future, more comprehensive experiments on pig behavior and

physiology, and their relation and causation to pig welfare and pork quality.

Chapter 1
Literature Review

1.0.0 Introduction

The following studies have been undertaken to more fully understand
the physiological and behavioral responses of pigs during pre-slaughter
handling and loading for the following reasons. First, there is a growing
concern in the swine industry over economic losses from pre-slaughter
handling and transportation. These include death, excess bruise trim, pale,
soft, and exudative lean (PSE) and, undesirable pale to gray and watery lean.
Second, there is a humanistic concern over the welfare of pigs subjected to
potentially unnecessary acute stressors prior to slaughter.
1.2.0 Pork Quality Implications

The pig industry is urging its producers to market more pigs via the
carcass merit system. As of 1992 many processors were already paying
better premiums for leaner carcasses and bigger discounts for excess carcass
fat (Marbery, 1992). Traditionally, there have been costs in the form of
discounts that have been absorbed by the producer. Some “of these costs
include; sudden death during handling and transport, bruising, pale, soft, and
exudative meat (PSE), and dark firm and dry (DFD) meat, each of which
results in lower-value processed meats (Knowles et al., 1994; van Laack et al.,
1993). These were estimated at more than 43 million dollars in 1994 (Pork
Quality Chain, 1994). Kaufman et al., (1993) estimated that greater than

twenty percent of all pork carcasses in the US. contained PSE meat.

Kaufman’s survey also revealed that twenty-five percent of the pork he

surveyed was either “too pale” or “too dark” (Kaufman et al., 1993).

When farm animals are handled or transported, biochemical changes
[especially those associated with glycogen metabolism], occur in the muscle
(Hails, 1978). Pale pinkish-gray pork usually is caused by the rapid conversion
of muscle glycogen to lactic acid; where rapidly falling pH and a high carcass
temperature induce protein denaturation (van Laack et al., 1993; Hails, 1978).
As a result, the water-binding capacity of muscle proteins declines, water
leaks out of the meat (purge) and the color becomes pale and grayer (Hails,

1978)

DFD meat is produced if glycogen reserves are depleted before death
so that little lactic acid can be produced in the muscle after death and pH
remains high (Hails, 1978). Sudden death arises from uncontrollable skeletal
muscle contractions with attendant hyperrnetabolic and hypertherrnic reactions
which may be triggered by handling, sexual intercourse, excessive ambient
temperature and a number of chemical agents (Otsu et al., 1991).

“PSE pork has many variations and is related to age, handling and
environment, bacterial contamination, nutritional factors (fasting before
slaughter)” and genetics (Pommier and Houde, 1993; van Laack et al., 1993).
Handling and environment and other factors promote the incidence of PSE,
but genetics account for sixty-percent of the problem (Kaufman et al., 1993).

However, according to Pommier and Houde (1993) genotype only partially

predicts the expression of PSE, and that pre-slaughter management practices
were equally critical in controlling the occurrence.

We have known about the porcine stress syndrome (PSS) and PSE
problem since the late 1960’s (Marbery, 1992), and have not eliminated the
problem because the gene has both beneficial and deleterious effects. The
gene in pigs produces leaness, muscle hypertrophy resulting in a 2-3 %
increase in carcass lean weight (MacLennan and Phillips, 1992). But PSS
hogs are more easily excited, (Marbery, 1992) “with reactions triggered by
acute stressors prior to slaughter” and devalued meat products (Maclennan
and Phillips, 1992).

1.3.0 Welfare Implications

Broom and Johnson (1993) define welfare as “the state of an animal as
regards its attempts to cope with its environment”. According to Moberg (1985)
one approach to defining the welfare of an animal is to use its stress response
[behavioral and physiological] as a criteria for assessing an individual’s state
of well-being. Specific criteria may include injuries to animals following
handling or transport, pathology, death or the incidence of blemishes, bruised
or PSE meat character, which may give us information about the welfare of the
animals in the period shortly before slaughter, but the substantial genetic
variation in the likelihood of PSE meat production must be taken into account
(Knowles et al., 1994; Guise and Penny, 1989; Broom, 1987; Blackshaw,
1986). However, defining an animal’s ‘welI-being’ or welfare has not been

precise because it inevitably incorporates subjective feelings derived from

personal experiences and views of life (Moberg, 1985; Barnett and
Hutson,1987) which will broaden or narrow the scope of ‘welfare’.
1.4.0 Animal Reaction to Stimuli: Stress Defined

There is a growing concern about the welfare of animals, particularly
food animals, a complex task that requires objective descriptive criteria to
establish. Therefore, researchers have turned much of their attention to
defining quantitative benchmarks for determining good, fair and poor welfare
of animals. Assessing the ‘state’ of the animal, both physiologically and
behaviorally, under various stimuli is complicated. One factor that contributes
to the state of the animal is exposure to stress or stressors (Moberg, 1985). It
is also this variable that has contributed to problems in establishing sound
indicators for determining the ‘welfare’ of animals (Broom and Johnson, 1993;
Barnett and Huston, 1987; Moberg, 1985). “ A thorough understanding of the
concept of stress is necessary to answer this question and studies with pigs
allow some physiological limits to be suggested for acceptable and
unacceptable welfare” (Barnett and Hutson, 1987).

Stress can be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Broom and
Johnson (1993) have defined stress as “an environmental effect on an
individual which overtaxes its control system and reduces its fitness or
appears likely to do so”. Seyle (1973) defines stress as “the biological
consequence of exposure to adverse conditions”. Seyle’s concept of acute
stressors is defined as lasting minutes to hours and is corticosteroid

dependent (Barnett and Hutson, 1987). The physiological state of stress

disappears on removal of the stress [stimulus] with no ill effects on the animal
other than depletion of reserves (Barnett and Hutson, 1987). Stephens (1980)
has also defined stress as “ when the rate at which stimuli are perceived by an
animal deviates from the normal, or is unusually prolonged, then such stimuli
can be classified as stressors”. These seemingly slight differences in
definition have profound implications for how animals are reported to respond
to various stressors.
1.5.0 Pig Behavior

In order to determine what constitutes a behavioral ‘stress’ response, it
is important to understand the pig and it’s behavior under normal conditions
(McGlone, 1991; Martin and Bateson, 1986). According to Fraser and Broom
(1990) there are two main categories of behavior production that take place.
First, there are behaviors associated with ‘maintenance’ and include
behaviors associated with ingestion, locomotion, resting, body care,
thermoregulation and some social actions. More specifically, these behaviors
include eating drinking, rooting, playing, exploring agonistic behaviors, comfort
and eliminative behaviors, and walking (McGlone, 1991). Second, there are
behaviors needed for dealing with occasional, specific and often critical
circumstances (Fraser and broom, 1990). These include sexual, reproductive
and matemaI/neo-natal behaviors. Specifically, sexual behaviors include the
number of mounts, ejaculations, intromissions and, dismount events.
Reproductive behaviors include the onset of puberty, duration of courtship and

reproductive success such as pregnancy, delivery weaning and offspring.

Maternal and neo-natal behaviors include periparturient behaviors including
shelter seeking, nest building, actual parturition, and early neo-natal-maternal
bonding (McGlone, 1991 ).
1.5.1 Physiological and Behavioral Responses to Stress

Animals respond to changes or challenges in their environment by a
variety of interlocking anatomical, physiological, biochemical, immunological
and behavioral adaptation mechanisms (Barnett and Hutson, 1987; Ewbank,
1985). Perception of an external stimuli such as changes in temperature, a
social interaction with a pen-mate, or the experience of pain, is dependent on
the central nervous system (CNS) (Moberg, 1985). When a stress is
perceived the CNS will (1) organize to determine what type of biological
response to use, and (2) organize the stress response (Moberg, 1985). If the
stimulus is perceived as threatening, three general types of biological
responses are available; behavioral, autonomic, and nueroendocrine (Moberg,
1985). VWthin these biological responses there exist a patterned animal
physical and [behavioral] response to stimulus and includes; (1) Changes in
physical orientation to the stimulus in behavioral response include physical
posture and olfactory responses (Broom and Johnson, 1993). (2) Startle
response which include fight or flight, postural changes, jumps, vocalizations,
intensity and is related to the extent to which the animal has been disturbed
(Broom and Johnson, 1993). (3) Defensive reactions which range from
growling, butting by cattle to biting or prolonged intensity making animal

difficult to deflect (Broom and Johnson, 1993). However, Moberg (1985)

includes another response pattern which involves conservation or with-drawl
whereby the animal conserves its energy.
1.5.2 Behavioral Responses to Stress

For most challenges [adverse situations] the simplest, and frequently
the most economical response for the animal is to alter its behavior: either
remove itself from the threat (escape) or use a displacement behavior
(Stephens, 1988; Moberg, 1985). The overt expression of reduced welfare
[short-term or long-term] may often take the form of abnormal behaviors
(Zanella, et al., 1996; Barnett and Hutson, 1987). They define abnormal as
“persistent, undesirable actions, shown by a minority of individuals in the
population, which is not due to any obvious damage to the nervous system
and which is not confined to the situation which elicited it” (Zanella, 1992).
Under chronic stress conditions, behavior may take the form of stereotypies;
morphologically similar sequences of behavior patterns with no obvious
function (Schouten et al., 1991). Behaviors resulting from acute stressors are
more difficult to observe and define because acute stress responses are short-
terrn response and generally do not have long term detrimental consequences
and thus are difficult to interpret in terms of welfare” (Barnett and Hutson,
1987). However, certain patterns of behaviors resulting from acute stressors
can be categorized as follows; (1) fear-related behaviors, (2) anxiety-related
behaviors, and (3) behavior due to frustration (Manser, 1993). These

behaviors are extemalized behaviors based on the ‘emotions’ of the animal.

Though Stephens (1988) states that the term ‘emotion’ cannot be defined but
is usually comprehended to a special state of the motivation of the animal.

According to Stephens (1988) fear is a predominant emotion, “it is not
liked and usually produces a change in the underlying motivational state of the
animal leading to modified behavior pattems”. Some causes of fear include
novel stimuli such as handling and transport, matemal-infant separation and
predation (Stephens, 1988). Fear responses in pigs include increases
frequency of defecating and urinating, pale skin, bristled hair, trembling body,
dilated eyes, nose and mouth, moderately loud vocalization, unnatural
huddling together and climbing on other pigs (Buchenauer, 1981). Additionally,
animals may react with immobility or freezing behavior (Broom and Johnson,
1993; Manser, 1993). The animal may also respond with an inappropriate
behavior, or displacement activity, which are frequently found to be associated
with evidence of reduced physiological stress (Broom and Johnson, 1993;
Manser, 1993).

The level of response to any given stimulus is graded and will depend
on the individual animal’s situation, partly reflecting its genetic makeup and
partly it’s psychological state resulting from the conditioning processes
experienced at an earlier stage in life (Stephens, 1988; Levine, 1985; Moberg,
1985). And according to Blackshaw (1986) behavior patterns that are
expressed need to be qualified by the type of environment or husbandry

system that the behavior results in.

1.5.3 Physiological Responses to Stress

Apart from the behavioral changes that an animal makes, biochemical
changes also take place to aid in the maintenance of homeostasis or response
to a stressor (Moberg, 1985). Actions such as increased synthesis of glucose,
redirection of blood supply to certain organs, modification of digestion can help
the animal cope with stress and maintain homeostasis during stress (Moberg,
1985). Fight or flight responses are characterized by the release of
epinephrine and norepinephrine, an increase in heart rate and cardiac output,
and acute elevation of arterial pressure and overall activity increases (Moberg,
1985). Moberg’s (1985) ‘conservation’ is characterized by an increase in
adrenal-cortical activity, increase vagal activity, immobility and suppression of
environmental directed activity.

An animal’s perception of a stressful situation, and its behavioral and
physiological modes of responding to it may be dramatically altered by
experience, modifying the threat or mode of response (Moberg, 1985). This is
supported by Levine (1985), who suggests that novelty and uncertainty are
considered primary determinants of response and that novelty of a stimulus
requires the animal to make a comparison between present stimulus events
and those that have been experienced in the past. According to Moberg
(1985), however, novelty does not necessarily represent a threat.

Responses to stimuli vary across species and among individuals in that

species and will depend on: species of animal, previous experience, nature

10

and severity of stressor and the ability to cope with it’s situation (Broom and
Johnson, 1993; Manser, 1993; Stephens, 1988; Levine, 1985; Moberg, 1985).
1.6.0 Short-term Behavioral and Physiological Stress Indicators

There are indices to measure “short term” or “acute” difficult situations
of the animal. The use of behavioral and physiological measures reflect an
integrated effect due to both external and internal stimuli imposed on an
animal (Broom and Johnson, 1993).
1.6.1 Techniques for Quantifying and Evaluating Behaviors

Behavior observations play a critical role in the assessment of stress
(Manser, 1993). Correctly identifying behavioral responses to stress requires
knowledge of the biology of the animal and knowledge of normal and
abnormal behavioral expressions of the pig (McGlone, 1991; Martin and
Bateson, 1986). One of the most common difficulties encountered is
establishing a set of criteria which come near to defining the meaning of the
term ‘stress’ (Barnett and Hutson, 1987; Stephens, 1988). Several test
designs have already been developed and include open field test, preference
test and conditioned emotional response tests (Stephens, 1988). Sequential
analysis which is a detailed type of data summary and analysis techniques
and T-maze preference tests which have been designed to study preferences
for sexual partners, housing and environment to name a few. (McGlone,
1991). Although different in scope and objective all designs have several
criteria for identifying, recording and analyzing behaviors. These are:

(1) “ Categories are defined for each behavior observed and are generally
independent of one another”. (2) Few categories will be defined in one

11

experiment due more reliability in fewer measures. (3) A detailed complete
definition of each category and associated recording method would be written
down before data is collected and analyzed. (4) Behaviors observed will
include frequency, which is the number of occurrences of the behavior pattern
per unit of time; duration which is the length of time for which a single
occurrence of the behavior pattern lasts. (5) Behaviors will be identified as
events or states. Events are behavior patterns of relatively short duration such
as discrete body movements or vocalizations which can be approximated as
points in time frequency. States are behavior patterns of relatively long
duration such as prolonged activity body postures or proximity measures
(McGlone, 1991; Martin and Bateson, 1986).

Many behavioral responses are quantifiable, number of distress calls,
frequency of kicking at a localized source of, or the duration of the response
(Broom and Johnson, 1993). “It is possible to use duration and intensity of the
acute stress response to address specific issues of concern by identifying the
severity of difficult stressors and to determine management procedures that
minimize acute stress responses” (Barnett and Hutson, 1987).

1.6.2 Physiological Measures of Stress

Physiological measure of stress can be quantified. Measures such as
heart rate, body temperature, pulse, respiration, blood pressure, renal blood
flow, glucocorticoids, catecholamines, and beta-endorphins, to name a few,
are useful measures to evaluate the short-term state of an animal (Broom and

Johnson, 1993; Manser, 1993; Veum et al., 1979).

Cortisol

“Historically, the concept of stress has involved an emphasis on
activation of the endocrine system” and includes the hypothalamus-pituitary-
adrenal axis (Barnett and Hemsworth 1990; Levine, 1985). All pleasant and

unpleasant stimuli, even if brief, are likely to elicit some hormonal response

12

(Broom and Johnson, 1993). Glucocorticoid (corticosterone, cortisol) levels
rise in response to many short-term problems [and pleasures] in life and their
measurement gives valuable information about the welfare of animals
(Moberg, 1985).

Adverse emotional stressors and physical challenges can cause an
increase in glucocorticoid levels and include, matemal-infant separation, and
aggressive encounters, thermal extremes, handling, novel environment,
restraint, electric shock, steep ramps, crowding, mixing, vaccination
transportation, weaning, social status, etc. (Hicks et al., 1998; Marchant, 1997,
1995; Minton, 1994; Lambooij and van Putten, 1993; Manser, 1993;
Hemsworth, et al., 1989; Jesse et al., 1990; Phillips et al.,1988). However
there are various other factors which can effect hormone levels such as: (1)
diurnal variation, (2) sex differences, (3) specie and breed differences, and (4)
early life experience (Manser, 1993; Moberg, 1985; Levine, 1985) and even
copulation can produce increases in cortisol levels (Zanella, 1992).

Cortisol (4-pregnene-11 [3, 17 a, 21-triol-3, 20-dione) is a naturally
occurring adrenal cortical steroid produced by the adrenal cortex of the
adrenal gland (Dickson, 1984). Glucocorticoids function to prepare the body
for physical activity, thus there is a shift from anabolic to catabolic activity
while non-essential processes are suppressed (Manser, 1993). More
specifically, glucocorticoids directly stimulate the release of energy in the form
of blood glucose by stimulating the liver to break down stored glycogen into

glucose and indirectly through the depressions of insulin levels.

13

Glucocorticoids can also induce the release of amino acids from skeletal
muscle, which are further converted by the liver into glucose, while nitrogen is
excreted by the kidneys (Martin 1976).

Glucocorticoids are released by the adrenal cortex in response to an
emotional arousal. When an animal is exposed to external and internal
stimuli, or when a source of arousal is perceived by the central nervous
system, neurotransmitters in the Iimbic system stimulate the hypothalamus.
Corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) is released by interleukin 1B, stimulating
the release of adrenocorticotrophin hormone (ACTH) from the
adenohypophysis (anterior pituitary gland). ACTH is transported in the blood
to the adrenal cortex which in turn stimulates cortisol release from the adrenal
cortex (Becker et al., 1985; Martin, 1976). Cortisol levels are checked with a
feedback mechanism whereby under time of stress ACTH and CRF are
produced in large amounts and thus reduce the level of cortisol that is
produced (Martin, 1976). The purpose of the feedback mechanism is probably
self-protective because persistent high levels of glucocorticoids would be
delirious, leading to immuno—suppression and muscle wastage (Munck et al.,
1984). High levels of glucocorticoids do not tend to persist in the circulation,
and during chronic stress, plasma glucocorticoid levels may be normal due to
the feedback mechanism (Manser, 1993). The magnitude of the
adrenocortical response varies from species to species and from breed to
breed and will depend on the intensity of the stimuli (Broom and Johnson,

1993). According to Broom et al. (1996) in a study comparing housing

14

conditions and transportation of pigs, found that circulating levels of cortisol
returned to control (pre-treatment) levels at two hours post treatment when
sampled in fifteen minute intervals.

Cortisol can be measured in saliva or plasma (Cook et al., 1996;
Zanella 1992; Laudet et al., 1988). However, the amount of cortisol in saliva is
less than that found in plasma and requires a more sensitive test (Broom and
Johnson, 1993). Plasma cortisol exist in the free and protein-bound forms
whereas cortisol in saliva only exist in the free form and may be the most
relevant when assessing reposes to environmental difficulties (Cook, 1996;
Broom and Johnson, 1993). In pigs, studies suggest that salivary cortisol
correlates with plasma cortisol (r=0.88) (Cook et al, 1996; Mendl, et al., 1991;
Parrot and Mission, 1989; Parrot et al., 1989). Conversely, Blackshaw and
Blackshaw (1989) found a low correlation (r =0.167) between salivary and
plasma cortisol.

The main difficulty in using plasma cortisol for the assessment of short-
term stress deals mainly with the processing of catching and handling the
animal in order to obtain a sample (Manser, 1993). The advantages of
measuring cortisol in saliva are (1) it is a non-invasive technique, and (2) it
exist in a ‘free’ or biologically active form, with no protein bound component as
it does in plasma (Cook et al., 1996; Blackshaw, 1986).

Pig cortisol levels have been have been reported in the literature.
Bradshaw et al., 1996) report pre-treatment levels for 80 kg pigs as 2.475

nmol/ l. Becker et al. (1985) report 4.3 :l: .7 nmol/l. Parrot and Mission (1989)

15

report pigs in home pen to prior to treatment as 1-2 nmolll. Post-treatment or
‘stressor’ has also been reported in the literature. Measuring cortisol in
plasma, Barnett and Hemsworth (1990) report significant differences in pigs
handled pleasantly and unpleasantly, 0.52 nglml and 0.76 nglml (1.435 nmo/l
and 2.0976 nmolll) respectively‘. Becker et al. (1985) report a significant
effect on serum cortisol activity between pigs electrically stimulated verses
control pigs 43.2 i .8 nglml over 14.0 1r .1 (119.232 nmolll and 38.916 nmolll,
respectively).

In other studies, Bradshaw et al. (1996) found no significant differences
in salivary cortisol before and after loading. In a handling study completed by
Gemus (1998) no significant differences were found in salivary cortisol
response of pigs subjected to novice or experienced handlers.

There are three cautions with the use of cortisol as a measure of stress.
First, pig’s show a circadian pattern and experiments using cortisol must be
sampled at the same time for repeated measure to gain meaningful
information from this index (Broom and Johnson, 1993; Zanella, 1992; Becker
et al., 1985). Second, cortisol levels may not accurately reflect severely
stressful situations since they tend to reach maximal levels during moderate
stress (Manser, 1993). Third, elevated cortisol levels indicate a change,
however, it is often normal ‘adaptive’ responses (Barnett and Hemsworth,

1 990).

 

Conversion factor from ng lml to nmolll = 2.76

16

Body Temperature

Handling and transport which cause increases in adrenal cortex activity
can also elevate body temperature (Manser, 1993). Many conditions are
capable of causing normal variations in the body temperature of warm blooded
animals including: age sex, season, time of day, environmental temperature,
exercise, eating, digestion, drinking of water and disturbing events. (Broom
and Johnson, 1993; Kluger, 1989; Anderson, 1984).

Body temperature is regulated by peripheral, spinal, and hypothalamic
thermo-receptors with normal ranges for swine ranging from 38.7-39.8
degrees Celsius (Anderson, 1984). A deep index of body temperature is most
easily obtained in animals by insertion of a thermometer into the rectum
(Anderson, 1984). However according to Korthals et al. (1995) and Eigenberg
et al. (1995) core body temperature can be easily obtained via tympanic
readings. Because rectal temperatures reach equilibrium more slowly than
temperatures in many other internal sites, it is a good index of a ‘true steady
state’ (Anderson, 1984).

Body temperature increases in response to handling have been
reported for calves (Trunkfield and Broom, 1990) and for pigs 'in response to
electric shock (Veum et al. 1979). Geers et al. (1996) report significant
increases in body temperature before and after transport in halothane

heterozgous and homozygous compared to halothane negative pigs. Lucke et

17

There are three cautions when using body temperature as a measure of
homeostasis. (1) it is important to insert the thermometer to a constant depth
in each animal because a temperature gradient exists in the rectum, (2) core
body temperature fluctuates diurnally, and (3) an understanding of the biology
of the animal is required to identify types of responses shown when trying to
asses welfare using this measure (Broom and Johnson, 1993; Anderson,
1984).

Heart Rate

Increases in heart rate can represent alarm and may be associated with
distress (Baldock and Sibly, 1989). The sympathetic nervous system is
sensitive to arousal and may be activated by handling or emotional stressors
and lead to increases in heart rate (tachycardia) and blood pressure (Broom
and Johnson, 1993; Manser, 1993). Functions of the cardiovascular system
are largely under the control of the adrenal medullary and the autonomic
nervous system with a wide range of stress events being capable of producing
substantial alterations in cardiovascular function (Stephens and Perry, 1990).

“Changes in heart rate and blood pressure occur rapidly and may be
transitory if the stressor is not severe or persistent. (Manser, 1993).
Tachycardia occurs when the level of physical activity of an animal, and hence
its metabolic rate increases” (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Other factors that
influence heart rate include individual characteristics, seasonality, stage of
gestation, and behavior (Merchant et al., 1995,1997). Heart rate varies

according to activity level but also changes when animals are preparing for

18

emergency reaction (Broom, 1987). Resting heart rate is related to body size,
metabolic rate, and autonomic balance characteristics of the species and is
reported to range from 70-120 beats per minute (bpm) in adult swine
(Detweiler, 1984).

Measurement of heart rate gives information about how much the
individual is having to do to cope with the situation (Broom, 1991) provided (1)
distinctions are made between metabolic changes and (2) if it can measured
without causing disturbance to the animal (Broom and Johnson, 1993;
Manser, 1993; Broom 1987).

According Veum et al. (1979) heart rate pre-treatment levels for
homozygous and heterozygous Hampshire pigs was 121.2 and 113.2 bpm’s
respectively. However, in studies completed by Geers et. (1994) Stephens
and Radar (1982), and Stephens and Perry (1990) reported lower resting or
pre-treatment heart rates for pigs 94 :l: 3, 110, and 91 bpm's respectively.
Shouten et al., (1991) showed that pig heart rate will respond to a bell sound
followed by delivery of food. Marchant et al (1997) have demonstrated that
heart rate will rise in response to agonistic interactions. Stephens and Radar
(1982) demonstrated that heart rate will increase in response to simulated
transport. Veum et al., (1979) have demonstrated that heart rate will increase
in response to electrical shock. Warris et al. (1991) demonstrated that pig

heart rate will increase with increasing slope of ramps.

19

1.6.3 Other Physiological Measures of Acute Stress
Catecholamines

Catecholamine is a term to loosely describe biologically active forms of
epinephrine (adrenalin), norepinephrine (noradrenalin) and dopamine which
are synthesized in the brain, sympathetic nerves and ganglia, the adrenal
medulla and chromaffin cells (Martin, 1976). While the entire spectrum of
epinephrine action prepares the animal for sustained physical activity, the
hormone performs much broader functions (Martin, 1976). Specifically,
epinephrine promotes conversion of muscle glycogen to glucose phosphate
and contributes to glucagon stimulation of glycogenolysis and
gluconeogenesis in the liver (Martin, 1976). Epinephrine stimulates the heart,
increases cardiac output and promotes redistribution of blood supply (Martin,
1976). Epinephrine and norepinephrine together stimulate the heart, raise
systolic blood pressure, decrease blood flow through the skin, mucous
membranes and kidneys, increase blood flow through coronary blood vessels
and dilate the bronchioles, elevate body temperature, metabolic rate and
promote lipolysis (Martin, 1976). Dopamine behaves primarily as a
neurotransmitter (Martin, 1976). The release of catecholamines occurs within
1-2 seconds of the perception of the initiating stimulus but their metabolism is
very rapid (Martin, 1976).
Blood Pressure

In humans emotional stress produces the exercise pattern of

cardiovascular changes and includes increased cardiac output and blood

20

pressure accompanied by increased muscle blood flow (Detweiler, 1984).
Blood pressure may be obtained using systolic (SP) diastolic (DP) and mean
pressure (MP according to the following formula: MP = DP+ 1/3 (SP-DP)
(Manser, 1993).

The most reliable method for obtaining blood pressure is an intra—
arterial catheter (Manser, 1993; Detweiler, 1984). However, blood pressure
can be measured indirectly and less invasively by compressing an artery and
placing an inflatable cuff around the extremity. Draw backs of this method
include animal habituation and unreliable results (Manser, 1993; Detweiler,
1984).

Arterial blood pressure is determined by (1) the pumping action of the
heart, (2) the peripheral resistance, (3) the viscosity of blood (4) the quantity of
blood in the arterial system and (5) elasticity of arterial walls (Detweiler, 1984).
Systolic/diastolic blood and mean pressure reported for adult swine at rest are
140/80 (mmHg) and 110 mmHg respectively (Detweiler, 1984). Veum et al.,
(1979) have demonstrated that blood pressure increases in response to
electrical shock. Stephens and Radar (1982) have also demonstrated that
blood pressure will increase in response to simulated transportation.
Respiration

Respiration functions to provide aveolar ventilation, panting, purring and
nasal cycling. It is controlled by the respiratory center of the brainstem
consisting of pneumotaxic center located rostrally in the pons, apneustic

located caudally in the pons, dorsal respiratory group in the dorsal medulla

21

and the ventral respiratory group of the ventral medulla (Reece, 1984).
Respiratory frequency (number of breaths per minute) of 23-27 kg (50.6-59.4
lbs.) pigs under lying conditions ranges from 32-58 cycles per minutes (Reece,
1984).

Changes in respiratory rate can occur during emotional disturbances
without body activity (Mellor and Murray, 1989). However, as with heart rate,
changes in respiration could be a response to a situation perceived by the
individual or it could merely reflect greater activity (Broom and Johnson, 1993).
A unique advantage of using respiration is that it can be assessed by
observation at a distance without disturbing the animal (Broom and Johnson,
1993)

1.7.0 Effects of Acute Stressors on the Pig

Farm environment and management procedures can affect the
behavior of pigs in variety of ways (Hunter et al., 1997). “Acute stress
responses are short-term response and generally do not have long term
detrimental consequences and thus are difficult to interpret in terms of welfare”
(Barnett and Hutson, 1987). Situations that can lead to short term welfare
problems for animals and cause changes in homeostatic physiology and
abnormal behavioral expressions include human intervention by close
approach, handling, certain training methods, transport, stocking density, and
restraint (Stephens and Perry, 1990; Guise and Penny, 1989; Moberg, 1985).
Obvious types of acute stressors reported in the literature include handling

and electric shock, (Hunter et al., 1997 ; Grandin, 1989. 1980; Hemsworth and

22

Barnett, 1991; Stephens and Perry, 1990; Warris et al, 1990; Baldock and
Sibly, 1989; Guise and Penny, 1989; Becker et al., 1985; Veum et al., 1979;
Van Putten and Elshof, 1978) feed and water deprivation (Parrott and Mission,
1989; Houpt et al., 1983) transport (Dalin et al., 1993; McGlone et al., 1993;
Nyberg et al., 1988) and vibration (Stephens and Perry, 1990). However,
other environmental stressors include housing system, heat stress on food
intake, body weight, physiology, and cellular immuno-function. During heat
stress, social stress may also be present (Morrow-Tesch et al., 1994). Hicks
et al. (1998) report that heat, cold, and shipping stressors interact with the
social status of pigs to produce significant changes in behavior and had an
effect on plasma cortisol, globulin, acute phase proteins, body weight and
weight changes. Animals may experience acute or chronic social stress such
as overt aggressive or submissive behavior (Morrow-Tesch et al., 1994).
Agonistic behavior of sows was reported to influence heart rate by Marchant et
al. (1995). According to Bradshaw et al. (1996) mixing pigs with other
unfamiliar pigs results in marked increases in fighting behavior and travel
sickness, plasma cortisol and beta-endorphins. Liptrap and Reaside (1978)
showed that aggression increases plasma cortisol.
1.7.1 Effects of Pig Handling

According to Hails (1978) the most stressful period in a pig’s life is
during loading and unloading. During handling and loading, pigs are exposed
to novel handler behavior and a novel physical environment (Grandin, 1997;

Petchey et al., 1995). According to Hemsworth, (1993) the most important

23

objective during pig handling is to minimize their level of fear of close contact
with humans and unfamiliar objects. In order to do this, Kiley-Worthington
(1990), in writing about circus animals emphasized that
“handling involves understanding the animal’s body language and being
able to control one’s own, so that it does not portray certain emotions
that one might be feeling, for example fear. Good handling must leave
the animal with a pleasurable experience, otherwise the animal will
quickly learn not to be handled.”
Grandin (1997) and Moberg (1985) suggests that an animal’s reaction
[fear?] will be governed by a complex interaction of genetics and previous
experiences. Broom and Johnson (1993) also suggest that an animal’s
reaction to stimulus, such as handling, will also depend on how the stimulus
varies in time (i.e frequency and duration), intensity, (i.e. density and area),
mode (i.e. visual, gustatory emotional, etc.) and degree of novelty (Grandin,
1997; Moberg, 1985). In terms of body regulation, animals show a greater
response to a given stimulus if they cannot predict it, so it is treated as a
novelty (Broom and Johnson, 1993).

Grandin (1989) states that animals remember “more readily” painful or
frightening experiences. Painful and frightening experiences can result from
what Hemsworth (1993) describes as handler actions that are “aversive”.
Aversive actions during handling that increase the pig’s fear of humans include
hits, slaps, and kicks, electric shock (Hemsworth and Barnett, 1991). “If an
unpleasant imposition was made by a human, handling may become more

difficult for the human and more disturbing for the animal which is handled”

(Broom and Johnson, 1993).

24

Gonyou et. al. (1986), Grandin (1988, 1987) and Petchey et al. (1995)
indicated that regular handling of a positive nature resulted in an improvement
in the ease of handling of pigs. Hemsworth, (1993) described some of these
positive actions as pats, strokes and the hand resting on the back of the
animal neck. Notwithstanding the behavior of the handler toward the pig,
“there is some evidence to suggest that knowledgeable handling of pigs will
improve the ease of subsequent handling and improve the welfare of pigs
(Weeding et al., 1993). English (1991) defined the components of
‘stockmanship’ as appropriate knowledge, technical efficiency (skills), good
judgement and observational abilities and the time available to employ these
skills and abilities. In studies completed by Hemsworth et al. (1991, 1986,
1981) and Gonyou et al. (1986), results indicated that aversive handling
treatments (poor stockmanship) resulted in increased levels of fear in humans,
increased corticosteriod levels, and depressed growth rate in young pigs and
reproductive performance in both gilts and young barrows. In a study
completed by Stephens and Radar (1982) they found that handling pigs
doubled heart rate. In a study completed by Robertson (1988) they found a
significant association between knowledge of handling and pig death during
transport. More recently Hunter et al. (1997) noted that pigs that had been
handled adversely prior to the slaughter-house were more difficult to move at
time of slaughter.

Notwithstanding the above remarks, there are variations in behavioral

responses in pigs subjected to unfamiliar handling, driving and attempts to

25

move them up a ramp and on to a vehicle (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Warris
et al. (1990) suggests some of these variations may be due to important
interactions between different handling methods and between handling and
genotype. And according to Grandin (1997) high variability results in
determining physiological stress on farm animals during handling and
transport is likely to be due to great differences in stress levels due to a
number of sources including handler and the environment.
1.7.2 Effects of an Electric Prod

Studies show that electric shock can have physiological effects in
stress-susceptible pigs (Veum et al., 1979). Other studies that indicate the
use of an electric prod can have consequences on behavior and future
interactions with pigs as well as damage to carcass. Hunter et al. (1997) noted
that pigs that were easy to move [at the slaughter-house] were not subjected
to harsh handling and electric prods. According to Hemsworth and Barnett,
(1991) pigs subject to brief shocking were more fearful of humans upon close
approach. In a study completed by Geverink and Lambooy (1994) of five
Dutch slaughter-houses they found that rough handling (electric prod) resulted
in severe skin damage of pigs at one slaughter-house. However, in a study
completed by Guise and Penny (1989) the use of an electric prod had no
effect on pH of the longissimus dorsi muscle value in pigs slaughtered
although they found a significant interaction between skin blemishes, stocking
density and use of an electric prod. However, according to Petchey et al.

(1995) transport increases sexual and aggressive behaviors though the

26

previous results may be confounded with transport effects. In a study by Van
Putten and Elshof (1978) they found electric prod produced an additive effect
of heart rate with reactions progressively stronger with successive prod
application
1.7.3 Effects of the Physical Environmental

Grandin (1997) writes that pigs respond strongly to novel things, and
that during handling and loading, pigs are exposed to a host of novelties in
their environment. Broom and Johnson (1993) note that the novelty of the
stimulus will enhance the impact of a stimulus on an animal. According to
Hunter et al. (1997) it is possible to manipulate the rearing, finishing and
loading environment so that pigs do not react adversely to novelty and likely
be subject to harsh handling during transport and lairage. Novelties in the
physical environment that can cause pigs to balk or turn around or become
excited include shadows, created by uneven light distributions, extremely
bright focused light sources, new or fresh bedding, reflections due to shiny
surfaces, bright colors, moving or flapping objects, loud noises, and odors
(Grandin, 1980, 1988,1989, 1990, 1991). Van Putten and Elshof (1978) found
marked behavior differences of pigs entering unfamiliar light and darkly
tunnels.

Pigs have color vision (Klopfer et al., 1964). Therefore, Grandin’s
(1989) suggestion of painting handling and loading facilities a uniform color
may result in decreasing the pig’s response to novel bright, uneven reflective

surfaces that may cause pigs to balk during handling and loading. Other

27

novelties common in the swine industry that pigs may encounter for the first
time include electric livestock prods and loading ramps (Grandin, 1980, 1989,
1990, 1991; Warris et al.,1991; Hemsworth and Barnett, 1990; Guise and
Penny, 1989; Hails, 1978;)
1.7.4 Effects of Ramp Design

During the assembly phase, pigs are typically sorted from pens and
moved into an alleyway or sorting pen that precedes the loading ramp. There
is some evidence to suggest that pigs may be easily moved through wider
alleys than narrower ones. Warris et al. (1991) suggested that races [alleys]
of 120 cm (48 inches) over 45 cm (18 inches) greatly facilitated the movement
of pigs. Many single file ramps are designed to grow narrower as they
approach a plateau, acting as a squeeze chute as the pig steps into the
doonlvay of the trailer. However, Grandin (1989) noted a significant decrease
in ascent time on the loading ramp where pigs could file up the ramp side by
side, separated only by a railing in which pigs could easily see one another.
Van Putten and Elshof (1978) in a study designed to look at pigs moving
through passages, observed that under difficult situations pigs like to stay
together and that they prefer bodily contact and visual contact during loading.

Studies have also shown that pig loading is more easily facilitated with
ramp angles less than 25 degrees (Petchey et al., 1995). According to Van
Putten and Elshof (1978), loading bridges [ramps] caused the most heart rate
stress and was directly correlated with slope of the ramp. In their study loading

ramps of 15 or 20 degrees makes loading much easier for inexperienced pigs.

28

Grandin (1997) recommends ramp angles of less than 20 degrees.
Conversely, in similar studies, Warris et al. (1991) concluded that there was no
difference in pig ascent time between 0 and 20 degrees. According to
Petchey et al. (1995) non-slip flooring facilitates pig movement. Warris et al.
(1991) found that there is a significant interaction between slope and cleat
space on a loading ramp designed for pigs. Pigs were able to climb a 35
degree inclined ramp almost as well as the 20 degree ramp with narrow cleat
spacing, resulting in an increase ascent time of only 13 %. They found that
doubling the cleat spacing from 150 mm (5.9 inches) to 300 mm (11.8 inches)
resulted in an increase ascent of the ramp by 57 %. However, Phillips et al.
(1988) found that young pigs 7-8 weeks of age preferred cleat spacing of 50-
100 mm as opposed to 200-300 mm.

Warris et al. (1991) found that solid ramp floors were preferable to see
through or mesh floors while Grandin’s (1989) work revealed that loading was
facilitated with solid walls as opposed to rails or slats that did not restrict sight
distance. Phillips et al. (1988) found that young pigs preferred solid or open
sides on a ramp to partially enclosed rail ramps. Pig’s have a wide angle of
vision (Grandin, 1987), and this would suggest that restricting sight distance,
both walls and flooring would have a significant effect on loading pigs.

There are alternatives to using stationary inclined loading ramps.
Hydraulic lifts and lifting decks, though physiologically most humane, are more
costly and add to the already increasing costs of swine facilities (Petchey et

al., 1995). Understanding how pigs respond to physical environments and to

29

handlers will result in the following benefits; 1) improved meat quality,
timeliness, health and safety of personnel, and improved pig welfare (Petchey
et al., 1995).

1.8.0 Interaction of Behavioral and Physiological Responses to stimuli

The ability to respond behaviorally to a stressor can affect the level of
physiological response (Manser, 1993). Hormonal control systems are subject
to nervous influences, just as nervous control systems are affected by
hormones. These two components of the response of an animal to its
environment can be viewed as elements of a combined control system that
determines an animal physiology and behavior (Broom and Johnson, 1993).

“Animals use behavior and physiology methods in an attempt to cope
with difficult conditions therefore, their measurement can allow identification of
how good or poor their welfare is” (Broom, 1987). Determining when the
animal is unable to cope, therefore, requires a discriminating use of behavioral
and physiological indicators. There are considerable ranges that compound
the problem. Not only do neuro-endocrinological, but, also the behavioral, and
immunological responses to noxious stimuli extend across considerable
ranges (Broom and Johnson, 1993)

In any discussion on the behavior of animals in relation to stress, it is
important to indicate the level (intensity) of the stress response against which
the behavior is being assessed (Ewbank, 1985). To show a clear relationship
between stress and behavior four criteria must be fulfilled. First, stressor (5)

must be identified and ideally quantified. Second, physiological responses

30

such as epinephrine, norepinephrine or cortisol, must be quantified and ideally
correlated with the stressor level and the degree of change in behavior. Third
behavior change must be obvious, and, fourth, damage to the physical and or
psychological well-being of the animal must be demonstrated (Ewbank,
1985).

In conclusion Barnett and Hutson, (1987) states “there is an erroneous
tendency to treat any acute stress response as evidence of suffering and
reduced welfare. They continue with some principles to keep in mind when
using both physiological and behavioral measures in determining stress
responses. First they ask how much change in a physiological parameter
indicates reduced welfare? And second, they warn that the sampling methods
themselves may reduce the welfare of the animal. Lastly, they ask at what
level of change in behavior, such as stereotypies, Ieamed helplessness,
vocalizations, reduced exploratory behavior, is welfare at risk? (Barnett and

Hutson, 1987).

31

Chapter 2
Project I: The Collection Point Study

2.0.0 Introduction

The design of a loading facility can be critical to efficient handling and
moving of pigs from pens to a livestock truck (see pages 24-27). It is well
known that pigs can become excited and agitated during loading, resulting in
potential injury to the handler and pig. Poor loading facility design can create
animal movement awkwardness during loading, sometimes requiring the
handler to use extreme measures of force to load pigs in an efficient manner.
Loading facility design is commanding more attention industry wide as
marketing venues change in favor of direct sale which may require producers
to shore up handling and transportation protocols to accommodate rigid
premium standards in the pork industry (Marbery, 1992).

A pilot study was initiated with the cooperation of Michigan Livestock
Exchange” (MLE°) to determine the type and use of handling and loading
facilities in Michigan’s pig industry. It was believed that a representative
sample of handling and loading facilities in Michigan could be observed by
surveying MLEQ’s collection sites. This information could then be used to
design an experimental loading system to identify how pigs negotiate and
respond physiologically and behaviorally to differences in ramp design.

2.1.0 Methods and Materials

A survey to gather specific data on swine loading facilities was
designed. Several drafts were made of the Michigan Livestock Exchange”
Collection Point Survey (SURVEY) and reviewed by selected faculty of the

32

Animal Science Department and staff from MLE° for relevance and
completeness.
2.1 .1 Development of Survey

The SURVEY, (see Appendix A) was drafted into five sections
including: (1) collection point identification and pig flow information, (2) holding
area, (3) loading area and ramp specifications, (4) shipping, and (5) additional
loading ramps. Section one was designed to get general information on pig
flow and type of pig coming through each facility. Section two was designed to
gather information on how pigs are housed while at the facility including type
and size of pen, and feed and water allocation. Section three was designed to
gather specific information on the primary load out dock including; ramp
construction, type and material, length, width, height, and flooring. mpg
fo_ur was designed to observe shipping protocols each facility uses in order to
ship pigs from collection point to processor. Section five was adapted to
accommodate additional loading ramps periodically used by each facility
during peak pig flow.

In addition to the survey completed, photos2 and video3 were taken of
handling and loading facilities, and actual loading of pigs onto a semi-truck
trailer. Photos were taken for comparative-study purposes in future analysis.
Video was taken in order to compare pig behavioral response in the ‘loading
chute’ and would be used for the future design of the experimental loading

ramp. \fideo was taken at the discretion of each branch manager. Each

 

2 35 millimeter camera with a flash utilizing 200 and 400 ISO film

33

video was coded and dated for future analysis of pig loading from each
collection point. Following completion of video analysis, all video tapes were
returned to management staff of Michigan Livestock Exchange”.
2.1.2 Ramp Measurements

All loading ramps were measured using a standard tape measure.
Loading ramp angles were calculated according to the following formula: Sin 0
= Opposite (height at front edge of ramp in feet) divided by hypotenuse (length
of ramp floor in feet). Each ramp was measured along the hypotenuse (ramp
floor) and opposite angle (front edge of ramp) and recorded. Figure 2.1
illustrates the method for obtaining the necessary measurement to calculate
the angle of loading ramps in the field. All other measurements such as height
of walls, etc. were measured using the same measuring device using “top to

bottom” and “bottom to top” methods as necessary.

 

 

Hypotenuse (ramp floor) Opposite angle
, (front edge of ramp)
‘—
9 ‘ Angle determined

 

 

Figure 2.1 Method used to determine angle of ramp

2.1.3 Video Taping
The opportunity to videotape pigs being loaded onto to a truck occurred

at eight of MLE‘D collection sites. All video taken at the collection sites was

 

3 JVC Super-VHS camera with light adapter and 2 hour SVHS tapes

34

reviewed for content following the completion of collection point survey visits.
After contents of videos were reviewed, a video analysis worksheet was
drafted (Appendix B). Each identical worksheet contained four decoding
categories: (1) number of pigs loaded, (2) number of groups observed, (3) time
taken to load pigs and (4) number of people loading. lnforrnation on
individual pig behavioral responses during loading was not gathered.

The number of pigs in each group loaded was determined by video
observation (counting them as they passed through viewing area) or by asking
the handler how many pigs were loaded in the group. The number of groups
of pigs loaded was determined by handler entering and exiting the semi truck.
Beginning handling time was established by either audio or visual closing of
the gate posterior to the loading ramp. Handling time completion was
established when the last pig in the group was maneuvered through the semi
truck gate. The number of people loading pigs was established by counting
persons helping the handler in the sorting pens, the number of people carrying
a whip or prod and the number of persons on the loading ramp or entering the
semi-truck.

2.1.4 Changes to Survey

Some questions were removed from the survey and analysis due to the
lack of relevance to the primary objective. In section one the question “what
percentage of your pigs handled at this facility are “farm fresh”. In section two,
“size of holding pens, construction type, and comments”. In section three the

question, “on average which way does the wind blow”, was removed from the

35

analysis of survey. There were no questions removed in section four or
section five and all information was gathered on loading docks. However, only
the primary loading dock was considered relevant for the survey analysis and
is reported here.

2.2.0 Results of the Study

Ten of Michigan Livestock Exchange® collection points were surveyed.
Nine of the collection points were in Michigan and the tenth in Ohio. Figures
2.2 and 2.3 are representative docks that were surveyed in the field.

Table 2.1 provides specific results on the primary docks surveyed. Nine
out of the ten primary docks surveyed were movable type docks. A movable
dock in this case indicates that the floor of the ramp is adjustable to load
trailers with more than one tier. It also indicates that the angle (elevation) of
the ramp changes according to the height of the tier. No movable ramps were

observed in the inclined position.

 

Figure 2.2 A narrow loading ramp

36

 

 

 

Figure 2.3 Narrow (left) and wlde (right) loading ramps

The base or frame material consisted of one of three types of material:
wood, cement and metal. The height at the ramp front edge was consistently
1.2 meters high (4 ft), which corresponds to standardized livestock trailers
that haul from 100-200 head of livestock. Dock width ranged from 0.6 meters
(2 ft.) to just over 2.5 meters (8.5 ft). Estimated angles of ramps ranged from
0 to 23.5 degrees. Ramp floors varied over three types of material, cement,
wood, and metal while floor design varied from a stair [cleat] type design to
grooves in the case of cement flooring.

The material of the walls or sides of the ramps were wood except for

one, which was metal and all but two ramps had solid type walls.

37

2.2.1 Video analysis

Video taken at each collection point allowed for more detailed analysis.
Table 2.2 reveals the differences in pig handling over eight of ten collection
points surveyed. The number of people observed to load pigs ranged from
one to three persons. The minimum time taken to load pigs with one person
was 23 seconds. The maximum time taken to load pigs with one person was
6 minutes and 25 seconds. The time taken to load pigs with three people
ranged from 25 seconds to 4 minutes and 19 seconds. All pigs loaded were
observed to be handled with a whip or a prod, or both.
2.3.0 Discussion of Project I

Our initial objective in fishing MLE® collection sites was to gather
information on loading ramp design and, more importantly, how pigs respond
to differences in ramp design. Differences were observed in loading systems
with respect to ramp width and angle. Differences in ramp width may reflect
the need to utilize ramps for several species of animals. These differences
can have an effect on pig behavior and physiology (see pages 24-26). These
differences however, are confounded with the problems of precisely
measuring the angles of the ramps. The problems associated with
determining ramp angle were. (1) ramps were not consistent in construction,
(2) opposite side (front edge) did not always sit at the same leVel with floor of
building where ramp was located, and (3) in some cases it was a step or a
hump in the middle of the ramp. An alternative method that should have been

employed for measuring the slope of ramps in the field was the protractor and

38

0006.000 :0 0. 06:0 0000.30.00

 

 

 

5:059:00 808000005 0 0. 0.000 0.5 00.... 09006:. n
. 0.000 00>. 0.00>0E-:o:v 5.05.0000 0 09006:. 0
:05 :05, ...Sw :05 :05 0060.0 ...05 :05 0060.5 :06 :9000
000>> .0005. 000.5 noo>> 000>> E0800 .000>> .000>> EOE00 .90.). .00: 0.000
0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 .E. 20.0..
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0000.0 0000.0 2.00 2.00 2.00 00.000
000.5 .0005. 000.5 000.5 000.5 000.5 000.5 000.5 000.5 000.5 0020
0.05 0.05 0 0 0.00 0. 5 5 05 0.0 05 0. : .205.
0.0 0.05 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 5.0 .5. 5000..
00.0 0. 5 00.0 05.0 00.0 05. 5 00.0 00.0 05.0 0.0 .E. 52.5
0.5 0. 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.. 0.5 0:. 5.0.0:
Doo>> RES— Uoo; Doo>> UOO>> EmEmO UOO>> Doo>> n #5800 _m_._m~mE mmmm
0.0.06.2 0 0.0065. 0306.2 0306.2 0 0.006.). 0.006.). 0.006.). 0.006.). 2000 metn.
0. .200
030 I000 I00 I500 I000 I000 I000 I000 .0...|0 IE0 00000.00

 

 

00:03 EEOQ 5:00:00 or 00 :9002 9:0. .0 0:300. >35an ...0 0.20...

39

0508.500 :0 c. 0.090.

005.000. 0500 oz
:90. 000.> oz

 

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00:05.:0

.255 .255 .255 0 0 20.5 .255 .255 .2505 .2505 5005050.).
0 0

5005355... 00:0.

005-005 050-000 000-000 0 0 000-500 550-000 050-000 000-000 000-000 0.2. 02000.

0 00-0 0 5-05 0 0 0 5-05 00-05 50-5 00-0 00-5 5 00000. 00.0

0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000.0 .0 .02

090 @5000.

0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0.0000 50 .02

0.05 0.05 0 0 0.00 0. 55 05 0.0 05 0. 55 .5... .2090

00.0 0.5 00.0 05.0 00.0 05.5 00.0 00.0 05.0 0.0 0... 5.52.5
m w

0. 50.00

.0l5 0.0. .0I0_.- 0 0.. N00 .0.00. _0__-0 . 0_ 00. .0...- - 0 00 _5_ 00 00:00.00

00:03 050.00 00:00:00 0 00 0005.00.20 9:05.05. 90 00 05.300. >.0EE3m «.0 0.00...

40

a plumb bob method (Doanes, 1981). This may have more precisely identified
the slope in at least 8 of the primary ramps in the field.

Video taken at each collection point allowed for more detailed analysis.
However, upon complete review of all video, it was realized that a
representative sample was not achieved. Statistical analysis was not
performed on any man or pig behavioral results for the following reasons. First,
limitations in the use of one camera (sight and sound) did not provide for more
accurate decoding of man or pig behaviors. Second, a representative sample
was not obtained for a complete an unbiased analysis.

2.4.0 Conclusion

Overall, ramp systems observed in this study were very different
with respect to ramp width and angle. In this survey there were considerable
differences in handling reported for one to three people loading pigs. This may
suggest that the handler may influence pig response during loading greater
than ramp design. Difficulties were encountered in (1) precisely measuring
ramp angle (2) compiling a representative sample of pig loading across different
loading systems and (3) video taping the sensitive nature of pig handling in view
of the public concern over animal welfare. However, this study did provide (1)
the basis make preliminary observations of pig behavior response patterns in
the ‘loading chute’ and (2) define behavioral patterns and aid the development

of the experimental design for Project II.

41

Loading facility design industry wide will necessitate more research into
the implications it will have on stress of the pig and the resulting welfare, and

overall meat quality due to behavioral and physiological changes.

42

Chapter 3
Project II: Pig Response to Two Methods of Handling: Some
Behavioral and Physiological Observations‘

3.0.0 Introduction

The physiological and behavioral responses that a pig undergoes during
loading and pre-slaughter handling are complex and not yet easily identifiable.
Measures of injury, pathology and immunological defenses are relatively
precise indicators of poor welfare (Broom and Johnson, 1993). However, it is
more difficult to assess stress or ‘poor welfare’ under short-term or ‘acute’
adverse conditions such as handling with an electric prod, loading up a steep
ramp, and transport in a trailer that vibrates or is not well bedded. The one
consideration that may play a role in improving pig welfare on the way to
slaughter are the causal factors that result in poor meat quality including
bruising, pale, soft and exudative (PSE) and dark firm and dry (DFD) that may
result from pre-slaughter handling. The following experiment was undertaken to
explore the possible relationship between pre-slaughter handling and loading
and indicators of pig welfare.

This study used salivary cortisol, heart rate, and body temperature along
with behavioral observation to determine the physiological and behavioral

consequences that result when pigs are subjected to two different handling

methods.

 

‘ This study is one part of a two-part study which is n_ot presented here. Some
methods presented here reflect the other project needs.

43

3.1-0 Treatment Use and Identification

A total of two treatments were used for the handling and loading study. A
treatment group consisted of three pigs. Pigs received one of two handling
approaches; either method 1 (hurdle) or method 2 (prod). The treatments were
designed in a nested split plot with each treatment replicated eight times over a
four-week period.

3.1.1 Description of Handling Methods
Handling Method 1 Hurdle (n=24)

On treatment days (Tuesday or Thursday) the handler, using a hurdle5
moved three pigs out of their home pen, into the alley-way, through the access
area, down the ally-way, onto the trailers, and secured them into either pen D or
E7. The handler was instructed to use only hands, hurdle, and vocalization to
complete loading. Figure 3.1 illustrates the route pigs traveled during this
handling method.

Handling Method 2 Prod (n=24)

On treatment days the handler moved three pigs out of their home pen
and into the access area using a hurdle. When all pigs were in this area and
the handler ready, treatment application began using a livestock prod“. The
electric prod (shock) was applied in thirty-second intervals on one of six

designated points on the pig during a three-minute period. Figure 3.2 shows

 

5 A 2 ‘/2 ft x 3 1/2 foot board made of wood

6 Hart Featherweight Livestock trailers

7 Each compartment of the trailer measured 5.3 m2 and maintained a stocking
density throughout monitoring period of 1.77m2 per pig

8 Sabre-Six, 5, 000 volts, 15 mA, Hot-Shot Products Co. Inc., Savage
Minnesota

44

0.000 05 550.0 50: 0.390.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

0530. 9:05... 90 .50 0.50E0:0m ".503 00 k 5.0 0.39....
5 .0200
m <
0:00 E0:
_
0.0 0 .020500 I . I . I
m "a mama .00...-l...-...OOOOIODOOOIIOIOO0.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOK
— III||I_I_ 0. K
\ e
5 . .-
0050:.E.0._. 5.20:0: u 5.30.50
3.03 05.05.01 "5.050 Irv + "
0:0... 0.0050024 u

 

 

00.50. 00.

5000.

 

 

 

45

 

Figure 3.2 Designated prod points on the pig

five of the six designated points on the pig where the handler was designated to
make a 'contact’. In addition to these. two points, one on each rear hind leg
(hock), was designated as a contact spot. Each prod consisted of a ‘contact’
between the prod probe and the skin of the pig. Throughout the three-minute
period each designated point received a ‘contact'. The standard three minutes of
prod application was used prior to any pigs being loaded in this treatment. When
three minutes elapsed, the handler was instructed to continue loading the pigs
down the alleyway and onto the trailer where the pigs were secured into pen D or
E. After the three-minute treatment application, the handler was instmcted to use
as much time as needed to load the pigs. Figure 3.1 illustrate the handling route.

All handling times, including the three-minute prod application. was
monitored and recorded by a project staff person. Thirty-second intervals were

indicated to the handler by vocalization. Handling began when the handler closed

46

 

indicated to the handler by vocalization. Handling began when the handler
closed the gate to the access pen. Handling time ended and was marked when
the treatment group was secured onto the trailer in pen D or E and when the
gate closed. Pigs in both handling treatments were left on the trailer for 15
minutes in order to complete behavior and physiology sampling.
3.2.0 Methods and Materials
3.2-1 Pig Housing and Environmental Conditions

All pigs were housed in the Michigan State University Grow/Finish
Facility. Pigs were penned in two treatment pens. Pen A measured 8.8 m2 and
Pen B measured 7.56 m2. Pigs were initially grouped according‘to the following
stocking density: 6 pigs per pen with the exception of group E handling level 2
(prod), pen A, which had only five pigs due to the lack of additional pen-mates.
Pen A stocking density with six pigs per pen was 1.47 m2 per pig. At five pigs
per pen the stocking density equaled 1.76 m2 per pig. Pen B stocking density at
six pigs per pen equaled 1.2 m2 per pig. Stocking density was within
specifications used for this age of pig housed on partial or full slatted floors
(PIH, 1987). Pigs were allowed ad libitum access to a standard grow/finish
ration and access to water. Environmental temperatures were recorded for
both Control day and Treatment day sampling and are summarized in tables 3.1

and 3.2.

47

Table 3.1 Summary of environmental temperatures during control day

 

 

 

 

 

sampling
Sampling period TM-1 TM-2 TM-3
Mean (0’) 20.5 19.9 19.6
Range (0°) 16.3-23.7 16.3-21.0 16.3-21.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2 Summary of environmental temperatures during treatment
day sampling

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling period TM-1 TM-2 TM-3
Mean (0°) 20.4 7.8 8.5
Range (c0) 18.6-22.6 27-159 42-159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.2 Pig Selection and Use

A total of forty-eight (48) pigs were used in the pig handling and loading
study. Pigs were selected, pair-matched, and allocated to treatment groups (B
to |) weekly based on: (1) genotype, (2) sex, (3) weight (4) pen-mate availability,
and (5) littermate avoidance. The table 3.3 is a synopsis of pigs allocated to

treatment groups (handling levels) used in control and treatment periods.

48

The genotype of the pigs used in this experiment consisted of purebred
York, York-Landraoe cross, and Newsham stockg. All groups were evenly

divided between gilts and barrows. Pigs were selected from growing and

 

 

finishing pigs
Table 3.3 Pig group composition and treatment allocation1o
Group Sex Genotype Weight (kg) Handling
Method

Group B Gilts 3 Newsham 89.5 - 92.3 1 Hurdle
3 Newsham 97.3 - 123.6 2 Prod

Group C Gilts 3 Newsham 1036-1264 1 Hurdle
2 Newsham 1027-1259 2 Prod
1 York-Landrace

Group D Barrows 3 York 909-1209 1 Hurdle
2 York-Landrace 1045-1359 2 Prod
1 York

Group E Barrows 2 Newsham 106.8-122.3 1 Hurdle
1 York-Landraoe
2 Newsham 106.4-123.2 2 Prod
1 York-Landraoe

Group F Barrows 3 Newsham 120.0-145.0 1 Hurdle
3 Newsham 120.4—134.5 2 Prod

Group G Gilts 3 York 1182-1236 1 Hurdle
2 Newsham 1055.4—115.9 2 Prod
1 Newsham

Group H Gilts 3 York 1036-1173 1 Hurdle
2 York 121 .4-127.7 2 Prod
1 York-Landraoe

Group I Barrows 3 York‘=1 102.3—116.4 1 Hurdle
3 York“ 1245-1355 2 Prod

 

 

a. Pigs in group were littermates

 

9 Pigs used in the experiment were from the Michigan State University Swine
Teaching and Research Facility.
1° Group A was a “trial-run” group and is not included in any comparison data.

49

available from the MSU Swine farm with weights ranging 90 to 145 kilograms.
All pigs selected from available pigs were grouped with pen-mates. Littermates
were avoided in groups B through H. In group I, pigs in each handling group
were littermates. Each Thursday, pigs for both treatments were visually
identified and moved into the Grow/Finish barn. At this time the pigs were
weighed, marked with an easily identifiable number on the back and sides using
a non-toxic, non-permanent grease paint stick11 for video analysis. Pigs were
also measured for backfat using ultra-sound” and moved into treatment pens
home pens13 (see figure3.1).
3.2.3 Pig Training and Acclimation Period

Pigs were allowed one day to acclimate to the grow/finish barn before
they were subjected to “pig training”. The training of pigs included acclimation to
a simulated heart rate monitor strap, saliva collection procedure and body
temperature sampling. Pig training was necessary due to the novelty of the
procedures used and to deter any confounding effects these procedures could
have on treatment effects (Broom and Johnson, 1993; Manser, 1993). Each
treatment group (3 pigs per group) encountered a minimum of two training days

prior to treatment day. Pig training time varied between treatment groups with

 

1' Markel LA-Co Industries Inc 1201 Pratt Blvd. Elk Grove \fillage Ill. 60007

‘2 Pie Medical Scanner 200 VET with ASP-18 probe. Pie Medical Equipment
B.V Phillipsweg, 6227 AJ Maastrict, The Netherlands. Marketed in the USA by
Classic Medical Supply Inc. 19900 Mona Rd, Suite 105 Tequesta, Fl, 33469.

‘3 Backfat measurements were taken for a different part of this study and are
not utilized in this study

50

each group receiving a minimum of one half-hour sampling each ‘training’ day.
Pig training occurred on Friday and Saturday of each week.
Pig Training Sampling

Simulated heart rate monitoring straps were made out of duct tape and
insulated wire. ‘Straps' were placed around the thorax of the pig immediately
caudal to the forelimbs of the pig and a belt with snaps was latched to it. The
straps were tightened and left on the pig throughout the duration of the ‘training’
period.

Pig saliva was collected using 7.5 cm (3") cotton swabs“. Three to five
swabs were inserted into the mouth of the pig, chewed on by the pig, removed,
and then discarded. Each pig was sampled twice during each training period.

Pigs were monitored for body temperature using an over-the-counter
digital oral/rectal thermometer”. The method of sampling is as follows: the tip of
the thermometer was lubricated and gently inserted into the anus of the pig. A
temperature reading was indicated when the thermometer beeped or
discontinued flashing (approximately one minute after insertion). No readings
were recorded during “pig training”.

3.2.4 Control and Treatment Day Sampling.

All pigs (n=48) were subject to physiological and behavioral monitoring
for two days. Sunday and Wednesday were designated as a control days.
Tuesday and Thursday were designated as treatment days. All variables (hear

rate, cortisol, body temperature and behavior) were measured identically in

 

1‘ Q-tip®, Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co. 33 Benedict Place, Greenwhich, CT
06830, USA

51

groups C through I. Group B was not monitored for behavior due to an error in
video monitoring.
Sample Collectors

Over the entire experiment a total of four different staff persons were
used to collect samples. All sample collectors were familiarized with the
sampling procedure before actual data collection was begun.

3.2.5 Samples Collected: Physiological and Behavioral
Measurements

Heart rate and behavior were monitored continuously through the
experiment. Salivary cortisol and body temperatures were collected according

to the following time line in table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Sample collection schedule

 

 

Pre-Handling Handling Post-Handling
TM-1 TM-2 TM-3
Sample 1 2 - 3

 

 

All samples for pigs on control and treatment days were collected
between 6:45 am. and 8:00 am. in the morning. Each pig was sampled three
times on each of the control and treatment days for a total of six samples for

each measurement collected. Sample 1 corresponds to ‘Pre-Handling’ and

 

‘5 B-D, Becton-Dickinson Consumers Products, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417-1883

52

 

indicates that a pre-treatment sample was collected before handling treatments
were applied. Sample 2 conesponds to 'Handling’ and reflects the time interval
in which pigs were subjected to one of the two handling treatments. Sample 3
corresponds to ‘Post-Handling’ and reflects the fifteen-minute interval following
the completion of handing in which the third and final sample of each
measurement was taken.
Body Temperature

Pig body temperature was taken according the sampling time line. Body
temperature was monitored using the process already described in the ‘pig
training' section (see page 50-51). The readings were recorded onto a
worksheet by project staff taking samples.

Figure 3.3 shows the method by which body temperature was monitored.

 

Figure 3.3 Monitoring body temperature

53

Salivary Cortisol

Pig saliva was collected using eight-inch cotton swabs‘. Fresh pig
saliva was collected in the following manner: a small group (3-4) cotton swabs
were gently inserted into the pigs mouth and chewed on for approximately
twenty to thirty seconds and then dismrded. The Scoppette Jr”. was then
inserted into the pigs mouth, chewed on, depositing fresh saliva on the bud.
Figure 3.4 shows the method in which saliva was collected from each pig using

the Scoppette Jr”.

 

Figure 3.4 Saliva collection using the Scoppette Jr.

 

1 Scoppette Jr®, # 34-7021-12, Birchwood Laboratories, Eden Praire,
Minnesota

54

Following collection, buds were placed in 15 ml conical centrifuge tubes,
capped and placed on dry ice in a styrofoam ice chest. Following completion of
control or treatment day sampling and monitoring, samples were then frozen at
-20 degrees Celsius until assayed. Salivary cortisol samples were analyzed
using the Radio lmmuno Assay (RIA) Coat-A-Count Cortisol kit17 following
specific instructions for determinations in saliva. Cortisol samples were thawed
according to treatment groups (sixty-six samples) at a time. After thawing, buds
were removed, a 5 cc. syringe (minus plunger) was placed into each conical
tube, and buds replaced so saliva could be extracted from the cotton bud.
Samples were then centrifuged at 4 degrees centigrade for 5 minutes at 1548 x
9 force. Immediately following centrifugation, cotton buds were removed from
sample tubes to prevent re-absorption of saliva into cotton bud. One milliliter
of saliva was then aliquoted to 1.5ml eppendorf tubes and frozen until the RIA
for cortisol could performed. On the day the RIA was performed the samples
were centrifuged again and 200 micro-liters was aliquoted to coat-a-count tubes
in duplicate. Four plain (uncoated) 12x75mm polypropylene tubes were labeled
with total counts (TC) and non-specific binding (NSB) in duplicate. The cortisol
antibody coated tubes were labeled in duplicate with standards A-F and sample
numbers. 25 microliters of standard A was pipetted into N38 and A tubes.
Each standard and saliva sample was pipetted (200 ul) into its appropriate tube.
One milliliter of [125 '] cortisol was added to each tube and vortexed. The

samples were incubated at room temperature for three hours, decanted, and

 

‘7 Diagnostic Products Corporation 5700 West 96th Street, Los Angeles, Ca
90045-5597

55

counted using a Mark IV Gamma counter® for 1 minute. Standard curves were
calculated and used to determine cortisol concentrations from saliva samples.
The intra assay average percent coefficient of variations was 6.95.
Heart Rate Monitoring

Pig heart rate was monitored continuously during control and treatment
days. Heart Rate was measured using the Polar Vantage NV Heart Rate
Monitor18 consisting of a receiver (watch) and a belt (transmitter). The receiver
has a memory function and stores data from the transmitter, averaging heart
rate over five, fifteen or sixty seconds intervals. In this experiment, the interval
was set at five-second intervals for maximum detail, which gave a total memory
capacity of 11 hours. Heart rate monitors were adapted to pigs in the following
manner: the receiver (watch) was protected by being inserted into flexible
(durable) clear PVC tubing approximately 12.5 cm in length and 4.50 cm in
diameter with holes for crimping ends once watch was activated and inserted
into tubing. Insulated electric wire was laced through each end of the
transmitter strap and looped at the end. A heavy elastic band with adjustable
straps with snaps on both ends was latched to the wire loop. The PVC tubing
with the receiver was laced onto the strap and activated. The adapted
transmitter and receiver were placed on the pig in a manner described by
Marchant et al. (1995, 1997). Figure 3.5 shows the manner in which heart rate

monitors were placed on each pig. The transmitter was fitted around the

 

‘3 Polar Electro Inc., 99 Seaview Boulevard, Port Washington, NY 11050,
U.S.A.

56

thorax of the pig, immediately caudal to the forelimbs. K-Y® jelly19 was
substituted for electro-cardiogram gel and was applied to pig and the electrodes
of the transmitter to ensure continuous transmission. Each end was duct-taped
so that pigs could not easily manipulate or destroy snaps or wire. Each receiver
was tested for proper functioning, set according to video monitor time, and
occasionally rechecked during sampling. Each monitor was strapped onto pigs
prior to the first sampling (pre-handling) of the treatment. Following the end of
each treatment, heart rate monitors were removed from the pigs, turned off and
information recorded down loaded into the computer using the Polar Advantage
Interface System20. Data for the appropriate time period was averaged to a
single number. Averages for time ‘pre-handling’ were calculated using a ten-
minute period just prior to “6:55 am". Averages for ‘handling’ varied from group

to group.

 

‘9 Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corp. Rariton, NJ 08869
2° Polar Electro Oy, Professorintie 5, 90440 Kempele Finland

57

 

Figure 3.5 Heart rate monitor adapted to a pig

Averages were determined using the recorded handling time for each group.
Handling times were matched against heart rate data print outs and averaged
based on handle time. Averages for 'post-handling’ were calculated beginning
four minutes after the completion of handling and averaged over a ten-minute
period.
3.2.6 Behavioral Observation

Pig behavior was continuously monitored by a closed circuit monitoring
system° and a hand held mini-cam7. The handling of pigs was recorded using
the hand held min-cam with sound capability. A designated camera-person
was instructed to follow both the pigs and handler to the best of their ability

through handling treatment. Once pigs were on the trailer behavior

 

6 Pansonic Time lapse video recorder, 2-AG-6730P, 4-Pansonic CCTV
Cameras WV-BP310 and 1-Pansonic Quad Unit WJ-410
7 JVC SVHS camera with light adapter

58

monitoring continued with the use of the closed circuit monitoring system.23
One (1) 4.5 mm black and white camera was mounted in the corner of each of
the pens (D and E) on the trailer. A video recorder and monitor were placed in
the fonlvard compartment of the trailer.
Video decoding

Video from the closed monitoring system and the mini camera were
decoded using the Observer software“. All cassettes were reviewed for
content prior to decoding. Behavioral codes for control and treatment day;
handling and post handling were developed based on initial review of video.
Control Day Behavior

Control day pig behavior was monitored using two cameras placed in
front of pens A and B. Video was taped at 12 frames per second allowing for
total recording time of six hours. Sound was not recorded due to the difficulty of
adapting a microphone to the monitoring system. Following completion of
sampling the video-tape was removed from recorder, labeled and modified to
prevent accidental “tape ovef' of results. \fideos were checked to insure proper
recording but were not viewed for content until all treatment groups had been
completed.

All video-tape and behavior patterns was coded by a single project staff
member. Following initial review of video, behaviors and their definitions were

established. Pigs in control data were observed and decoded in treatment

 

23 The recording system does have sound capability but due to difficulties in
finding a suitable adapter, noise and vibration of the trailer it was decided that
the sampler could write down any vocal responses.

2‘ Noldus Technology Systems

59

groups consisting of three pigs and observed for three periods of ten minutes
equal to 600 seconds. Time period “pre-handing” behavior was coded for
beginning from 6:45 am to 6:55 am. Time period ‘handling’ was established by
project staff from treatment day equivalents and was identified from worksheets
used on treatment days. Time period ‘post-handling’ was established fifteen
minutes past the established ‘handling’. The ten-minute observation period for
‘post-handling’ began immediately following the completion of time period
‘handfingi

Initial review of video revealed eleven distinct behaviors as describes in
table 3.5. Of these a total of seven pig behavior patterns were statistically
compared”. Behavior data discarded from statistical comparison included the
categories of, “defecate”, “urinate”, “No doing” and “Pig #”.
Treatment Day behavior

Treatment day pig behavior was monitored using a total of five cameras.
Two cameras were placed in the alleyway, and one camera each placed in the
corner of pen D and E. An additional camera was used as a ‘moving camera’
operated by project staff that monitored handling. During handling the
designated camera person with a mini-cam, with sound capability, was
instructed to follow the pigs and handler to the best of her/his ability until pigs
were secured into pens D or E. Stationary cameras recorded video-tape at 12

frames per second allowing for a total recording time of six hours. The ‘moving

 

25 A behavior was statistically compared if more than 50 % of pigs expressed
the behavior

60

camera” recorded at 30 frames per second allowing for a total recording time of
two hours.

No behaviors were monitored for the “pre-handling" time period due to
an oversight of project supervisor. Initial review of video revealed fifteen
classes of pig behavior for all time periods and are defined in table 3.6. In time
period ‘handling’ a total of four behaviors were statistically compared for
‘handling’ and included pig vocalizations, jumping away, climbing, and falling.
Because handling time varied between and within treatments, observation and
monitoring time varied and a statistical comparison of handling times is not
included in this study. In time period ‘post-handling’ a total of four behaviors
were identified and monitored for 10 minutes (600 seconds) following the
completion of handling and a four minute interval and included investigative,

idle, rooting the number of steps a pig took.

3.2.7 Statistical Analysis
All data reported was analyzed using SAS software version 6.1226. Proc

glm statements were developed for this nested split plot design. Pig is nested in
treatment (rg) but not in (bt) basal or treatment day or tm (time period).
Statistical analysis was generated behavior and physiology using the following

models in tables 3.7-3.9.

 

2‘ SAS/STAT Users Guide Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. 1990 Version 6.12 4th edition. SAS
Institute, SAS 1110., Cary NC., 27513

61

 

 

 

 

$655 9a on... Boat:
mofiofion 9a of. 983mm
36 2 mEm
E0: 95:5 2 new 9505 on“ 8 8826. m_ vac: .8306 m_ .0 8263 mm: EoEm>oE Emzcom 69:.
82> 65 c_ mgon m_ 9a or: “an; 85:23 2 flow «02 @500 02
82> Eo: .mnEzc 99a 9: oEEcEn 2 2% “oz a 9n.
a: now; 53> mmmEozoE “mocha .0 $2839: 965% m_ DE 22
“co: 5 So umcosczm $292 .mmm_ ucE 2.: co Ego; £3, 35252 g :0 m_ 9a 9.55
9505 9: 9.30:9 m_ 36 .o 69.2 who .me Em co mcficfim 8: m_ 9n. 9:3
5:99? Em c_ 32.5 m-m mcxfl 9d 8ch
ofiuo: c5 950:3 530:. new :55 53> .639: .995 05 am 35:68 m_ 9n. ..on>>
.88 :96: on. 85 notomE 505 can Eson new; 5:5 .689 9: cm. 9655 m_ 9d condo...
coEczoo ._o_>m:om
>3 .2250 :o 35:62 22:5on one mEozoo 3.63.23 mi mam min...

62

 

 

39m 8:9: :2 wow. co m moxmu 9a of. 23:5

6ch m: a moon mum noes oi one doom .5

a: now... 5:5 .939: Co: .9636 m_ 9a of. 0:2

£39: 5 26.8 mm: .o ...oo: .93: co 395 E scrap 50cm 55, 5:8“ :0 m_ 9a of. mczoom
EcEtmano ooze: BE macaw 9n. 3%

862.8 969 com $3.53 2:? 33:23 E9: >954“. 8308 En. o>o_2

«.222: 9a on... East:

9:65 cs 2 6:8 go one =61

mofioflon ma mi 98660

32:2on “moEfi mncflm new .8on 9a of. mummi

9mm 863 -92 Ems. < :3...

9mm 863.52 266 < 535

__mn_m 8 62m 80: g 85:. new new: 9952 .83on m_ .o EmEm>oE Emzcg m>>2m go on... “moi;
52:8 8 con 9: ho m__m>> o£ mnE=o so maEa 9a of. QEE.

23:3 .0 950:3 9a of. _moo>

:oEczoo ho_>§._om

 

 

>8 2253: :0 35:62 232530 one 33th 3.6323 9n. md 03m...

63

Table 3.7

SAS model for pig physiology: Control and treatment days

 

 

Proc sort data=one;by bt;

Proc glm data=one;class pgno rg tm; by bt;
Model temp cort hr =rg pgno(rg) tm tm*rg;
Test h=rg e=pgno(rg);

lsmeans rglstderr e=pgno(rg);

Means tm rg*tmlstderr;

Run;

 

 

Table 3.8

SAS model for pig behavior: Control day

 

 

Proc sort data=one;by bt;

Proc glm data=one;class pgno rg tm; by bt;

Model pgstp pgly pgsit pgfd pgwt pginvst pgidl =rg pgno(rg) tm
tm*rg;

Test h=rg e=pgno(rg);

lsmeans rglstderr e=pgno(rg);

Means trn rg*tmlstderr;

Run;

 

 

Table 3.9

SAS Model for pig behavior: Treatment day

 

 

Proc sort data=one;by bt;

Proc glm data=one;class pgno rg tm; by bt; ,

Model pgvc pgjmp pgclmb pgfll pginvst pgidl pgrtpgstp =rg
pgno(rg) tm tm*rg;

Test h=rg e=pgno(rg);

lsmeans rglstderr e=pgno(rg);

Means trn rg*tmlstderr;

Run;

 

 

64

3.3.0 Results of Project II

Results were tabulated using Proc GLM statements. Tables 3.10, 3.11,
3.12 and 3.13 reveal the results of the statistical analysis reported for the
behavior and physiological measures taken during both control and treatment
days.
3.3.1 Pig Behavior Results: Control Day

Table 3.10 reports the results of the statistical comparison of control day
behaviors observed. Data reported reflect a ten-minute (600 sec) observation
period. No behavior data is reported for group B”. There were no significant
differences between any behavioral categories over the three time periods TM-
1, TM-2, or TM-3. The mean number of steps a pig took was 7.9 in TM-1, 5.8
in TM-2, and 6.7 for time period TM-3. (P>.9402). The amount of time spent
lying-down was 22 % in TM-1, 15.7 % in TM-2 and 32.6 % in TM-3 (P> .9513).
Pig’s spent on average, 7.9, 8.9 and, 10.1 percent of their time sitting for the
three time periods respectively (P> .2173). Pigs were observed to have spent
17.4, 13.4 and, 10.4 percent in ‘maintenance’ which included feeding (P> .5885)
and drinking (P>.6123) for each of the three time periods respectively. Pigs
spent on average 37.0, 37.7, and 35.5 percent of their time in the investigative
mode (P>.1984). Pigs spent on average 16.2, 24.1, and 19.7 percent of their

time (P> .5392), respectively, in the idle mode.

 

27 N=42 because pigs in group B were not video-taped due to a malfunction in
equipment

65

3.3.2 Pig Physiology Results Control Day

Table 3.12 shows the results of the statistical comparison of
physiological data gathered on control day. No significant differences in
cortisol, heart rate or body temperature, were observed across the three
sampling periods (P> .7883), (P>.4817) and (P>.0568) respectively. Mean
cortisol was 3.64, 3.53, and 3. 42 nmolll for the three time periods respectively.
Mean heart rate over the three time periods was 111.65, 118.21 and, 117.14
beats per minute. Mean body temperature over the three time periods was
39.02, 39.01, and 39.00 degrees Celsius respectively.
3.3.3 Behavior Results Treatment Day

Table 3.11 shows the statistical comparison of observed behaviors on
treatment day over time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3.
Time Period TM-1

No behavioral data was recorded for this time period2
Time Period TM-2

All classes of behavioral variables were significantly different. Mean pig
number of pig vocalization for handling level 1 was .8333 and 10.33 for handling
level 2 and was significantly different (P< .0001). Mean number of jumps each
pig observed during handling levels 1 and 2 was zero and 5.5 respectively and
was significantly different (P< .0001). The number of falls recorded for each pig

during handling periods 1 and 2 was .042 and .750 and was significantly

 

2 Monitoring of pig behavior was not possible due to limitations in equipment
capability

66

different (P< .0005). The other behavioral categories, investigative, idle, root,
and steps, were not reported on in this time period3.
Time Period TM-3

Mean time investigative behavior observed across handling methods 1
and 2 was 14.05 and 48.78 seconds respectively and were significantly different
(P<.0018). Pigs in handling methods 1 and 2 were observed to have spent 2.3
and 8.13 percent of their time expressing this behavior. Mean time spent in the
idle mode across handling methods 1 and 2 was 57.5 and 97.8 seconds and
was not significantly different (P< .1021). Mean time spent rooting across
handling methods 1 and 2 was 550.90 and 456.13 seconds respectively and
was significantly different (P< .0001). Pigs in handling methods 1 and 2 spent

91.82 and 76.02 percent of their time expressing this behavior.

3.3.4 Physiology Results Treatment Day
Cortisol

Table 3.13 shows the results of the statistical comparison of
physiological of the measures collected on treatments days over the three time
periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3. Cortisol levels were not significantly different

(P< .2621) between treatments over periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3. Mean

 

3 Less than 50 % of the pigs were observed to express this behavior in the time
period

67

cocoa

6:003 008 oSEEéF m 55 .0323 $5 mEmmmaxo Zoom 33 6E: co c2656 65 66:9 mm_._om2mo moon... .3
Dozen 6:83 89 935?? m mezzo 3on .3258. Go LonEsc m_ bomofio £5. .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

momma some om: we 32 93: me an? 6.8 we n.66.

82.0 6.9: 0.6.3 me 0.62 comm we 32 3mm we 26289862.

alaoom

god 5; an we N: we we mes-UN owe. me .3662,

means .662 NS we use an... we cm? v.8 me Dcoon.

mocmcmacfifi

mtg moms m8 me new; new we QRF a? me 9955

28.0 33 one me E 6.3 we 35 39 me Does:

85.0 S we we 3 we we 6.6 as we seem

953080001—

oa_c>-o elm secs. 2 orlm secs. 2 arm also: 2 636.2%...
m u 5 la n E n s:

 

 

>3 .2200 22223 mi ho contanEoo 303955 or.» 292.

68

oozed 9E: Em>29 9.: mezzo moi 9: ho Edema >tz c_ nozcmno 8: 92>mcom a
2m>.mcm .8 86.89 Emu oz 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88.0 8.6 2.3 cm - o 6 am - c 6 cm m
- 8.2 9.8 em - o o em - e e em F 69: 85
88.0 21cm 962. am - o 6 am - e 8 am m
- E 8.03 am - o 6 am - c a em P cooroom.
No no Emma 353 am - o 6 am - a 6 am m
995 89$ em - o 6 am - e e em F 8392
98.0 same mums em - o o em - o 8 am m
- Kg 8.: em - o 6 am - e e em F 269695
- o 6 am 88.0 39o 83 em - c c em m
- o 6 am some «3.0 em - o o em F :6“.
- o 6 am 88.0 o: 21 em - e e 6.6. m
- o 6 cm - - em - e. n em P 95.0
- o o cm 58.0 mm; 3 em - e o em .6.
- o o em - - em - e e em F 6&2.
- o 6 am 58.0 «3. 8.2 cm - c c em m
- o 6 am mm; m8. em - e o em F co=e~__coo>
wI:_m>d am 522 z magi ow cows. 2 magi am cows. 2 .o>fl. 339.com
mus» «use Fuse

 

 

>3 2059:... "9039.9. 9n ho cootooEoo 39.255 2..” 2an

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

586 $3 8.8 em Nome meme. em two 5.3 em m
- 23 :.8 am 83 8.8 em 68.0 8.8 em 109939953 .68
58.0 «6.33.69 mm 8.9969 a 392.2: mm m
- 8.29.8? a Roles? a and 8.2: mm P Eoeoam e8:
ammo 82 8.: em was 8m 8 5m 9am 2 m .
- 8.: 86 em 2.0 one 8 ohm 83 em P €35an8
o:_m>-o am 322 2 cm :35. 2 cm 23.2 2 _o>ol.r_ .933...
mus: «us: was:
>3 2053:. u>mo_o_o>:a 2o Co 32.353 .3335 2am 23...
88.0 83 8.8 me Bed 5.8 we 33 No.8 we recessed-ewe zoom
:93 5.36;: 3 E9 as: me 8.33.5 me Eoovocnm too...
838 Ed was me «mm 93 me warm Ed 9 goes _on_too
o:_m>-n_ am :35. z Um :32 2 am :35. z .2335
mus... «us: was:
>3 .9530 ">mo_o_m>.._o 9a Co 39.3.63 .33sz «fin min...

70

cortisol values for handling method 1 (hurdle) and 2 (prod) were 4.08 and 3.73
nmolll for the time period TM-1. Mean cortisol values for pigs in handling
methods 1 and 2 for time period TM-2 were 8.36 and 8.80 nmolll respectively.
Mean cortisol values for pigs in each handling treatment in time period TM-3
was 8.50 and 11.26 nmolll respectively. Figure 3.6 shows the magnitude of
cortisol response of handling methods 1 and 2 compared to that of control

(basal) levels.

.a. ..s
O 0|

_I
L.

 

 

 

AZ fl + Method 1
—I- Method 2
l I I u I — Basal

Handling Period

 

 

 

 

 

Cortisol nmolll
O 0!

L

 

 

 

Figure 3.6 Comparison of cortisol response: Control and treatments

Heart Rate

Pig heart rate response was significantly different (P<.0001) across both
handling treatments over the three rime periods. In time period TM-1 heart rate
was significantly lower than recorded basal level heart rate for the same pigs.
In time period TM-2, heart rate for handling method 1 rose to 1.3 times that of
recorded basal levels. Heart rate in handling method 2 rose to 1.7 times that of
recorded basal levels. Heart rate over both handling treatments fell in time

period TM 3 to 1.03 and 1.16 times that over recorded basal levels for the same

71

time period. Figure 3.7 illustrates pig heart rate response to handling methods

1 and 2 compared to those recorded during control (basal) day.

NM

case‘s;
\
/

 

 

\ + Method 1
g + Method 2
— Basal

 

 

 

-l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heart Rate
Beats per Minute (Ave)

TM=1 TM=2 TM=3

Handling Period

Figure 3.7 Comparison of heart rate response: Control and treatments
Body Temperature
A significant difference (P< .0001) in body temperature was observed

between handling methods across the three time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-
3. Mean body temperature (0°) for pigs in handling method 1 was 38.96, 39.09,
and 39.11 for time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3 respectively. Mean body
temperature for pigs in handling method 2 were 38.1, 39.45 and 39.39
centigrade respectively over time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3. Figure 3.8

illustrates the magnitude of response in body temperature.

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TM=1 TM=2 TM=3

8

§ 39.6 1

2"? 39.4 fi+

1:

7; 39.2 ,

5 39 _ V... +Method 1
'5 + Method 2
.5, 38.6

'—

6. 38.4 I

o

1!:

Handling Period

Figure 3.8 Comparison of body temperature response: Control
and treatments

illustrates the differences between control day (basal) and differences between
handling over the three time periods.
3.4.0 Discussion of Project II
3.4.1 Video Observation and Pig Behavior

Control Day

A total of seven behavioral patterns were observed in fifty percent or
more of the pigs. All behaviors ‘decoded' during control day monitoring suggest
that finishing pigs in this type of environment, a barren traditional intensive type
housing system, may spend more time in ‘maintenanoe' and ‘lying’ behavioral
states than other states. The videography methods employed for control day
monitoring were an adequate means for observing preliminary animal
behavioral patterns of pigs in this environment. These results suggest that, in

this study, the selection of pigs, including genotype, sex, littermate and pen

73

mates were well balanced across the groups. Additionally, the results may
indicate that pig handling and sampling, during control day, were consistent for
each treatment group through all three sampling periods (Zanella,1998).
3.4.2 Treatment Day Behavior
Handling TM-2

A total of four behavioral patterns were identified during handling levels 1
(hurdle) and 2 (prod) on treatment day and all were significantly different
between the two handling treatments. As expected, pigs vocalized more during
handling method 2 than handling method 1. However, the number of falls a pig
took between handling methods were different. This may need to be
investigated a little more due to the potential for increased carcass damage and
poor welfare of pigs being handled under ‘farm’ or real situations utilizing an
electric prod to load pigs. Climbing and jumping in this study are characteristic
of ‘escape’ attempts in which pigs perceiving an adverse situation attempt to
avoid or flee from it. These pigs had not been handled ‘a lot’ prior to this
experiment which suggests that pigs handled with a mangate or hurdle will not
attempt to climb or jump away from the handler resulting in falls or sustain other
injuries. These results suggest that the handler welfare is enhanced by use of a
hurdle or mangate. Though the handling methods used in this study d_ig mt
produce apparent injury to the pig, use of an electric prod did produce actions
which may result in injury and would be indicative of poor pig welfare.

This study did not observe other behaviors that have been reported in

the literature during loading. The reasons for this are three-fold: (1) there were

74

not enough cameras in place to observe the various behavioral responses. (2)
the use of one moving camera-person requires focus choice on either handler
or pigs, resulting in observation losses during handling. (3) cameras used for
this project were not well adapted to low-lighting situations. Therefore, clarity
and definition in video was poor at times resulting in unclear expressed
behaviors of pigs.

Overall, the results in pig behavioral response to handling suggest two
things. (1) handling levels 1 (hurdle) and 2 (prod) were different enough to
produce a response difference in pig behavior response. (2) However, this must
be weighed against the fact that due to limitations in camera surveillance, many
other potential behaviors were not observed or coded for in the video (Zanella,
1998).

3.4.2 Sampling and Pig Physiology
Control Day Levels

Mean cortisol, heart rate and body temperature, were not significantly
different across the three time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3 during control
(basal) day monitoring. All basal values fell within reported ranges from other
published studies of pre-treatment application. These results suggest that the
methods employed for measuring these variables are valid. These results also
suggest that selection of pigs, including genotype, sex, littermate and pen mate
were well balanced across the groups during control period and that pig
sampling for each treatment were consistent through all three sampling periods

(Zanella,1998).

75

Treatment Day physiology
Cortisol

Salivary cortisol levels were not significantly different between handling
methods over the three time periods TM-1, TM-2, and TM-3 on treatment day.
Handling level 2 (prod) did cause an increase in cortisol response over handling
method 1. Other studies report variable results. Parrot and Mission (1989)
report significant differences in salivary cortisol response of pigs to handling
and restraining. However, Bradshaw et al. (1996) studying the effects of mixing
and transport report no significant differences in salivary cortisol response of 90
kg pigs after loading prior to treatment. Gemus, (1998) report no significant
differences in salivary cortisol response of pigs handled. However according to
Becker et. al. (1985) significant differences were observed in plasma cortisol
response of pigs electrically stimulated. Lack of significant results in cortisol
findings can be attributed to several factors. First, the sampling interval of
fifteen minutes may have failed to give maximum response. A longer sampling
interval such as 25-30 minutes may have been more appropriate (Zanella,
1998). Second, significant individual differences in pigs may have contributed to
lack of cortisol response. Barnett et al. (1987), report that corticosteriod
measures should be carried out in the afternoon rather than in the morning
because the in-between animal variation in the hormone levels is less and more
stable in plasma samples. Third, glucocorticoids can be released in response to
situations that are not normally regarded as stressful and therefore, single [few]

adrenal indices must be considered questionable (Broom, 1988). Fourth,

76

according the Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1989) there is a low correlation
between salivary cortisol and plasma cortisol. This may indicate that though
salivary cortisol levels are a sound measure of HPA activity during prolonged
stress, plasma cortisol may be a more reliable measure of adrenal activity under
acute stressors.
Heart Rate and Body Temperature

Significant treatment differences in heart rate and body temperature were
observed across the three time periods. These results indicate that heart rate
and rectal body temperature measures are good indicators of emotional stress

and metabolic changes associated with acute stress

According to the results of this study several things are indicated. This
study showed an association between accelerated cardiac output and core body
temperature. These physiological changes were also related to the number of
vocalizations, number of escape attempt (jumps and climbs), and falls in pigs
handled with an electric prod. These findings resulted in a post handling
relationship in which significant differences in heart rate and core body
temperature were associated with more exploratory behavior (rooting and
investigative) as opposed to locomotive and non-social or participatory behavior
of pigs. According to Broom and Johnson, (1993) “there is considerable diversity
in the responses, both behavioral. and physiological, which animals show when
disturbed. Therefore, producing a ‘uniform’ behavioral and physiological stress

response may be difficult (Grandin, 1997).

77

3.5.0 Conclusion

The goals of Project I and II were to develop a research and procedure
capability at MSU that would form the basis for a field level study on the
aggregation and transitory effects of stress and welfare on market swine as they
affect loss and meat quality in the pork industry. To this extent, this study deals
with the application of the existing tools of behavior science. It has been
necessary to develop procedures and techniques within this system at MSU that
are accurate, reliable and appropriate. These projects revealed some problems
areas and also some meaningful and reliable techniques.

The problem areas were: (1) the need for alternative videography
methods, (2) an alternative selection strategy for experimental swine, (3) an
extended time frame for cortisol evaluation and (4) the sensitivity of the field
sector, both producer and marketing organizations that participate in studies
involving animal welfare issues.

The positive aspects of these projects were: (1) the effectiveness of the
body temperature and heart rate measures as sensors of animal stress, (2) the
development of techniques to handle and collect samples with market swine in
gathering transitory functions, (3) the process of observing and measuring
behavioral patterns in a market system and (4) the necessity to develop a
method to monitor and measure field handler attitudes and techniques.

It was evident in research involving stress application techniques, that it is
very difficult to create a uniform, defined level of stress in market swine since

animals will use various means to avoid this stress treatment resulting in great

78

variation in application effectiveness. Not only is there great variation in animal
response and coping mechanisms to stessors, but there also exist great variation
in handler ability to move market swine.

It will be important to focus on the positive comfort zone aspects of swine
handling and management in field trials if research is to be supported by the field

industry.

79

APPENDIX A

80

APPENDIX A

Collection Point Survey

 

 

Code # C- __ Date:

Collection Point: County Township

Average number of pigs received: Weekly Monthly
Average group size of pigs arriving from farms: Range

 

What percentage of pigs handled at this facility are: Confined _ % Outdoor _%
What percentage of your pigs handled at this facility are “Farm Fresh”? %

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments:
@4423.
Do pigs have free access to water? Yes D No El
Do pigs have access to feed? Yes Cl No [I Variable I]
If variable what percentage have free access to feed at any one time?__ %
Size of holding pens m x m Capacity hd.

m x m Capacity hd.

m x m Capacity hd.

 

Construction type: Floor: Wood El Cement C] Other
Slatted [3 Solid 1]

 

Sides: Wood D Metal [:1 Cement Cl
Other

Open sided El Solid sided El Rail Cl
Height of sides: m

Comments:

 

 

81

@943

How many days a week due you load pigs onto semi-trucks?

Out of barns: 1 El 2 El 3 Cl 4 D 5 El 6 El Variable:

At farms: 1 Cl 2 D 3 Cl 4 Cl 5 El 6 I] Variable:

Number of receiving docks: 1 El 2 El 3 El 4 Cl 5 I] 6 I]
Number of load-out ramps: 1 El 2 I] 3 I] 4 [3

Which direction do load-out docks face?
On average which way does the wind blow?

ls load-out dock protected? Yes El No D
If yes, is load-out dock: Covered El Siding El Other [3

 

 

ls load-out dock curved or straight? Curved El Straight [1
Load-out dock 1 Construction type:
Is load-out dock 1: Movable (up & down) El Stationary [3
Base (frame): Wood C] Metal I] Cement El Other __

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Height at front edge: m.
Width: m.
Length: m.
Angle: ° Variable El
Sides: Wood [3 Metal Cl Cement El Other
Solid El Slatted l] Rail El Other
Height: m.
Load-out dock floor: Metal El Wood El Cement D Other
Floor design: Smooth D Stair El Grooved Cl Other
ls bedding used on the load-out dock? Yes E] No D
If yes what type: Straw D Shavings [:1 Sand C] Other [I
On average how long does it take to load and fill a semi-truck? hrs. Range

hrs.

If you have more than 1 load-out dock, do you load more than one truck at a
time?
Yes I] No [:1 Variable D

What type of movement enhancers are used during loading?

Hurdle [3 Electric prodder El Slapper D whips El Other [I
Comments:

82

 

 

 

See back page for additional Load-out docks

Shipping Pigs

What is the shortest distance traveled by pigs coming to this collection point:
km ?

What is the longest distance traveled by pigs coming to this collection point:

km?

On average, how many hours do pigs get shipped to packer from this facility?
ln-state < 1 hr. El 1-2 hr. Cl 2-3 hr. I] 34 hr. [3 4-5 hr. C1 > 6 hr. El
Out-of-State Range hr.
Percentage of hogs transported out-of-state: %
Who loads pigs on to semi-trucks?
Driver only: 20% El 40% El 60% D > 80% El
Staff only: 20% [I 40% El 60% D > 80% D
Driver and Staff: 20% I] 40% El 60% E] > 80% El

How well do semi-trucks match up to ramps: Gaps [I No gaps D

If gaps, approximate difference:
Vlfidth: 2cm.l] 4cm.[l 6cm.lj >80mEJ
Height: 2cmEl 4cmD 60ml] >8cmD
Do you cover gaps during loading? Yes [I No El

What do you use to cover the gap during loading?

 

On average, how long are pigs housed at this facility before being shipped to

packer?
<6hr.D 12 hr.D 18 hr.l2] 24 hr. E] 30 hr. [3 36 hr.D
Longer: Range:

 

 

83

On average how long do pigs sit in the truck before leaving this facility? _hrs.

ls bedding used on the semi-truck?
Summer: Yes [I No D Variable I]
Vlfinter: Yes El No D Variable D

If yes, bedding type: Summer: Straw El Shavings [:1 Sand El
Vlfinter: Straw Cl Shavings [:1 Sand El

Comments:

 

 

Additional load-out docks and receiving docks Date:Code # C-

Load-out clock 2:
Is load-out dock 2: Movable (up & down) I] Stationary D

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base (frame): Wood El Metal El Cement [:1 Other _

Height at front edge: m.
Width: m.
Length: m.
Angle: ° Variable [3

Sides: Wood Cl Metal Cl Cement El Other
Solid El Slatted I] Rail [3 Other

Height: m.

 

Load-out dock floor: Metal D Wood I] Cement D Other

 

Floor design: Smooth El Stair I] Grooved D Other

 

Comments:

 

 

Load-out dock 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction type:
Base (frame) : Wood [3 Metal I] Cement C] Other _
Height at front edge: m.
Width: m.
Length: m.
Angie: ° Variable :1
Sides: Wood C! Metal I] Cement El Other
Solid [3 Slatted El Rail El Other
Height: m.
Load-out dock floor: Metal Cl Wood El Cement I] Other

 

84

Floor design: Smooth D Stair El Grooved D Other

Comments:

 

 

 

85

APPENDIX B

86

APPENDIX B

Video Analysis Worksheet

Collection Point:
Date Analyzed:
Time:

Width of Ramp
Length of Ramp
Angle of Ramp

# of Pigs Loaded

 

# of Groups Observed

 

Time taken to Load

Number of People Loading

 

87

APPENDIX C

88

 

 

£92m £995 £995 392m £98m £995 £995 £996 £92m .865

oz 02 02 oz mm> 02 oz 02 oz 02
£30m 3mm>> £30m “mam £30m 539.0, .83 552 mem £30m
N F m F N N N N N N
m m . v m w m m m m v
0-... N o m-N m o F F v o N
m- F m m m o F o o m 0
N8 ON-mF wFNF NF NF-o mF mF NDoF m To mF
mo> mm> mo> mm> mm> mm> mm> me> mm> mm>
mv A om mm mm om om om mm om 9
ON om- F ov-o F om om-mv mNN F N ov mm om
ommN oomN oom F 000 F com F SN 80. F con F com F 00 F F
8; mm> mm> oz 02 mm> mm> mm> mm> mm>

NQFFB anEN ntEN NQFFN NQmEN ...QNEN NQFFN NQOEN NQQN 59mm:

awn—0 ado mmo 5&0 mac mac who who N10 FAQ

3830 .o 3996
39090.5 xooo
meow. xoou c2695
9.006 50-68.. .0 a
mxoou 9.368. .0 .2.
egg am. So 33
289 F0 So F53
g

3.5 nmmsoc moi
2.. .295 a new.
mm.< 9:20:

85:80 e\e

mum anew .m><
nmzmom. moi .0 w
82>

9mm

9 .52. 838:8

 

 

3.38m >35 .50.. 5:02.00 Sea—too

o x_n_zmaa<

F.< 03m...

89

cozmcfiEOo EmEmofioo; m m_ xoon mi. 8806:. N
xoou cab AmEgoEéocv reconfim a 3.865 F

 

 

 

oz

e2;
8..
wm>

3 gm

oz
.55
too>>
m. F
Uzom
noo>>
VN F
0..»
mad
N. F
noo>>
®>O_2

02

ea;
8..
mo>
E F

02
:me
7322

m. F
26m
_mFmE
m.m F
v.0 F

o. F

N. F
_mFmE

I m

a:
a.
0

02

e2;
85
mo>

.F. 3m

02
:me
noo>>
vN
26m
noo>>
o
md
mod
N. F
noo>>
O>O_2

mac

02

9.3
no...
02

.F. N\F-F

oz
.85
noo>>
FeN
Bow
noo>>
o
No
mud
N. F
Doo>>
O>OS_

hao

oz 02 mm>
e22, e2; 955
no... .8... use
8.» 02 02
5 ea .5 .F:
annzmm .wsngmm
‘ mm> mm> oz
.85 852.0 .55
noo>> .cmEmo noo>>
em 3 e...
28 8.35 8.85
Doo>> Doo>> U00>>
98 «FF 3
we 3 we
8... RF 8.0
NF NF NF
UOO>> «cm—:00 U00>>
m>o_2 Fm m>o_>_
alum Q a

mm>

as;
use
mm>
E F

02
._mFm
noo>>
vN
E—om
noo>>
0d
N.NF
mod
N. F
boo>>
0>O_2

mn—

oz

.2;
8..
02
.F. F

szvamm

wm>

850.0
8:50

ea
28
uee>>
mF
Qm
mg
N. F
we
m>o_>_

NQO

mm>

e2;

8..
02

.F. Fem

oz
._mFm
_mFmE
vN
U__om
noo>>
w. F F
Fd
mN
N. F

2.950

36.2

Fao

mama
exooqu..m__m..F

.mocmccm EmEm>22
_Emm F cm... 922
m8: 96mg .m><

98F ocfinmm

o .oo: :0 9.68m
86% .02“.

.oo: xoov 50-33
.5. 292.

:9me

82w

$60.33 292.
.5. 56:3

.5. £22,

AEV mane E0:
Erma—2 mmmm
xooo EmEta
fig

9 .52. 5.82.8

 

 

5:53 F.< 29¢

90

m8: 9.. .o e\e ow cm... 5.35 .33 .82 .02... 203.. o... 8.86... e
2.2.. 8.9.. 2.2. 63.98 m_ amm .8... 8.865 m

 

 

 

 

 

28.5 38.5 Sec 02 835255 28.5 8:955 28.5 3.265 28.5 28.5 83.
mm> mm> Sec 02 mm> mm> mm> mm> mm> mm> mm> .953
8.62.5 8:255 26.5 59...

oz 02 9mm. 02 oz m_nm_.m> .oz wm> m_nm_.m> mm> mm> .9285
3.03.. cc 922.5

3....

0F 8 m m m m. S 8 v F: F: 3.8.. 8 .3 mm...
F: m v 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 om 299.38 8 a...
o N F-.. F F o F m; 2 NF A .95 28-6-50
m-m .3. m-m m8 m-m NF 2.. NF Fem e... .308 e885
2: 8 8: me 8 8 8 08 OF 8F 88.8 .883
me 8 mm... m m 8 3 8... F 8.0 88.8 .888
.82.... 58. 8

mag

.0 u n _e _e F. n _e ..u 8 23m 83 9.. 83 22,

o o mno $.25 nm.m>oo .80

II II FF. v E I F8 .50. £2; 80

glad male 80 F .8 alum minim e mu n no N ..o F .0 o. .58. 528:8

 

 

8.28. 3. can;

91

0.000 00.000. 00 0.00 02 m

 

 

 

0>00.0
000.00
N. F
0000
000>>
F.0F
0.0
mm. F

N.F

000.00
0

0>00.0
E0000
5. F
0:05
0oo>>
m. F F
oNF
NN

N.F

Is
0

QJGCDCDGJCDCDOJ

(D

Q)

.020
noe>>
Fum
0:00
ueo>>
mem
0..
00..

NF

000.00
0

co
a.
0

..05
0oo>>
N. F
0:05
0025
m F
m4»
mod

N...

0oo>>
0>0.>.

in
IL
0

V

000601600)

(1)

0>00.0 0>00.0
00.000 000.00 000>>

E0800 E0000 .00600

no
0
N
0

09000 .00.”.

.00.. 0.000 30000..
.E. .80:

09000

802. 820

800.000. 0.mc<

. .5. 580.

.8. £22,

.5.

0000 .00.. .0901
8.0.0:.

.080... 00.5

0.000 30000005
0x00o _000_._00<

0. .52. 580:8

 

 

8.0.8. F... 203

92

REFERENCES

93

REFERENCES

Anderson, BE. 1984. Temperature Regulation and Environmental
Physiology. In: Dukes Physiology of Domestic Animals (M.J. Swenson Ed.)
Tenth Edition. Cornell University Press, lthica and London.

Baldock, NM, and RM. Sibly. 1989. Effects of Handling and Transportation
on the Heart Rate and Behavior of Sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28:15-
39.

Barnett, J.L. and RH. Hemsworth. 1990. The Validity of Physiological and
Behavioral Measures of Animal Welfare. Applied Animal Behavior Science.
25:177-187.

Barnett, J.L., and A.G.D. Hutson. 1987. Objective Assessments of Welfare in
the Pig. In: Manipulating Pig Production. APSA Committee (editors)
Australian Pig Science Association. Werribee. Victoria pp. 1-22.

Becker, B.A., H.F. Mayes, J.A. Nienaber, G.W. Jesse, M.E. Anderson, H.
Heymann, and HE. Hedrick. 1989. Effect of Fasting and Transportation on
Various Physiological Parameters and Meat Quality of Slaughter Hogs. J.
Anim. Sci. 67:334.

Becker,B.A., J.A. Nienaber, R.K. Christenson, R.C. Manak, J.A. DeShazer
and G.L. Hahn. 1985. Peripheral Concentrations of Cortisol as an Indicator of
Stress in the Pig. Am. J. Vet. Res. 46(5): 1034-1038.

Becker, B.A., J.A. Nienaber, J.A. DeShazer and G.L. Hahn. 1985. Effect of
Transportation on Cortisol Concentrations and on Circadian Rhythm of
Cortisol in Gilts. Am. J. Vet. Res.

Blackshaw, J.K. 1986. Objective Measures of Welfare in Farming
Environments. Australian Vet. J. 63(1 1): 361 -364.

Blackshaw, J.K, and AW. Blackshaw. 1989. Limitations of Salivary and
Blood Cortisol Determinations in Pigs. Veterinary Research
Communications. 13 (4): 265-271.

Bradshaw, R.H., R.F. Parrott, M.L. Forsling, J.A. Goode, D.M. Lloyd, R.G.
Rodway, and D.M. Broom. 1996. Stress and Travel Sickness in Pigs: Effects
of Road Transport on Plasma Concentrations of Cortisol, Beta-endorphin and
Lysine Vasopressin. Anim. Sci. 63: 507-516.

94

Bradshaw, R.H., R.F. Parrott, J.A. Goode, D.M. Lloyd, R.G. Rodway, D.M.
and Broom. 1996. Behavioural and Hormonal Responses of Pigs During
Transport: Effect of Mixing and Duration of Journey. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 547-
554.

Broom, D.M., T.M. Medl, and A.J. Zanella. 1996. A Comparison of the
Welfare of Sows in Different Housing Conditions. Animal Science 61: 369-
385.

Broom, 0M. and K.G. Johnson. 1993. Stress and Anirpgl Welfa_r§. (Ed. D.M.
Broom) Chapman and Hall London.

Broom, D.M. 1987. The Veterinary Relevance of Farm Animal Ethology. Vet.
Rec. 121: 400-402.

Brown, S.N., T.G. Knowles, J.L. McKinstry, J.E. Edwards, M.H. Anil, and
PD. Warris. 1993. Patterns of Response of Some Physiological lndices of
Stress in Pigs Negotiating Loading Ramps. Anim. Prod. 56: 439 (abstract).

Buchenauer, D. 1981. Parameters for Assessinng Welfare, Ethological
Criteria [Swine Behavior]. Paper presented at the Seminar in the EEC
Programme of Coordination of Research on Animal Welfare Brussels,
November 25-26, 1980. Curr. Top. Vet. Anim. Sci. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff. V. 11 p. 75-94.

Cook, N.J., A.L. Schaeger, P. Lepage, and S. Morgan Jones. 1996. Salivary
vs. Serum Cortisol for the Assessment of Adrenal Activity in Swine. (abstract)
Can. J. Anim. Sci. 76(3).

Dalin, A.M., U. Magnusson, J. Haggendal, and l. Nyberg. 1993. The Effect of
Transport Stress on Plasma Levels of Catecholamines, Cortisol,
Corticosteriod-binding Globulin, Blood Cell Count and Lymphocyte
Proliferation in Pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavia 34: 59-68.

Detweiler, OK. 1984. Regulation of the Heart. In Dukes Physiology of
Domestic Animals Tenth Edition (Ed. M.J. Swenson) Cornell University
Press, lthica and London.

Dickson, W.M.1984. EndocrinoIOQY, Reproduction and Lactation: in Dukes
Physiology of Domestic Animals (Ed. M.J. Swenson) Tenth Edition. Cornell
University Press, lthica and London.

Eigenberg, R.A., G.L. Hahn, J.A. Nienaber, A.M. Parkhurst, and ME Kocher.
1995. Tympanic Temperature Decay Constants as lndices of Thermal
Environments: Swine. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 38 (4):
1203-1206.

95

English, P. V.R. Fowler, S. Baxter and B. Smith Transport, Lairage and
Slaughter in “The Growing and Finishing Pig: Improving Efficiency”. 1988.
Farming Press Books Alexandria, NY USA.

English, PR 1991. Stockmanship, Empathy and Pig Behavior. Pig Vet. J.
(26): 56-66.

Ewebank, R. 1985. Behavioral Responses to Stress in Farm Animals. In:
Animal Stress. American Physiological Society, Bethesda Maryland.

Facts and figures for fa_rmers. (Ed. Doanes ). Copyright 1981 Doane-
Westem, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri.

Fraser, and D.M. Broom. “Neuroethology” 1990 in Farm Animal Behavior
and Welfare (Chapter 6). Balliere Tindall, London.

Geers, R., E. Bleus, T. Van Schie, H. Ville, H. Gerard, S. Janssens, G.
Nackaerts, E. Decuypere, and J. Jourquin. 1994. Transport of Pigs Different
with Respect to the Halothane Gene: Stress Assessment. J. Anim. Sci. 72:
2552-2558.

Gemus, M. 1998. Unpublished Thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 49885

Geverink, NA, and E. Lambooy. (1994) Treatment of Slaughter Pigs During
Lairage in Relation to Behavior and Skin Damage. (abstract). Presented at
the 28th International Congress of the ISAE. Research Centre Foulum,
Denmark, 30-6 August 1994

Gonyou, H.W., P.H. Hemsworth, and J.L. Barnett. 1986. Effects of Frequent
Interactions with Humans on Growing Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1:33-52.

Grandin, T. 1980. Livestock Behavior as Related to Handling Facilities
Design. Int. Stud. Anim. Prob. 1:33-52.

Grandin, T. 1987. “Animal Handling”. Vet Clin. N. Amer. 3:232-338.
Grandin, T. 1988. Livestock Handling Pre-slaughter. Proceedings of the 34th
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. Copenhagen,
Denmark. pp. 41-45.

Grandin, T. 1989. Behaviour Principles of Livestock Handling. The
Professional Animal Scientist. 521-11.

96

Grandin, T. 1990. Design of Loading Facilities and Holding Pens. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 28:187-201.

Grandin, T.1991. Handling Problems Caused by Excitable Pigs.
Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of Meat Science and
Technology. Kulmbbach, Germany. Vol. 1 pp. 249-251.

Grandlin, T. 1997. Assessment of Stress During Handling and Transport. J.
Anim. Sci. 75:249-257.

Guise, H.J., E.J. Hunter, P.J. Baynes, P.J. Wigglesworth, H.L. Riches, and
R.H.C. Penny. 1997. Observations of the Behavior of Slaughter-Weight Pigs
During Transport. The Pig Journal pp. 19-29.

Guise, H.J., and Penny, RH. 1989. Factors Influencing the Welfare and
Carcass Quality of Pigs. Anim. Prod. 49:511-515.

Hails, MR. 1978. Transport Stress in Animals: A Review. Animal Regulation
Studies 12289-343.

Heetkamp, M.J.W., J.W. Schrama, L. de Jong, J.W.G.M. Swinkels, W.G.P.
Schouten, and MW. Bosch. 1995. Energy Metabolism in Young Pigs as
Affected by Mixing. J.Anim. Sci. 73:3562-3569.

Hemsworth, PH. 1993. “Behavioural Principles of Pig Handling” in Livestock
Handling and Transport. (Chapter 14, pps 197-211) CAB lntemational
Wallingford Oxon, UK.

Hemsworth, P.H., J.L. Barnett, D. Treacy, and P. Madgwick. 1990 . The
Heritability of the Trait Fear of Humans and the Association Between this
Trait and Subsequent Reproductive Performance of Gilts. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 25: 85-89.

Hemsworth, PH, and J.L. Barnett. 1991 The Effects of Aversively Handling
Pigs either Individually or in Groups on Their Behaviour, Growth, and
Corticosteroids. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 30:61-72.

Hemsworth, P.H., J.L. Barnett, G.J. Coleman and C. Hanson. 1989. A Study
of the Relationships Between the Attitudinal and Behavioral Profiles of
Stockpersons and the Level of Fear of Humans and Reproductive
Performance of Commercial Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 23:245-314.

Hemsowrth, PH, and J.L Barnett. 1986. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15:55-63.

Hemsworth, P.H., A. Brand, and P.J. VWIiams. 1981.Livestocck Prod. Sci.
8:67-74

97

Hicks, T.A., J.J. McGlone, C.S. Whisnant, H.G. Kattesh, and R.L. Norman.
1998. Behavioral, Endocrine, Immune and Performance Measures for Pigs
Exposed to Acute Stress. J. Anim. Sci. 76:474-483. ‘

Houpt, D.A., B.A. Baldwin, T.R. Houpt, and F. Hills. 1983. Humoral and
Cardiovascular Responses to Feeding in Pigs. Am. J. Physiol. 13:R279-
R2884.

Hunter, E.J., H.L Riches, H.J. Guise and R.H.C. Penny. 1997. The Behavior
of Pigs in Lairage in Relation to Their Post-weaning Management: Results of
a Postal Survey. Animal Welfare. 6:139-144.

Jesse, G.W., C.N. Weiss, H.F. Mayes, and GM. Zinn. 1990. Effect of
Marketing Treatments and Transportation on Feeder Pig Performance. J.
Anim. Sci. 68:611-617.

Kallweit, PH, 1982. Physiological Responses of Pigs to Treadmill Exercise
Used as a Standardized Stress. In: Transport of Animals Intended for
Breeding, Production and Slaughter (R.Moss Ed.). pp. 75-86, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, the Netherlands.

Kaufman, R.G.W, W. Sybesma, F.J.M. Smulders, G.Eikelenboom, B. Engel,
R.L.J.M. van Laack, A.H. Hoving-Bolink, P. Sterrenburg, E.V. Nordhheim, P.
Walstra, and PG. van der Wal. 1993. The Effectiveness of Examining Early
Postmortem Musculature to Predict Ultimate Pork Quality. Meat Sci. 34:283.

Kiley-Worthington, M. 1990. Animals in Circuses and Zoos. Chiron’s World.
Little Eco-Farms Publishing, 29 Delhi Rd, Pitsea, Basildon, Essex, p. 240.

Kluger, M.J.1989. Body Temperature Changes During Inflammation: Their
Medication and Nutritional Significance. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.
48: 337-345.

Korthals, R.L., R.A. Eigenberg, G.L. Hahn, and J.A. Nienaber. 1995.
Measurement and Spectral Analysis of Tympanic Temperature Regulation in
Swine. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 38(4): 905-909.

Knowles, T.G., D.H. L., Maunder and RD. Warris. 1994. Factors Affecting

the Incidence of Bruising in Lambs Arriving at One Slaughter House. Vet
Rec. 134244-45.

Lambooij, E. and G. van Putten 1993. Transport of Pigs. in: “Livestock
Handling and Transport”. CAB International Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

98

Laudat, R.M, S. Cerdas, C. Fournier, D. Guiban, B. Guilahaume, and P.
Luton. 1988. Salivary Cortisol Measurement: A Practical Approach to
Assess Pituitary-Adrenal Function. J. Clin. Endo. Metab. 66(2): 343-348.

Levine, S. 1985. A Definition of Stress. In: Animal Stress. American
Physiological Society, Bethesda Maryland.

Liptrap, RM. and J.L. Raeside. 1978. Journal of Endocrinology. 76:75.

Lucke, J.N., G.M. Hall, and D. Lister. 1976. Porcine Malignant Hyperthennia.
I: Metabolic and Physiological Changes. Br. J. Anaesth. 48:297.

MacLennan, DH. and MS. Phillips. 1992. Malignant Hypothermia. Science.
256:789-794.

Manser, CE. 1993. The Assessment of Stress in Laboratory Animals.
RSPCA Royal Society for the Protection of Animals.

Marberry, S. 1992. “Hog Industry Grappling with PSS-gene Problem": in
Feedstuffs. Decembre 21, 1992.

Marchant, J.N., A.R. Rudd, D.M. Broom. 1997. The Effects of Housing on
Heart Rate of Gestating Sows During Specific Behaviors. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 1232 WC pps. 1-12.

Marchant, J.N., M.T. Mendl, A.R. Rudd, D.M. Broom 1995. The Effect of
Agonistic Interactions on the Heart Rate of Grouped-housed Sows. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 46: 49-56.

Martin, C.R. Textbook of Endocrine Physiology . New York Oxford University
Press 1976.

Martin, P. and P. Bateson. Measuring Behavior: an introductory guide.
Chapters 3 and 4. Cambridge University Press. 1986.

McGlone, J.J., J.L. Salak, E.A. Lumpkin, R.l. Nicholson, M. Gibson, and R.L.
Norman. 1993. Shipping Stress and Social Status Effects on Pig
Performance, Plasma Cortisol, Natural Killer Cell Activity, and Leukocyte
Numbers. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 888-896.

McGlone, J.J. 1991. Techniques for Evaluation and Quantification of Pig
Reproductive, lngestive, and Social Behaviors. J. Anim. Sci. 69:4146-4154.

99

Mellor, DJ. and L. Murray. 1989. Effects of Tail-docking and Castration on
Behavior and Plasma Concentrations in Young Lambs. Res. Vet. Sci. 46:
387-391.

Mendl, M. 1991. Some Problems with the Concept of a Cut-off Point for
Determining When an Animal’s Welfare is at Risk. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
31:139-146.

Minton, J.E. 1994. Function of the HypothaIamic—Pituitary-Adrenal Axis and
the Sympathetic Nervous System in Models of Acute Stress in Domestic
Farms animals. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 1891-1898.

Moberg, GP. 1985. Biological Response to Stress: Key to Assment of
Animal Well-Being. In: Animal Stress (Moberg, Ed.) American Physiological
Society, Bethesda Maryland.

Morrow-Tesch, J.L., J.J. McGlone, and J.L. Salak-Johnson. 1994. Heat and
Social Stress Effects on Pig Immune Measures. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 2599-2609.

Munck, A., P.M. Guyre, N.J. Holbrook. (1984). Physiological Function of
Glucocorticoids in Stress and Their Relation to Pharmacological Actions.
Endocr. Rev. 5:25-44.

Nyberg, L., K. Lundstrom, I. Edfors-Lilja and M. Rundgren. 1988 Effects of
Transport Stress on Concentrations of Cortisol, Corticosteroid-binding
Globulin and Glucocorticoid Receptors in Pigs with Different Halothane
Genotypes. J. Anim. Sci. 6:1201-1211.

Otsu,K. V.K. Khanna, A.L. Archibold, and D. MacLennnan. 1991.
Cosegregation of Porcine Malignant Hypertherrnia and a Probable Causal
Mutation in the Skeletal Muscle Ryanodine Receptor Gene in the Backcross
Families. Genomics 11: 744750.

Parrott, RF. and EH. Misson. 1989. Changes in Pig Salivary Cortisol in
Response to Transport Simulation, Food and Water Deprivation, and Mixing.
British Veterinary Journal. 145:501-505.

Parrott, R.F., B.H. Misson, and BA. Baldwin. 1989. Salivary Cortisol in Pigs
Following Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone Stimulation: Comparison with
Plasma Levels. British Veterinary Journal. 145:362-366.

Petchey, A.M., J.F. Robertson, H. Kelly, and 08. Arey. 1995. Pig Welfare
for the Scottish Pig Industry Initiative. Sponsored by: Scottish Society for
Prevention and Cruelty to Animals. Centre for Rural Building, SAC Aberdeen
Sandra Edwards, Animal Feed Technology, SAC, Aberdeen.

100

Phillips, P.A., B.K. Thompson, and D. Fraser, 1988. Preference Tests of
Ramp Designs for Young Pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 68:41-48.

Pommier, SA, and A. Houde. 1993 Effect of the Genotype for Malignant
Hypertherrnia as Determined by a Restriction Endonuclease Assay on the
Quality Characteristics of Commercial Pork Loins. J. Anim. Sci. 71:420.

Pork Industry Handbook, 1987. Extension Bulletin E-1283. Cooperative
Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
48824.

Reece, W.O. 1984. Respiration in Mammals: in Dukes Physiology of
Domestic Animals (Ed M.J. Swenson) Tenth Edition. Cornell University
Press, lthica and London.

Robertson, J.F. 1988. Bacon Pigs: A Practical Approach to the Reduction of
Death in Transit. In: A. M. Petchey (Ed.) “New Perspectives in Pig
Production”. NOSCA, Aberdeen.

Seyle, H. 1973. The Evolution of the Stress Concept. Amer. Scient. 61: 692-
699.

Schouten, W., J.Rushen ,A.M.B De Passille. 1991. Stereotypic Behavior and
Heart Rate
in Pigs. Phys. and Behav. 50: 617-624.

Stephens, DB. and GO Perry. 1990. The Effects of Restraint, Handling,
Simulated and Real Transport in the Pig (with reference to man and other
species). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28:41-55.

Stephens, DB. 1988. A Review of Experimental Approaches to the Analysis
of Emotional Behaviour and Their Relation to Stress in Farm Animals.
Cornell Vet. 78: 1 55-1 77.

Stephens, DB, and RD. Radar. 1982. The Effects of Simulated Transport
and Handling on Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Renal Arterial Blood Flow
in the Pig. (abstract) Appl. Anim. Ethol. 82409-410.

Stephens, DB. 1980. Stress and Its Measurement in Domestic Animals: A
Review of Behavioural and Physiological Studies Under Field and Laboratory
Situations. Advanced Veterinary Science Comp. Med. 24:179-210.

Trunkfield, HR. and D.M. Broom. 1990. The Welfare of Calves During
Handling and Transport. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28: 135-152.

101

van Laack, R.L.J.M, C. Faustman, and JG. Sebraneck. 1993. Pork Quality
and the Expression of Stress Protein Hsp 70 in Swine. J.Anim. Sci. 71:
2958-2964.

Van Putten, G., and W.J. Elshof. 1978. Observations on the Effect of
Transport on the Well-Being and Lean Quality of Slaughter Pigs. Anim. Reg.
Stud. 1:247-271.

Veum, T.L.,.R. Ellersieck, T.L. Durhham, W.R. McVickers, S.N. Williams, and
J.F. Lasely. 1979. Response of Stress-Susceptible and Stress-Resistant

Hampshire Pigs to Electrical Stress. I. Physiological and Biochemical
effects. J. Anim. Sci. (3) 48:446-458.

Warris, P.D. , S.N. Brown and T.G. Knowles. 1991. Effect of the Angle of
Slope on the Ease with which Pigs Negotiate Loading Ramps. Vet. Rec.
128:419-421.

Warris, P.D., S.N. Brown, E.A. Bevis, and SC. Kestin. 1990. The Influence of
Pre-Slaughter Transport and Lairage on Meat Quality in Pigs of Two
Genotypes. Animal Production. 50:165.

Weeding, C.M., E.J. Hunter, H.J. Guise, and R.H.C. Penny. 1993. The Effect
of Ease of Handling on the Welfare of Slaughter Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 38:79 (Abstract).

Zanella, A.J. 1992. Sow welfare indicators and their inter-relationship. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Cambridge.

Zanella, A.J. 1998. Personal Communication.
Zanella, A.J., D.M. Broom, J.C. Hunter, and T. Mendl. 1996. Brain Opioid

Receptors in Relation to Stereotypies, Inactivity, and Housing in Sows.
Phys. and Behav. 59 (4/5): 769-775.

102

MICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllIllIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIHI
31293017197389