Marketing and Transportation

1:30 Growth and development implications at

heavier weights - Dr. John Patience

2:00 Impact of heavy market weights on facility

and equipment needs - Dr. Mike Brumm

3:00 Market transportation implications - Dr.

John McGlone

Establishing Bedding Requirements for

Finishing Pigs Going to Slaughter*

John J. McGlone, PhD, Professor, TTU

Anna Butters-Johnson, Assoc. Professor, ISU

Avi Sapkota, Graduate Student, TTU

Art Coquelin, Staff, TTU

Rebecca Davis, Graduate Student, ISU

And a host of other students, staff, drivers, and

farm and plant workers

* Boarding and Misting

requirements will be

assessed later

Overview

• Over 100 million pigs are transported

to market each year in the USA

• The rate of DOA has been about

0.2% in recent years and the rate of

non-ambulatory pigs is about the same

(~0.2% or more)

• Over 400,000/year pigs have a

negative welfare experience during

transport to market

Overview

• Pig transport losses are

major issues because:

• Its direct economic impact

for the farm and plant

• Its animal welfare concern

Background

Field data indicate that the rate of non-ambulatory, non-injured

pigs increases in cold weather (Sutherland, 2009).

50 F 86 F68 F

Background

Field data indicate that the rate of DOA pigs increases in

warm weather (Sutherland, 2009).

y = 0.0062x - 0.1091R2 = 0.9774

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

60 70 80 90 100 110

DO

A,

%

Air Temperature, F

Dead on Arrival (note linear increase above 70 F)

TQA Program

According to TQA Handbook, in driver code of

ethics,

• Transporter must have access to clean bedding approved

by the packer, and must be used during transport.

• Provide extra bedding (wood shavings, wheat straw, corn

stubble) during winter

• TQA recommendations:

* Minimum openings are needed for ventilation even in the coldest weather.

† Consider using sand or wetting bedding if it is not too humid and trucks are

moving.

Objective

• To define the bedding requirements of pigs

during transportation in commercial settings

during:

• Cold weather

• Mild weather

• Warm weather

Study Design and Sample Size

Months Bedding levels,

bales/trailer*

Air Temperature

Range

Jan-Feb 6, 12 -13 to 20 C

8 to 68 F

March-May 3, 6, 12 -2 to 21 C

28 to 70 F

June-July 3, 5, 7, 9 16 to 45 C

61 to 113 F

* 22.7 kg/bale or 50 lb

0.2 m3/bale or 7 ft3/bale

Background

Number of

bales/deck mm inches

Eights of

an inch

1 9.5 3/8 3/8

1.5 11.1 3.5/8 3.5/8

3 15.9 5/8 5/8

6 25.4 1 8/8

1 Bale

For a straight deck 53’ X 102” trailer

3 Bales

6 Bales

Study Design and Sample Size

Months Temperature Number

Trailers

Number pigs

Jan-Feb Cold 173 29,410

March-May Mild 345 58,650

June-July Warm 254 43,180

Total -- 772 131,240

Materials and Methods

At finishing site:

• Random assignment of bedding level

• Information on bedding level, number of loads on that

bedding, boarding percentage

• Five sensors collected temperature and humidity in

different four compartments and one outside the trailer

from start of load to unload

• Handling methods, handling devices, intensity (on a

scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the mildest; 5 being

aggressive/abusive)

Materials and methods

At finishing site:

• Number of vocalizations, slips/falls, signs of stress

• Management aspects of farms: type of barn, facilities

like pen size, aisle, chute, floor type, walls etc., and

weather information (temperature, humidity, and wind

speed)

• Surface skin temperatures on the pigs flank/side of 10

randomly selected pigs (5 of first 50 and 5 of last 50

pigs loaded into the trailer) in each load using laser

thermometer with sensitivity of 0.1 ̊ C

Materials and methods

At plant:

• Air temperature, humidity, surface temperature of 10

pigs (as in finishing site)

• Handling device(s), handling intensity (as in finishing

site), vocalizations, slips/falls, time of arrival, waiting

and unloading

• Collected bedding samples to determine moisture %

• Record DOA, NA and D & D in each trip

Statistical Analysis

Primary models, by season, effects of:

• Level of bedding,

• Air temperature (in 5 ̊ C bins),

• Interaction of bedding and air temperature

All data entered in Excel and analyzed using SAS

(General Linear Model). Regression lines calculated using

Excel and SAS.

Results

Ranges of conditions during data collection:

• Load time: 13 to 94 min

• Transit time: 16 to 459 min

• Waiting time at plant: 0 to 198 min

• Total D & D in a trip: 0 to 8

• Handing Intensity ranged: 1-5

• 43/440 (9.8%) loads at finishing sites had a handling

intensity of 5 (aggressive, abusive)

• 1/429 (0.23%) observations at plants had a handling

intensity of 5

Results – Jan-Feb Bedding Effects

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

6 12

DO

A %

Bedding Level

DOA % by Bedding level(P=0.13)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

6 12

NA

%

Bedding Level

NA % by Bedding level(P=0.73)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

6 12

D &

D %

Bedding Level

D & D % by Bedding level(P=0.29)

No effect of

bedding

Results – Jan-Feb Temp Effects

No interaction

between bedding

and air temperature

y = 0.000x3 - 0.006x2 + 0.049x + 0.009

R² = 0.610

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

-5 0 5 10 15 20

DO

A %

Outside temp bin

DOA % by outside temp binP > 0.05

y = 0.011x3 - 0.106x2 + 0.276x - 0.126

R² = 0.905

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

-5 0 5 10 15 20

NA

%

Outside temp bin

NA% by outside temp binP > 0.05

y = 0.011x3 - 0.112x2 + 0.325x - 0.117

R² = 0.767

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

-5 0 5 10 15 20

D &

D %

Outside temp bin

D & D % by outside temp binP > 0.05

Results – Jan-Feb Surface

Temperatures

P-value:<0.001

The lower the outside

temperature, the lower

was the pig surface

temperature

y = 0.211x3 - 2.082x2 + 7.758x + 13.85

R² = 0.779

15

20

25

30

35

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Su

rf T

emp

, C

Outside Air Temp Bin *C

Average Pig Surface Temperature at plant

at different air temperatures (P < 0.01)

Results – March-May Bedding

Effects

No effect of

bedding

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

3 6 12

DO

A %

bedding level

DOA % by Bedding level(Treatment not significant, P=0.21)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

3 6 12

NA

%

bedding level

NA % by Bedding level(Treatment not significant, P=0.84)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

3 6 12

D &

D %

bedding level

D & D % by Bedding level(Treatment not significant, P=0.34)

Results – March-May Temp Effects

No interaction

between bedding

and air temperature

y = 0.019x2 - 0.113x + 0.212

R² = 0.646

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 5 10 15 20 25

DOA % by outside temperature binP > 0.05

y = 0.027x2 - 0.281x + 0.722

R² = 0.867

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 5 10 15 20 25

NA % by outside temperature binP < 0.05

y = 0.047x2 - 0.394x + 0.934

R² = 0.834

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 5 10 15 20 25

D&

D, %

Air Temperature, C

D & D % by outside temperature binP < 0.05

Results – March-May Surface

Temperatures

P-value:<0.001

The lower the outside

temperature, the lower

was the pig surface

temperature

y = 2.2579x + 21.83

R² = 0.9321

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20

Su

rf T

emp

*C

Air Temp bin

Average Pig Surface Temperature at plant at

different air temperatures (P < 0.01)

Results – June-July Bedding

Effects

More bedding is

harmful in warm

weather

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

3 5 7 9

DO

A %

Bedding Level

DOA % by Bedding LevelP=0.054

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

3 5 7 9

NA

%

Bedding Level

NA % by Bedding LevelP=0.206

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

3 5 7 9

D &

D %

Bedding Level

D & D % by Bedding LevelP=0.076

Results – June-July Temp Effects

No interaction

between bedding

and air temperature

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

10 15 20 25 30

DO

A %

Outside Air Temp Bin

DOA % by Air TemperatureP < 0.01

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

10 15 20 25 30

D &

D %

Outside Air Temp Bin

D & D % by Air TemperatureP < 0.01

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

10 15 20 25 30

NA

%

Outside Air Temp Bin

NA % by Air TemperatureP > 0.05

Results – June-July Surface Temps

P-value:<0.001

The warmer the

outside temperature,

the warmer was the

pig surface

temperature

y = 1.069x + 29.27

R² = 0.974

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

10 15 20 25 30

Su

rfa

ce T

emp

era

ture

, C

Air Temp, C

Average Pig Surface Temperature at plant at

different air temperatures (P < 0.01)

Results

3 bags, second load6 bags, second load

Fresh bedding (6 Bags)

Results

12 bags, first load

Fresh bedding with only 5% moisture

12 bags, first load, 26% moisture

12 bags, second load, 51% moisture

Results

73.87% moisture, 6 bags, 4th load, 60% boardingUsed bedding inside the trailer

Results

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

4:45 5:45 6:45 7:45 8:45

Tem

per

atu

re (

*F

)

Temperature of Trailer Compartments

Front Top

Front Bottom

Rear Top

Rear Bottom

Outside

Inside trailer temperature

Results

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

4:45 5:45 6:45 7:45 8:45

Rel

ati

ve

Hu

mid

ity

(%

)

Relative Humidity of Trailer Compartments

Front Top

Front Bottom

Rear Top

Rear Bottom

Outside

Inside trailer relative humidity

Synthesis of Surface Temperatures

y = 0.4269x + 23.247

R² = 0.8039

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Su

rface

Tem

per

atu

re,

C

Outside Air Temperature, C

Surface and Outside Air Temperatures, C

(all data)

In Warm Weather, Surface Temperature

Rise Explains Increased DOA

y = 0.081x2 - 5.194x + 82.28

R² = 0.888

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

30 31 32 33 34 35

DO

A%

Surface Temp *C

June-July Surface Temperature & DOA %

y = 0.071x2 - 0.277x + 0.232

R² = 0.951

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10 15 20 25 30

DO

A %

Outside Air Temp Bin

June-July Air Temperature & DOA %

Bedding and Temperature Effects

Are Additive

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

15 20 25 30

DO

A, %

Air Temperature, C

Combined Temperature and Bedding Effects

3 bales

9 bales

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

3 9

DO

A, %

Bales of bedding per trailer

Bedding EffectP = 0.05

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

10 15 20 25 30

DO

A %

Outside Air Temp Bin

DOA % by Air TemperatureP < 0.01

The effects of bedding and

temperature are ADDITIVE in

warm weather

DOA rate was over 1% when

heavy bedding was used and

the air temperature was above

30 C (86 F)

Conclusions – Bedding

Season Temp

range

Significant

bedding

effect?

Conclusions Recom,

Bales/trailer

Cold

weather

< 32 F No Added bedding

-- no advantage

beyond 6 bales

6*

* No data on

less than 6

bales

Mild

weather

32 - 70 F No Added bedding

– no advantage

above 3 bales

3

Warm

weather

> 70 F Yes Added bedding

negative effect

on DOA

3*

* No data on

less than 3 or

0 bedding

Economics of Bedding Use

Item Amount

Approximate number of pigs processed

per day in the USA

420,000

Average pigs per truck/trailer 170

Approximate number of

trucks/trailers/day

2,470

% fresh bedding used per truck/trailer 50%

Trailers using new bedding/day 1,235

Economics of Bedding Use

Item Amount Dollar amount,

@ $6/bale

Trailers using new bedding/day 1,235

Number of daily bales at 3 extra

bales/day (in summer)

3,705 $22,230

Number of daily bales at 6 extra

bales/day (in winter)

7,410 $44,460

30 days cold, added bedding cost 6 extra

bales

$1,333,800

120 days warm, added bedding 3 extra

bales

$2,667,600

Total added bedding cost Per year $4,001,400

Economics of Bedding Use

Item Amount

Approximate number of trucks/trailers/day 2,470

Increased D&D (0.3%) during over 30 C

days from over bedding (assumes 50% over

bedded), number pigs

630

pigs/day

Market price $0.6/lb @ 270 lb $162

Added industry pig losses from bedding

overuse in 60 warm days/summer

$6,123,600

Economics of Bedding Use

Item Amount /year

Total added bedding cost from over

use

$4,001,400

Added industry pig losses from

bedding overuse in 60 warm

days/summer

$6,123,600

Total Industry Losses/year $10,125,000

Conclusions – Air Temperature

• Cold weather increased NA

• Warm weather increased DOA

• No interaction between bedding and air

temperature

Conclusions – Pig Surface Temperature

• Pig surface temperature

changes with air temperature

• In warm weather, increased

surface temperature predicts

increased DOA

Conclusions

Overuse of bedding causes:

• Increased bedding cost for no return

• Increased pigs losses (dead and down)

• At least a $16 million economic cost (in added

bedding and pig losses) per year unless bedding

levels are adjusted

• A welfare problem in warm weather

Preliminary Data on Boarding

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

< 40 40-59 59+

% D

OA

% Boarding

DOAN = 74 trailers; Trt P = 0.09

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

< 40 40-59 59+

% N

AN

I

% Boarding

% NANIN = 74 trailers; Trt P = 0.68

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

< 40 40-59 59+

% D

&D

% Boarding

Total Dead & DownN = 74 trailers; Trt P = 0.33Although this

represents

over 11,000

pigs, this is

preliminary;

More to come

*

*

Future Transportation Studies

• Is bedding needed and positive for the pig?

• Examine zero bales in the summer and less than 6 bales in cold

weather for efficacy

• Define the boarding needs for the industry

• Define misting requirements

Thank you

Questions?