ABSTRACT
Objective
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of exposure to a ramp during
the nursery period on growth, efficiency, and behavior in the nursery and during loading
of market hogs.
Materials and Methods
Seventy-two crossbred hogs were enrolled at weaning and randomly assigned to 2 treatment
groups: FLAT (housed in a conventional nursery pen) or RAMP (housed in a nursery pen
with feed provided on a platform at the top of a ramp). Behaviors recorded in the
nursery included feed and water consumption and interactions among pigs. Body weight
and feed intake were also recorded. Pigs were randomly assigned to finish pens. At
the time of transport to market, behavior and time spent on the truck loading ramp
were recorded.
Results and Discussion
In the nursery, RAMP pigs consumed less feed than FLAT pigs, but ADG during the same
period was not different. The RAMP pigs had fewer eating and drinking episodes and
decreased aggressive interactions in the nursery compared with FLAT pigs. At marketing,
the RAMP hogs required less time to ascend the ramp into the truck than FLAT hogs
(30.52 ± 10.81 s vs. 58.87 ± 10.37 s, respectively; P = 0.04). No detrimental effects of ramped nursery housing were observed.
Implications and Applications
Adding ramps to nursery pig housing is a simple way to speed loading of market hogs,
while providing benefits to efficiency and behavior in the nursery.
Key words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe toAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
LITERATURE CITED
- Influence of pre-slaughter process on pork quality: An overview..https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120902956216Food Rev. Int. 2009; 25: 233-250
- The effects of conditioned behaviour and environmental factors on plasma corticosteroid levels in pigs..https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(73)90309-04350728Physiol. Behav. 1973; 10: 267-274
- Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs..https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(88)90104-73413258Physiol. Behav. 1988; 43: 99-109
- A two-level pen for fattening pigs: Effects on behavior, performance, and postslaughter measurements..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2016.083128380603J. Anim. Sci. 2017; 95: 616-625
Chaput, R. L., E. L. Barron, J. K. Warrenfeltz, W. W. Wolfe, and T. K. Dalton. 1973. The miniature pig: A biomedical model for behavioral studies. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institution, Bethesda, MD. Accession No. AD0776216. Accessed May 21, 2020. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/776216.pdf.
- Effects of different moving devices at loading on stress response and meat quality in pigs..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-283320802143J. Anim. Sci. 2010; 88: 4086-4093
- Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral responses to novelty, learning, and memory, and the circadian rhythm in cortisol in growing pigs..https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(99)00212-710713299Physiol. Behav. 2000; 68: 571-578
- The effects of lairage time and handling procedure prior to slaughter on stress and meat quality parameters in pigs..https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.00324971810Meat Sci. 2014; 98: 220-226
- Differing results for motivation tests and measures of resource use: The value of environmental enrichment to gestating sows housed in stalls..https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.07.010Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012; 141: 9-19
- Preslaughter handling practices and their effects on animal welfare and pork quality..https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx06429401265J. Anim. Sci. 2018; 96: 728-738
- Agonistic behavior, plasma stress hormones, and metabolites in response to dyadic encounters in domestic pigs: Interrelationships and effect of dominance status..Physiol. Behav. 1994; 56: 841-847
- Factors associated with fatigued, injured, and dead pig frequency during transport and lairage at a commercial abattoir..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-127019028860J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87: 1156-1166
- Assessing learning and memory in pigs..https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0364-321203792Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 151-173
- Effect of previous ramp exposure and regular handling on heart rate, ease of handling and behaviour of near market-weight pigs during a simulated loading..https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2013-166Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 93: 461-470
- 2011 and 2012 Early Careers Achievement Awards: Farm and pig factors affecting welfare during the marketing process..https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-611423478817J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 91: 2481-2491
Knowles, T. G., and P. D. Warris. 2000. Stress physiology of animals during transport. Pages 385–407 in Livestock Handling and Transport. 2nd ed. T. Grandin, ed. CAB Int., Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Moberg, C. P., and J. A. Mench. 2000. The Biology of Animal Stress. CAB Int., Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
- Design, cost and performance of a free-access, two-level pen for growing-finishing pigs..Can. Agric. Eng. 1987; 29: 193-195
- The effects of handling and group size on welfare of pigs in lairage and their influence on stomach weight, carcass microbial contamination and meat quality..https://doi.org/10.4141/A06-041Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2007; 87: 3-12
- Review: Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. A review of definitions, incidence, and economic impact..https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30735-XProf. Anim. Sci. 2009; 25: 404-414
Skinner, B. F. 1969. Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
- Arousal and exploration in growing pigs in different environments..https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(80)90140-6Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1980; 6: 382-383
USDA. 2019. Livestock Slaughter 2018 Summary. USDA, Washington, DC.
- Object movement re-enactment in free-ranging Kune Kune piglets..https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.08.004Anim. Behav. 2017; 132: 49-59
- Pre-slaughter handling and pork quality..https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.09.14825460114Meat Sci. 2015; 100: 118-123
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
April 17,
2020
Received:
December 11,
2019
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
