EFFECTS OF REGULAR MOVING AND HANDLING ON THE BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL-RESPONSES OF PIGS TO PRESLAUGHTER TREATMENT AND CONSEQUENCES FORSUBSEQUENT MEAT QUALITY

The effects of regular moving and handling during the finishing period on behavioral and physiological responses of pigs during preslaughter treatment and consequences for meat quality were studied. From the ag e of 10 wk onward, 144 pigs were housed in groups of four (two gilts a nd two castrates) and subjected to one of the following treatments. Th e Environment treatment allowed pigs to move freely for 8 min outside their home pen. Then the pigs were transported in a box for 2 min, and after which they were returned to their home pen. In the Handling tre atment, an experimenter remained for 3 min in the pen, and whenever a pig made contact, it was gently stroked. The experimenter then walked for an additional 1 min, without attempting to pat or stroke any pigs but subsequently held each pig in a tight grip for about 5 s. This ent ire procedure was then repeated. A Control treatment was also included , in which the pigs were subjected to no treatment. The Environment an d Handling treatments were applied twice a week at the age of 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 wk. At 25 wk of age, pigs were transported to the abatt oir. They were held unmixed in the truck and in lairage and were manua lly stunned. The stockmen needed significantly less time to move Envir onment pigs out of their pen and into the transport box. There were no differences between treatments in salivary cortisol concentrations be fore or after transport. Environment and Handling pigs had paler meat than Control pigs. Glycogen content at 1 h after death and water-holdi ng capacity were lower in Environment pigs than in Control pigs, but t his did not lead to a higher incidence of PSE meat. We conclude that t he pigs that had experience with leaving their home pen and some of th e transport conditions were much easier to handle at loading. Pigs tha t are easier to move are less likely to be subjected to rough handling , which implies improved welfare, and the workload for personnel at th e time of marketing is reduced. Differences in meat quality due to tre atment were slight.