Effects of Long-Term Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses, Production Performance, and Meat Quality of Pigs
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Management
2.2. Experiment Design
2.2.1. Gentle Handling Treatment
2.2.2. Approaching–Avoidance Test
2.2.3. Heart Rate (HR) Measurement
2.2.4. Production Performance Measurement
2.2.5. Carcass Quality
2.2.6. Meat Quality
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses of Pigs
3.2. Effect of Gentle Handling on Production Performance of Pigs
3.3. Effects of Gentle Handling on Carcass and Meat Quality
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Gentle Handling on Pigs’ Behavior
4.2. Effects of Gentle Handling on Pig Performance
4.3. Effects of Gentle Handling on Carcass and Meat Quality
4.4. Scientific Reasoning for the Improvement of Animal Welfare Legislation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Ethics Statement
References
- Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: A review and analysis of the literature. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2014, 27, 117–142. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, A.A.; Davis, H. Individual humans as discriminative stimuli for cattle (Bos taurus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 58, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waiblinger, S.; Boivin, X.; Pedersen, V.; Tosi, M.V.; Janczak, A.M.; Visser, E.K.; Jones, R.B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 101, 185–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Hansen, C. The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1987, 17, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonyou, H.W.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L. Effects of frequent interactions with humans on growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986, 16, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnetti, L.; Hanen, C. The influence of handling by humans on the behavior, growth, and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig. Horm. Behav. 1981, 15, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnetti, L.; Hansen, C. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986, 15, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanida, H.; Miura, A.; Tanaka, T.; Yoshimoto, T. The role of handling in communication between humans and weanling pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994, 40, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallet, C.; Sy, K.; Prunier, A.; Nowak, R.; Boissy, A.; Boivin, X. Behavioural and physiological reactions of piglets to gentle tactile interactions vary according to their previous experience with humans. Livest. Sci. 2014, 167, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, J.E.L.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Burfoot, A.; Chamberlain, H.L.; Edwards, S.A. The separate and interpositive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 75, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1991, 30, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Souza, D.N.; Leury, B.J.; Dunshea, F.R.; Warner, R.D. Effect of on-farm and pre-slaughter handling of pigs on meat quality. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1998, 49, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Hofmeyr, C.; Coleman, G.J.; Dowling, S.; Boyce, J. The effects of fear of humans and pre-slaughter handling on the meat quality of pigs. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 2002, 53, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boivin, X.; Lensink, J.; Tallet, C.; Veissier, I. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Anim. Welfare. 2003, 12, 479–492. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Aqil, A.; Zulkifli, I.; Hair Bejo, M.; Sazili, A.Q.; Rajion, M.A.; Somchit, M.N. Changes in heat shock protein 70, blood parameters, and fear-related behavior in broiler chickens as affected by pleasant and unpleasant human contact. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forde, J.N.M. Piglet- and stockperson-directed sow aggression after farrowing and the relationship with a pre-farrowing, human approach test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 75, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebret, B.; Meunier-Salaun, M.C.; Foury, A.; Mormède, P.; Dransfield, E.; Dourmad, J.Y. Influence of rearing conditions on performance, behavioral, and physiological responses of pigs to preslaughter handling, carcass traits, and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 2436–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tallet, L. How does the method used to feed lambs modulate their affinity to their human caregiver? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forkman, B.; Boissy, A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C.; Canali, E.; Jones, R.B. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 340–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pearce, G.P.; Paterson, A.M.; Pearce, A.N. The influence of pleasant and unpleasant handling and the provision of toys on the growth and behaviour of male pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 23, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jonge, F.H.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Schouten, W.G.P.; Helmond, F.A. Rearing piglets in a poor environment: Developmental aspects of social stress in pigs. Physiol. Behav. 1996, 60, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, D.N.; Ellis, M.; Hemann, M.D.; McKeith, F.K.; Miller, K.D.; Purser, K.W. The impact of longissimus glycolytic potential and short-term feeding of magnesium sulfate heptahydrate prior to slaughter on carcass characteristics and pork quality. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 1586–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambooij, E.; Hulsegge, B.; Klont, R.E.; Winkelman-Goedhart, H.A.; Reimert, H.G.M.; Kranen, R.W. Effects of housing conditions of slaughter pigs on some post mortem muscle metabolites and pork quality characteristics. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Terlouw, E.M.C.; Porcher, J.; Fernandez, X. Repeated handling of pigs during rearing. II. Effect of reactivity to humans on aggression during mixing and on meat quality. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 1664–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rabaste, C.; Faucitano, L.; Saucier, L.; Mormede, P.; Correa, J.A.; Giguere, A.; Bergeron, R. The effects of handling and group size on welfare of pigs in lairage and theirinfluence on stomach weight, carcass microbial contamination and meat quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 87, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correa, J.A.; Torrey, S.; Devillers, N.; Laforest, J.P.; Gonyou, H.W.; Faucitano, L. Effects of different moving devices at loading on stress response and meat quality in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 4086–4093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
The Behavioral Response of Piglets After the Handler Entered the Testing Pen | Scoring Criteria | Score |
---|---|---|
Avoidance | The handler reached out and approached the pig | 1 |
The handler stopped about 0.5 m between the handler and the pig | 2 | |
The handler tried to touch pig | 3 | |
The handler touched pig | 4 | |
Approach | Pig was in a 0.5 m range of the handler | 5 |
The pig came into contact with the handler | 6 |
Behavior | Definition |
---|---|
Look at the handler (looking) | Head pointing to the handler |
Contact with the handler (contact) | Pigs touch or sniff handler; piglets interact with the handler by placing their forelegs on the handler |
Avoiding handler (avoidance) | Move away from the handler, or turn head in the opposite direction from the handler; legs on the wall to try to escape the test pen |
No contact with subjects (no contact) | Does not interact with the handler or explore the test pen |
Behavior Classification | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
AA test score | 5. 12 ± 1.02 | 2.33 ± 1.18 | <0.01 |
Looking at handler (times) | 7.78 ± 4.87 | 17.33 ± 12.41 | <0.01 |
Contact (times) | 24.11 ± 21.25 | 4.44 ± 2.97 | <0.01 |
Avoidance (times) | 11.83 ± 15.87 | 38.94 ± 11.95 | <0.01 |
No contact (times) | 56.17 ± 21.90 | 36.00 ± 12.26 | <0.01 |
Heart rate (BPM) | 136.28 ± 5.45 | 137.78 ± 3.04 | 0.63 |
Production Performance P phase I | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
ADWG | 0.43 ± 0.16 | 0.43 ± 0.14 | 0.86 |
ADFI | 0.84 ± 0.26 | 0.82 ± 0.24 | 0.7 |
FCR | 2.16 ± 0.61 | 1.98 ± 0.31 | 0.2 |
Production Performance during phase II | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
ADWG | 0.67 ± 0.11 | 0.71 ± 0.13 | 0.22 |
ADFI | 2.29 ± 0.35 | 2.36 ± 0.243 | 0.55 |
FCR | 3.48 ± 0.39 | 3.39 ± 0.60 | 0.51 |
Carcass Quality | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Slaughter rate % | 73.84 ± 2.96 | 71.92 ± 2.26 | 0.24 |
Backfat thickness mm | 25.72 ± 4.07 | 22.09 ± 6.97 | 0.3 |
Lean meat rate % | 58.36 ± 4.60 | 60.98 ± 5.96 | 0.42 |
Fat rate % | 23.50 ± 5.82 | 20.11 ± 6.83 | 0.38 |
Eye muscle area cm² | 32.84 ± 7.40 | 34.05 ± 7.23 | 0.78 |
Meat pH | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
pH(45 min) | 6.47 ± 0.26 | 6.42 ± 0.17 | 0.52 |
pH(2 h) | 6.20 ± 0.40 | 6.03 ± 0.32 | 0.14 |
pH(24 h) | 5.56 ± 0.06 | 5.54 ± 0.09 | 0.29 |
pH(48 h) | 5.53 ± 0.06 | 5.52 ± 0.07 | 0.64 |
Meat Color | HG | CG | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
45 min | L | 45.63 ± 1.43 | 45.60 ± 1.39 | 0.96 |
a* | 3.78 ± 0.29 | 3.79 ± 0.75 | 0.98 | |
b* | 1.22 ± 0.18 | 1.71 ± 0.23 | <0.01 | |
2 h | L | 43.34 ± 3.10 | 47.06 ± 2.91 | <0.05 |
a* | 3.09 ± 0.97 | 3.69 ± 1.64 | 0.46 | |
b* | 1.31 ± 0.45 | 2.20 ± 1.20 | 0.12 | |
24 h | L | 52.75 ± 2.15 | 53.27 ± 2.64 | 0.71 |
a* | 6.25 ± 1.08 | 5.91 ± 1.37 | 0.64 | |
b* | 2.61 ± 0.95 | 2.61 ± 0.73 | 0.99 | |
48 h | L | 53.39 ± 2.14 | 53.96 ± 2.93 | 0.74 |
a* | 6.90 ± 0.88 | 6.51 ± 2.06 | 0.68 | |
b* | 3.75 ± 0.63 | 3.46 ± 1.06 | 0.58 |
Water Loss | HG | CG | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Squeezing loss | 0.13 ± 0.10 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 0.35 |
Dripping loss | 0.06 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.42 |
Cooking loss | 0.36 ± 0.32 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.40 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, C.; Chen, Y.; Bi, Y.; Zhao, P.; Sun, H.; Li, J.; Liu, H.; Zhang, R.; Li, X.; Bao, J. Effects of Long-Term Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses, Production Performance, and Meat Quality of Pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020330
Wang C, Chen Y, Bi Y, Zhao P, Sun H, Li J, Liu H, Zhang R, Li X, Bao J. Effects of Long-Term Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses, Production Performance, and Meat Quality of Pigs. Animals. 2020; 10(2):330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020330
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Chao, Yongjie Chen, Yanju Bi, Peng Zhao, Hanqing Sun, Jianhong Li, Honggui Liu, Runxiang Zhang, Xiang Li, and Jun Bao. 2020. "Effects of Long-Term Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses, Production Performance, and Meat Quality of Pigs" Animals 10, no. 2: 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020330
APA StyleWang, C., Chen, Y., Bi, Y., Zhao, P., Sun, H., Li, J., Liu, H., Zhang, R., Li, X., & Bao, J. (2020). Effects of Long-Term Gentle Handling on Behavioral Responses, Production Performance, and Meat Quality of Pigs. Animals, 10(2), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020330