Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Today, pigs are moved between farms, cities, national borders and abattoirs. Nevertheless, the scientific literature on the effectiveness of different driving methods and the potential impact on the welfare of pigs is inadequate. Scientific evaluations in this subject are therefore extremely important in order to ensure the best handling practices for both the welfare of the pig and the handlers.

The aim of this study was to research the use of common handling practices when driving pigs in Sweden and how they affect the pig welfare. I also wanted to investigate the efficiency of various driving methods. The objective of this study is to open a discussion about how common driving methods can be improved for both pigs and the people handling them. For instance, improved driving methods can give these people more control over their work situation, which result in better animal welfare.

A total of 112 finishing pigs was used in four studies to assess the efficiency of various moving methods by evaluation of pig behaviour and time to complete a standardized course. The pigs were divided into 12 groups which was exposed for each method twice.

In the first method, method A, the pigs were touched with a plastic paddle in a low frequency. In method B, the pigs were touched with a plastic paddle in a high frequency. In method C, a driving board was used by walking behind the pigs. In method D, the pigs were driven forward by walking in front of them with a bucket of pig pellets.
Method B was the most time efficient method (p <0,05). The second fastest method, method A, took an average of 168 seconds while method B averaged 114 seconds. The pigs showed more behaviors while using method B than method A (p <0.05). Both during method C and D, the pigs showed fewer behavioral transitions than in method B. The behaviors included is: baying, walking in the correct direction, stopping, walking in wrong direction and running. There was no significant difference between method A and B when considering the number of stress-related behaviours shown (p>0,05). However, both method C and D showed fewer stress-related behaviours than method B.

Previous studies have shown that more behavioural transitions can be sign of stress. This can be shown in my study as well regarding method B which also registered a high amount of stress-related behaviours. Considering there are no statistical difference between method A and B regarding stress-related behaviours, one can conclude that method A is potentially stressful for the pigs as well. Conclusion; the most time efficient methods are also the most stressful which effects the animal welfare. Therefor more research has to be done regarding driving methods that are time efficient, animal welfare friendly and improves the work situation.