II. ANIMAL FRIENDLY

Objectives of the Animal-Friendly section

The Sustainable PorkÔ Guidelines are intended to enable individuals to humanely produce pork of better quality and visual appeal. Where available, these guidelines are based on the published scientific literature. If no scientific literature exits, or if the scientific literature is ambivalent on a given subject, but consumer perception is that a component of the system is preferred, then an attempt will be made to satisfy the consumer perception of the best standard.

The guidelines were developed in response to a growing industry recognition of the importance of animal welfare as well as the palatability and eating quality of the product that we produce. The objective of the animal friendly portion of the guidelines is to identify a combination of practices to ensure that animals are handled and slaughtered in a humane manner that will also result in an improvement in meat quality.

The ultimate quality of the product that we produce will be dependent upon many factors. The welfare of the animals is one such factor that may have a large impact on product quality as well as consumer perception. Animals that are handled properly and humanely and pork that is processed properly will be more likely to yield products of higher value.

Numerous stress and handling and processing factors - on the farm, during transport, and at the processing plant - influence the well-being of the animal as well as the quality of the pork that will be derived from that animal. These factors account for a much higher proportion of the variation in meat quality than the genetic factors. However, the genetic merit of the animal is still an important factor that will play a role in determining the quality of the pork produced.

On-farm practices

Genetic Requirements

Halothane Gene: Porcine Stress Syndrome (PSS) causes significant losses to the pork industry annually. This syndrome is triggered by various mildly stressful situations such as handling, transport or inhalation of halothane gas.⁷³ PSS results in a sudden and unpleasant death of stressed animals, or more commonly in pale, soft and exudative meat (PSE pork) from pigs that have this condition. The gene for PSS is named the Halothane gene.The halothane gene is a simple recessive gene and animals that carry only one or both copies of this gene have poor quality pork.⁹ In an effort to improve the welfare of the animals and the overall quality of pork, swine herds included in the Sustainable Porkä program must have at least 95% of the population halothane negative. If the gene is present in the herd, a plan should be in place to eliminate the halothane gene.

RN (Napole) Gene: This gene has been identified in Hampshire hogs and is similar to the halothane gene. Pigs that carry the dominant RN gene have lower yields, especially in processed products, due to decreased water holding capacity in the carcass.^16,49 Testing of Hampshire lines will help to eliminate RN carriers from the herd. This gene and its management are relatively new. At this time, there is no requirement to know the RN status of the herd. However, over time, herds will be required to eliminate the RN gene from their herd.

Future Plans: As genes that impact the well-being of pigs are identified, they will be incorporated into this program.

Participation in the NPPC Program for Pork Quality Assurance: Level III

All farms certified in the Sustainable Porkä program must be certified as National Pork Producers Council Pork Quality Assurance Level III. The Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) program was designed to ensure that pork products are free from drug residue, which leads to a safe, wholesome product for consumers. Enrollment in the PQA program is required. With labor turnover rates as they are, the farm may have some new workers not yet enrolled in the PQA program. Every effort should be made to enroll each employee within six months of employment.

A formal Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan for the pork production process will most likely be mandatory in the near future. Not only will a HACCP plan be important for food safety issues, it may also be an integral part of future export agreements that insist on verification of quality products and the procedures to insure them.

Structural Soundness, Flooring and Lameness

Lameness is a major reason for culling. A relationship between stall-housing, lack of exercise and the incidence of leg weakness and lameness has been suggested. Hogs in group housing systems without bedding have weaker bones and show an increased incidence of locomotion disorders over those using straw bedding. Exercise through walking (group-housing) compared to standing up and lying down (crates) has been linked to an increase in the forelimb muscle weight and increased bone strength with a reduction in lameness for group-housed sows. The flooring and stockmanship are two vital components in controlling this problem. The choice of flooring depends on different, if sometimes conflicting, management and animal requirements for durability, hygiene and suitability. Concrete that is durable and easily cleaned is hard and can be either abrasive or slippery. Floors with perforations can become slippery and cause the animal to loose its balance. Claw and footpad lesions appear to be the major cause of lameness caused by feet catching in slots on the floor and due to friction of the footpad against a concrete surface. In addition, this type of floor can aggravate any predisposition to leg weakness.5,28,50,62 Solid, straw-bedded floors cause less structural problems to the animals. Flooring will wear down leaving rough edges, so continuous management of floor surfaces is critical. Animals (both indoors and outdoors) must be structurally sound with correct bone structure and be able to move freely without pain in order to improve their longevity. Injury to pigs’ feet, legs, and other body parts due to the production system, is an important economic and animal welfare concern.13,30,51,62

Animal Health

A herd health program is essential in order to maintain a healthy swine population. Herd health evaluation includes an assessment of population and environment interactions and a comparison of the pig’s biological capacity and the performance expectations that are considered on the farm. ^33,38

Animals must be observed daily for signs of illness, injury or unusual behavior. Animals that are suspected of carrying a contagious disease must be isolated from the herd immediately. Sick animals should be treated as soon as possible. Records of all treatments of sick animals and death losses should be kept on the farm for review.

Each swine herd should be tested for and free from Pseudorabies and Brucellosis. If a herd is infected with one of these diseases, a plan should be developed to eliminate the disease within a year.

A vaccination program should be worked out with your veterinarian to include any other diseases that may be of concern on your farm. A vaccination program is preferred over any drug treatment program.

Veterinary Consultation

A veterinarian must help design a herd health program that will best fit your swine herd in order to prevent and control diseases that are concerns in your location. This program relies on the professional judgement of the farm’s licensed veterinarian. A written herd health program, approved by a veterinarian, is required.

Parasite Control

Every effort should be made to eliminate all internal and external parasites including lice, mange, roundworms, trichinae and others. Eradication of parasites is preferred over continuous medication.

Biosecurity

Pork producers should take every effort to minimize the risk of disease transmission since swine diseases are easily transmissible. Common sources of disease include: neighboring swine farms, new breeding stock introduced into the unit, vermin, farm personnel, transportation vehicles and visitors.1

Location is a very important factor to consider when building a new swine unit. The greatest danger for spread of disease is from other pigs. Many researchers consider several miles a safe distance for the separation of hog farms, but this is not guaranteed.1 Many diseases are spread by wind, which can also be a threat to the health of the swine herd. The location of any neighbors that have pigs within two miles of the certified farm should be known and documented.

The introduction of new breeding stock should also be considered a source of disease contamination. New animals must be isolated from the herd for at least 30 days until they have been tested free of the diseases of concern.

Wild animals can also be a source of diseases. Efforts should be made to keep animals, birds and insects away from pigs. An organized, written vermin control program is required.

Personnel, Visitors and Trucks

Farms should control unauthorized visitors from entering the farm. A sign-in/sign-out book to record the passage of guests and visitors is an easy way to track who has visited and when. A shower-in/shower-out facility is most beneficial in reducing the spread of disease, however this may not always be feasible. If this is not possible, then the farm must at least provide plastic boots and coveralls to those people who could be a threat to biosecurity (all visitors). Workers should not be in contact with other pigs. Loading docks and trucks, especially trucks that haul pigs to slaughter, should be cleaned and sanitized after each group of hogs is delivered. These trucks need to be disinfected after each slaughter delivery and the drivers should have clean boots before entering the farm.

Euthanasia and Disposal of Dead Animals

Sick or injured pigs that will not recover must be euthanized to ensure a humane death. Guidelines established by the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia or the guidelines established by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Association of Swine Practitioners On Farm Euthanasia of Swine-Options for the Producer⁶¹should be followed. Disposal of dead animals should be far away from high population areas. Animals should be rendered, composted, buried or burned, depending on local regulations, because some diseases can be spread through the tissue of dead animals. Dead animals must be disposed of in a manner that will prevent easy spread of disease. Dead animal disposal should be completed within 48 hours. An exception to this, would be a facility where a refrigerated truck is kept on site and removes the animals on a schedule that exceeds 48 hours or when the cargo hold is full.

Each farm in the Sustainable Porkä program will have provisions for humane slaughter of casualty pigs. This will be carried out by trained, competent farm staff or veterinarian.

Antibiotics

Antibiotics may be used to treat infections or illness. Providing antibiotics to sick animals reduces animal suffering. Sub-therapeutic antibiotics are not allowed (for growth promotion). All use of antibiotics must be accompanied by documentation from the attending veterinarian that states which disease is present, with an assurance that the potential for zoonotic transfer is minimal, and the name and dose of antibiotic to be used. Repeated use of antibiotics is not recommended and drug withdrawal times prior to slaughter must be greater than the approved withdrawal period. The feeding of sub-therapeutic antibiotics is prohibited in an effort to assure that pigs from the Sustainable Porkä program have approximated the standards for natural pork.

Identification of Animals

Pigs produced as a part of the Sustainable Porkä program will be assigned a permanent tattoo symbol and/or number that will be issued for each qualified herd. The tattoo must be done within the first week of life. This is necessary to identify pigs produced this way at any time but especially to allow the packer plant operators to follow up each animal’s background.

Plastic ear tags should only be used to identify an individual animal for health reasons instead of on a regular basis. However, they can be useful in the breeding stock where they are a valuable management tool.

Ear notching on the day of processing may be performed. This allows for easy identification and a complete health record of each individual piglet. Other humane methods of individual identification may be used.

housing systems allowed

Philosophy of Certifiable Housing Systems

The housing system used by a Sustainable Porkä certified farm must promote sound animal welfare, based on science and the perception of well-meaning consumers. In general, housing systems should have the following, or have a plan to move towards:

· allowing pigs access to natural light

· have a floor type that either uses bedding and (or) natural ground vegetation

· access to social groups or adequate space to be able to stand and lie down comfortably

· freedom from extremes of weather, and

· use of equipment that does not injure or stress the pigs. Totally slatted floors are not permitted since they lead to foot and leg injuries and wounds, and they contribute to behavioral problems such as tail biting. Partially slatted floors are permitted as long as a solid portion of the floor contains bedding or natural vegetation.

NOTE: This section is not intended to automatically approve or disapprove any system. Each production system will be considered on a case-by-case basis with a future need for improvement, if deemed necessary.

Gestation Systems

Pork producers use many systems for housing open and pregnant gilts and sows.

Acceptable systems include outdoor systems, indoor bedded systems, and indoor group housing systems. Use of gestation crates are allowed as long as there is a reasonable plan to replace individual housing with group housing after an appropriate experimentation and a phase-in period.

If outdoor systems are used, vegetation ground cover may be absent in the paddock area for no more than 45 days per year according to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. A system of pasture renewal and rotation must be used to minimize disease build-up and to maintain the ground cover. An organized plan of pasture management must be documented. Good ground cover improves the consumer perception of a welfare-friendly environment (by providing an enriched environment) and it prevents nutrient run-off which is an environmental concern. If pigs are used in a crop rotation program, a ground cover must be planted and in place before pigs are moved to the new land. (See Section III. Environmentally Friendly.)

Gestating sows may be limit fed to avoid getting fat.

Farrowing Systems

Sows may be in the farrowing area for three or more weeks. Three alternatives to the farrowing crate are published as acceptable systems: the turn-around crate,⁵³ the sloped farrowing pen⁵⁵ and the outdoor system⁴² with certain huts that improve piglet survival. Other systems of farrowing may be considered if an internal and 3rd party audit of pig welfare is in place.

Systems for Growing Pigs from Weaning to Market Weight

The primary criteria for growing pigs is that they have some access to natural light. Pigs should be group housed and have access to feed and water. Routine limit feeding finishing pigs, placing them in a state of hunger when they have a strong drive to eat, is not allowed.

Pig Comfort

Research issues associated with confinement of sows should enjoy top priority in the area of swine welfare. Pig comfort should be of great concern to farm managers.

In an early review on pig comfort,⁷⁰ it was noted that pigs raised on outdoor farms behaved virtually identical to pigs under natural conditions if environmental conditions allow.

Some of his suggestions are reasonable for Sustainable Porkäproduction units:

· Sleeping area should be well away from feeding area

· Open-fronted pens to resemble the forest border habitat

· A rooting area, since about 51 percent of the pig’s time is spent rooting

· An activity area that contained a marking post and bedding material to be collected by the animals

These considerations ought to include such aspects as space allocation for different stages of production, a rooting and/or feeding site, shelter and shading, and bedding.

Shelter from Elements and Temperature

The effective environmental temperature that pigs actually experience represents the combined effects of air temperature, air speed, humidity, surrounding surface temperatures, and insulating effects of the surroundings.

The pig's age, sex, weight, adaptation status, activity level, posture, stage of production, body condition, ability to huddle and dietary regimen are some of the factors that influence the actual temperature of the pig.

In outdoor production systems or pastures, trees, other natural objects, or huts can provide adequate shade for the sows.

Facilities to provide shelter from high temperatures and wind can be constructed and wallow-pools can serve the dual function of being a water point and a center for cooling body heat for outdoor units.

Heat stress can also be reduced by sprinkling or dripping water directly and intermittently on animals. Misters and evaporative coolers reduce air dry-bulb temperature and are also used to reduce heat stress.⁶⁰

Minimum Floor Area Required for Swine in Totally Enclosed Housing ^a
Stage of Production	Square feet	Square meters
Litter and lactating sow, pen (depending on sow size and age of litter)	31 – 34 / pen	2.79 – 3.06 / pen
Litter and lactating sow, sow portion of stall^b	9.2 – 14 / stall	0.83 – 1.26 / stall
Growing pigs
12 – 30 lb	1.7 – 2.5 / pig	0.15 – 0.23 / pig
30 – 60 lb	3 – 4 / pig	0.27 – 0.36 / pig
60 – 100 lb	5 / pig	0.45/ pig
100 – 150 lb	6 / pig	0.54 / pig
150 – Market	8 / pig	0.72 / pig
Adults	14 – 16 / adult	1.26 – 1.44 / adult

^aAdapted from National Pork Producers Council Swine Care Handbook (1996)⁵⁹, Midwest Plan Service Swine Housing and Equipment Handbook (1983)⁵⁷ and Fritschen and Muehling (1987)²⁹.

^bStall size: minimum width 22 inches, minimum length 7 feet. Young adult females may be housed in stalls 6.5 feet in length.

Facilities and Equipment

Production facilities should be designed in such a way that they provide a suitable environment for raising swine as well as to conserve and protect the environment. Facilities and equipment must be free from sharp edges and components that may harm or injure the animals.

Consideration should be given to the following when designing equipment:

· the behavior of animals

· vermin, rodent, and pest control

· handling of manure

· accessibility and ease of cleaning and sanitation

· personnel safety

A quality control program must be established for new equipment and facilities. New equipment, flooring and structures should be closely examined for sharp edges and potential points of injury before pigs are placed in the facility. The continued quality control program should require periodic maintenance of facilities and equipment.

Space Required for Pigs in Buildings with Outside Apron^a
Stage of Production	Space per pig
Stage of Production	Inside (sq. feet/sq. meters)	Outside (sq. feet/sq. meters)
Growing – finishing pigs	6 / 0.54	6 / 0.54
Sows	11 - 12 / 0.99 - 1.08	11 – 12 / 0.99 – 1.08
Boars	40 / 3.6	40 / 3.6

^aAdapted from National Pork Producers Council Swine Care Handbook (1996)⁵⁹ and Fritschen and Mueling (1987)²⁹

Ventilation System

Ventilation is the primary means of maintaining the desired air temperature and humidity in pigs housed in buildings. Ventilation removes heat, water vapor, pathogens, and air pollutants as well as bringing in fresh air.

Adequate ventilation is a major consideration in preventing extremes in temperature, gases and water vapor. The amount of ventilation depends on the size, number, type, age, and dietary regimen of the pigs, as well as atmospheric conditions. The ventilation system must meet the performance standard and maintain pig health and comfort.

Automatic curtains or vent panel, insulated ceilings, and circulating fans help to regulate and enhance natural ventilation.¹¹

Air Quality

Air quality can affect the health and well-being of the animals. It is defined in terms of the air’s content regarding certain gases and particulate matter. Gases, dusts, and microorganisms can be produced from the animals and from manure decomposition.

Undesirable gases and dust in the air should be controlled so that they do not create air quality problems in or around buildings.

Gases of most concern in swine facilities are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and methane.¹² The composition of air inside and around swine buildings should not exceed 25 parts per million ammonia, 10 parts per million hydrogen sulfide, 25 parts per million carbon monoxide, 500 parts per million carbon dioxide, and 1,000 parts per million methane.⁵⁹

Dust levels can be reduced by utilizing a combination of approaches, including adding fat or oil to feed, proper pelleting, feeder adjustments, minimizing feed drop distances and open conveying, wetting feed, decreasing pig activity, and frequent cleaning of buildings and equipment surfaces.⁵⁹

Manure, By-products and Nuisance Issues

Pig death on the farm before slaughter is a concern for animal health of the surviving pigs and is an environmental challenge. In many instances odor, noise, dust, flies and rodents can be public nuisances in swine production facilities.

Nitrate and phosphorus in swine manure can cause potential environmental hazard if not monitored. Thus, awareness and education on these issues need to be undertaken, however great the challenge. (See Section III. Environmentally Friendly, for more details.)

Handling

Pigs must be checked at least once a day for behavioral abnormalities, signs of physical discomfort and general health.

Researchers⁴⁰ have shown that patient and positive handling increases production and reproduction. Therefore, rough handling and the use of hot shots (electric prods) must be avoided. Pigs must be handled quietly and firmly, with care to avoid unnecessary pain or distress. They must not be hit or dragged.

Pigs must be frequently and considerately handled to reduce fear and improve pig welfare and management.

Litter Processing Overview

Castration, teeth clipping and tail docking of piglets are routine management procedures in intensive swine units. They are performed in the first few days after farrowing and are done without the benefit of any anesthesia or analgesia. Until recently, it was argued that neonates did not experience pain because their nervous systems and pathways were not fully developed at birth to transmit painful stimuli. Research has clearly disproved both these arguments.⁶³ Whether these procedures are needed must be questioned and carefully considered.

Castration

Castration is required for the United States’ market. Piglets are castrated to avoid the boar taint that is present in meat of some boars. It must not be performed routinely later than 14 days of age and disinfected equipment must be used throughout the whole procedure.⁵⁹ If a very small percentage of pigs are "missed", they may be castrated up to 6 weeks of age.

Castration is required and must be performed prior to 14 days of age. Scientific and practical studies suggest that tail docking and teeth clipping for pigs reared in an extensive farming environment are no longer needed. However, at the present time it is accepted that teeth clipping and tail docking may be necessary to alleviate pain and suffering.

Teeth Clipping and Tail Docking

Nibbling at pen-mates is not associated with agonistic behavior and is often initiated by an active pig towards one that is motionless. The parts which receive most attention are those that protrude from the body such as the limbs, ears and tail. Severe biting may extend to all three areas and it has been postulated that tail biting, flank biting and ear biting are connected vices.^64,66

Teeth clipping, which is the removal of the sharp needle teeth, has long been a recognized problem for the pig industry. Incorrectly clipped teeth to the level of the gum can cause gum damage or splintering of the tooth. Sharp edges on teeth can lead to deep wounds on the piglet’s tongue and provide entry for bacterial infections of the jaw and lips. This can increase morbidity and mortality.⁸ Teeth clipping has long been performed in the belief that the incidences of tail biting, damage to the sow during feeding and/or injuries to the piglets in establishing teat order would be reduced.⁶³ Another study⁸⁰ found that nursing behavior, damage to sow or piglets and growth rates were not affected by teeth clipping if the piglets had an interesting environment to grow in. A recent report found no benefit of teeth clipping on pig survival, productivity and only minor effects on wounding. Therefore, teeth clipping should not be performed without specific justification, based on performance standards on each farm.

Tail biting has been a recognized problem for many years, but has only been considered a serious matter following the establishment of the intensive pig industry. It first appears around four to 22 days after weaning and can be classified as when a pig takes the tail of another crossways into its mouth and chews lightly. In due course, the biting can become more severe, resulting in wounds on the tail and bleeding.3 The blood attracts more active tail biting and encourages other pigs to chew on the damaged tail. After a short period of time, the injured tails can be progressively eaten away right to the root. Wounds can become infected, resulting in abscess of the hindquarters and the posterior part of the spinal column.3 Secondary infection may occur in the lungs, kidneys and other parts. A pig injured by excessive biting may become stressed and then depressed in behavior. Economic losses from tail biting though reduced growth rates, emergency slaughter and carcass rejection can be high.^3,59

There does not appear to be one single cause of tail biting. Possibilities that have been highlighted are four fold, genetic, environmental, husbandry and dietary factors.^3,24,63

Using suitable material, for example objects that can be unraveled or adding straw to the pen, has dramatically resulted in pigs directing a high percentage of their time to exploratory activities with a reduction in damage reports caused through tail biting.^17,22,25

Contradictory reports on floor and feeder space have been reported and it is not generally accepted that pigs with access to adequate feeder space will also have reduced incidences relating to ear and tail biting.^27,54

Nutritional problems associated with low fiber, low bulk, deficiencies of protein, iron, calcium, iodine, sodium chloride and unsaturated fatty acids have also been considered a prerequisite of tail biting.^31,41 Researchers have compiled an extensive survey and found that tail biting occurred when pigs were given a vegetable protein feed which was high in energy and low in fiber^24,25 and found pigs fed a diet containing little salt or inadequate protein had an increase in the incidences of tail biting-like behaviors.

Attempts should be made to identify causes of tail biting so that tail docking is not required. If the finishing pigs show tail biting, and this effect is documented, then tail docking is preferred over the suffering caused by tail biting and related vices.

Research has indicated that complex environmental enrichment with toys and human interaction does not improve animal performance, behavior or well-being. In addition, the incidence of tail biting was present and resulted in a greater injury score. However, the pigs were housed on concrete slates with no additional form of bedding and this may be a confounding factor in the reduced effect that toys and human interaction had.⁴¹

Conclusions About Painful Practices

Routine tail docking and teeth clipping should be avoided not only to reduce stress to the piglets, but also because it is unnecessary. Tail docking causes the remaining stump to become more sensitive to being bitten.⁶³ Some intensive commercial producers have already stopped clipping teeth without facing economic or welfare problems with their sows. Pigs hardly ever perform tail biting behaviors in an enriched environment combined with a diet that maintains their metabolic requirements.⁴⁴

Weaning

Weaning at an early age may have considerable effects on the piglets. For example the absence of the mother and her teats from which milk can be obtained forces the piglet to look for food elsewhere and can lead to belly-nosing, anal massaging and suckling on other piglets, which if severe, can lead to bleeding.²³ Weaning is a critical time for piglets because they are developing their immune system and are adjusting to dietary and environmental changes. When a warm, dry and draft-free environment is provided along with proper nutrition, early weaning may be very successful. Earlier weaning may also reduce the stress placed on sows as older and heavier piglets continue to nurse. Another major problem to be aware of is fighting at weaning. This can happen if piglets from different litters are mixed and a new social hierarchy has to become established.^21,59 Pigs must not be weaned at less than 19 days (on average for a weaning batch). Weaning at older ages, for example at over 24 days, reduces economic competitiveness.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT

Introduction

A high degree of caring and responsible management and stockmanship is vital to ensure good animal welfare. Managers and stock-keepers must be thoroughly trained, skilled and competent in animal husbandry and welfare and must have a good working knowledge of their system and the livestock under their care. Documentation of worker training on animal care is required.

Managers, Disaster Plans and Transport Records

Managers should make sure that all stock-keepers have a copy of the Sustainable Porkä guidelines for reference, and that they are familiar with, and understand, the content. Managers must:

· develop and implement a suitable training program for stock-keepers with regular updates and opportunities for continuing professional development

· develop and implement plans and precautions to cope with emergencies such as fire, flood or interruption of supplies. Provide an Emergency Action Board sited adjacent to a telephone point highlighting the procedures to be allowed by those discovering an emergency (as noted above)

· ensure that the veterinary health plan is implemented and regularly updated, and that required data are recorded appropriately. Maintain and make available to the assessors, records of production data and use of medication. These records must include documentation of inventory and outgoing stock on the farm as well as types and quantities of medicines used

· develop and implement a transport plan to Sustainable Porkä approved packing plants which includes identification of animals and minimizes waiting time for pigs.

Stock-Keepers

Stock-keepers must understand the times and circumstances in which pigs are prone to welfare problems on their own unit and must be able to demonstrate their competence in recognizing and dealing with these problems. Prior to being given responsibility for the welfare of livestock, stock-keepers must be given proper training for their specific area of responsibility.

Stock-keepers must be able to recognize signs of normal behavior, abnormal behavior and fear. They must also be able to recognize signs of common diseases and understand their prevention and control. They must also know when to seek veterinary help, have a knowledge of body conditioning score, understand the functional anatomy of the normal foot, its care and treatment, have a knowledge of farrowing and care of the newborn piglet and have a knowledge of humane methods of handling and loading.

Stock-keepers must be able to demonstrate competence in handling animals in a positive and compassionate manner. Stock-keepers must also be able to demonstrate their proficiency in procedures which, if performed incorrectly, have the potential to cause suffering, such as injections and clipping the tips of incisor teeth.

When equipment is installed which affects animal welfare, stock-keepers must be able to:

· demonstrate the ability to operate it

· demonstrate the ability to carry out routine maintenance

· recognize common signs of a malfunction

· demonstrate knowledge of action(s) to be carried out in event of a failure

All automatic equipment must be thoroughly inspected by a stock-keeper, or other competent person at least once a day to check that there is no defect in it. Where a defect is found it must be fixed immediately.

FEEDING AND GROWTH

Certain production practices to reduce stress will be employed during the finishing period. These practices can have an impact on the well-being of the animals as well as ensure that a high quality product is produced.

Stock-keepers should closely inspect pigs by walking among them. This will reduce stress of loading. Pigs left in dark, quiet rooms are more easily startled than pigs in well lighted pens with exposure to some human activity.

A total feed withdrawal time, from farm to processing plant, should be less than 18 hours. Pigs should have access to water at the farm prior to departure and at the processing plant. Research data indicate that a moderate feed withdrawal period is beneficial in many ways.^14,20 Feed withdrawal prior to transport will decrease the incidence of gut spillage, which is important to the well-being of the animals, as well as from a food safety point of view. Feed withdrawal will also decrease the incidence of deaths in transit and improve meat color and water-holding capacity.

TRANSPORTATION

Introduction

Humane transportation of the market hog is vital for the well-being of the animal as well as to assure high pork quality. If many pigs are dead on arrival at a slaughterhouse, the welfare of these and others travelling with them must have been very poor at some point or for some periods of the journey.⁷⁶Minimizing the long and short-term stress on the pig during the loading process, transportation to the slaughter plant and unloading will have a positive effect on the animal’s welfare.^7,47

Stressors Connected with Transportation

Pigs do not react in a uniform way to the situations that they encounter and potential stressors can therefore vary with each animal. There are three broad categories, physiological, behavioral and interaction with humans during handling and transport, which can be used to determine how the pig is coping with the transport procedure.⁷

Behavioral Adaptations

How the animal psychologically and physically copes with its environment are important indicators that any good stock-person can judge accurately and quickly, for example, a pig panting while moving along a race or up a loading ramp. The spatial reduction, dark alleyways and sharp corners imposed on pigs during the moving procedures may stop pigs walking. The pigs may then display a sudden escape response which could result in hitting the walls or other pigs. Also the breakdown of social groupings, for example, by mixing at loading, results in aggressive behavior such as biting at the neck or flank region.^6,7,46,76,77 Two studies^37,77 showed that mixing led to increased skin damage and the greater degree of damage the higher were the concentrations of cortisol, glucose and lactate in blood. On the transporter, pigs may display signs of sickness. Another study8 concluded that over 25 percent of pigs retched or vomited during the journey that involved slaughter-weight pigs in mixed sex social groups. Changes in temperature, humidity, loading density, noise, unfamiliar smells, vibration and duration of transportation^46,76,77 contribute to potential problems in meat quality.

Animal-Human Interactions

One of the extreme problems during transport can be coming not only in close proximity with humans but that the humans may be unfamiliar.⁷ This highlights the importance of excellent training in handling, and understanding how pigs react to each other, to potential stressors and to the importance of good quality care throughout the pig's productive life. Adequate training will then result in easier movement at the time of transportation and eventual slaughter.^32,39

Drivers of transport vehicles need to be very careful to avoid sudden breaking or great lateral movement that can result in loss of balance, bruising, injury and possible suffocation of the pigs. Proper transportation will reduce producer costs.

COMPONENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROCESS

Training of Transport Workers (Truck Drivers and Farm Workers)

Personnel in charge of pig transporters must have completed an approved training course and be able to demonstrate their competence in handling pigs when loading, unloading and while in transit; where possible this training must be validated. As a minimum, farm workers, animal handlers and truck drivers should view and be familiar with the instructions on handling, loading and transporting pigs found in the National Pork Producers Council videotapes “Swine Handling for Producers” and “Swine Handling for Transporters”. The information in the videos is a primer on pig handling designed for producers, processors and transporters.

Loading

Loading chutes should not exceed a 20 degree slope.³⁵ Chutes too steep put a strain on the pig’s pasterns, causing pain and reluctance to move. Loading ramps must have solid sides and have a flat area for pigs to walk on prior to entering the truck. Ramps may be of concrete or earth and, where concrete, must be fitted with appropriately designed and spaced foot battens and also covered with litter. All tail boards must be fitted with similar foot battens.

Do not transport longer than eight hours without checking the animals. Provide adequate ventilation and wet sand or wet wood chips for bedding during warm weather. During cool weather, straw or a similar material is acceptable for bedding. Pigs must be moved in small, easily manageable groups consisting of no more than five to seven pigs per group. Mixing of pigs from different pens should be avoided.

Electric prods should not be used. Instead, the use of canvas slappers or rattle pads, as an alternative to prods, should be encouraged. The use of electric prods is not a humane method of moving animals as it causes undue stress to the pig. Sharp turns or corners should be avoided in loading chutes. This will minimize grouping of hogs and prevent bruising.⁷⁵

The use of a check sheet with a listing of proper techniques at the time of loading will be routine. This check sheet will reinforce the commitment of a loading crew to proper loading procedures.

Load Size and Transport Trailer Density

Environmental conditions will be considered when trucking hogs. Anytime weather is less than optimum (high temperature/humidity or extreme cold), hog density will be accommodated accordingly.

The floors of all transport vehicles must be covered with an adequate amount of bedding to provide comfort and reduce injury.

Hogs must be able to lie down and stand up in their natural position. As hog density increases, more fighting is observed, resulting in greater harm to the animal and increased stress.

The recommended stocking density is 4.2 square feet (0.38 square meter) for a 250-pound (112.5 kilograms) pig. A standard double-deck trailer that is 48 by 8.5 feet (1440 by 255 centimeters) will accommodate 183 pigs. PIC-USA research indicates that as load size increases, the incidence of pigs dead on arrival (DOA) also increases. Therefore, a proper load size is essential to the well-being of the animals.

Unloading

Procedures listed above for “Loading” should be followed. The waiting time for trucks to unload will be minimized or eliminated. Pigs lose the cooling effect of wind and heat builds up in the truck causing stress to them in times of hot weather. During warm weather, pigs will be showered with water upon unloading and have fresh drinking water available.

CASUALTY ANIMALS

A sick or injured animal may only be transported if it is being taken for veterinary treatment or if it is being taken to the nearest available place for humane slaughter, and then only if the pig is suitable for loading, traveling and unloading.

Note: The following section, on pre-slaughter handling and early carcass handling is the responsibility of the pork processor. These guidelines refer to pork processor guidelines and may not be under the control of the producer – they are intended to help producers identify appropriate processors. The pork producer should gain an assurance from the pork processor that these procedures are followed.

PRE-SLAUGHTER HANDLING

Proper and humane pre-slaughter handling practices are very important to ensure a minimal amount of stress to the animal as well as assuring high meat quality. Holding animals in pens is needed not only for having an adequate number of pigs for slaughter, but also to restore their normal metabolism and reduce stress. The final movement of animals from the holding pens to the restrainer will also be carried out in a manner that will cause a minimal amount of stress to the animal and assure meat quality. Over-excitement of pigs immediately pre-slaughter is not only stressful to the animal, but also typically triggers accelerated post-mortem events leading to pale, soft, exudative (PSE) meat.^58,65,79

Pen Density and Lairage Time

Pigs must have enough room to walk to waterers and move freely. In the summer months, pigs should be able to lie down and have enough room to dissipate any heat build-up resulting from transport and unloading.

There will be frequent showering in the summer to help prevent the pigs from overheating. Showering will help to cool and calm the animals, ensure their well-being and contribute to the production of a high quality product.

Pigs will be rested in their pens for at least an hour after arriving at the slaughter facility. A resting period at the slaughter facility is important to the welfare of the animals as they may be exhausted from the inherent stress of traveling.⁷⁸ Some early research indicated that for a 150-mile (240 kilometers) driving distance, an initial rest period between two to five hours will also result in improved meat quality characteristics, but other research⁶⁵ indicated that just one hour is as good as two to five hours rest.

Final Movement

Animals will be moved to the final restrainer as calmly as possible, in groups small enough not to cause an overcrowding movement problem.

Noise levels in this area should be kept to a minimum.

Electrical prods should not be used. Canvas slappers or rattle pads are an alternative but should not be overused. The time pigs spend in the final restrainer will be kept at a minimum to reduce stress to the animal.

STUNNING AND STICKING

The process that begins the conversion of muscle to meat starts at the stunning unit. Proper stunning is required not only for the humane treatment of the animals, but also for creating an acceptable meat product that is free of blood splash and broken bones. Other problems that may occur as a result of inadequate stunning include inhumane slaughter, bruising, incomplete bleeding and pale, soft, exudative (PSE) meat.

The time from stun to stick of the animals is also critical and should be as short as possible. Hogs should be bled before the kicking phase (clonic) of muscle activity sets in (less than ten seconds if proper stunning is used). Adequate bleeding time is also important for assuring high quality meat and to prevent microbiological spoilage of meat containing a high level of residual blood.

Voltage and Amperage

Electrodes should be applied in such a way that the current should pass through the brain over the shortest distance. Thus, one end of the wand must be on either the forehead or in the hollow behind the ears.^10,36

The animal should be rendered unconscious within one second, if possible. To achieve this, a minimum of 1.25 amps should be used. An optimum stunning system should deliver between 1.25 and 1.5 amps within one to five seconds. Assuming that an average conductivity of a pig is about 300-400 ohms, approximately 300 volts are required to achieve the amperage target.⁸¹

Time from Stun to Stick

The animal must be stuck and bled within five to 30 seconds after completion of stunning. Longer time-periods will cause a dramatic increase of blood pressure and levels of “stress hormones” through the circulatory system causing severe muscle contractions and body convulsions during bleeding leading to pale, soft, exudative (PSE) and reddish, soft, exudative (RSE) meat.³⁴

Bleed Time and Scalding

The animal will be bled for a minimum of five minutes prior to scalding. Scalding water temperature will be approximately 140degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and scalding time will not exceed six minutes.

Carcass Chilling

The chilling process should start as soon as possible post-mortem. This will help to improve meat color and minimize drip loss.⁴³ Carcass chilling improves meat quality and directly affects final meat quality characteristics such as color, drip loss and tenderness. It is also very important for retardation of microbial growth.^{19,26,58,71,72,74}

The internal muscle temperature should not be lower than 50degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius) until rigor mortis is completed. This will prevent the so-called muscle "cold-shortening" and the associated high drip loss. Cold-shortening occurs when muscle pH is 6.3 or higher (due to slow rigor mortis processes), and its internal temperature is lower than 50degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius). The internal muscle temperature should be approximately 36 to 40degrees Fahrenheit 2.2 to 4.4 degrees Celsius) 24 hours post mortem.^18,52,56,69

VII. REFERENCES

1. Alexander, T.J.L. and D.L. Harris. 1992. Methods of disease control. In: A.D. Leman, B.E. Straw, W.L. Mengeling, S. D’Allaire, and D.J. Taylor (Eds.) Diseases Of Swine. pp 808-836. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

2. Andrews, E.J., B.T. Bennett, J.D. Clark, K.A. Houpt, P.J. Pascoe, G.W. Robinson and J.R. Boyce. 1993. Report of the Panel on Euthanasia. JAVMA. 202(2):229-249.

3. Arey, D.S. 1991. Tail-biting in pigs. Farm Building Progress. 105:20-23.

4. Backstrom, L. and R.G. Kauffman. 1995. The Porcine Stress Syndrome: a review of genetics, environmental factors, and animal well-being implications. Agri-Practice. 16:24-30.

5. Bottcher, R.W. and S.J. Hoff. 1997. Behavior, skin and foot lesions in sows and piglets on different farrowing house floors. Livestock Environment V. Volume I. In: Proc. 5th Int. Symp., Bloomington, MN. pp 242-249.

6. Bradshaw, R.H., J.M. Randall, M.L. Forsling, R. Rodway, J.A. Goode, S.N. Brown and D.M. Broom. 1999. Travel sickness and meat quality in pigs. Anim Welf. 8:3-14.

7. Broom, D.M. 1996. How well do farm animals cope with their environment during transport? Fleischwirtschaft. 76:279-281.

8. Brown, J.M.E., S.A. Edwards, W.J. Smith, E. Thompson and J. Duncan. 1996. Welfare and production of teeth clipping and iron injection of piglets in outdoor systems in Scotland. Prev. Vet. Med. 27:95-105.

9. Christian, L.L. 1972. A review of the role of genetics in animal stress susceptibility and meat quality. Proc. Pork Qual. Symp., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. pp 91-115.

10. Cook, C.J. 1993. A guide to better electrical stunning. Meat Focus Int. 3:128.

11. Curtis, S.E. and J.G. Drummond. 1982. Air environment and animal performance. In: M. Rechicigl (Ed.) Handbook for Agricultural Productivity, VII. Animal Productivity. pp 107-118. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

12. Curtis, S.E. 1986. Toxic gases. In: J.L. Howard and W.B. Saunders (Eds.) Current Veterinary Therapy: Food Animal Practice 2. pp. 456-457. Philadelphia, PA.

13. Edwards, S.A. and A.L. Lightfoot. 1986. The effect of floor type in farrowing pens on pig injury. II. Leg and teat damage of sows. Br. Vet. J. 142:441-445.

14. Eikelenboom, G., A.H. Bolink and W. Sybesma. 1991. Effects of feed withdrawal before delivery on pork quality and carcass yield. Meat Sci. 29:25-30.

15. Enfalt, A., K. Lundstrom and U. Engstrand. 1993. Early post mortem pH decrease in porcine M. longissimus dorsi of PSE, normal and DFD muscle. Meat Sci. 34:131-143.

16. Enfalt, A. K., K. Lundstrom, I. Hansson, S. Johansen and P. Nystrom. 1996. Comparison of non-carriers and heterozygous carriers of the RN allele for carcass composition, muscle distribution and technological meat quality in Hampshire-sired pigs. Livestock Prod. Sci. 47:221-229.

17. Feddes, J.J. and D. Fraser. 1994. Non-nutritive chewing by pigs: implications for tail-biting and behavioral enrichment. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. 37(3):947-950.

18. Feldhusen, F., T. Kirschner, R. Koch, W. Giese and S. Wenzel. 1995. Influence on meat color of spray-chilling the surface of pig carcasses. Meat Sci. 40:245-251.

19. Fernandez, X., A. Forslid and E. Tornberg. 1994. The effect of high post-mortem temperature on the development of pale, soft, and exudative pork: interaction with ultimate pH. Meat Sci. 37:133-147.

20. Fischer, K., C. Augustini and R. McCormick. 1988. Effect of fasting time before slaughter on the quality of pig meat. Fleischwirtsch. 68(4):485-488.

21. Fraser, A.F. and D.M. Broom. 1997. Pig welfare problems. In: Farm animal behaviour and welfare (3^rd Ed.). pp 358-369. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxen, UK.

22. Fraser, D. 1975. The effect of straw on the behaviour of sows in tether stalls. Anim. Prod. 21:59-68.

23. Fraser, D. 1978. Observations on the behavioural development of suckling and early-weaned piglets during the first six weeks after birth. Anim. Behav. 26:22-30.

24. Fraser, D. 1987. Attraction to blood as a factor in tail-biting by pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 17:61-68.

25. Fraser, D., D.E. Bernon and R.O. Ball. 1991. Enhanced attraction to blood by pigs with inadequate dietary protein supplementation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:611-619.

26. Frederick, T.L., M.F. Miller, D.K. Jones, M.K. Meade and C.B. Ramsey. 1994. Hot fat trimming of pork carcasses to reduce pale, soft and exudative pork. J. Muscle Foods. 5:165-173.

27. Fritschen, R.D. 1976. Effect of building arrangement and management on performance and behaviour of G-F pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 42:1339-1340.

28. Fritschen, R.D. and A.J. Muehling. 1984. Flooring for swine. Pork Industry Handbook No. PIH-53. Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL. pp 1-6.

29. Fritschen, R.D. and A.J. Mueling. 1987. Space requirements for swine. Pork Industry Handbook. East Lansing, MI.

30. Furniss, S.J., S.A. Edwards, A.L. Lightfoot and H.H. Spechter. 1986. The effect of floor type in farrowing pens on pig injury. I. Leg and teat damage of suckling piglets. Brit. Vet. J. 142:434-440.

31. Gadd, J. 1967. Tail-biting. Pig Farming. 15:55-58.

32. Geers, R., E. Bleus, T. Van Schie, H. Ville, H. Gerard, S. Janssens, G. Nackaerts, E. Decuypere and J. Jourquin. 1994. Transport of pigs different with respect to the Halothane gene stress assessment. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2552-2558.

33. Goodwin, R.F. 1971. A procedure for investigating the influence of disease status on productivity efficiency in a pig herd. Vet. Rec. 88:387-392.

34. Grandin, T. 1991. Preventing bloodsplash in pork. Meat & Poultry. 3:51.

35. Grandin, T. 1993. Management commitment to incremental improvements greatly improves livestock handling. Meat Focus Int. 10:450-453.

36. Gregory, N.G. 1985. Effect of stunning on carcass and meat quality. In: P.V. Tarrant, G. Eiklenbloom and G. Monin (Eds.) Evaluation and control of meat quality in pigs.

37. Guise, H.J. and R.H.C. Penny. 1996. Pig transportation. Vet. Rec. 138:339.

38. Heard, T.W. 1981. Methods of approach to diagnosis and resolution of pig health problems. Br. Vet. J. 137:337-347.

39. Hemsworth, P.H. and J.L. Barnett. 1987. Human-animal interactions. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 3(2):339-356.

40. Hemsworth, P.H. and G.J. Coleman. 1998. Human-livestock interactions. The stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. CAB Int. Wallingford, Oxen, UK. pp. 62-75.

41. Hill, J.D., J.J. McGlone, S.D. Fullwood and M.F. Miller. 1998. Environmental enrichment influences on pig behavior, performance and meat quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 57:51-68.

42. Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Overview of swine options: economics and production systems. In: Proc. Swine System Options for Iowa. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. pp 42-54.

43. Jeremiah, L.E. 1995. An overview of extension of chilled pork storage life. Meat Focus Int. 2:69.

44. Kilgour, R. and C. Dalton. 1984. Livestock behaviour: a practical guide. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp 151-185.

45. Lambooy, E. 1988. Road transport of pigs over a long distance: some aspects of behaviour, temperature and humidity during transport and some effects of the last two factors. Anim. Prod. 46:257-263.

46. Lambooy, E., G.J.Garssen, P. Walstra, G. Mateman and G.S.M. Merkus. 1985. Transport of pigs by car for two days: some aspects of watering and loading density. Livestock Prod. Sci. 13:289-299.

47. Lambooy, E. and B. Engel. 1991. Transport of slaughter pigs by truck over a long distance: some aspects of loading density and ventilation. Livestock Prod. Sci. 28:163-174.

48. Livestock Conservation Institute. 1992. Proper handling techniques for non-ambulatory animals. Madison, WI.

49. Lundstrom, K. and A.C. Enfalt. 1996. Rapid prediction of RN phenotype in pigs by means of meat juice. Meat Sci. 45:127-131.

50. Lynch, P.B., J.F. O’Grady and P.A. Kearney. 1984. Effect of housing system on sow productivity. Ann. Rech. Vet. 15:181-184.

51. Marchant, J.N. and D.M. Broom. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Br. Soc. Anim. Sci. 62:105-113.

52. McGinnis, D.S. 1994. Red meat carcass chilling: a design dilemma. Meat Focus Int. 1:30-35.

53. McGlone, J.J. and F. Blecha. 1987. The welfare of sows and piglets: examination of

behavioral immunological and productive traits in four management systems. Appl.

Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:269-286.

54. McGlone, J.J. and R.I. Nicholson. 1992. Effects of limited floor and feeder space on pig performance and tail biting. Texas Tech Univ. Anim. Sci. Research Rep No. T-5-317. pp.26-27. Lubbock, TX.

55. McGlone, J. J. and J. Morrow-Tesch. 1990. Productivity and behavior of sows in level versus sloped farrowing pens and crates. J. Anim. Sci. 68:82-87.

56. McMullen, L.M. and E. Stiles. 1994. Quality of fresh retail pork cuts stored in modified atmosphere under temperature conditions simulating export to distant markets. Meat Sci. 38:163-177.

57. Midwest Plan Service. 1983. Swine housing and equipment handbook, 4th ed. Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.

58. Milligan, S.D., C.B. Ramsey, M.F. Miller, C.S. Kaster and L.D. Thompson. 1998. Resting of pigs and hot-fat trimming and accelerated chilling of carcasses to improve pork quality. J. Anim. Sci. 76:74-86.

59. National Pork Producers Council. 1996. Swine care handbook. Des Moines, IA.

60. National Pork Producers Council. 1996. Swine care handbook for pork producers using environmentally controlled housing. National Pork Producers Council. Des Moines, IA.

61. National Pork Producers Council and the American Association of Swine Practitioners. 1997. On farm euthanasia of swine-options for the producer. Des Moines, IA.

62. Nakano, T. and F.X. Aherne. 1992. Morphology and water and lipid contents of stifle menisci of growing swine. Can. J. Vet. Res. 56:165-167.

63. Noonan, G.J., J.S. Rand, J. Priest, J. Ainscow and J.K. Blackshaw. 1994. Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 39:203-213.

64. Oldham, J. 1992. Vices, mutilations and welfare of pigs. In Practice. 11:55-56.

65. Owen, B.L. 1995. Improving pork quality by reducing the incidence of PSE pork. M.S. Thesis. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

66. Penny, R.H.C. and F.W.G. Hill. 1974. Observations of some conditions seen in pigs at the abattoir with particular reference to tail biting. Vet. Rec. 94:174-180.

67. Perrin, W.R., F.X. Aherne, J.P. Bowland, and R.T. Hardin. 1978. Effects of age, breed and floor type on the incidence of articular cartilage lesions in pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 58:129-138.

68. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 1998. Welfare standards for pigs. W. Sussex, U.K.

69. Schaefer, A.L., S.D.M. Jones and R.W. Stanley. 1997. The use of electrolyte solutions for reducing transport stress. J. Anim. Sci. 75:258-265.

70. Stolba, A. 1981. A family system in enriched pens as a novel method of pig housing ethology. Potter Bar, Hertfordshire: The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, pp 52-67.

71. Taylor, A.A. and G.R. Nute. 1995. The effect of chilling, electrical stimulation and conditioning on pork eating quality. Meat Sci. 39:339-347.

72. Tarrant, P.V. 1989. The effects of handling, transport, slaughter and chilling on meat quality and yield in pigs-a review. Irish J. Food Sci. Technol. 13:79-107.

73. Topel, D.G., E.J. Bicknell, K.S. Preston, L.L. Christian and C.Y. Matsushima. 1968. Porcine stress syndrome. Mod. Vet. Pract. 49:40-60.

74. Van der Wal, P.G., B. Engel, G. Van Beek and C.H. Veerkamp. 1995. Chilling pig carcasses: effects on temperature, weight loss and ultimate meat quality. Meat Sci. 40:193-202.

75. Warriss, P.D. 1994. Handling pigs immediately preslaughter - practical concerns and considerations for welfare and meat quality. Meat Focus Int. 4:167-172.

76. Warriss, P.D. 1998. The welfare of slaughter pigs during transport. Animal Welfare. 7:365-381.

77. Warris, P.D. and S.N. Brown. 1985. The physiological responses to fighting in pigs and the consequences of meat quality. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 36:87-92.

78. Warriss, P.D., S.N. Brown, J.E. Edwards, M.H. Anil and D.P. Fordham. 1992. Time in lairage needed by pigs to recover from the stress of transport. Vet. Rec. 131:194-196.

79. Wariss, P.D., S.N. Brown, G.R. Nute, T.G. Knowles, J.E. Edwards, A.M. Perry and S.P. Johnson. 1995. Potential interactions between the effects of preslaughter stress and post-mortem electrical stimulation of the carcasses on meat quality in pigs. Meat Sci. 41:55-68.

80. Wilkinson, F.C., and J.K. Blackshaw. 1987. Do day old piglets need to have their teeth clipped? In: J.L. Barnett, E.S. Batherham, G.M. Cronin, C. Hansen, P.H. Hemsworth, D.P. Hennessy, P.E. Hughes, N.E. Johnson and R.H. King (Eds.) Manipulating pig production. Australian Pig Science Association. Werribee, Victoria, Australia.

81. Wotton, S. 1995. The causes and prevention of physical activity following stunning in pigs. Meat Focus Int. 3:105.

--pii--

Objectives of the Sustainable Porkä Program

Certification of farms

comparison with other certification programs

Objectives of the Animal-Friendly section

Antibiotics

Gestation Systems

Farrowing Systems

Systems for Growing Pigs from Weaning to Market Weight

Minimum Floor Area Required for Swine in Totally Enclosed Housing a

Space Required for Pigs in Buildings with Outside Aprona

Air Quality

Weaning

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT

Introduction

FEEDING AND GROWTH

TRANSPORTATION

Behavioral Adaptations

Loading

Unloading

CASUALTY ANIMALS

IV. Worker Friendly

V. COMMUNITY FRIENDLY

SUSTAINABLE PORKä COLLABORATORS

VII. REFERENCES

Minimum Floor Area Required for Swine in Totally Enclosed Housing ^a

Space Required for Pigs in Buildings with Outside Apron^a