Michael Ellis University of Illinois

Publish Date: April 5, 2012

Transport losses in market-weight pigs (dead and non-ambulatory pigs) represent animal welfare, legal, and economic concerns [1]. First of all, improving the well-being of pigs during transport and reducing the incidence of dead and non-ambulatory pigs are animal welfare priorities [2]. Second, non-ambulatory livestock are the subject of increased rules and regulations. For example, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors and plant welfare auditors evaluate how non-ambulatory pigs are handled at the packing plant. Improper handling of non-ambulatory pigs at the plant can result in a USDA non-compliance report and/or a failed plant welfare audit [3-4]. Third, transport losses represent direct financial losses to producers and packers. These losses have been estimated to cost the U.S. swine industry approximately $50 to $100 million annually [5].

Publish Date: June 3, 2006

Choice of appropriate group size is an important consideration when designing facilities, particularly for growing pigs (from weaning to slaughter) and for sows that are group housed during gestation. Commercially, pigs are housed in group sizes ranging from individual animals (e.g., sow gestation crates) to, in certain cases, groups of several thousand animals. Small group sizes (around 10 pigs per pen) are used on some operations for growing pigs, particularly those that use litter segregation (keeping whole litters together in discreet groups from weaning to slaughter), although this practice is not widespread. Typical group sizes for commercial production are generally within the range 20 to 30 pigs per group. Recently, there has been increased interest in the use of larger groups for growing pigs. Initially this interest focused on the potential to reduce costs and improve management in larger groups, however, more recently, the development of automatic sorting systems which are based on groups of between 500 and 1000 pigs has added a new dimension to the debate on optimum group sizes.

Publish Date: June 3, 2006

This paper reviews the literature relating to the potential impact of swine nutrition on pork quality attributes. Supra-nutritional levels of vitamin E have been shown to increase muscle vitamin E content and reduce lipid oxidation; however, the impact on muscle color and water holding capacity has been variable. Selenium is also potentially involved in reducing lipid oxidation; there is no evidence, however, that supplying additional selenium above the requirement improves pork quality. Recent research has suggested that the feeding of high levels of vitamin D3 in the final 10 days prior to slaughter improves pork color and reduces drip loss; these results require validation. Feeding ingredients with relatively high levels of unsaturated fatty acids increases the degree of unsaturation of the fat tissue, decrease fat firmness, and can negatively impact fat quality. The potential to produce “healthier” pork by feeding ingredients rich in omega-3 fatty acids and to improve fat firmness by including conjugated linoleic acid in the diet is discussed. There is evidence that restricted feeding of growing-finishing pigs can negatively impact pork tenderness and juiciness. The marbling fat content of pork has been positively associated with eating quality and feeding protein-deficient diets in the final 5 weeks prior to slaughter has been shown to increase marbling. Australian research has suggested that supplementation of diets with magnesium aspartate for 5 days prior to slaughter reduces the incidence of PSE and improves muscle color and water holding capacity. A range of other dietary compounds has been investigated; however, there is limited evidence on which to judge their efficacy for improving pork quality under commercial conditions.