Effects of two transport systems on lamb welfare and meat quality G.C. Miranda‐de la Lama a, ⁎, M.I. Salazar-Sotelo b , C. Pérez-Linares b , F. Figueroa-Saavedra b , M. Villarroel c , C. Sañudo a , G.A. Maria a a Department of Animal Production and Food Science, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013, Zaragoza, Spain b Research Institute of Veterinary Science, Autonomous University of Baja California, UABC, Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico c Department of Animal Science, E.T.S.I.A. Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain abstract article info Article history: Received 4 January 2012 Received in revised form 21 March 2012 Accepted 27 May 2012 Keywords: Transport Stopovers Logistics Welfare Meat quality Lambs The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of a direct transport system (DTS) versus transport with a logistic stopover system (TLS) on lamb welfare and meat quality at two seasons. A total of 96 lambs were sampled in a 2×2×2 factorial design, testing two transport systems and two seasons (summer and winter), with two repli- cates in each season. Significant interactions (P ≤0.05) between transport system and season in both welfare and meat quality were found. In general, lambs subjected to direct transport and logistic stopover during winter had a more intense stress response and poorer meat quality than lambs transported during summer. However, direct transport during the cold season seemed to be the most stressful, compared to the rest of the groups, which was reflected in significantly higher levels of cortisol, lactate, glucose, ratio of N/L, higher pH24 and darker and tougher meat. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Live animal transport is an essential component of the farming industry (Ljungberg, Gebresenbet, & Aradom, 2007). Currently, the wel- fare of animals during transport is a concern to governments, producers, hauliers, welfare organisations, legislators and consumers (Kettlewell et al., 2001). These concerns include, among others, handling, time off feed and water, stocking densities on vehicles, vehicle design, journey duration, mortality and weather conditions (Edge & Barnett, 2009). There are data to suggest that the transport of farm animals is a stressful procedure which may compromise welfare (Tarrant, 1990), reduce meat quality (María, Villarroel, Sañudo, Olleta, & Gebresenbet, 2003) and may, in extreme cases, involve mortality (Knowles, Maunder, & Warriss, 1994). The logistics of live animal transport has also been under scrutiny in terms of animal welfare, food safety, environmental, and economic impact. Modern logistical operations have been applied to evaluate effects on transport performance, animal stress and meat quality (Gribkovskaia, Gullberg, Hovden, & Wallace, 2006). The key element in a logistics chain is the transportation system, which joins the separate activities. Transportation occupies one-third of the logistics costs and transportation systems influence the performance of the logistics system (Tseng, Yue, & Taylor, 2005). Efficient logistics management can increase profits for producers, dealers and retailers (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2011). Several critical stages should be considered, in- cluding farms, hauliers, intermediate stopover points (i.e. staging points, auction markets, assembly centres, logistic classification centres, sanitary control points) and abattoirs (Miranda-de la Lama, Villarroel, Liste, Escós, & María, 2010a). Coordinating all these operations is a com- plex task, which requires communication between all involved, syn- chrony and effective use of available resources in transport in terms of lead times, delivery frequency, and reliability with minimum cost, under the constraints of capacity and product quality (Ljungberg et al., 2007). Compared to other domestic species, sheep transport has more disparate points of origin (Fisher, Colditz, Lee, & Ferguson, 2009). In Spain, an estimated 12 million lambs are transported per year (Liste et al., 2011), often between farm and feedlot, logistic classification centre, or abattoir. In addition, the recent tendency for fewer abattoirs due to specialization and centralization has increased the number of intermediate steps (Gebresenbet, Bosona, Ljungberg, & Aradom, 2011). Sheep farms have become more specialized and increased in size, tending to integrate and coordinate their operations into the supply chain. Logistic classification centres (LC) have arisen where lambs are classified according to origin and other commercial re- quirements such as weight, and kept for several hours before being transported to the slaughterhouse. As a result, journey time has in- creased and there are more stopovers, making the route plan more complex. It is quite common to have a two journeys on the same day to connect the farm with LC and after with large slaughter plants. Little is known about the effect of direct transport versus transport Meat Science 92 (2012) 554–561 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Departamento de Producción Animal, y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, E-50013, Zaragoza, Spain. Tel.: +34 976761000 4146; fax: +34 976 761612. E-mail address: genaro@unizar.es (G.C. Miranda‐de la Lama). 0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.026 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Meat Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci