Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:30:41.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal-based measures on fattening heavy pigs at the slaughterhouse and the association with animal welfare at the farm level: a preliminary study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2019

A. M. Maisano ,
M. Luini ,
N. Vitale ,
S. Rota Nodari ,
F. Scali ,
G. L. Alborali  and
F. Vezzoli Open the ORCID record for F. Vezzoli [Opens in a new window]
A. M. Maisano
Affiliation:
Sezione Diagnostica di Lodi, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna, Via A. Einstein, Lodi 26900, Italy
M. Luini
Affiliation:
Sezione Diagnostica di Lodi, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna, Via A. Einstein, Lodi 26900, Italy
N. Vitale
Affiliation:
Osservatorio Epidemiologico Veterinario Regione Lombardia – Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna, Via A. Bianchi 9, Brescia 25124, Italy
S. Rota Nodari
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna ‘Bruno Ubertini’ (IZSLER) – Sede, Via A. Bianchi 9, Brescia 25124, Italy
F. Scali
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna ‘Bruno Ubertini’ (IZSLER) – Sede, Via A. Bianchi 9, Brescia 25124, Italy
G. L. Alborali
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna ‘Bruno Ubertini’ (IZSLER) – Sede, Via A. Bianchi 9, Brescia 25124, Italy
F. Vezzoli*
Affiliation:
Sezione Diagnostica di Lodi, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna, Via A. Einstein, Lodi 26900, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Monitoring animal welfare (AW) in pig farms requires both proper indicators and a feasible approach. Animal-based measures (ABMs) are well-established AW indicators. Furthermore, AW screening at the slaughterhouses could be useful for identifying problems on farm. The aim of this study was to evaluate ABMs at the slaughterhouse and, when possible, to compare these ABMs with those collected on the farm. The study was carried out in northern Italy in a commercial abattoir and in a sample of farms. Animal-based measures were recorded on pigs from 62 batches of 54 farms, during ante-mortem (n=10 085 pigs) and post-mortem (n=7952 pigs) inspections. Sixteen of 54 farms were selected to compare ABMs collected at the slaughterhouse with ABMs collected on the farm. Overall, 2295 pigs (mean pigs examined per farm 119±45) were inspected at the slaughterhouse (group S) and 420 pigs (mean pigs per farm 26±5) on the farm (group F). Non-animal-based measures were also collected at the 16 farms. Differences between groups S and F, at the animal level, were assessed by a two-tailed paired Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Differences at the site of observation level (farm and slaughterhouse) were assessed by Fisher’s exact test using a hierarchical log-linear modelling for contingency tables. The most frequent ABMs at the slaughterhouse were manure on the body (47.7%), followed by dermatitis (28.0%), white spot (25.4%) and bursitis (24.7%). Recording ABMs at the slaughterhouse and on the farm usually yielded similar results; however, there were some exceptions. In particular, significant differences were found for non-uniformity of size (P<0.05) and dermatitis (P<0.001), which were higher at the slaughterhouse than on the farm. Results of log-linear modelling underlined the effect of the farm of origin on the percentage of pigs with bursitis, manure on the body and ear injuries that were observed at the slaughterhouse. In group S, significant associations between manure on the body and insufficient presence of clean and dry areas in the corresponding farm were found (P<0.05). Although these results should be interpreted with care due to the limited sample of farms, the slaughterhouse could be a feasible site of observation of ABMs, which could then be integrated in monitoring of AW on farm. Considering the number of slaughtered batches per farm, it would be possible to repeat assessments several times throughout the year for each farm, which could help provide an index for the continuous monitoring of AW.

Keywords

swine welfareanimal welfare assessmentpig husbandryabattoirmeat inspection
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 108 - 118
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algers, B, Blokhuis, HJ, Broom, DM, Costa, P, Domingo, M, Greiner, M, Guemene, D, Hartung, J, Koenen, F, Muller-Graf, C, Morton, DB, Osterhaus, A, Pfeiffer, DU, Roberts, R, Sanaa, M, Salman, M, Michael Sharp, J, Vannier, P, Wierup, M and Wooldridge, M 2007. Pig welfare risks associated with tail biting. EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
Andersen, EMO, Spangsberg, R, Pedersen, KS, Barington, K and Jensen, HE 2014. Umbilical hernia and differential diagnoses in slaughter pigs. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress, 8–11 June 2014, Cancun, Mexico, p. 126.Google Scholar
Boes, J, Kanora, A, Havn, KT, Christiansen, S, Vestergaard-Nielsen, K, Jacobs, J and Alban, L 2010. Effect of Ascaris suum infection on performance of fattening pigs. Veterinary Parasitology 172, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottacini, M, Scollo, A, Edwards, S, Contiero, B, Veloci, M, Pace, V and Gottardo, F 2018. Skin lesion monitoring at slaughter on heavy pigs (170 kg): welfare indicators and ham defects. PLoS ONE 13, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P and Aaslyng, MD 2015. Welfare measurements of finishing pigs on the day of slaughter: a review. Meat Science 103, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cargill, CF, Pointon, AM, Davies, PR and Garcia, R 1997. Using slaughter inspections to evaluate sarcoptic mange infestation of finishing swine. Veterinary Parasitology 70, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, GA, Boyle, LA, Teixeira, DL, Van Staaveren, N, Hanlon, A and O’Connell, NE 2016. Effects of scalding and dehairing of pig carcasses at abattoirs on the visibility of welfare-related lesions. Animal 10, 460–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalmau, A, Nande, A, Vieira-Pinto, M, Zamprogna, S, Di Martino, G, Ribas, JCR, da Costa, MP, Halinen-Elemo, K and Velarde, A 2016. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol in pig slaughterhouses of five countries. Livestock Science 193, 78–87.Google Scholar
Dalmau, A, Temple, D, Rodríguez, P, Llonch, P and Velarde, A 2009. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol at pig slaughterhouses. Animal Welfare 18, 497–505.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2005. The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types. Scientific Report: Efsa-Q-2004-077, 1–19.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2007a. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on Animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. EFSA Journal 564, 1–14.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2007b. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2011. Scientific opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA Journal 9, 1–198.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2012a. Scientific opinion of Panel on Animal Health and Welfare: statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10, 2767.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2012b. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare in Pigs. EFSA Journal 10, 1–85.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2014. Scientific opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. EFSA Journal 12, 1–101.Google Scholar
Galuppi, R, Avenoso, AM, Leotti, G, Ostanello, F, Poglayen, P and Tampieri, MP 2007. Diagnosis of sarcoptic mange in slaughtered swine. Veterinary Research Communications 31, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghidini, S, Zanardi, E, Di Ciccio, PA, Borrello, S, Belluzi, G, Guizzardi, S and Ianieri, A 2018. Development and test of a visual-only meat inspection system for heavy pigs in Northern Italy. BMC Veterinary Research 14, 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grindflek, E, Hansen, MHS, Lien, S and van Son, M 2018. Genome-wide association study reveals a QTL and strong candidate genes for umbilical hernia in pigs on SSC14. BMC Genomics 19, 412.Google ScholarPubMed
Harley, S, More, SJ, O’Connell, NE, Hanlon, A, Teixeira, D and Boyle, L 2012. Evaluating the prevalence of tail biting and carcase condemnations in slaughter pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the potential of abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Veterinary Record 171, 621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, LJ, Wallenbeck, A, Larsen, A and Holmgren, N 2012. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 54, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Rousing, T, Sorensen, JT and Houe, H 2015. Assessing animal welfare in sow herds using data on meat inspection, medication and mortality. Animal 9, 509–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kongsted, H and Sørensen, JT 2017. Lesions found at routine meat inspection on finishing pigs are associated with production system. Veterinary Journal 223, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Pérez, JM, Vandekerckhove, E, Vlaminck, J, Geldhof, P and Martínez-Valladares, M 2017. Serological detection of Ascaris suum at fattening pig farms is linked with performance and management indices. Veterinary Parasitology 248, 33–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Merialdi, G, Dottori, M, Bonilauri, P, Luppi, A, Gozio, S, Pozzi, P, Spaggiari, B and Martelli, P 2012. Survey of pleuritis and pulmonary lesions in pigs at abattoir with a focus on the extent of the condition and herd risk factors. The Veterinary Journal 193, 234–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluym, L, Van Nuffel, A, Dewulf, J, Cools, A, Vangroenweghe, F, Van Hoorebeke, S and Maes, D 2011. Prevalence and risk factors of claw lesions and lameness in pregnant sows in two types of group housing. Veterinarni Medicina 53, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 Official Journal of the European Union L 95/1, 1–142. Google Scholar
Schild, SLA, Rousing, T, Jensen, HE, Barington, K and Herskin, MS 2015. Do umbilical outpouchings affect the behaviour or clinical condition of pigs during 6 h housing in a pre-transport pick-up facility? Research in Veterinary Science 101, 126–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scollo, A, Contiero, B and Gottardo, F 2016. Frequency of tail lesions and risk factors for tail biting in heavy pig production from weaning to 170 kg live weight. Veterinary Journal 207, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smulders, D, Hautekiet, V, Verbeke, G and Geers, R 2008. Tail and ear biting lesions in pigs: an epidemiological study. Animal Welfare 17, 61–69.Google Scholar
Van Staaveren, N, Doyle, B, Manzanilla, EG, Calderón Díaz, JA, Hanlon, A and Boyle, LA 2017a. Validation of carcass lesions as indicators for on-farm health and welfare of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 95, 1528–1536.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Staaveren, N, Teixeira, DL, Hanlon, A and Boyle, LA 2017b. Pig carcass tail lesions: the influence of record keeping through an advisory service and the relationship with farm performance parameters. Animal 11, 140–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Staaveren, N, Vale, AP, Manzanilla, EG, Teixeira, DL, Leonard, FC, Hanlon, A and Boyle, LA 2016. Relationship between tail lesions and lung health in slaughter pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 127, 21–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Vitali, A, Lana, E, Amadori, M, Bernabucci, U, Nardone, A and Lacetera, N 2014. Analysis of factors associated with mortality of heavy slaughter pigs during transport and lairage. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5134–5141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
vom Brocke, AL, Karnholz, C, Madey-Rindermann, D, Gauly, M, Leeb, C, Winckler, C, Schrader, and Dippel, S 2018. Tail lesions in fattening pigs: relationships with postmortem meat inspection and influence of a tail biting management tool. Animal 13, 835–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira, DL, Harley, S, Hanlon, A, O’Connell, NE, More, SJ, Manzanilla, EG and Boyle, LA 2016. Study on the association between tail lesion score, cold carcass weight, and viscera condemnations in slaughter pigs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2012. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6, 656–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2012. Animal welfare assessment at slaughter in Europe: moving from inputs to outputs. Meat Science 92, 244–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Maisano et al. supplementary material

Maisano et al. supplementary material 1

Download Maisano et al. supplementary material(File)
File 25.8 MB