Objective A field trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of on-farm antemortem inspection performed by Australian pig producers in terms of proficiency in detecting unhealthy animals (suspects), the impact on food safety and animal welfare outcomes.Animals A total of 64 trial groups of market pigs ( n = 10,703) were dispatched from 20 herds to three abattoirs in three states.Procedure All producers and abattoir antemortem inspectors were trained in antemortem inspection prior to the trial using a standardised set of antemortem criteria. Study 1 consisted of three comparisons: on-farm versus abattoir antemortem inspections on the same pigs, transport effects in suspect and normal pigs, and meat rejection and carcase disposition in suspect and normal pigs. Study 2 compared Salmonella spp status of suspect and normal pigs. Studies 3 and 4 were conducted to assist the interpretation of the results of on-farm versus abattoir inspection. Antemortem inspection results of three producers and one abattoir antemortem inspector were compared with those of a reference inspector (Gold Standard). ResultsOf the pigs examined, 2.12% (95% CI: 1.84%, 2.42%) were classified as suspect at on-farm antemortem inspection compared to only 0.14% at abattoir antemortem inspection. Forty one percent of pigs classified as suspect on-farm had locomotor problems (arthritis, lameness and foot abscess). Compared to normal pigs, suspect pigs had a relative risk of 67.7 ( P < 0.0001) of suffering transport injuries. Meat rejection amounted to the equivalent of 9.68% of suspect carcases, compared to the equivalent of 0.35% of normal carcases. The isolation of Salmonella species from caecal content from 20.9% of 67 suspect pigs and 18.8% of 133 control pigs (two matched healthy pigs from the same batch for each suspect pig) were not significantly different. When compared with the reference inspector on-farm, three producers classified abnormalities in 2,495 pigs with high specificity (0.98), acceptable sensitivity (0.82) and kappa (0.57). ConclusionsWith training, producer sensitivity in antemortem inspection may be high and more proficient than abattoir antemortem inspection. Use of producer inspections may have benefits for animal welfare and chain efficiency, but not food safety.

With training, producer sensitivity in antemortem inspection may be high and more proficient than abattoir antemortem inspection. Use of producer inspections may have benefits for animal welfare and chain efficiency, but not food safety.