Development and test of a visual-only meat inspection system for heavy pigs in Northern Italy

Abstract

BackgroundThere is a general consensus in recognizing that traditional meat inspection is no longer able to address the hazards related to meat consumption. Moreover, it has been shown that invasive procedures, such as palpation and incision, can increase microbial contamination in carcasses. For these reasons, legislations all over the world are changing meat inspection techniques, moving towards visual-only techniques. Hence, there was also the need to test visual-only inspection in pigs in Italy.ResultsA protocol for visual-only post-mortem inspection was produced together with a 24-class scheme used to record pathological lesions. A list of guidelines needed for univocal interpretation and classification of lesions was developed. To record lesions at the slaughtering line, a light instrument that is resistant to the slaughter environment was designed and then produced in collaboration with an electro-medical company. Six contracted veterinarians were chosen and trained. They performed visual-only post-mortem inspections on 231.673 heavy pigs in three different slaughterhouses of Northern Italy. Visual-only inspection was compared to traditional inspection on 38.819 pig carcasses. No relevant differences were found between the two systems.ConclusionsThe comparison between traditional and visual-only inspection showed that visual-only inspection can be adopted in pig slaughterhouse. The analysis of the performance of the veterinarians stressed the importance of standardization and continuous education for veterinarians working in this field.

Views of veterinarians and meat inspectors concerning the practical application of visual meat inspection on domestic pigs in Finland

“…In the open questions of our study, lesions in the lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys and their related lymph nodes, along with supramammary lymph nodes, and the umbilical region and joints were often visually clear, and therefore additional post-mortem procedures were not considered necessary to identify the lesion. This is also largely supported by a recent Italian study (Ghidini et al 2018). Mycobacteria was the most commonly mentioned microbe in the answers.…”

“…Neoplasms, with lymphomas most commonly mentioned by the meat inspection staff in our questionnaire, are rare in slaughter pigs and in Italy, the change from traditional to visual inspection did not decrease the detection of neoplasms (Ghidini et al 2018).…”

“…In addition, the detection of some local infections can be enhanced in visual meat inspection (Ghidini et al 2018). In the open questions of our study, lesions in the lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys and their related lymph nodes, along with supramammary lymph nodes, and the umbilical region and joints were often visually clear, and therefore additional post-mortem procedures were not considered necessary to identify the lesion.…”

“…pneumonia, abscesses, endocarditis and pericarditis) are mostly caused by non-zoonotic agents and those that are zoonotic, are mainly occupational, not foodborne risks. Therefore, the reduced visibility does not lead to increased food safety risk, as shown in various studies (Alban et al 2008;Hill et al 2013;Pacheco et al 2013;Tongue et al 2013;Kruse et al 2015;Blagojevic et al 2015;Ghidini et al 2018). To fulfill the legislative requirement to inspect all external surfaces, different technical solutions may be used, such as mirrors or systems that rotate carcases to allow visibility to all carcase surfaces (Tongue et al 2013).…”

“…Meat inspection data can provide good information on the health and welfare status of pig farms that could be used in the surveillance of animal diseases and also to estimate the health, welfare and quality of slaughter pigs (Stärk et al 2014;Heinonen et al 2018), although visual meat inspection leads to some loss of data concerning animal health and welfare (Tongue et al 2013). Based on the literature, the detection of abscesses, embolic pneumonia, pyemia, fever/septicaemia decreases when using "hands off" visual meat inspection, but the reduction has either not been significant or has been considered not to pose an additional human health risk (Mousing et al 1997;Tongue et al 2013;Kruse et al 2015;Ghidini et al 2018).…”