On-farm and post-mortem health assessment

Temple, Déborah; Llonch, Pol; Mainau, Eva; Manteca, Xavier

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-101012-9.00016-2

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Göller et al [ 9 ] found that piglets vaccinated intradermally were more active at the udder than IM vaccinated piglets, which was associated with a reduced degree of stress. Piglets suffering discomfort or pain may indeed show altered behavioural patterns [ 33 ]. The reduced levels of negative social behaviours and exploration in pigs vaccinated IM may indicate some degree of discomfort or pain the day after the IM vaccination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Temple

Jiménez

Escribano

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination is reported as a stressful and painful event for animals. This study investigated whether needle-free intradermal vaccination improves the welfare of weaned pigs through the reduction of stress and pain biomarkers and improvement of behavioural parameters compared to traditional intramuscular injection with a needle. A total of 339 weaned piglets were allocated to 3 treatment groups: Intradermal Application of Liquids (IDAL) pigs, vaccinated against Porcine Circovirus type 2 (PCV2) by means of intradermal vaccination using a needle-free device Porcilis® PCV ID; Intramuscular (IM) pigs vaccinated against PCV2 with Porcilis® PCV intramuscularly with a needle; CONTROL pigs were managed identically but did not receive any vaccine injection. At the time of the injection, the reaction of IDAL piglets was similar to control piglets, whereas a greater percentage of piglets vaccinated intramuscularly displayed high-pitch vocalizations (7% CONTROL, 7% IDAL, 32% IM) and retreat attempts (3% CONTROL, 7% IDAL, 39% IM). The day after vaccination, IDAL piglets did not differ from the control piglets for any of the behavioural variables studied through scan samplings. IM piglets showed a lower frequency of social negative interactions (p = 0.001) and rope manipulation (p = 0.04) compared to the CONTROL group. Resting postures did not differ between treatments. At 28 h post-vaccination, IDAL piglets presented lower blood C-reactive protein levels (CONTROL = 20 μg/mL; IDAL = 39 μg/mL; IM = 83 μg/mL, p < 0.0001) and blood Haptoglobin (CONTROL = 1.8 mg/mL; IDAL = 1.9 mg/mL vs. IM = 3.1 mg/mL, p < 0.0001) compared to IM piglets. Salivary chromogranin A and alpha-amylase did not differ between treatment groups when measured 25 min post-vaccination. The method of vaccination did not affect the growth of the piglets or their rectal temperature. These results support that needle-free intradermal vaccination reduces vaccination-related pain in growing pigs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Temple

Jiménez

Escribano

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This problem is especially present on large farms where the possibility to assess animals with low frequent prevalences of an IN is much lower than on small farms, as pointed out by Temple et al (2013). Thus, it is advised to sample a high percentage of animals especially for IN with low prevalences and low sensitivity (Temple et al, 2018). Studies to verify the sample size required by the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets are needed to evaluate whether the applied sample size is adequate to mirror low prevalences on-farm.…”

Section: Test-retest Reliability Of In: Total Number Of Sows In Gestamentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1

Friedrich

Krieter

Kemper

et al. 2019

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed at testing the feasibility and on-farm test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. The study was conducted on 13 farms in Northern Germany, which were visited 5 times by the same observer, and included 2 experimental setups: first, the complete Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets was applied to the farms. Second, additional assessments in the gestation unit considered all sows. The complete protocol assessments were used to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with regard to on-farm test-retest reliability. The present publication focuses on the Welfare Quality principles good feeding, good housing, and good health, which are based on individual indicators (IN). The second experimental setup was utilized to verify the test-retest reliability of IN in the gestation unit with an increased number of animals under assessment. The test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Farm visit 1 (F1; day 0) was set as a reference and compared with farm visits 2 to 5 (F2 to 5; day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). The IN of the above-named Welfare Quality principles achieved mostly acceptable test-retest reliability (e.g., wounds on the body F1 to F4: RS 0.34 to 0.57, ICC 0.40 to 0.41, SDC 0.02 to 0.12, LoA [−0.03; 0.02] to [−0.09; 0.14]) in terms of the on-farm test-retest reliability. Poor test-retest reliability was detected for body condition score concerning the principle good feeding, for bursitis and panting in sows and for huddling and panting in piglets within the principle good housing, and finally for vulva lesions, metritis, and local infections in sows and for scouring and lameness in piglets in the principle good health. Variations among the farm visits, which resulted in poor test-retest reliability, may be explained by seasonal effects (panting), moving animals (bursitis, lameness, huddling), rare occurrences of diseases (metritis, local infections, scouring), and differently conditioned sow groups (body condition score). The second experimental setup confirmed the results for IN in the gestation unit. Thus, the reported test-retest reliability determines the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets to be a reliable approach to assess welfare in sows and piglets.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, some researchers have concerns about the probability of detecting anomalies during routine ante-mortem inspection at the abattoirs ( 12 – 14 ), arguing that time constraints, overcrowding, poor lighting, soiled hides, smell and noise pose challenges ( 14 ). On farm welfare assessments are commonly done daily and before loading [e.g., ( 15 )] and could help overcome concerns related to ante-mortem inspection at the abattoirs. Importantly, on farm inspection can help with segregation of pigs that are at high-risk for gross abnormalities ( 13 , 16 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study assessed the prevalence of animal-based pig welfare outcomes on one Chilean farm and one abattoir. A total of 198 pens of slaughter pigs (9,049 pigs) were observed on farm and 54 batches (8,843 pigs) were observed at the abattoir. All assessments were conducted from outside the pen on farm and from outside the corridor where pigs were unloaded from the truck at the abattoir. Batch size and number of pigs with ear, tail and skin lesions, hernias, rectal prolapse, bursitis, and lameness were recorded. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. There was a large variation among pens on farm and among batches at the abattoir for all outcomes. Bursitis was the most prevalent outcome recorded in both locations, followed by ear lesions recorded on farm and by tail lesions recorded at the abattoir. Ear lesions' prevalence was higher on farm ( P < 0.001), while tail lesions, hernia, and bursitis prevalence were higher at the abattoir ( P < 0.001). Ear lesions' prevalence on farm was higher in female and mixed-sex groups than in male groups (P < 0.01), but male groups tended to have a higher tail lesions' prevalence ( P < 0.1). The results show a difference in welfare outcomes, suggesting that assessment of outcomes on farm could complement ante-mortem inspections at the abattoir. However, as the same animals were not inspected in the two locations and there is the possibility of a seasonal influence on the results, the findings should be interpreted with caution and further research is required.

show abstract

On-farm and post-mortem health assessment

Cited by 8 publications

References 53 publications

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Test–retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1

Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About