2018
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Skin lesion monitoring at slaughter on heavy pigs (170 kg): Welfare indicators and ham defects

Abstract: In order to evaluate at the slaughterhouse external carcass lesions on heavy pigs (170 kg) as potential welfare indicators, and the prevalence of ham defects determining ham exclusion from Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) markets, 732 pig batches from northern Italy were monitored during a 12-month period, and then processed analysing the effect of slaughter season, overnight lairage, and production type. On the slaughter line, skin scratches were separately scored in the posterior region (defined as the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
52
1
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
6
52
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Since animal welfare is of increasing interest for consumers and the wider society, measures providing retrospective information about the quality of the life of the animal during the rearing cycle are becoming increasingly important for the market. For this reason, additional measures are desirable to integrate welfare assessments [38]. The selection of animals involved in the study from the initial 1800 pigs was made by expert technicians in order to have a very homogeneous sample in terms of age and body weight, which was then raised under the same management and in the same environmental conditions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since animal welfare is of increasing interest for consumers and the wider society, measures providing retrospective information about the quality of the life of the animal during the rearing cycle are becoming increasingly important for the market. For this reason, additional measures are desirable to integrate welfare assessments [38]. The selection of animals involved in the study from the initial 1800 pigs was made by expert technicians in order to have a very homogeneous sample in terms of age and body weight, which was then raised under the same management and in the same environmental conditions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a univocal registration system for the collection of inspection data at the European level is still missing [ 13 , 71 ]. The animal category also represents a variability factor; in Italy, most of the animals bred and slaughtered are “heavy” pigs, while the European farming system generally produces “light” pigs (about 110 kg live body weight) [ 5 , 47 ]. Finally, among the published studies, some, like the present work or for instance the one of Ceccarelli et al [ 22 ], have analyzed inspection data deriving from official veterinarians’ activities, while others have instead envisaged additional inspections and/or sampling for specific data collection or for the development of alternative inspection protocols [ 24 , 72 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, pork meat is eaten both as fresh and processed, being one of the most important products deriving from the Italian livestock sector [ 3 , 4 ]. Remarkably, almost all of the over 11 million pigs slaughtered every year from 2010 to 2020 in Italy belong to the “heavy” category (about 160–170 kg live body weight) [ 3 ], mainly bred to produce Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) hams or other processed products [ 5 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Leeb et al [3] stated that, especially for the indicator tail lesions, a large sample is necessary to record a trustworthy value for the prevalence and that this indicator should best be assessed at the slaughterhouse. Studies on the automatic monitoring of different lesions in fattening pigs at the slaughterhouse are already available (for example [11]). Mullan et al [8], who examined the effect of sampling on the assessment of the welfare of fattening pigs on six farms using the indicators dirtiness, body lesions, tail lesions, bursae, lameness, oral behavior, and pigs requiring hospitalization, came to a similar conclusion.…”
Section: Comparison With the Sample Validity Of Other Animal Welfare mentioning
confidence: 99%