Cargando…

Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland

BACKGROUND: Tail inspection in the abattoir is a tool to help determine the welfare status of pigs. However, methodologies vary widely. Moreover, meat inspection is moving from palpation and incision towards visual‐only (VIS) examination. This study investigated whether a VIS examination was suffici...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: D'Alessio, Roberta Maria, McAloon, Conor G., Boyle, Laura Ann, Hanlon, Alison, O'Driscoll, Keelin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37614914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vro2.66
_version_ 1785093611297177600
author D'Alessio, Roberta Maria
McAloon, Conor G.
Boyle, Laura Ann
Hanlon, Alison
O'Driscoll, Keelin
author_facet D'Alessio, Roberta Maria
McAloon, Conor G.
Boyle, Laura Ann
Hanlon, Alison
O'Driscoll, Keelin
author_sort D'Alessio, Roberta Maria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tail inspection in the abattoir is a tool to help determine the welfare status of pigs. However, methodologies vary widely. Moreover, meat inspection is moving from palpation and incision towards visual‐only (VIS) examination. This study investigated whether a VIS examination was sufficient to detect tail damage compared to handling (HAND), which ensures examination of all aspects of the tail. METHOD: The severity of tail skin damage (0 [undamaged] – 4 [partial/full loss of tail]) and presence/absence of bruises was scored using both methods after scalding/dehairing of 5498 pig carcasses. RESULTS: There was a good relationship between methods when evaluating tail skin damage (sensitivity, 82.48%; specificity, 99.98%; accuracy, 98.98%; correlation ρ = 0.84). The results were similar for the presence of bruises (sensitivity, 74.98%; specificity, 99.09%; accuracy, 89.94%; correlation ρ = 0.79). However, the percentage of tails classified as undamaged was higher using VIS (69.9%) than HAND (63.55%) examination. Conversely, VIS detected fewer mild lesions (score 1 – 13.64%; score 2 – 11.73%) than HAND (score 1 – 15.21%; score 2 – 15.53%). A higher percentage of bruises was detected using HAND than VIS (37.96% vs. 29.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual evaluation is a valid alternative to handling evaluation of carcass tail damage and bruising.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10442492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104424922023-08-23 Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland D'Alessio, Roberta Maria McAloon, Conor G. Boyle, Laura Ann Hanlon, Alison O'Driscoll, Keelin Vet Rec Open Original Research BACKGROUND: Tail inspection in the abattoir is a tool to help determine the welfare status of pigs. However, methodologies vary widely. Moreover, meat inspection is moving from palpation and incision towards visual‐only (VIS) examination. This study investigated whether a VIS examination was sufficient to detect tail damage compared to handling (HAND), which ensures examination of all aspects of the tail. METHOD: The severity of tail skin damage (0 [undamaged] – 4 [partial/full loss of tail]) and presence/absence of bruises was scored using both methods after scalding/dehairing of 5498 pig carcasses. RESULTS: There was a good relationship between methods when evaluating tail skin damage (sensitivity, 82.48%; specificity, 99.98%; accuracy, 98.98%; correlation ρ = 0.84). The results were similar for the presence of bruises (sensitivity, 74.98%; specificity, 99.09%; accuracy, 89.94%; correlation ρ = 0.79). However, the percentage of tails classified as undamaged was higher using VIS (69.9%) than HAND (63.55%) examination. Conversely, VIS detected fewer mild lesions (score 1 – 13.64%; score 2 – 11.73%) than HAND (score 1 – 15.21%; score 2 – 15.53%). A higher percentage of bruises was detected using HAND than VIS (37.96% vs. 29.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual evaluation is a valid alternative to handling evaluation of carcass tail damage and bruising. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10442492/ /pubmed/37614914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vro2.66 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Veterinary Record Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Veterinary Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
D'Alessio, Roberta Maria
McAloon, Conor G.
Boyle, Laura Ann
Hanlon, Alison
O'Driscoll, Keelin
Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title_full Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title_fullStr Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title_short Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland
title_sort comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in ireland
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37614914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vro2.66
work_keys_str_mv AT dalessiorobertamaria comparisonbetweentwoscoringmethodstoassesstaildamageofdockedpigcarcassesduringpostmorteminspectioninireland
AT mcaloonconorg comparisonbetweentwoscoringmethodstoassesstaildamageofdockedpigcarcassesduringpostmorteminspectioninireland
AT boylelauraann comparisonbetweentwoscoringmethodstoassesstaildamageofdockedpigcarcassesduringpostmorteminspectioninireland
AT hanlonalison comparisonbetweentwoscoringmethodstoassesstaildamageofdockedpigcarcassesduringpostmorteminspectioninireland
AT odriscollkeelin comparisonbetweentwoscoringmethodstoassesstaildamageofdockedpigcarcassesduringpostmorteminspectioninireland