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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |