Cargando…

Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs

We investigated the prevalence of tail lesions in batches of undocked slaughter pigs in herds just before delivery to an abattoir. At the abattoir, dehaired and scalded carcasses were submitted to routine meat inspection which included recording of tail lesions. The purpose of the study was to inves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kongsted, Hanne, Foldager, Leslie, Sørensen, Jan Tind
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7155330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32313682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00149-z
_version_ 1783522011244396544
author Kongsted, Hanne
Foldager, Leslie
Sørensen, Jan Tind
author_facet Kongsted, Hanne
Foldager, Leslie
Sørensen, Jan Tind
author_sort Kongsted, Hanne
collection PubMed
description We investigated the prevalence of tail lesions in batches of undocked slaughter pigs in herds just before delivery to an abattoir. At the abattoir, dehaired and scalded carcasses were submitted to routine meat inspection which included recording of tail lesions. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between clinically and abattoir- detected tail lesions in undocked pigs. During visits in 15 label-production herds, 2346 slaughter pigs from 24 batches were examined. Tail lesions were registered as mild healed, mild unhealed or severe. The median prevalence of the three categories in batches was 13, 9 and 6%, respectively. At the abattoir, tails were evaluated by public inspectors. Between 0 and 10% of pigs within batches (median: 1%) were registered with tail lesions at the abattoir. A linear regression model was used to compare the proportions of severe tail lesions registered in each batch within the herds with the proportions registered at the abattoir. We applied a leave-one-batch-out internal cross-validation on the model in order to explore a systematic relationship. The mean absolute difference between the predicted and the observed proportion was 9%-points. The coefficient of determination (r(2)) was 0.006. Our results indicate that there is no systematic relationship between clinically and abattoir-registered tail lesions in undocked pigs. Thus, abattoir registrations as carried out in the present study did not mirror the clinical situation properly. If meat inspection recordings should be used to reflect tail lesions in the herds, efforts must be undertaken to ensure a positive correlation between the two. Thus, abattoir registrations used as an indicator of tail bite prevalence in herds are currently not reliable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7155330
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71553302020-04-20 Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs Kongsted, Hanne Foldager, Leslie Sørensen, Jan Tind Porcine Health Manag Short Communication We investigated the prevalence of tail lesions in batches of undocked slaughter pigs in herds just before delivery to an abattoir. At the abattoir, dehaired and scalded carcasses were submitted to routine meat inspection which included recording of tail lesions. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between clinically and abattoir- detected tail lesions in undocked pigs. During visits in 15 label-production herds, 2346 slaughter pigs from 24 batches were examined. Tail lesions were registered as mild healed, mild unhealed or severe. The median prevalence of the three categories in batches was 13, 9 and 6%, respectively. At the abattoir, tails were evaluated by public inspectors. Between 0 and 10% of pigs within batches (median: 1%) were registered with tail lesions at the abattoir. A linear regression model was used to compare the proportions of severe tail lesions registered in each batch within the herds with the proportions registered at the abattoir. We applied a leave-one-batch-out internal cross-validation on the model in order to explore a systematic relationship. The mean absolute difference between the predicted and the observed proportion was 9%-points. The coefficient of determination (r(2)) was 0.006. Our results indicate that there is no systematic relationship between clinically and abattoir-registered tail lesions in undocked pigs. Thus, abattoir registrations as carried out in the present study did not mirror the clinical situation properly. If meat inspection recordings should be used to reflect tail lesions in the herds, efforts must be undertaken to ensure a positive correlation between the two. Thus, abattoir registrations used as an indicator of tail bite prevalence in herds are currently not reliable. BioMed Central 2020-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7155330/ /pubmed/32313682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00149-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Kongsted, Hanne
Foldager, Leslie
Sørensen, Jan Tind
Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title_full Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title_fullStr Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title_full_unstemmed Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title_short Data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
title_sort data from routine meat inspection is a poor indicator of the prevalence of tail lesions in undocked pigs
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7155330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32313682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00149-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kongstedhanne datafromroutinemeatinspectionisapoorindicatoroftheprevalenceoftaillesionsinundockedpigs
AT foldagerleslie datafromroutinemeatinspectionisapoorindicatoroftheprevalenceoftaillesionsinundockedpigs
AT sørensenjantind datafromroutinemeatinspectionisapoorindicatoroftheprevalenceoftaillesionsinundockedpigs