Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Teixeira, Dayane Lemos, Salazar, Laura C., Enriquez-Hidalgo, Daniel, Boyle, Laura A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7570229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33134359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.576942
_version_ 1783596900819140608
author Teixeira, Dayane Lemos
Salazar, Laura C.
Enriquez-Hidalgo, Daniel
Boyle, Laura A.
author_facet Teixeira, Dayane Lemos
Salazar, Laura C.
Enriquez-Hidalgo, Daniel
Boyle, Laura A.
author_sort Teixeira, Dayane Lemos
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7570229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75702292020-10-30 Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study Teixeira, Dayane Lemos Salazar, Laura C. Enriquez-Hidalgo, Daniel Boyle, Laura A. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7570229/ /pubmed/33134359 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.576942 Text en Copyright © 2020 Teixeira, Salazar, Enriquez-Hidalgo and Boyle. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Teixeira, Dayane Lemos
Salazar, Laura C.
Enriquez-Hidalgo, Daniel
Boyle, Laura A.
Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title_full Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title_fullStr Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title_short Assessment of Animal-Based Pig Welfare Outcomes on Farm and at the Abattoir: A Case Study
title_sort assessment of animal-based pig welfare outcomes on farm and at the abattoir: a case study
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7570229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33134359
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.576942
work_keys_str_mv AT teixeiradayanelemos assessmentofanimalbasedpigwelfareoutcomesonfarmandattheabattoiracasestudy
AT salazarlaurac assessmentofanimalbasedpigwelfareoutcomesonfarmandattheabattoiracasestudy
AT enriquezhidalgodaniel assessmentofanimalbasedpigwelfareoutcomesonfarmandattheabattoiracasestudy
AT boylelauraa assessmentofanimalbasedpigwelfareoutcomesonfarmandattheabattoiracasestudy