Comparing Visual-Only and Visual-Palpation Post-Mortem Lung Scoring Systems in Slaughtering Pigs.
lung
pig
post-mortem inspection
respiratory disease
scoring schemes
slaughter
Journal
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jul 2023
26 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
19
04
2023
revised:
19
07
2023
accepted:
25
07
2023
medline:
12
8
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Respiratory diseases continue to pose significant challenges in pig production, and the assessment of lung lesions at the abattoir can provide valuable data for epidemiological investigations and disease surveillance. The evaluation of lung lesions at slaughter is a relatively simple, fast, and straightforward process but variations arising from different abattoirs, observers, and scoring methods can introduce uncertainty; moreover, the presence of multiple scoring systems complicates the comparisons of different studies, and currently, there are limited studies that compare these systems among each other. The objective of this study was to compare validated, simplified, and standardized schemes for assessing surface-related lung lesions in slaughtered pigs and analyze their reliability under field conditions. This study was conducted in a high-throughput abattoir in Italy, where two different scoring methods (Madec and Blaha) were benchmarked using 637 plucks. Statistical analysis revealed a good agreement between the two methods when severe or medium lesions were observed; however, their ability to accurately identify healthy lungs and minor injuries diverged significantly. These findings demonstrate that the Blaha method is more suitable for routine surveillance of swine respiratory diseases, whereas the Madec method can give more detailed and reliable results for the respiratory and welfare status of the animals at the farm level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37570228
pii: ani13152419
doi: 10.3390/ani13152419
pmc: PMC10417645
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Health
ID : Classyfarm
Références
Res Vet Sci. 2022 Dec 20;152:72-82
pubmed: 35932591
Animal. 2020 Jan;14(1):108-118
pubmed: 31199209
Prev Vet Med. 2020 Sep;182:105091
pubmed: 32683190
PLoS One. 2015 May 28;10(5):e0128137
pubmed: 26020635
Vet Res. 2023 Feb 1;54(1):8
pubmed: 36726112
Animals (Basel). 2021 Jan 18;11(1):
pubmed: 33477630
Ir Vet J. 2012 Jun 27;65(1):11
pubmed: 22738170
Res Vet Sci. 1982 Jul;33(1):76-88
pubmed: 7134653
Vet J. 2010 Jun;184(3):326-33
pubmed: 19527939
J Comp Pathol. 2016 Feb-Apr;154(2-3):125-34
pubmed: 26774274
Prev Vet Med. 2021 Jan;186:105208
pubmed: 33310195
Prev Vet Med. 2017 Sep 1;144:20-28
pubmed: 28716200
Animal. 2012 Apr;6(4):535-43
pubmed: 22436267
Vet J. 2021 Jul;273:105680
pubmed: 34148603
J Food Prot. 2020 Nov 1;83(11):1918-1928
pubmed: 32609817
Res Vet Sci. 2012 Oct;93(2):627-30
pubmed: 22133708
Vet J. 2012 Jul;193(1):234-9
pubmed: 22182431
Vet Parasitol. 2010 Oct 29;173(3-4):271-9
pubmed: 20667659
Vet Rec. 2011 Oct 15;169(16):413
pubmed: 21881022
J Hyg (Lond). 1969 Sep;67(3):465-76
pubmed: 4980361
J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2007 Mar;54(2):70-5
pubmed: 17305969
BMC Vet Res. 2014 Apr 27;10:98
pubmed: 24766795
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 May;65 Suppl 1:110-124
pubmed: 28834294
BMC Vet Res. 2014 Jul 19;10:165
pubmed: 25038822
J Comp Pathol. 2010 Aug-Oct;143(2-3):120-31
pubmed: 20181357
Vet J. 2011 Mar;187(3):388-92
pubmed: 20122861
Foods. 2022 Nov 18;11(22):
pubmed: 36429304
Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 20;11(12):
pubmed: 34944380
Acta Vet Hung. 2017 Sep;65(3):354-365
pubmed: 28956483
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2010 Nov-Dec;123(11-12):468-76
pubmed: 21141276
Vet Microbiol. 2012 May 25;157(1-2):152-63
pubmed: 22226820