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.

Comparing Visual-Only and Visual-Palpation Post-Mortem Lung Scoring Systems in Slaughtering Pigs / S. Ghidini, S. De Luca, E. Rinaldi, E. Zanardi, A. Ianieri, F. Guadagno, G. Loris Alborali, D. Meemken, M. Conter, M. Olga Varrà. - In: ANIMALS. - ISSN 2076-2615. - 13:15(2023), pp. 2419.1-2419.11. [10.3390/ani13152419]

Comparing Visual-Only and Visual-Palpation Post-Mortem Lung Scoring Systems in Slaughtering Pigs

S. Ghidini
Primo
;
2023

Abstract

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.
pig; slaughter; lung; respiratory disease; scoring schemes; post-mortem inspection
Settore VET/04 - Ispezione degli Alimenti di Origine Animale
2023
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/15/2419
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Ghidini et al.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Article
Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 570.2 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
570.2 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1027834
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact