Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland.

IF 1.3 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Veterinary Record Open Pub Date : 2023-08-21 eCollection Date: 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1002/vro2.66
Roberta Maria D'Alessio, Conor G McAloon, Laura Ann Boyle, Alison Hanlon, Keelin O'Driscoll
{"title":"Comparison between two scoring methods to assess tail damage of docked pig carcasses during postmortem inspection in Ireland.","authors":"Roberta Maria D'Alessio, Conor G McAloon, Laura Ann Boyle, Alison Hanlon, Keelin O'Driscoll","doi":"10.1002/vro2.66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a good relationship between methods when evaluating tail skin damage (sensitivity, 82.48%; specificity, 99.98%; accuracy, 98.98%; correlation <i>ρ</i> = 0.84). The results were similar for the presence of bruises (sensitivity, 74.98%; specificity, 99.09%; accuracy, 89.94%; correlation <i>ρ</i> = 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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Visual evaluation is a valid alternative to handling evaluation of carcass tail damage and bruising.</p>","PeriodicalId":23565,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Record Open","volume":"10 2","pages":"e66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Record Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/vro2.66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种评分方法在爱尔兰断尾猪死后检验中尾损评估的比较。
背景:屠宰场的尾部检查是帮助确定猪的福利状况的工具。然而,方法差异很大。此外,肉类检查正在从触诊和切口转向仅视觉检查。这项研究调查了与确保检查尾部各个方面的处理(HAND)相比,VIS检查是否足以检测尾部损伤。方法:在对5498头猪胴体进行烫伤/脱毛后,使用这两种方法对尾部皮肤损伤的严重程度(0[未受损]-4[尾部部分/全部丢失])和是否有瘀伤进行评分。结果:评估尾部皮肤损伤的方法之间存在良好的相关性(敏感性,82.48%;特异性,99.98%;准确度,98.98%;相关性ρ=0.84)。对于瘀伤的存在,结果相似(敏感性,74.98%;特异性:99.09%;准确度:89.94%;相关性ρ=0.79)。然而,使用VIS(69.9%)检查被分类为未损坏的尾部的百分比高于HAND(63.55%)检查。相反,VIS检测到的轻度损伤(评分1-13.64%;评分2-11.73%)少于HAND(评分1-15.21%;评分2-15.53%)。使用HAND检测到的瘀伤百分比高于VIS(37.96%对29.03%)。结论:视觉评估是处理评估胴体尾部损伤和瘀伤的有效替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Veterinary Record Open
Veterinary Record Open VETERINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Veterinary Record Open is a journal dedicated to publishing specialist veterinary research across a range of topic areas including those of a more niche and specialist nature to that considered in the weekly Vet Record. Research from all disciplines of veterinary interest will be considered. It is an Open Access journal of the British Veterinary Association.
期刊最新文献
Determinants of Thoroughbred yearling sales price in the UK. Surveyed veterinary students in Australia find ChatGPT practical and relevant while expressing no concern about artificial intelligence replacing veterinarians. A scoping review on the use of reflection and reflective portfolio learning in veterinary education. Identifying veterinary surgeons’ barriers to, and potential solutions for, improving antimicrobial stewardship among sheep farmers in Northern Ireland Genotypic and allelic frequencies of progressive rod-cone degeneration and other main variants associated with progressive retinal atrophy in Italian dogs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1