Contribution of Meat Inspection to the surveillance of poultry health and welfare in the European Union

Huneau‐Salaün, A.; Stärk, Katharina D.C.; Mateus, Ana; Lupo, Coralie; Lindberg, Ann; Bouquin‐Leneveu, Sophie Le

doi:10.1017/s0950268814003379

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Abattoir inspection could act as an ultimate ‘fail-safe’ in the case of failure at this level, particularly when faced with an insidious, sub-clinical, situation. It enables an alarm to be raised when the other components fail [5,27]. Elsewhere, several studies [4,5,6,7,28,29,30,31] have evaluated the use of abattoir data for integration in syndromic surveillance systems, for the early detection of emerging diseases in livestock animals or to measure animal health and welfare.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pig Abattoir Inspection Data: Can It Be Used for Surveillance Purposes?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statutory recording of carcass lesions at the abattoir may have significant potential as a resource for surveillance of livestock populations. Food Standards Agency (FSA) data in Great Britain are not currently used for surveillance purposes. There are concerns that the sensitivity of detection, combined with other issues, may make the outputs unreliable. In this study we postulate that FSA data could be used for surveillance purposes. To test this we compared FSA data with BPHS (a targeted surveillance system of slaughtered pigs) and laboratory diagnostic scanning surveillance (FarmFile) data, from mid-2008 to mid-2012, for respiratory conditions and tail bite lesions in pigs at population level. We also evaluated the agreement/correlation at batch level between FSA and BPHS inspections in four field trials during 2013. Temporal trends and regional differences at population level were described and compared using logistic regression models. Population temporal analysis showed an increase in respiratory disease in all datasets but with regional differences. For tail bite, the temporal trend and monthly patterns were completely different between the datasets. The field trials were run in three abattoirs and included 322 batches. Pearson’s correlation and Cohen’s kappa tests were used to assess correlation/agreement between inspections systems. It was moderate to strong for high prevalence conditions but slight for low prevalence conditions. We conclude that there is potential to use FSA data as a component of a surveillance system to monitor temporal trends and regional differences of chosen indicators at population level. At producer level and for low prevalence conditions it needs further improvement. Overall a number of issues still need to be addressed in order to provide the pig industry with the confidence to base their decisions on these FSA inspection data. Similar conclusions, at national level, may apply to other livestock sectors but require further evaluation of the inspection and data collection processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pig Abattoir Inspection Data: Can It Be Used for Surveillance Purposes?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, EU Members States organized a network for exchanging technical information to improve implementation of the Directive 2007/43/CE. Additionally, meat inspection data have been considered useful to investigate animal welfare (Correia-Gomes et al, 2017Huneau-Salaün et al, 2015;Knage-Rasmussen et al, 2015). Thus, creation and use of a meat inspection database seems to constitute a potential tool to improve public policies related to the welfare of farm animals.…”

Section: Broiler Chicken Meat Inspection Data In Brazil: a First Glimmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broiler Chicken Meat Inspection Data in Brazil: A First Glimpse into an Animal Welfare Approach

Souza

Taconeli

Plugge

et al. 2018

Braz. J. Poult. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to study the potential use of carcass condemnation data of broiler chicken slaughterhouses in Brazil as indicators in an animal welfare monitoring program, and to identify points to be addressed to increase data reliability. Data from 2010 to 2015 in the states of Paraná (PR), Santa Catarina (SC) and Rio Grande do Sul (RS) were used. Fractures and bruising were recorded together, representing the most prevalent welfare problem, followed by skin lesion or inflammation. In PR, progressive increases on injury, arthritis, ineffective bleeding, and air sacculitis condemnation may reveal important welfare aspects. High correlation between AWI within PR was more commonly observed than in RS and SC, perhaps as a result of earlier implementation of local meat inspection standardization. Principal component analysis showed changes on condemnation data pattern in PR after standardization, pointing injury and Escherichia coli problems as the main causes for condemnation related to animal welfare. There is considerable potential to improve animal health and welfare surveillance using meat inspection structure that is already in place for food safety purposes, provided that the competent authority harmonizes the procedure of meat inspection among the States, sets specific animal welfare outcomes to be monitored, and integrates condemnation, transport and flock data. It seems crucial to update data collection to establish a routine that allows risk analysis regarding both food safety and animal welfare. In this regard, cooperative work between Federal Inspection and companies seems an interesting approach to promote transparency of the production processes, which would benefit society and animals.

show abstract

“…Meat sanitary inspection aims to protect public health by ensuring that minimal hazardous material enters in the food chain through carcasses rejected (Huneau-Salaun et al, 2015). These carcasses, which are rejected as unfit for human consumption, are detected on the basis of macroscopic visual criteria and the condemnation operation is the responsibility and under the supervision of the official veterinary services (Lupo et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%