Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273396›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2024

Relationship between animal-based on-farm indicators and meat inspection data in pigs.

Johanna Witt, Joachim Krieter, Kathrin Büttner, Thore Wilder, Mario Hasler, Ralf Bussemas, Stephanie Witten, Irena Czycholl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Molecular Characterization and Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Johanna WittInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, 24098, Kiel, Germany. jwitt@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.
Joachim KrieterInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, 24098, Kiel, Germany.
Kathrin BüttnerUnit for Biomathematics and Data Processing, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus Liebig University, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Thore WilderInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, 24098, Kiel, Germany.
Mario HaslerLehrfach Variationsstatistik, Christian-Albrechts-University, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Ralf BussemasJohann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, 23847, Westerau, Germany.
Stephanie WittenJohann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, 23847, Westerau, Germany.
Irena CzychollDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 106 91, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Kiel University · DEJohann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Giessen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to validate slaughterhouse indicators collected during meat inspection as an alternative to on-farm animal welfare indicators. For this purpose, the assessments of twelve on-farm and seven slaughterhouse indicators of 628 pigs from three different farms were combined into three indices, differentiated between on-farm and slaughterhouse: (1) limb health, (2) other organ health, and (3) respiratory health. At first, an assessment at animal-level using agreement parameters was carried out to ascertain whether the same welfare or health issues were identified on-farm and at slaughterhouse, taking the production period (farrowing, rearing and fattening period) and the last weeks before slaughtering into account. Second, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was examined using logistic regressions, to determine whether certain welfare issues can be better monitored using slaughterhouse indicators.

resultsAcceptable agreement was determined using the Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for the farrowing and fattening period, but not for the rearing period. A more detailed analysis of the weeks before slaughter shows that there is still a poor agreement 8 weeks before slaughter and an acceptable agreement 4 weeks before slaughter. This indicated the slaughterhouse indicators pneumonia, pleuritis and pericarditis as possible estimators of fever and deviant behavior on-farm and the slaughterhouse indicators bursitis and joint inflammations as possible estimators of lameness. In the second part of the analysis, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was investigated; a significant influence of the farm on the limb and respiratory indices and no significant influence of the slaughterhouse findings could be determined, provided that all weekly assessments during the lifetime of the pigs have been taken into account. However, an influence of the slaughterhouse findings on the respiratory index and on the other organ index could be determined if only the weekly assessments four and eight weeks before slaughter, respectively, were taken into account.

conclusionsIn general, the possible suitable indicators detected by the PABAK, could replace some health-related indicators but a complete substitution of on-farm welfare assessment is not possible. In addition, the traceability over time must be investigated further.

Indexed as

Animal-based indicatorsAnimal healthAnimal welfareAnimal welfare assessmentMeat inspection dataPigSlaughterhouse findingsSlaughterhouse indicators

Identifiers

PMID38273396
PMCPMC10811934
OpenAlexW4391231981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.