Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May:238:106469.
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106469. Epub 2025 Feb 13.

Evaluating slaughterhouse findings for lung and tail lesions in fattening pigs from secondary data

Affiliations
Free article

Evaluating slaughterhouse findings for lung and tail lesions in fattening pigs from secondary data

Betty Rehberg et al. Prev Vet Med. 2025 May.
Free article

Abstract

Using slaughterhouse findings to monitor animal health and welfare is not a new idea. The German Federal Veterinary Surgeon's Association even calls for the establishment of an animal health database that combines slaughterhouse findings with health and farm data from already existing monitoring programs to create a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance tool. In an attempt to combine secondary health data from slaughterhouse findings, antibiotic use monitoring as well as biosecurity and husbandry evaluations into an integrated dataset, data from 18,593 fattening pig farms across Germany participating in the private sector Quality scheme for food (from 2018 to 2020) were harmonized at the half-year level and combined. As an example, the combined data was used to evaluate lung and tail lesion findings from abattoirs as indicators of animal health and welfare with descriptive analysis and mixed model approaches. Differences between abattoirs due to different data collection methods were taken into account by either considering the abattoir as a random effect or standardizing the prevalence data using abattoir means. The mean prevalence of lung lesions per half-year varied between 8.69 % and 9.78 %. The mean prevalence of tail lesion increased continuously from 0.65 % in the first half of 2018-1.04 % in the second half of 2020. Farm size, agricultural region, half-year and antibiotic treatment frequency were found to be associated (p < 0.000001) with the prevalence of both lung and tail lesions. A lack of variance and specificity of the secondary biosecurity and husbandry evaluation data restricts the use of individual assessment criteria as well as biosecurity and husbandry indices (calculated from a subset of assessment criteria) in our analyses. We therefore used the data for a broad categorization of farms and it could be found, that the occurrence of a lower rating in any assessment criteria during farm evaluations is associated (p < 0.000001) with a higher prevalence of lung and tail lesions, but the interpretation remains uncertain. The already existing data in the fattening pig sector can be used for the evaluation of animal health and welfare indicators to a large extent. Nonetheless, missing information, differences and changes (over time) in data collection methods introduce biases into the dataset. By improving the data quality and harmonizing collection methods, secondary animal health data could prove to be a useful tool in promoting animal health and welfare.

Keywords: Animal health; Animal welfare; Antibiotic use; Fattening pigs; Monitoring; Slaughterhouse findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Betty Rehberg reports financial support was provided by QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH. The authors TM and SH are employed by a commercial company (QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH, Bonn, Germany), that provided the data and funding for this analysis. This does not alter the adherence to Journal policies or good scientific practice. The authors declare that they have no further conflicting interests. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources