The Relationship between Carcass Condemnations and Tail Lesion in Swine Considering Different Production Systems and Tail Lengths
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Tail Scores
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Variation in Batch-Level Scores
3.2. Relationship between Total Condemnations with Tail Scores, Production System and Tail Length
3.3. Relationship between Local Condemnations of Carcasses’ Anatomical Regions with Tail Scores, Production System and Tail Length
4. Discussion
4.1. Variation in Batch-Level Scores
4.2. Relationship between Total Condemnations with with Tail Scores, Production System and Tail Length
4.3. Relationship between Local Condemnations of Carcasses’ Anatomical Regions with Tail Scores, Production System and Tail Length
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Harley, S.; More, S.J.; O’Connell, N.E.; Hanlon, A.; Teixeira, D.; Boyle, L. Evaluating the Prevalence of Tail Biting and Carcase Condemnations in Slaughter Pigs in the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the Potential of Abattoir Meat Inspection as a Welfare Surveillance Tool. Vet. Rec. 2012, 171, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valros, A.; Ahlström, S.; Rintala, H.; Häkkinen, T.; Saloniemi, H. The Prevalence of Tail Damage in Slaughter Pigs in Finland and Associations to Carcass Condemnations. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A-Anim. Sci. 2004, 54, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. The Risks Associated with Tail Biting in Pigs and Possible Means to Reduce the Need for Tail Docking Considering the Different Housing and Husbandry Systems—Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA J. 2007, 5, 1–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Briyne, N.; Berg, C.; Blaha, T.; Palzer, A.; Temple, D. Phasing out Pig Tail Docking in the EU—Present State, Challenges and Possibilities. Porc. Health Manag. 2018, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moinard, C.; Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.J.; Green, L.E. A Case Control Study of On-Farm Risk Factors for Tail Biting in Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widowski, T. Causes and Prevention of Tail Biting in Growing Pigs: A Review of Recent Research. In Proceedings of the London Swine Conference, London, UK, 11–12 April 2002; p. 47. [Google Scholar]
- Hansson, I.; Hamilton, C.; Ekman, T.; Forslund, K. Carcass Quality in Certified Organic Production Compared with Conventional Livestock Production. J. Vet. Med. Ser. B 2000, 47, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, P.K.; Bilkei, G. Tail-Biting in Outdoor Pig Production. Vet. J. 2006, 171, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alban, L.; Petersen, J.; Busch, M. A Comparison between Lesions Found during Meat Inspection of Finishing Pigs Raised under Organic/Free-Range Conditions and Conventional, Indoor Conditions. Porc. Health Manag. 2015, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kongsted, H.; Sørensen, J.T. Lesions Found at Routine Meat Inspection on Finishing Pigs Are Associated with Production System. Vet. J. 2017, 223, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kritas, S.K.; Morrison, R.B. Relationships between Tail Biting in Pigs and Disease Lesions and Condemnations at Slaughter. Vet. Rec. 2007, 160, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marques, B.M.F.P.P.; Bernardi, M.L.; Coelho, C.F.; Almeida, M.; Morales, O.E.; Mores, T.J.; Borowski, S.M.; Barcellos, D.E.S.N. Influence of Tail Biting on Weight Gain, Lesions and Condemnations at Slaughter of Finishing Pigs. Pesqui. Veterinária Bras. 2012, 32, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- vom Brocke, A.L.; Karnholz, C.; Madey-Rindermann, D.; Gauly, M.; Leeb, C.; Winckler, C.; Schrader, L.; Dippel, S. Tail Lesions in Fattening Pigs: Relationships with Postmortem Meat Inspection and Influence of a Tail Biting Management Tool. Animal 2019, 13, 835–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valros, A.; Välimäki, E.; Nordgren, H.; Vugts, J.; Fàbrega, E.; Heinonen, M. Intact Tails as a Welfare Indicator in Finishing Pigs? Scoring of Tail Lesions and Defining Intact Tails in Undocked Pigs at the Abattoir. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemi, J.K.; Edwards, S.A.; Papanastasiou, D.K.; Piette, D.; Stygar, A.H.; Wallenbeck, A.; Valros, A. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Seven Measures to Reduce Tail Biting Lesions in Fattening Pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The European Comission. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 on the Application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs as Regards Measures to Reduce the Need for Tail-Docking. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016, L62, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
- Council of the European Union. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L47, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
- Valros, A.; Heinonen, M. Save the Pig Tail. Porc. Health Manag. 2015, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harley, S.; Boyle, L.; O’Connell, N.; More, S.; Teixeira, D.; Hanlon, A. Docking the Value of Pigmeat? Prevalence and Financial Implications of Welfare Lesions in Irish Slaughter Pigs. Anim. Welf. 2014, 23, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Staaveren, N.; Teixeira, D.L.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Pig Carcass Tail Lesions: The Influence of Record Keeping through an Advisory Service and the Relationship with Farm Performance Parameters. Animal 2017, 11, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Keeling, L.J.; Wallenbeck, A.; Larsen, A.; Holmgren, N. Scoring Tail Damage in Pigs: An Evaluation Based on Recordings at Swedish Slaughterhouses. Acta Vet. Scand. 2012, 54, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boyle, L.; Teixeira, D.; Devitt, C.; Hanlon, A.; O’Connell, N.; Hawe, M. Perspectives of Stakeholders in the Pig Industry on the Potential Use of Ante and Post Mortem Meat Inspection as a Pig Health and Welfare Diagnostic Tool. In Proceedings of the TEAGASC Pig Farmers Conference, Tipperary, Ireland, 21 October 2014; pp. 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Busch, M.E.; Wachmann, H.; Nielsen, E.O.; Petersen, H.H.; Nielsen, J.P. Tail Biting–Can Routine Meat Inspection Data Be Used for Classification of Herds. In Proceedings of the 18th IPVS Congress, Hamburg, Germany, 27 June–1 July 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, N.R.; Main, D.C.J.; Mendl, M.; Edwards, S.A. Tail-Biting: A New Perspective. Vet. J. 2010, 186, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Staaveren, N.; Vale, A.P.; Manzanilla, E.G.; Teixeira, D.L.; Leonard, F.C.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Relationship between Tail Lesions and Lung Health in Slaughter Pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 127, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Relative to the Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs, Boletin Oficial Del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2002; 1–8.
- The Council of the European Union. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, L189, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- The Commission of the European Communities. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 Laying down Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products with Regard to Organic Production, Labelling and Control. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L250, 1–84. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission, Directorate Health and Food Audits and Analysis. Audit Reports. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/ (accessed on 18 January 2022).
- Lahrmann, H.P.; Busch, M.E.; D’Eath, R.B.; Forkman, B.; Hansen, C.F. More Tail Lesions among Undocked than Tail Docked Pigs in a Conventional Herd. Animal 2017, 11, 1825–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thodberg, K.; Herskin, M.S.; Jensen, T.; Jensen, K.H. The Effect of Docking Length on the Risk of Tail Biting, Tail-Directed Behaviour, Aggression and Activity Level of Growing Pigs Kept under Commercial Conditions. Animal 2018, 12, 2609–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, M.A.; Tucker, C.B. The Long and Short of It: A Review of Tail Docking in Farm Animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scollo, A.; di Martino, G.; Bonfanti, L.; Stefani, A.L.; Schiavon, E.; Marangon, S.; Gottardo, F. Tail Docking and the Rearing of Heavy Pigs: The Role Played by Gender and the Presence of Straw in the Control of Tail Biting. Blood Parameters, Behaviour and Skin Lesions. Res. Vet. Sci. 2013, 95, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.Z.; Zhang, H.F.; Johnston, L.J.; Martin, W.; Peterson, J.D.; Coetzee, J.F. Effects of Tail Docking and Tail Biting on Performance and Welfare of Growing–Finishing Pigs in a Confinement Housing System. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 4835–4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hunter, E.J.; Jones, T.A.; Guise, H.J.; Penny, R.H.C.; Hoste, S. The Relationship Between Tail Biting in Pigs, Docking Procedure and Other Management Practices. Vet. J. 2001, 161, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchant-Forde, J.N.; Lay, D.C.; McMunn, K.A.; Cheng, H.W.; Pajor, E.A.; Marchant-Forde, R.M. Postnatal Piglet Husbandry Practices and Well-Being: The Effects of Alternative Techniques Delivered Separately. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 1479–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nannoni, E.; Valsami, T.; Sardi, L.; Martelli, G. Tail Docking in Pigs: A Review on Its Short- and Long-Term Consequences and Effectiveness in Preventing Tail Biting. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grümpel, A.; Krieter, J.; Veit, C.; Dippel, S. Factors Influencing the Risk for Tail Lesions in Weaner Pigs (Sus Scrofa). Livest. Sci. 2018, 216, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hevia, M.L. Caudofagia (Mordeduras de Colas En Cerdos); Departamento de Producción Animal (U.D. Etología, Bienestar Animal y Etnología), Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2012; pp. 34–43. [Google Scholar]
- Kallio, P.; Janczak, A.; Valros, A.; Edwards, S.; Heinonen, M. Case Control Study on Environmental, Nutritional and Management-Based Risk Factors for Tail-Biting in Long-Tailed Pigs. Anim. Welf. 2018, 27, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van de Weerd, H.A.; Docking, C.M.; Day, J.E.L.; Edwards, S.A. The Development of Harmful Social Behaviour in Pigs with Intact Tails and Different Enrichment Backgrounds in Two Housing Systems. Anim. Sci. 2005, 80, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira-Pinto, M.; Azevedo, J.; Poeta, P.; Pires, I.; Ellebroek, L.; Lopes, R.; Veloso, M.; Alban, L. Classification of Vertebral Osteomyelitis and Associated Judgment Applied during Post-Mortem Inspection of Swine Carcasses in Portugal. Foods 2020, 9, 1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alban, L.; Vieira-Pinto, M.; Meemken, D.; Maurer, P.; Ghidini, S.; Santos, S.; Laguna, J.G.; Laukkanen-Ninios, R.; Alvseike, O.; Langkabel, N. Differences in Code Terminology and Frequency of Findings in Meat Inspection of Finishing Pigs in Seven European Countries. Food Control 2022, 132, 108394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Diez, J.; Coelho, A. Causes and Factors Related to Pig Carcass Condemnation. Veterinární Med. 2014, 59, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huey, R.J. Incidence, Location and Interrelationships between the Sites of Abscesses Recorded in Pigs at a Bacon Factory in Northern Ireland. Vet. Rec. 1996, 138, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, J.; Jaro, P.J.; Aduriz, G.; Gómez, E.A.; Peris, B.; Corpa, J.M. Carcass Condemnation Causes of Growth Retarded Pigs at Slaughter. Vet. J. 2007, 174, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, P.G.G.; Cockcroft, P.D. Polysystemic Diseases. In Handbook of Pig Medicine; Saunders Elsevier: London, UK, 2007; pp. 180–197. [Google Scholar]
- Kruse, A.B.; Larsen, M.H.; Skou, P.B.; Alban, L. Assessment of Human Health Risk Associated with Pyaemia in Danish Finisher Pigs When Conducting Visual-Only Inspection of the Lungs. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 196, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stärk, K.D.C. Epidemiological Investigation of the Influence of Environmental Risk Factors on Respiratory Diseases in Swine—A Literature Review. Vet. J. 2000, 159, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coelho, A.; Almeida, E.; Machado, G.; Vieira-Pinto, M. Pork Cutting Plant Condemnation Data: Economic Value and Potential Use as a Farm-Inoculation Surveillance Tool. Safe Pork 2019, 13, 196–197. [Google Scholar]
- King, D.; Painter, T.; Holtkamp, D.; DuBois, P.; Wang, C. Effect of Injection Tool on Incidence of Head and Neck Abscesses at Slaughter. J. Swine Health Prod. 2010, 18, 290–293. [Google Scholar]
N | B | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Slaughtered animals | 9189 | 73 | 100 |
Animals examined at individual-level | 3636 | 73 | 39.57 |
Production system | |||
Conventional | 2596 | 51 | 71.40 |
Organic | 443 | 10 | 12.18 |
Conventional AB 1 | 597 | 12 | 16.42 |
Tail docking | |||
Fully docked | 2849 | 57 | 78.36 |
Conventional | 2142 | 42 | 58.91 |
Organic | 356 | 8 | 9.79 |
Conventional AB 1 | 351 | 7 | 9.65 |
Undocked | 429 | 9 | 11.80 |
Conventional | 194 | 4 | 5.34 |
Organic | 87 | 2 | 2.39 |
Conventional AB 1 | 148 | 3 | 4.07 |
Docked mid-length | 358 | 7 | 9.85 |
Conventional | 260 | 5 | 7.15 |
Organic | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Conventional AB 1 | 98 | 2 | 2.70 |
Batch-Level (n = 73) | Animals Slaughtered (n = 9189) | Conventional (n = 7201) | Conventional AB 2 (n = 1348) | Organic (n = 640) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TC 1 | 52.1%, 48 (40.59–63.52) | 0.8%, 70 (0.6–0.9) | 0.8%, 58 (0.6–1.0) | 0.3%, 4 (0.01–0.6) | 1.3%, 8 (1–1.5) |
Causes for total condemnations | |||||
Pyaemia | 38.4%, 28 (27.2–49.5) | 0.5%, 49 (0.4–0.7) | 0.6%, 42 (0.4–0.8) | 0.2%, 3 (0–0.5) | 0.6%, 4 (0.01–1.2) |
Peritonitis | 13.7%, 10 (5.81–21.6) | 0.1%, 10 (0.04–0.2) | 0.1%, 7 (0.03–0.2) | 0.1%, 1 (0–0.2) | 0.3%, 2 (0–0.7) |
Jaundice | 2.7%, 2 (0–6.5) | 0.02%, 2 (0–0.05) | 0.03%, 2 (0–0.07) | 0 | 0 |
Organoleptic alterations | 4.1%, 3 (0–8.7) | 0.03%, 3 (0–0.07) | 0.04%, 3 (0–0.1) | 0 | 0 |
Inflammation | 4.1%, 3 (0–8.7) | 0.03%, 3 (0–0.07) | 0.04%, 3 (0–0.1) | 0 | 0 |
Trauma | 1.4%, 1 (0–4.0) | 0.01%, 1 (0–0.03) | 0.01%, 1 (0–0.04) | 0 | 0 |
Erysipelas | 1.4%, 1 (0–4.0) | 0.02%, 2 (0–0.05) | 0 | 0 | 0.3%, 2 (0–0.7) |
Response Variable | Explanatory Variable | Statistic | p-Value | Odds Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | 95%CI | |||||
TC 1 | Batch tail lesion score | Χ21 = 5.98 | 0.0145 | 1.81 | 1.12–2.91 | |
Batch scarring score | Χ 21 = 13.81 | 0.0002 | 3.24 | 1.74–6.02 | ||
Production system | Χ 22 = 7.27 | 0.0263 | Organic vs. Conventional | 2.27 | 1.07–4.81 | |
Organic vs. Conventional AB 2 | 4.36 | 1.38–13.7 | ||||
Conventional AB 2 vs. Conventional | 0.52 | 0.19–1.40 | ||||
Tail length | Χ 22 = 0.06 | 0.97 |
Batch-Level (n = 73) | Animals Slaughtered (n = 9189) | Conventional (n = 7201) | Conventional AB 2 (n = 1348) | Organic (n = 640) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LC 1 | 94.5%, 69 (89.3–99.8) | 7.5%, 692 (7.0–8.1) | 7.9%, 565 (7.2–8.5) | 7.5%, 48 (5.5–9.5) | 5.9%, 79 (4.6–7.1) |
Parts Condemned | |||||
Anterior third | 35.6%, 26 (24.6–46.6) | 0.7%, 62 (0.5–0.8) | 0.8%, 56 (0.6–1.0) | 0.2%, 1 (0–0.5) | 0.4%, 5 (0.05–0.7) |
Posterior third | 16.4%, 12 (7.9–24.9) | 0.15%, 14 (0.1–0.2) | 0.2%, 13 (0.1–0.3) | 0 | 0.1%, 1 (0–0.2) |
Head | 48%, 35 (36.5–59.4) | 0.5%, 48 (0.4–0.7) | 0.5%, 39 (0.4–0.7) | 0.5%, 3 (0–1.0) | 0.5%, 6 (0.1–0.8) |
Ribs | 76.7%, 56 (67.0–86.4) | 4.9%, 450 (4.5–5.3) | 5.2%, 375 (4.7–5.7) | 5.2%, 33 (3.4–6.9) | 3.1%, 42 (2.2–4.04) |
Rabada | 31.5%, 23 (20.9–42.2) | 0.9%, 84 (0.7–1.1) | 0.8%, 59 (0.6–1.0) | 1.8%, 11 (0.7–2.7) | 1.04%, 14 (0.5–1.6) |
Hock | 23.3%, 17 (13.6–33) | 0.3%, 28 (0.2–0.4) | 0.3%, 21 (0.2–0.4) | 0 | 0.5%, 7 (0.1–0.9) |
Shoulder | 2.7%, 2 (0–6.5) | 0.02%, 2 (0–0.05) | 0.01%, 1 (0–0.04) | 0 | 0.1%, 1 (0–0.2) |
Ham | 1.4%, 1 (0–4.0) | 0.01%, 1 (0–0.03) | 0.01%, 1 (0–0.04) | 0 | 0 |
Response Variable | Explanatory Variable | Statistic | p-Value | Odds Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | 95%CI | |||||
LC 1 | Batch tail lesion score | χ21 = 1.33 | 0.50 | |||
Batch scarring score | χ21 = 57.7 | <0.0001 | 6.28 | 3.9–10.09 | ||
Production system | χ22 = 3.22 | 0.20 | ||||
Tail length | χ22 = 4.07 | 0.13 | ||||
Anterior third | Batch tail lesion score | χ21 = 1.33 | 0.25 | |||
Batch scarring score | χ21 = 4.54 | 0.033 | 2.13 | 1.06–4.26 | ||
Production system | χ22 = 3.21 | 0.20 | ||||
Tail length | χ22 = 1.29 | 0.52 | ||||
Head | Batch tail lesion score | χ21 = 0.15 | 0.69 | |||
Batch scarring score | χ21 = 1.95 | 0.16 | ||||
Production system | χ22 = 0.57 | 0.75 | ||||
Tail length | χ22 = 4.16 | 0.12 | ||||
Ribs | Batch tail lesion score | χ21 = 1.19 | 0.28 | |||
Batch scarring score | χ21 = 26.3 | <0.0001 | 2.18 | 1.59–2.84 | ||
Production system | χ22 = 4.04 | 0.13 | ||||
Tail length | χ22 = 9.44 | 0.0089 | Fully docked vs. Undocked | 1.85 | 0.36–0.83 | |
Undocked vs. Docked at mid-length | 0.72 | 0.43–1.20 | ||||
Docked at mid-length vs. Docked | 0.76 | 0.53–1.10 | ||||
Batch tail lesion score | χ21 = 0.13 | 0.72 | ||||
Batch scarring score | χ21 = 40.29 | <0.0001 | 7.61 | 4.07–14.25 | ||
Production system | χ22 = 15.0 | 0.0006 | Organic vs. Conventional | 3.99 | 1.98–8.04 | |
Rabada | Organic vs. Conventional AB2 | 2.97 | 1.32–6.67 | |||
Conventional AB 2 vs. Conventional | 1.34 | 0.72–2.48 | ||||
Tail length | χ22 = 44.47 | <0.0001 | Undocked vs. Fully docked | 1.56 | 0.77–3.13 | |
Docked at mid-length vs. Undocked | 3.84 | 0.12–0.55 | ||||
Docked at mid-length vs. Fully docked | 6.07 | 3.57–10.33 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gomes, A.; Romeo, C.; Ghidini, S.; Vieira-Pinto, M. The Relationship between Carcass Condemnations and Tail Lesion in Swine Considering Different Production Systems and Tail Lengths. Animals 2022, 12, 949. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080949
Gomes A, Romeo C, Ghidini S, Vieira-Pinto M. The Relationship between Carcass Condemnations and Tail Lesion in Swine Considering Different Production Systems and Tail Lengths. Animals. 2022; 12(8):949. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080949
Chicago/Turabian StyleGomes, Alice, Claudia Romeo, Sergio Ghidini, and Madalena Vieira-Pinto. 2022. "The Relationship between Carcass Condemnations and Tail Lesion in Swine Considering Different Production Systems and Tail Lengths" Animals 12, no. 8: 949. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080949
APA StyleGomes, A., Romeo, C., Ghidini, S., & Vieira-Pinto, M. (2022). The Relationship between Carcass Condemnations and Tail Lesion in Swine Considering Different Production Systems and Tail Lengths. Animals, 12(8), 949. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080949