Next Article in Journal
Smallholder-Based Oil Palm and Rubber Production in the Forest Region of Guinea: An Exploratory Analysis of Household Food Security Outcomes
Next Article in Special Issue
Risk Factors for Dystocia and Perinatal Mortality in Extensively Kept Angus Suckler Cows in Germany
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Irrigation Termination Date on Cotton Yield and Irrigation Requirement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Two Free-Farrowing Systems and a Conventional Farrowing Crate System with Special Regard to Air Hygiene
Article

Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm

1
Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
2
Pig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 C996 Co. Cork, Ireland
3
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 W6F6 Dublin, Ireland
4
Department of Animal Behaviour, Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Postepu 36A, Jastrzebiec, 05-552 Magdalenka, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2019, 9(2), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020040
Received: 20 January 2019 / Revised: 12 February 2019 / Accepted: 13 February 2019 / Published: 19 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Farm Animal Welfare)
Meat inspection (MI) findings can act as a valuable source of information on pig health and welfare. The PIG WELFare INDicators (PIGWELFIND) project (Research Stimulus Fund 11/S/107) was developed to progress the development of ante and post mortem MI as a pig health and welfare diagnostic tool in Ireland. Three multi-stakeholder focus groups were organized to explore areas of conflict and agreement between stakeholders’ vision for including pig health and welfare indicators in MI and on how to achieve this vision. Each focus group consisted of eight stakeholders: pig producers, Teagasc pig advisors, pig processors, veterinarians involved in MI, private veterinary practitioners, and personnel with backgrounds in general animal health and welfare and food safety policy. In general, stakeholders expressed positive attitudes towards the use of MI data to inform pig health and welfare when standardization of recording and feedback is improved, and the MI system provides real-time benchmarking possibilities. Most emphasis was placed on health indicators as a first priority, while it was felt that welfare-related indicators could be included after practical barriers had been addressed (i.e., line speed/feasibility, standardization and training of meat inspectors, data ownership). Recommendations are made to further progress the development of MI as a pig health and welfare diagnostic tool and address some of these barriers. View Full-Text
Keywords: perspectives; meat inspection; swine; veterinarians; pig producers; processors; social science; welfare; health; management perspectives; meat inspection; swine; veterinarians; pig producers; processors; social science; welfare; health; management
MDPI and ACS Style

van Staaveren, N.; Doyle, B.; Hanlon, A.; Boyle, L.A. Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm. Agriculture 2019, 9, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020040

AMA Style

van Staaveren N, Doyle B, Hanlon A, Boyle LA. Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm. Agriculture. 2019; 9(2):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020040

Chicago/Turabian Style

van Staaveren, Nienke, Bernadette Doyle, Alison Hanlon, and Laura A. Boyle 2019. "Multi-Stakeholder Focus Groups on Potential for Meat Inspection Data to Inform Management of Pig Health and Welfare on Farm" Agriculture 9, no. 2: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020040

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop