A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions
Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-ran...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Alban, Lis [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Porcine health management - London : BioMed Central, 2015, 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:1 ; year:2015 ; number:1 ; day:16 ; month:04 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR03784623X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR03784623X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230328210716.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR03784623X | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Alban, Lis |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Pig health |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Production system |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meat inspection, Animal welfare |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Petersen, Jesper Valentin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Busch, Marie Erika |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Porcine health management |d London : BioMed Central, 2015 |g 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. |w (DE-627)835890457 |w (DE-600)2835354-7 |x 2055-5660 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:1 |g year:2015 |g number:1 |g day:16 |g month:04 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 1 |j 2015 |e 1 |b 16 |c 04 | ||
| author_variant |
l a la j v p jv jvp m e b me meb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20555660:2015----::cmaiobteneinfuduigetnpcinfiihnpgrieudrraiferneodt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 doi (DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Alban, Lis verfasserin aut A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 Petersen, Jesper Valentin aut Busch, Marie Erika aut Enthalten in Porcine health management London : BioMed Central, 2015 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. (DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 2055-5660 nnns volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2015 1 16 04 |
| spelling |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 doi (DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Alban, Lis verfasserin aut A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 Petersen, Jesper Valentin aut Busch, Marie Erika aut Enthalten in Porcine health management London : BioMed Central, 2015 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. (DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 2055-5660 nnns volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2015 1 16 04 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 doi (DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Alban, Lis verfasserin aut A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 Petersen, Jesper Valentin aut Busch, Marie Erika aut Enthalten in Porcine health management London : BioMed Central, 2015 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. (DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 2055-5660 nnns volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2015 1 16 04 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 doi (DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Alban, Lis verfasserin aut A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 Petersen, Jesper Valentin aut Busch, Marie Erika aut Enthalten in Porcine health management London : BioMed Central, 2015 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. (DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 2055-5660 nnns volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2015 1 16 04 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 doi (DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Alban, Lis verfasserin aut A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 Petersen, Jesper Valentin aut Busch, Marie Erika aut Enthalten in Porcine health management London : BioMed Central, 2015 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. (DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 2055-5660 nnns volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2015 1 16 04 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Porcine health management 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Porcine health management 1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr. volume:1 year:2015 number:1 day:16 month:04 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Pig health Production system Meat inspection, Animal welfare |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Porcine health management |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Alban, Lis @@aut@@ Petersen, Jesper Valentin @@aut@@ Busch, Marie Erika @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-04-16T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
835890457 |
| id |
SPR03784623X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR03784623X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230328210716.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/2055-5660-1-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR03784623X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alban, Lis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pig health</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Production system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meat inspection, Animal welfare</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Petersen, Jesper Valentin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Busch, Marie Erika</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Porcine health management</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)835890457</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2835354-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2055-5660</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Alban, Lis |
| spellingShingle |
Alban, Lis misc Pig health misc Production system misc Meat inspection, Animal welfare A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| authorStr |
Alban, Lis |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)835890457 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2055-5660 |
| topic_title |
A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions Pig health (dpeaa)DE-He213 Production system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meat inspection, Animal welfare (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Pig health misc Production system misc Meat inspection, Animal welfare |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Pig health misc Production system misc Meat inspection, Animal welfare |
| topic_browse |
misc Pig health misc Production system misc Meat inspection, Animal welfare |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Porcine health management |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
835890457 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Porcine health management |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)835890457 (DE-600)2835354-7 |
| title |
A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR03784623X (SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e |
| title_full |
A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| author_sort |
Alban, Lis |
| journal |
Porcine health management |
| journalStr |
Porcine health management |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Alban, Lis Petersen, Jesper Valentin Busch, Marie Erika |
| container_volume |
1 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Alban, Lis |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |
| title_sort |
comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| title_auth |
A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| abstract |
Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors. © Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Petersen, Jesper Valentin Busch, Marie Erika |
| author2Str |
Petersen, Jesper Valentin Busch, Marie Erika |
| ppnlink |
835890457 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/2055-5660-1-4 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T14:41:08.011Z |
| _version_ |
1803569246256496640 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR03784623X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230328210716.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/2055-5660-1-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR03784623X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)2055-5660-1-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alban, Lis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison between lesions found during meat inspection of finishing pigs raised under organic/free-range conditions and conventional, indoor conditions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Alban et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract It is often argued that pigs raised under less intensive production conditions – such as organic or free-range – have a higher level of animal welfare compared with conventionally raised pigs. To look into this, an analysis of data from a large Danish abattoir slaughtering organic, free-range, and conventionally raised finishing pigs was undertaken. First, the requirements for each of the three types of production systems were investigated. Next, meat inspection data from a period of 1 year were collected. These covered 201,160 organic/free-range pigs and 1,173,213 conventionally raised pigs. The prevalence of each individual type of lesion was calculated, followed by a statistical comparison between the prevalences in organic/free-range and conventional pigs. Because of the large number of data, the P-value for significance was lowered to P = 0.001, and only biological associations reflecting Odds Ratios above 1.2 or below 0.8 were considered to be of significance. The majority of the lesion types were recorded infrequently (<4%). Only chronic pleuritis was a common finding. A total of 13 lesion types were more frequent among organic/free-range pigs than among conventional pigs - among others old fractures, tail lesions and osteomyelitis. Four lesion types were equally frequent in the two groups: chronic pneumonia, chronic pleuritis, fresh fracture, and abscess in head/ear. Four lesion types were recorded less frequently among organic/free-range pigs compared with conventionally raised pigs. These included abscess in leg/toe, hernia and scar/hock lesion. Possible associations between the individual lesion types and the production systems - including the requirements for each system - are discussed. The results emphasize the importance of using direct animal based parameters when evaluating animal welfare in different types of production systems. Moreover, individual solutions to the health problems observed in a herd should be found, e.g. in collaboration with the veterinary practitioner and other advisors.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pig health</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Production system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meat inspection, Animal welfare</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Petersen, Jesper Valentin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Busch, Marie Erika</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Porcine health management</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2015), 1 vom: 16. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)835890457</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2835354-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2055-5660</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400326 |