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 the European Union, meat inspection (MI) incorporates measures to conduct animal health surveillance, protect public health and ensure meat quality. In reality the focus of MI in many EU countries is primarily on lesions which pose a risk to human health. Such lesions result in pig carcasses being condemned at ante or post mortem MI. Currently, there is considerable interest in developing the MI process to incorporate lesions with relevance to pig health and welfare not only to ensure compliance with welfare legislation and food safety but also to ensure transparency along the food chain. At farm level such information could be used by producers and their Private Veterinary Practitioner (PVP) to inform herd health and welfare plans (Harley et al., 2012a). This could result in changes to management, feeding or housing practices which will improve pig health, welfare and performance thereby leading to economic benefits. For example, the Danish Pig Health Scheme launched in 1978, identifies farms that exhibit high carcass condemnation rates and in turn, offers the assistance of veterinary expertise (Willeberg et al., 1984; Nielsen, 2011). PIGIS (Pig Grading Information System) is an industry-led initiative in Northern Ireland (NI) which provides information on grading and weight, and levels of total condemnation to registered producers in order to reduce losses associated with carcass condemnation. Similarly a Carcass Inspection and Analysis (CIA) software package is under development which will provide producers with real time access to the meat inspection outcome for their pigs. In the UK, the Wholesome Pigs Scotland and the BPEX Pig Health Scheme records the presence of disease lesions from abattoir inspections, after which producers and their veterinarian are informed (Sanchez-Vazquez et al., 2011).

PIGWELFIND is a three year project led by Teagasc and funded by DAFM under the Research Stimulus Fund which aims to develop ante and post mortem inspection as a welfare (including health) diagnostic tool. A major focus of this work is on tail lesions. These are the main lesion related to pig welfare which can be observed on the carcass. None of the aforementioned schemes record different levels of tail lesion severity; they only document severely damaged tails. However, research for PIGWELFIND showed that even mild to moderate tail lesions are associated with significant reductions in carcass weight as well as being associated with an increased risk of carcass condemnation (Harley et al., 2014). Moreover, recent work revealed an association between mild to moderate tail lesions and the risk of the lungs being condemned for lesions related to pleurisy and pneumonia. Hence, documenting and importantly communicating changes in the severity of tail lesions to producers via the MI process could be a useful early warning system for averting pig health and welfare problems on the farm. Over time producers with the help of their PVP, could potentially identify and therefore take action to remedy risk factors for increases in the proportion of pigs affected by mild to moderate tail lesions. Such actions could even avert outbreaks of more severe tail biting. The potential benefits of developing MI as described are contingent on having a system that meets the needs of all stakeholders. 

Trust between the various sections of the supply chain is crucial to the development of a MI process that incorporates measures of pig health and welfare. Indeed transparency and fairness are crucial to the effective exchange and utilisation of any information. In preparing a development plan for the Irish pig industry, the Teagasc Pig Department reported that high levels of distrust existed in the industry, linked to inadequate feedback between producers and processing plants (Teagasc, 2008). Distrust was reported by producers concerning the perceived accuracy of the carcass grading system, with some producers claiming inconsistencies in reporting between processor plants. Similar issues are recorded in other European countries. For example, German pig producers are also concerned with the credibility of processors; they harbour doubts about the reliability of the carcass grading processes, and the lack of price transparency (Spiller et al., 2005). However, there are several other potential practical, political and social constraints to the development of MI as a health and welfare diagnostic tool.

As part of one of the tasks in PIGWELFIND we applied qualitative research techniques to explore and understand stakeholder’s perceptions as to the strengths, weaknesses and barriers to the development and implementation of MI as a health and welfare diagnostic tool. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 14 pig producers from the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and four from Northern Ireland (NI) which formed one distinct group of stakeholders. The second distinct group of stakeholders included a range of people involved in meat and farm animal inspection, personnel involved in policy formation and those involved in the slaughter and processing of pigs (these are referred to as ‘other stakeholders’ in the forthcoming sections). Two focus group discussions were held, one with DAFM veterinary inspectors (VI) involved in meat inspection and farm animal welfare inspections in ROI and another with senior/meat inspectors in NI. Five telephone interviews were conducted with ROI pigmeat processors and three with processors in NI. Finally, four interviews were conducted with personnel involved in policy in both ROI and NI (Bord Bia, FVO, DAFM and DARD) and one with an official from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

All stakeholders were asked questions regarding the development of the current MI process to include measures with relevance to pig health and welfare. They were asked about their perceptions on the potential for an improved system of MI to be used to inform herd health and welfare plans, and what they thought were the main barriers to this development taking place. Producers were also asked questions on the pig health and welfare related problems they encounter on their farm, their levels of satisfaction with the current information received from the abattoir, and the usefulness of this information. 

Three key themes emerged from the interviews with pig producers. The first had to do with producer identity –this refers to producers description of their role in pig production, what is important in this role and their motivation for being involved in pig production. For some this centred on the health and welfare of their pigs, while for others it centred on producing a high standard of pig meat and for others on commercial objectives. In social science the term ‘agency’ concerns the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Producer agency was clear, and involved approaching the pigmeat plant for information, and actively working with their PVP. Indeed most producers reported positive relationships with their PVP.

The second theme was concerned with producers beliefs and expectations. This covered their level of satisfaction with current feedback provision from the plant, and their expectations of the veterinary and meat inspectors. Of the 18 pig producers who participated, 11 expressed dissatisfaction with the feedback information they received. They reported that the information they received currently centred on minimal explanations of the reasons for condemnation, and in some cases, the information was described as illegible. Five reported not believing the reasons provided for condemnation based on previous experience with inconsistencies between reports. There were mixed perceptions towards the pigmeat factory. The NI producers who were all involved in the CIA development program reported greater levels of satisfaction, citing the benefit of being able to identify over a period of time, where key problems are. The majority of ROI producers had unfavourable perceptions of the VI with the issue of inconsistencies being attributed to their role in MI. Nevertheless producers felt that it should not be the VI’s responsibility to record more detailed information at MI.

The third theme was concerned with producers aspirations. All producers agreed with the potential use of ante and post MI data to inform herd health and welfare plans. Yet they expressed uncertainty on how best this could be achieved, given the perceived inconsistencies in reporting on reasons for condemnation. They also expressed concern about potential conflict for the VI (and meat inspectors in NI) in their responsibility towards contributing to pig welfare and health and the perceived objectives of the factory. Ultimately producers expressed a desire for feedback of information that is centred on the producer and farm, is of practical use and that is provided for their benefit rather than against them. Nevertheless, less than half of the producers interviewed were willing to pay for improved feedback on pig health and welfare issues from the factory.

Producers were prompted to discuss their opinions on tail biting. There were varying opinions as to the cause of tail-biting, and regarding levels of acceptability as a health and welfare issue. Seven producers stated that tail docking is an unavoidable solution to tail biting. For most, tail biting was framed as less of a priority compared to other health issues because of what is described as its irregular nature and causes being outside of the producer’s control. Indeed tail biting was described by some as being an inherent part of pig production, and not a cause of concern if occurring at low levels. This same level of tolerance on other welfare related issues, such as lameness was alluded to by several producers. 

Producer identity was also a key theme coming from interviews with the other stakeholders who described producers as being ‘closed’. They believe that this contributes to problems in terms of awareness and perception of pig welfare problems amongst pig producers. DAFM animal welfare inspectors called for improved communication between vets in the factory (VI) and those involved on the farm (PVP) to try and address some of the welfare problems for pigs on farms.

Other barriers and weaknesses included difficulties in relationships and communication between those involved in pig meat processing and pig producers. Indeed, the findings from interviews with the other stakeholders in the pig industry mirrored those of the pig producers in terms of the undoubted distrust between both groups. The ‘other stakeholder’ group confirmed the existence of a general feeling of ‘them versus us’ which often made communication difficult.

Communication difficulties were also reported in the context of pigs from ROI being slaughtered/processed in factories in NI. NI stakeholders reported that animal health and welfare issues which were identified in pigs from ROI at NI factories were reported to the appropriate ROI authorities.

In the factory, recording health and welfare information ante-mortem was considered achievable because of the relative absence of time constraints and easy visibility of the pigs. However, the key challenges are post–mortem where line speed and resulting time limitations are the main issue. Additionally there are difficulties with recording issues such as severity of tail-biting because of the lack of well-defined scoring systems, and the absence of a means of ensuring that consistent terminology is used between VIs.

Pigmeat processors were in favour of a health and welfare diagnostic tool but certainly those in the ROI placed the responsibility for the development of such a tool with DAFM. Concerns were expressed however, by policy stakeholders that the current role of pig meat inspection in ROI relates to ensuring that pig meat is fit for human consumption. They also felt that there were many difficult practical implications in trying to comprehensively gather and record data from post-mortem inspections in the factory. 

Pig producers clearly recognise the potential benefit of the development and utilisation of meat inspection data as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool. This acknowledgment, however, is undermined for some by dissatisfaction with the current system of feedback, issues relating to trust and fairness and concerns about data utilisation. Producer perceptions about animal health and welfare issues also influence the perceived usefulness of pig health and welfare data collected at MI. For example, acceptability of tail biting and the beliefs about this welfare problem undermine the potential value of recording information on tail lesions at MI. Nevertheless there were key strengths associated with producers which centred on their strong sense of identity and motivation as well as their level of agency and the positive relationship with their PVP.

In addition to practical and technological issues identified in the factory, the issue of trust is also echoed in comments from the other stakeholders. Similar findings were recorded in research from other countries, where it was shown that distrust presents obstacles as to how information is received and acted upon at the farm level, as well as the willingness for producers to participate in animal welfare schemes. In progressing the development of a diagnostic tool for pig health and welfare based on data collected at MI a unified approach will be critical.

Considering the challenges identified the development and utilisation of MI data as a health and welfare diagnostic tool could be supported by the implementation of a communication strategy that will help build trust and positive relations between all stakeholders in the pig industry. Such a strategy will also better inform producers on the consequences of certain pig health and welfare problems, and enable and empower them to see the producer-centred benefits of better data on pig health and welfare.