Table 3.
Effect of assessment location and animal sex on the prevalence of animal-based welfare outcomes in slaughter pigs assessed on farm (198 pens; 9,049 pigs) and at the abattoir (54 batches; 8,843 pigs).
| Location | Sexa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm | Abattoir | P-value | Female | Male | Mixed | P-value | |
| Ear lesions | 2.1 (1.92–2.31) | −0.3 (−0.77 to 0.23) | *** | 2.3 (2.05–2.53)a | 1.3 (0.94–1.70)b | 2.2 (1.73–2.71)a | ** |
| Tail lesions | 1.5 (1.11–1.84) | 2.5 (2.14–2.78) | *** | 1.9 (1.38–2.46) | 1.3 (0.98–1.70) | 0.9 (0.24–1.60) | + |
| Hernia | 0.9 (0.74–1.17) | 0.2 (−0.03 to 0.42) | *** | 1.0 (0.80–1.21) | 0.9 (0.62–1.13) | 0.9 (0.38–1.46) | ns |
| Bursitis | 2.0 (1.96–2.11) | 2.4 (2.31–2.59) | *** | 2.1 (1.96–2.21) | 2.0 (1.85–2.09) | 2.1 (1.84–2.37) | ns |
| Lameness | 1.1 (0.88–1.38) | 1.1 (0.65–1.64) | ns | 1.3 (0.94–1.59) | 0.8 (0.36–1.19) | 1.3 (0.62–1.98) | ns |
Least squares means (95% CI) of models with gamma distribution are presented.
a
Abattoir assessments were excluded as sex of pigs were not assessed in this location; ns, not significant; +, Tendency (P < 0.1);
**
P < 0.01;
***
P < 0.001.