Bibliografia
1. Clonan, A.; Wilson, P.; Swift, J.A.; Leibovici, D.G.; Holdsworth, M. Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: Impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2446-2456.
2. Di Pasquale, J.; Nannoni, E.; Del Duca, I.; Adinolfi, F.; Capitanio, F.; Sardi, L.; Vitali, M.; Martelli, G. What foods are identified as animal friendly by Italian consumers? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13.
3. Consortium for Parma Ham Consortium-Economic Figures. Available online: https://www.prosciuttodiparma.com/en/parmaham- consortium/ (accessed on 18 May 2021).
4. European Union (EU). Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the european parliament and of the council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, L343, 1-29.
5. European Union (EU). Commission implementing regulation (EU) No. 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2014. Off. J. Eur. Union 2014, L179, 36-61.
6. Consortium for Parma Ham Prosciutto di Parma (Parma Ham) Protected Designation of Origin. Available online: https://www. prosciuttodiparma.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Parma_Ham_Specifications_Disciplinare_Consolidato_Nov_13.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2021).
7. European Commission DG (SANTE). Final Report of An Audit Carried Out in Italy from 13 November 2017 to 17 November 2017 in Order to Evaluate Member State Activities to Prevent Tail-Biting and Avoid Routine Tail-Docking of Pigs. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=13722 (accessed on 18 May 2021).
8. Wu, F.; Vierck, K.R.; DeRouchey, J.M.; O’Quinn, T.G.; Tokach, M.D.; Goodband, R.D.; Dritz, S.S.; Woodworth, J.C. A review of heavy weight market pigs: Status of knowledge and future needs assessment. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017, 1, 1-15.
9. Quality,W.Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs;Welfare Quality®Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1-123.
10. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance on Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2513.
11. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2767.
12. Mavromichalis, I. Applied Nutrition for Young Pigs; Cabi: Wallingford, UK, 2006; ISBN 1845930673.
13. Choct, M.; Selby, E.A.D.; Cadogan, D.J.; Campbell, R.G. Effect of liquid to feed ratio, steeping time, and enzyme supplementation on the performance of weaner pigs. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 55, 247-252.
14. Hurst, D.; Clarke, L.; Lean, I.J. Effect of liquid feeding at different water-to-feed ratios on the growth performance of growingfinishing pigs. Animal 2008, 2, 1297-1302.
15. Galassi, G.; Crovetto, G.M.; Rapetti, L.; Tamburini, A. Energy and nitrogen balance in heavy pigs fed different fibre sources. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2004, 85, 253-262.
16. Lawrence, B.V.; Anderson, D.B.; Adeola, O.; Cline, T.R. Changes in pars esophageal tissue appearance of the porcine stomach in response to transportation, feed deprivation, and diet composition. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 788.
17. Friendship, R.M. Gastric ulceration in swine. Swione Health Prod. 2004, 12, 34-35.
18. Gottardo, F.; Scollo, A.; Contiero, B.; Bottacini, M.; Mazzoni, C.; Edwards, S.A. Prevalence and risk factors for gastric ulceration in pigs slaughtered at 170 kg. Animal 2017, 11, 2010-2018.
19. Di Martino, G.; Capello, K.; Scollo, A.; Gottardo, F.; Stefani, A.L.; Rampin, F.; Schiavon, E.; Marangon, S.; Bonfanti, L. Continuous straw provision reduces prevalence of oesophago-gastric ulcer in pigs slaughtered at 170 kg (heavy pigs). Res. Vet. Sci. 2013, 95, 1271-1273.
20. Ayles, H.L.; Friendship, R.M.; Ball, R.O. Effect of dietary particle size on gastric ulcers, assessed by endoscopic examination, and relationship between ulcer severity and growth performance of individually fed pigs. Swine Health Prod. 1996, 4, 211-216.
21. Vitali, M.; Nannoni, E.; Sardi, L.; Bassi, P.; Militerno, G.; Faucitano, L.; Bonaldo, A.; Martelli, G. Enrichment tools for undocked heavy pigs: Effects on body and gastric lesions and carcase and meat quality parameters. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 39-44.
22. Alborali, G.L.; Bertocchi, L. Benessere Animale: Linee Guida per la Categorizzazione del Rischio Nell’allevamento Suino Dallo Svezzamento All’ingrasso. Available online: https://www.classyfarm.it/ (accessed on 10 February 2020).
23. Classyfarm. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Lombardia e Emilia-Romagna Valutazione del Rischio Taglio Coda nel Suino da Ingrasso e Svezzamento. Available online: https://www.classyfarm.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/09/SUINI-Benesserevalutazione- del-rischio-Taglio-coda-3.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
24. Nannoni, E.; Martelli, G.; Cecchini, M.; Vignola, G.; Giammarco, M.; Zaghini, G.; Sardi, L. Water requirements of liquid-fed heavy pigs: Effect of water restriction on growth traits, animal welfare and meat and ham quality. Livest. Sci. 2013, 151, 21-28.
25. Vermeer, H.M.; Kuijken, N.; Spoolder, H.A.M. Motivation for additional water use of growing-finishing pigs. Livest. Sci. 2009, 124, 112-118.
26. Aarnink, A.J.A.; Schrama, J.W.; Heetkamp, M.J.W.; Stefanowska, J.; Huynh, T.T.T. Temperature and body weight affect fouling of pig pens. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 2224-2231.
27. Ministero della Salute. Adempimenti in Materia di Benessere Animale di Cui al d.Lgs. 122/2011 Sulla Protezione dei Suini in Allevamento; Nota Ministeriale 0005732-04/03/2021-DGSAF-MDS-P; Ministero della Salute: Rome, Italy, 2021.
28. Weng, R.C.; Edwards, S.A.; English, P.R. Behaviour, social interactions and lesion scores of group-housed sows in relation to floor space allowance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 59, 307-316.
29. Spoolder, H.A.M.; Edwards, S.A.; Corning, S. Legislative methods for specifying stocking density and consequences for the welfare of finishing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2000, 64, 167-173.
30. Scipioni, R.; Martelli, G.; Antonella Volpelli, L. Assessment of welfare in pigs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 117-137.
31. Nannoni, E.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Vermeer, H.M.; Reimert, I.; Fels, M.; Bracke, M.B.M. Soiling of Pig Pens: A Review of Eliminative Behaviour. Animals 2020, 10, 2025.
32. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health andWelfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: Effects of different space allowances and floor. EFSA J. 2005, 3, 268.
33. European Commission (EC). 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.
34. European Union (EU). Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European parliament and of the council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L150, 1-92.
35. European Commission (EC). Organic Farming in the EU-A Fast Growing Sector. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/ sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-organic-farming-in-the-eu_mar2019_en.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2021). 36. Rossi, R.; Costa, A.; Guarino, M.; Laicini, F.; Pastorelli, G.; Corino, C. Effect of group size-floor space allowance and floor type on growth performance and carcass characteristics of heavy pigs. J. Swine Health Prod. 2008, 16, 304-311.
37. Pastorelli, G.; Musella, M.; Zaninelli, M.; Tangorra, F.; Corino, C. Static spatial requirements of growing-finishing and heavy pigs. Livest. Sci. 2006, 105, 260-264.
38. Nannoni, E.; Martelli, G.; Rubini, G.; Sardi, L. Effects of increased space allowance on animal welfare, meat and ham quality of heavy pigs slaughtered at 160 kg. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0212417.
39. Peden, R.S.E.; Turner, S.P.; Boyle, L.A.; Camerlink, I. The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 204, 1-9.
40. Turner, S.P.; Horgan, G.W.; Edwards, S.A. Effect of social group size on aggressive behaviour between unacquainted domestic pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 74, 203-215.
41. Ministero della Salute. Ambiti Interpretativi Della Direttiva 2008/120/CE Che Stabilisce le Norme Minime Per la Protezione dei Suini, Recepita Con D. Lgs 122/2011; Circolare del Ministero della Salute 0022766-P-12/12/2012; Ministero della Salute: Rome, Italy, 2012.
42. Bottacini, M.; Scollo, A.; Edwards, S.A.; Contiero, B.; Veloci, M.; Pace, V.; Gottardo, F. Skin lesion monitoring at slaughter on heavy pigs (170 kg): Welfare indicators and ham defects. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0207115.
43. KilBride, A.; Gillman, C.; Ossent, P.; Green, L. Impact of flooring on the health and welfare of pigs. Practice 2009, 31, 390-395.
44. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Report on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. EFSA J. 2007, 5, 546.
45. Martelli, G.; Scalabrin, M.; Scipioni, R.; Sardi, L. The Effects of the Duration of the Artificial Photoperiod on the Growth Parameters and Behaviour of Heavy Pigs. Vet. Res. Commun. 2005, 29, 367-369.
46. Martelli, G.; Boccuzzi, R.; Grandi, M.; Mazzone, G.; Zaghini, G.; Sardi, L. The effects of two different light intensities on the production and behavioural traits of Italian heavy pigs. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 2010, 123, 457-462.
47. Sardi, L.; Nannoni, E.; Grandi, M.; Vignola, G.; Zaghini, G.; Martelli, G. Meat and ham quality of Italian heavy pigs subjected to different illumination regimes. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 2012, 125, 463-468.
48. Martelli, G.; Nannoni, E.; Grandi, M.; Bonaldo, A.; Zaghini, G.; Vitali, M.; Biagi, G.; Sardi, L. Growth parameters, behavior, and meat and ham quality of heavy pigs subjected to photoperiods of different duration. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 758-766.
49. Marinelli, L.; Mongillo, P.; Carnier, P.; Schiavon, S.; Gallo, L. A Short Period of Darkness after Mixing of Growing Pigs Intended for PDO Hams Production Reduces Skin Lesions. Animals 2020, 10, 1729.
50. Scollo, A.; Contiero, B.; Gottardo, F. Frequency of tail lesions and risk factors for tail biting in heavy pig production from weaning to 170 kg live weight. Vet. J. 2016, 207, 92-98.
51. Vitali, M.; Luppi, A.; Bonilauri, P.; Spinelli, E.; Santacroce, E.; Trevisi, P. Benchmarking of anatomopathological lesions assessed at slaughter and their association with tail lesions and carcass traits in heavy pigs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021. accepted.
52. Maisano, A.M.; Luini, M.; Vitale, N.; Rota Nodari, S.; Scali, F.; Alborali, G.L.; Vezzoli, F. Animal-based measures on fattening heavy pigs at the slaughterhouse and the association with animal welfare at the farm level: A preliminary study. Animal 2020, 14, 108-118.
53. Honeck, A.; Gertz, M.; grosse Beilage, E.; Krieter, J. Comparison of different scoring keys for tail-biting in pigs to evaluate the importance of one common scoring key to improve the comparability of studies-A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 221, 104873.
54. Merialdi, G.; Dottori, M.; Bonilauri, P.; Luppi, A.; Gozio, S.; Pozzi, P.; Spaggiari, B.; Martelli, P. Survey of pleuritis and pulmonary lesions in pigs at abattoir with a focus on the extent of the condition and herd risk factors. Vet. J. 2012, 193, 234-239.
55. Scollo, A.; Gottardo, F.; Contiero, B.; Mazzoni, C.; Leneveu, P.; Edwards, S.A. Benchmarking of pluck lesions at slaughter as a health monitoring tool for pigs slaughtered at 170 kg (heavy pigs). Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 144, 20-28.
56. Ghidini, S.; Zanardi, E.; Di Ciccio, P.A.; Borrello, S.; Belluzi, G.; Guizzardi, S.; Ianieri, A. Development and test of a visual-only meat inspection system for heavy pigs in Northern Italy. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 6.
57. Ostanello, F.; Dottori, M.; Gusmara, C.; Leotti, G.; Sala, V. Pneumonia disease assessment using a slaughterhouse lung-scoring method. J. Vet. Med. A Physiol. Pathol. Clin. Med. 2007, 54, 70-75.
58. De Luca, S.; Zanardi, E.; Alborali, G.L.; Ianieri, A.; Ghidini, S. Abattoir-based measures to assess swine welfare: Analysis of the methods adopted in European slaughterhouses. Animals 2021, 11, 226.
59. Aluwé, M.; Heyrman, E.; Almeida, J.M.; Babol, J.; Battacone, G.; ˇCítek, J.; Font i Furnols, M.; Getya, A.; Karolyi, D.; Kostyra, E.; et al. Exploratory Survey on European Consumer and Stakeholder Attitudes towards Alternatives for Surgical Castration of Piglets. Animals 2020, 10, 1758.
60. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health andWelfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. EFSA J. 2004, 2, 91.
61. European Declaration on Alternatives to Surgical Castration of Pigs. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/ files/animals/docs/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_declaration_en.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2021).
62. Pinna, A.; Schivazappa, C.; Virgili, R.; Parolari, G. Effect of vaccination against gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in heavy male pigs for Italian typical dry-cured ham production. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 153-159.
63. Di Pasquale, J.; Nannoni, E.; Sardi, L.; Rubini, G.; Salvatore, R.; Bartoli, L.; Adinolfi, F.; Martelli, G. Towards the abandonment of surgical castration in pigs: How is immunocastration perceived by Italian consumers? Animals 2019, 9, 198.
64. Nalon, E.; De Briyne, N. Efforts to Ban the Routine Tail Docking of Pigs and to Give Pigs Enrichment Materials via EU Law: Where doWe Stand a Quarter of a Century on? Animals 2019, 9, 132.
65. Ministero della Salute. Introduzione di Suini a Coda Integra da Allevamenti da Riproduzione Italiani e Provenienti da Paesi UE e Rispetto Delle Disposizioni Previste dal d.Lgs. 122/2011 e Relativo Piano Nazionale; Nota Ministeriale 0014898-03/07/2020-DGSAF-MDS-P; Ministero della Salute: Rome, Italy, 2020.
66. Balzani, A.; Hanlon, A. Factors that influence farmers’ views on farm animal welfare: A semi-systematic review and thematic analysis. Animals 2020, 10, 1524.
67. Di Martino, G.; Scollo, A.; Gottardo, F.; Stefani, A.L.; Schiavon, E.; Capello, K.; Marangon, S.; Bonfanti, L. The effect of tail docking on the welfare of pigs housed under challenging conditions. Livest. Sci. 2015, 173, 78-86.
68. European Commission (EC). 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.
69. Van de Weerd, H.A.; Day, J.E.L. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 1-20.
70. 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.
71. Gastaldo, A.; Tremolada, C.; Borciani, M.; Iotti, G.; Barbieri, S.; Canali, E. Survey on the use of manipulable material as environmental enrichment in the pig farms in Italy [Indagine sull’uso del materiale manipolabile come arricchimento ambientale nell’allevamento suinicolo italiano]. Large Anim. Rev. 2014, 20, 165-168.
72. 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.
73. Dalmau, A.; Nande, A.; Vieira-Pinto, M.; Zamprogna, S.; Di Martino, G.; Ribas, J.C.R.; da Costa, M.P.; Halinen-Elemo, K.; Velarde, A. Application of theWelfare Quality® protocol in pig slaughterhouses of five countries. Livest. Sci. 2016, 193, 78-87.
74. Nannoni, E.; Sardi, L.; Vitali, M.; Trevisi, E.; Ferrari, A.; Ferri, M.E.; Bacci, M.L.; Govoni, N.; Barbieri, S.; Martelli, G. Enrichment devices for undocked heavy pigs: Effects on animal welfare, blood parameters and production traits. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 45-56.
75. Rault, J.L.; Hintze, S.; Camerlink, I.; Yee, J.R. Positive Welfare and the Like: Distinct Views and a Proposed Framework. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 370. 76. Désiré, L.; Boissy, A.; Veissier, I. Emotions in farm animals: A new approach to animal welfare in applied ethology. Behav. Process. 2002, 60, 165-180.
77. Reimert, I.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Kemp, B.; Rodenburg, T.B. Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Physiol. Behav. 2013, 109, 42-50.
78. Webster, J. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden: A Practical Approach to Redressing the Problem of Our Dominion over the Animals; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
79. Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J. Extending the “Five Domains” model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Anim. Welf. 2015, 24, 241-253.
TORNA INDIETROEradicazione di M. hyopneumoniae nel suino: gli strumenti ci sono
I metodi storicamente impiegati per ridurre l’incidenza delle infezioni da M. hyopneumoniae non sembrano attualmente funzionare adeguatamente. I programmi di controllo per questo microrganismo si dividono in due macrocategorie: i programmi che prevedono l’eradicazione dell’agente patogeno e quelli che non la prevedono; a quest’ultima categoria appartengono le strategie che si basano su tre concetti: gestione, prevenzione e trattamento.
