Table 1 Framework showing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats regarding the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland
Strengths | Weaknesses |
• Regular and open communication between some processors and producers (P1, P3, Pol2, Pol4) • Potential scope at ante-mortem for welfare inspection and data gathering (P1, P2, FG2) | • Inconsistent and lack of feedback between processors and producers (P1, P2, P3, Pol3) • Poor relationships between some producers and processors (FG1 and 2, P1-3, Pol2, Pol3, Pol5) • Poor communication between veterinarians in the processing plants and private veterinary practitioners at farm level (FG1) • Problems of consistency in recording approaches at meat inspection, including what is being recorded, and terminology used to record certain conditions (P1, P3, FG1, FG2) • Processing related barriers including line speed, ability to record accurately and objectively, and ability to record multiple indicators and the severity of health and welfare issues (FG1, FG2, Pol3, P1, P2) • Poor follow-up to cross-border communication on health and welfare concerns (FG2) |
Opportunities | Threats |
• Positive relationships and interaction between producers and their private veterinary practitioner (FG1, 2, P1, P2, P3, Pol1, Pol3) • Learning from existing herd health related interventions (such as Northern Ireland’s Pig Grading Information System, and the Carcass Inspection Analysis software) (Pol5, P3, FG2) • Producer identity as business oriented and innovative (Pol1, 2, 4, 5) | • Gaps in cross-border communication on health and welfare concerns (FG2) • Lack of buy-in and cooperation across all stakeholders (Pol1-5) • Producers not being open to receiving external advice and support (FG1-2, P1-2, Pol3) • Producers’ view that diagnostic tool is form of surveillance (FG1, FG2, P1-3, Pol3, Pol5) • Producer distrust and a “them versus us” approach (FG1-2, P1-2, Pol3) • Producer attitudes towards pig health and welfare issues, which may undermine welfare standards (P1, P2, FG1, Pol2, Pol5) • Limited funding for development of diagnostic tool (Pol3) |