Veterinarian's Duties After Postmortem Meat Inspection With Current Technology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18110027Keywords:
veterinary, inspection, technology, PostmortemAbstract
Postmortem meat inspection is a fundamental component of modern food safety, animal health surveillance, and veterinary public health practices. Post-slaughter findings guide veterinarians in multifaceted tasks such as controlling zoonoses, detecting animal welfare violations, and conducting forensic procedures. Traditional palpation- and incision-based inspections have increasingly evolved into visual inspection and risk-based systems (RB-MSAS). This approach integrates elements such as Farm Chain Information (FCI), regional disease status, and slaughterhouse hygiene data, allowing inspection procedures to be tailored to the level of risk. The veterinarian's role has evolved from that of an inspector who merely detects lesions to a risk manager who evaluates the entire food chain. Decision-making processes are influenced by cognitive, systemic, and economic factors, and therefore, decision support systems are used to increase objectivity. Technological advances are significantly changing the nature of postmortem examinations. Artificial intelligence systems enable the automatic detection and scoring of lesions, while remote postmortem examination techniques reduce geographic constraints and ensure service continuity. Furthermore, digital pathology and big data analysis contribute to surveillance efforts. Furthermore, veterinarians are responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence in forensic medicine processes and are obligated to provide objective reporting. This review comprehensively evaluates the veterinarian's multifaceted duties after the postmortem examination, the impact of technological advances on professional practice, and future requirements.
References
Grossklaus D. The future role of the veterinarian in the control of zoonoses. Vet Q. 1987;9(4):321-331.
Dupuy C, Hendrikx P, Hardstaff J, Lindberg A. Contribution of meat inspection to animal health surveillance in bovine animals. EFSA Support Publ. 2012;9(10):322E.
Mousing J, Kyrval J, Jensen TK, Aalbaek B, Buttenschøn J, Svensmark B, Willeberg P. Meat safety consequences of implementing visual postmortem meat inspection procedures in Danish slaughter pigs. Vet Rec. 1997;140(18):472-477.
Ferri M, Blagojevic B, Maurer P, et al. Risk-based meat safety assurance system: an introduction to key concepts for future training of official veterinarians. Food Control. 2023;146:109552.
Gomes-Neves E, Cardoso MF. A risk-based approach to meat inspection: how European official veterinarians perceive their work and training. Food Control. 2025;170:111050.
Arzoomand N, Vågsholm I, Niskanen R, Johansson A, Comin A. Flexible distribution of tasks in meat inspection: a pilot study. Food Control. 2019;102:166-172.
Gomes-Neves E, Cardoso MF, Lazou T, et al. Official veterinarians in Europe: questionnaire-based insights into demographics, work and training. Food Control. 2023;153:109947.
Woldemariyam FT, Markos T, Shegu D, Abdi KD, Paeshuyse J. Evaluation of postmortem inspection procedures to diagnose bovine tuberculosis at Debre Birhan municipal abattoir. Animals. 2021;11(9):2620.
Romano A, De Camillis A, Sciota D, et al. Cross-species AI: shifting a convolutional neural network from pigs to lambs to detect pneumonia at slaughter. Front Vet Sci. 2025;12:1591032.
Peruzy MF, Vuoso V, Felicani C, Cotturone G, Houf K, Murru N. Remote post-mortem veterinary meat inspections in bovine and analysis of post-mortem inspection outcomes: preliminary results. Acta IMEKO. 2024;13(1):1-5.
Almqvist V, Berg C, Hultgren J. Reliability of remote post-mortem veterinary meat inspections in pigs using augmented-reality live-stream video software. Food Control. 2021;125:107940.
Yamada K, Satoh K, Kanai E, Madarame H. Role of autopsy imaging in veterinary forensic medicine: experiences in 39 cases. J Vet Med Sci. 2023;85(3):301-307.
Brownlie HB, Munro R. The veterinary forensic necropsy: a review of procedures and protocols. Vet Pathol. 2016;53(5):919-928.
Touroo R, Baucom K, Kessler M, Smith-Blackmore M. Minimum standards and best practices for the clinical veterinary forensic examination of the suspected abused animal. Forensic Sci Int Rep. 2020;2:100150.
McKenzie BA. Veterinary clinical decision-making: cognitive biases, external constraints, and strategies for improvement. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;244(3):271-276.
Petrovski KR, Kirkwood RN. Common biases, difficulties, and errors in clinical reasoning in veterinary medical encounters with a case example. Encyclopedia. 2025;5(1):14.
Corry JE, Hinton MH. Zoonoses in the meat industry: a review. Acta Vet Hung. 1997;45(4):457-479.
Stevenson MA, Sanson RL, Miranda AO, Lawrence KA, Morris RS. Decision support systems for monitoring and maintaining health in food animal populations. N Z Vet J. 2007;55(6):264-272.
Comin A, Jonasson A, Rockström U, et al. Can we use meat inspection data for animal health and welfare surveillance? Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1129891.
Stärk KDC, Alonso S, Dadios N, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of meat inspection as a contribution to animal health and welfare surveillance. Food Control. 2014;39:154-162.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 GREEN FOODS

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.



