Slaughter checks have been used as an integral part of swine farms’ disease surveillance programs. These programs include:

* Clinical exam (walk-through facilities)

* Post mortems

- Unexplained deathloss

- Problem areas

* Laboratory follow up

- Bacteriology

- Virology

- Histopathology

- Toxicology

* Serology

- Diagnostic

- Serum banks

* Slaughter checks

* Genetic program

* Nutrition program

* Records

- Production (sow/boar and grow/finish)

- Financial

Advantages of using the PigMON system to do slaughter checks are that more diseases are monitored and the system is standardized across multiple examiners. Each swine practitioner has a semiannual quality control check in performing slaughter checks against the PigMON technician. The purpose of the quality control is to ensure uniformity across examiners so that comparisons can be done with greater confidence. The PigMON system does a more in depth slaughter surveillance than most slaughter surveillances in the past. The PigMON system examines:

* Papular dermatitis

* Enzootic pneumonia

- Acute

- Chronic

* Pleuritis

- with or without pneumonia

* Pleuropneumonia

* Pericarditis

* Peritonitis

* Ascarid liver lesions

* Ileitis

* Atrophic rhinitis

Use of a statistically based exam system also helps ensure good reliability and predictability between slaughter examinations. By using these types of sample sizes, it allows for predictability of disease as well as disease prevalence, if the proper numbers are done.

One of the best features of the PigMON system is the graphic reporting system. This is very helpful in the illustration of comparisons to producers and employees. It is used to monitor response in vaccination programs, medication programs, and management changes. The value is observed when one can see several checks on the same graph to compare.

So far the PigMON system has been a very beneficial tool for practitioners and swine producers. However, its capabilities have been somewhat under utilized particularly the ability to do comparison work on area practice, state, regional, farm size, etc. basis. The comparison of management procedures and its effect on score has not been fully used, nor the ability to tie the information back to both production and financial records. As PigMON continues to be developed, hopefully these areas will be expanded. The ability to have on site data entry and report generation would make the program more user friendly. This would also allow for more utilization of facility and management comparisons. The increased number of diseases monitored, quality control, reports generated and comparison capability make this program an important part of the herd’s disease surveillance program. Hopefully the program will continue to develop and add the additional features to allow for true economic disease surveillance.