## 4 Discussion  
Growth parameters recorded on farm were in line with the national data for Italian heavy pigs intended for the production of dry-cured hams [29] and very similar to those obtained by [PERSON] et al. [30] on pigs of similar weight (90-170 kg BW). As concerns the overall number of lesions across groups, it should be kept in mind that the assessment methods differ considerably, and it is quite hard to draw direct comparisons. From a general standpoint, the overall prevalence of lesions seems to be similar or lower compared to other studies. For example, [PERSON] et al. [31] scored both sides of the body and found a number of lesions comparable to the present study but a higher number of tail lesions. [PERSON] et al. [32] assessed lesions on farm during the growing phase and found that 45% of pigs had lesions on the body and 15% on the tail, percentages that appear to be similar to the present study. However, they did not evaluate lesion severity and provided no detailed description of how lesions were observed (distance, minimum lesion size), and therefore, the comparison must be interpreted with extreme caution. With respect to lesions on the carcasses, similarly to the present study, [PERSON] et al. [33] assessed lesions at slaughter in heavy pigs (121-145 kg BW) using the Welfare Quality(r) classification [17], and they found moderate carcass lesions (5-10 lesions on the body) in 26% and severe lesions (more than 15) in 55% of slaughtered pigs. In the present study, regardless of the experimental group and based on the visible areas, we observed 20% of moderately damaged carcasses and 5% of severely damaged carcasses (data not \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **C** & **L1** & **L2** & **MSE 1** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Samples. n.** & 24 & 24 & 24 & & \\
**Cortisol, pg/mg** & 16.43 & 16.46 & 15.35 & 56.43 & 0.771 \\
**CK, pg/mg** & 2009.98 & 2044.73 & 2016.90 & 1022647 & 0.989 \\
**Aldolase** & 49.54 & 44.33 & 48.05 & 564.2 & 0.661 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Mean square error.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Stress indicators (analyzed on blood collected at exsanguination) of the three experimental groups (C = control, L1 = lavender nebulization once a day, L2 = lavender nebulization twice a day). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **C** & **L1** & **L2** & **MSE 1** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Samples, n.** & 36 & 36 & 36 & & \\
**pH 45\({}^{\prime}\) **bin** & 6.64 a & 6.49 b & 6.57 a,b & 0.047 & 0.041 \\
**pH 24 h** **thigh** & 5.78 & 5.74 & 5.79 & 0.024 & 0.429 \\
**Loin color (m. _Longissimus torachis_) & & & & & \\ \hline L * & 45.70 & 43.92 & 45.48 & 39.16 & 0.529 \\ a * & 8.29 & 8.15 & 8.28 & 10.47 & 0.984 \\ b * & 3.68 & 3.64 & 3.62 & 3.08 & 0.992 \\
**Hue** & 24.51 & 24.22 & 24.80 & 122.09 & 0.983 \\
**Chroma** & 9.19 & 9.06 & 9.23 & 10.74 & 0.983 \\
**Thigh color (m. _Semimembranosus_) & & & & & \\ \hline L * & 43.36 & 43.65 & 44.06 & 19.05 & 0.836 \\ a * & 9.26 & 8.72 & 8.72 & 5.55 & 0.600 \\ b * & 3.97 & 3.65 & 3.63 & 1.85 & 0.558 \\
**Hue** & 23.64 & 21.86 & 23.13 & 47.77 & 0.613 \\
**Chroma** & 10.14 & 9.53 & 9.50 & 6.08 & 0.536 \\
**Drip loss, \%** & 1.66 b & 2.16 a & 2.23 a & 0.84 & 0.038 \\
**Cooking loss, \%** & & & & & \\
**Warner-Batzler shear force, kg/cm2** & & & & & \\
**Mean** & 6.35 & 6.19 & 6.14 & 2.39 & 0.869 \\
**Median** & 6.25 & 6.17 & 6.17 & 2.36 & 0.976 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Mean square error.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Meat quality parameters of the three experimental groups (C = control, L1 = lavender nebulization once a day, L2 = lavender nebulization twice a day). Different superscripts within the same row indicate significant differences (a\({}^{\text{b}}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.05). shown). Therefore, the carcass lesion distribution across severity classes observed by [PERSON] et al. (2018) seems to be more severe compared to the distribution obtained in the present study.