Nielsen Søren S, Nielsen Gitte B, Denwood Matthew J, Haugegaard John, Houe Hans
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
MSD Animal Health, Lautrupbjerg 4, DK-2750, Ballerup, Denmark.
Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Mar 29;57(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13028-015-0109-z.
The use of secondary data is widespread in a range of surveillance and monitoring applications because of the low cost and high availability associated with this form of data. However, as they are often collected for quite unrelated purposes, they are not necessarily fit for the new purpose that is required of them. Routine meat inspection data were originally collected with the purpose of safeguarding food, but have been re-tasked to also include animal welfare assessment. The objective of the present study was to compare the recording of pericarditis, pleuritis and lungs with lesions at routine meat inspection (RMI) with those performed at systematic health monitoring (SHM) in Danish pigs at slaughter, in order to assess the usefulness of RMI for monitoring the prevalence of these diseases. Data originating from 165 Danish pig herds were collected in the period September 2011 to November 2013. From each herd, a batch consisting of all pigs slaughtered on a specific day from a specific farm were included as the RMI data, while lungs and hearts sampled from the batches were used for the SHM. The RMI data and SHM data included recordings related to a) chronic pericarditis, b) chronic pleuritis and c) lung lesions. The proportion of carcases with a specific disease recording was estimated for each batch of pigs, and linear regression was used to relate the RMI-proportion to the SHM-proportion for the conditions mentioned above.
The coefficients of determination (R(2)) were estimated as R(2),pericarditis = 0.16; R(2),pleuritis = 0.67; R(2),lungs with lesions = 0.40. R(2),pericarditis changed to 0.42 when the regression analysis included inspection type at the abattoir (with purely visual inspection of the hearts versus traditional inspection including an incision into the heart).
Overall, the results suggest that the correlation between findings at RMI and SHM was moderate for pleuritis and lungs with lesions, but poor for pericarditis. The latter could partly be explained by the type of meat inspection conducted at the abattoir. We conclude that caution should be used whenever RMI data are used for purposes other than those for which they were originally intended.
由于二次数据成本低且获取容易,其在一系列监测应用中广泛使用。然而,由于这些数据通常是为完全不相关的目的收集的,它们不一定适用于所需的新用途。常规肉类检验数据最初是为保障食品安全而收集的,但现在还被重新用于动物福利评估。本研究的目的是比较丹麦屠宰猪在常规肉类检验(RMI)时的心包炎、胸膜炎和肺部病变记录与系统健康监测(SHM)时的记录,以评估RMI对监测这些疾病患病率的有用性。收集了2011年9月至2013年11月期间来自165个丹麦猪群的数据。从每个猪群中,选取特定农场特定日期屠宰的所有猪组成一批作为RMI数据,而从这些批次中采集的肺和心脏用于SHM。RMI数据和SHM数据包括与以下方面相关的记录:a)慢性心包炎,b)慢性胸膜炎,c)肺部病变。估计每批猪中具有特定疾病记录的 carcasses 比例,并使用线性回归将上述条件下的RMI比例与SHM比例相关联。
决定系数(R(2))估计为:R(2),心包炎 = 0.16;R(2),胸膜炎 = 0.67;R(2),有病变的肺部 = 0.40。当回归分析包括屠宰场的检验类型(对心脏进行纯目视检查与包括切开心脏的传统检查)时,R(2),心包炎变为0.42。
总体而言,结果表明RMI和SHM的发现之间对于胸膜炎和有病变的肺部相关性中等,但对于心包炎相关性较差。后者部分可以通过屠宰场进行的肉类检验类型来解释。我们得出结论,每当将RMI数据用于其最初意图之外的目的时都应谨慎。