• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

养殖动物健康评分:利用公共和私人数据库中的登记数据筛选猪的健康状况。

Health scores for farmed animals: Screening pig health with register data from public and private databases.

机构信息

Field Station for Epidemiology Bakum, University for Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Zeven, Germany.

Institute of Food Safety and Food Hygiene, Working Group Meat Hygiene, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 4;15(2):e0228497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228497. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0228497
PMID:32017788
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6999879/
Abstract

There are growing demands to ensure animal health and, from a broader perspective, animal welfare, especially for farmed animals. In addition to the newly developed welfare assessment protocols, which provide a harmonised method to measure animal health during farm visits, the question has been raised whether data from existing data collections can be used for an assessment without a prior farm visit. Here, we explore the possibilities of developing animal health scores for fattening pig herds using a) official meat inspection results, b) data on antibiotic usage and c) data from the QS (QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH) Salmonella monitoring programme in Germany. The objective is to aggregate and combine these register-like data into animal health scores that allow the comparison and benchmark of participating pig farms according to their health status. As the data combined in the scores have different units of measure and are collected in different abattoirs with possibly varying recording practices, we chose a relative scoring approach using z-transformations of different entrance variables. The final results are aggregated scores in which indicators are combined and weighted based on expert opinion according to their biological significance for animal health. Six scores have been developed to describe different focus areas, such as "Respiratory Health", "External Injuries/ Alterations", "Animal Management", "Antibiotic Usage", "Salmonella Status" and "Mortality". These "focus" area scores are finally combined into an "Overall Score". To test the scoring method, existing routine data from 1,747 pig farm units in Germany are used; these farm units are members of the QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH (QS) quality system. In addition, the scores are directly validated for 38 farm units. For these farm units, the farmers and their veterinarians provided their perceptions concerning the actual health status and existing health problems. This process allowed a comparison of the scoring results with actual health information using kappa coefficients as a measure of similarity. The score testing of the focus area scores using real information resulted in normalised data. The results of the validation showed satisfactory agreement between the calculated scores for the project farm units and the actual health information provided by the related farmers and veterinarians. In conclusion, the developed scoring method could become a viable benchmark and risk assessment instrument for animal health on a larger scale under the conditions of the German system.

摘要

人们越来越要求确保动物健康,从更广泛的角度来看,还要求确保动物福利,尤其是养殖动物的福利。除了新制定的福利评估方案为农场检查期间衡量动物健康提供了一种协调方法外,人们还提出了一个问题,即在没有事先进行农场检查的情况下,能否使用现有数据收集来进行评估。在这里,我们探索了使用以下方法为育肥猪群开发动物健康评分的可能性:a)官方肉类检验结果,b)抗生素使用数据,c)德国 QS(QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH)沙门氏菌监测计划的数据。目标是将这些类似于登记的数据汇总并组合成动物健康评分,以便根据健康状况对参与的养猪场进行比较和基准测试。由于评分中组合的数据具有不同的度量单位,并且是在不同的屠宰场收集的,这些屠宰场的记录做法可能有所不同,因此我们选择了一种相对评分方法,使用不同入口变量的 z 转换。最终结果是汇总评分,其中根据专家意见,根据对动物健康的生物学意义,对指标进行组合和加权。已经开发了六个评分来描述不同的重点领域,例如“呼吸健康”、“外部伤害/变化”、“动物管理”、“抗生素使用”、“沙门氏菌状况”和“死亡率”。这些“重点”领域评分最终组合成一个“总体评分”。为了测试评分方法,使用了德国 1747 个养猪场单位的现有常规数据;这些农场单位是 QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH(QS)质量体系的成员。此外,还直接对 38 个农场单位进行了评分验证。对于这些农场单位,农民及其兽医提供了他们对实际健康状况和现有健康问题的看法。这一过程允许使用kappa 系数作为相似性的度量标准,将评分结果与实际健康信息进行比较。使用真实信息对重点领域评分进行测试的结果得出了归一化数据。验证结果表明,对于项目农场单位的计算评分与相关农民和兽医提供的实际健康信息之间存在令人满意的一致性。总之,在德国体系的条件下,开发的评分方法可能成为一种可行的动物健康基准和风险评估工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/184e7c571e7a/pone.0228497.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/00dba71fa344/pone.0228497.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/a2db086ae913/pone.0228497.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/5dc7d05e40ec/pone.0228497.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/8cea42fb36b7/pone.0228497.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/184e7c571e7a/pone.0228497.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/00dba71fa344/pone.0228497.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/a2db086ae913/pone.0228497.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/5dc7d05e40ec/pone.0228497.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/8cea42fb36b7/pone.0228497.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3f/6999879/184e7c571e7a/pone.0228497.g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Health scores for farmed animals: Screening pig health with register data from public and private databases.养殖动物健康评分:利用公共和私人数据库中的登记数据筛选猪的健康状况。
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 4;15(2):e0228497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228497. eCollection 2020.
2
Assessment of the feasibility of serological monitoring and on-farm information about health status for the future meat inspection of fattening pigs.评估血清学监测的可行性以及获取关于育肥猪未来肉类检验健康状况的农场信息。
Prev Vet Med. 2019 Jan 1;162:76-82. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.11.009. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
3
Antimicrobial reduction measures applied in Danish pig herds following the introduction of the "Yellow Card" antimicrobial scheme.丹麦猪群在引入“黄牌”抗菌药物计划后采取的抗菌药物减量措施。
Prev Vet Med. 2017 Mar 1;138:9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.12.019. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
4
Serological Salmonella monitoring in German pig herds: results of the years 2003-2008.德国猪群血清学沙门氏菌监测:2003-2008 年的结果。
Prev Vet Med. 2011 May 1;99(2-4):229-33. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.007. Epub 2011 Mar 2.
5
Farm-economic analysis of reducing antimicrobial use whilst adopting improved management strategies on farrow-to-finish pig farms.对在全进全出养猪场采用改进管理策略的同时减少抗菌药物使用的农场经济分析。
Prev Vet Med. 2016 Jul 1;129:74-87. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.001. Epub 2016 May 6.
6
High biosecurity and welfare standards in fattening pig farms are associated with reduced antimicrobial use.在育肥猪场采用高生物安全和福利标准与减少抗菌药物的使用有关。
Animal. 2020 Oct;14(10):2178-2186. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120000828. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
7
Assessment of producer conducted antemortem inspection of market pigs in Australia.澳大利亚生产者对上市生猪进行宰前检查的评估。
Aust Vet J. 2006 Jun;84(6):195-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2006.tb12798.x.
8
Assessment of producer conducted antemortem inspection of market pigs in Australia.澳大利亚生猪生产者进行的上市猪宰前检查评估。
Aust Vet J. 2006 Oct;84(10):351-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2006.00045.x.
9
An epidemiological analysis of the level of biosecurity and animal welfare on pig farms in Japan and their effect on the use of veterinary antimicrobials.日本猪场生物安全水平与动物福利及其对兽用抗菌药物使用影响的流行病学分析
J Vet Med Sci. 2018 Dec 11;80(12):1853-1860. doi: 10.1292/jvms.18-0287. Epub 2018 Oct 29.
10
Changes in perceptions and motivators that influence the implementation of on-farm Salmonella control measures by pig farmers in England.英格兰养猪户对农场沙门氏菌控制措施实施情况的认知及驱动因素的变化。
Prev Vet Med. 2016 Oct 1;133:22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.09.009. Epub 2016 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Relationships between pig farm management and facilities and lung lesions' scores and between lung lesions scores and carcass characteristics.猪场管理及设施与肺部病变评分之间的关系,以及肺部病变评分与胴体特征之间的关系。
BMC Vet Res. 2024 Mar 28;20(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-03968-2.
2
Value of simplified lung lesions scoring systems to inform future codes for routine meat inspection in pigs.简化肺部病变评分系统对制定未来猪常规肉类检查编码的价值。
Porcine Health Manag. 2023 Jun 30;9(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40813-023-00324-y.
3
Health Monitoring of Fattening Pigs - Use of Production Data, Farm Characteristics and On-Farm Examination.

本文引用的文献

1
Selection of Meat Inspection Data for an Animal Welfare Index in Cattle and Pigs in Denmark.丹麦牛和猪动物福利指数的肉类检验数据选择
Animals (Basel). 2017 Dec 6;7(12):94. doi: 10.3390/ani7120094.
2
Antibiotic drug usage in pigs in Germany-Are the class profiles changing?德国猪用抗生素的使用情况——各类抗生素的使用情况正在发生变化吗?
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 25;12(8):e0182661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182661. eCollection 2017.
3
The 'Real Welfare' scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs.“真正福利”计划:商业化养殖猪的福利成果基准
育肥猪的健康监测——生产数据、猪场特征及现场检查的应用
Porcine Health Manag. 2021 Aug 3;7(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s40813-021-00225-y.
4
Health monitoring of finishing pigs by secondary data use - a longitudinal analysis.利用二次数据对育肥猪进行健康监测——一项纵向分析
Porcine Health Manag. 2021 Feb 24;7(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40813-021-00197-z.
Animal. 2017 Oct;11(10):1816-1824. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117000246. Epub 2017 Mar 2.
4
Comparison of recording of pericarditis and lung disorders at routine meat inspection with findings at systematic health monitoring in Danish finisher pigs.丹麦育肥猪常规肉类检查中心包炎和肺部疾病记录与系统健康监测结果的比较。
Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Mar 29;57(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13028-015-0109-z.
5
Assessing animal welfare in sow herds using data on meat inspection, medication and mortality.利用肉类检验、用药和死亡率数据评估母猪群的动物福利。
Animal. 2015 Mar;9(3):509-15. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114002705. Epub 2014 Nov 11.
6
The apparent prevalence of skin lesions suspected to be human-inflicted in Danish finishing pigs at slaughter.丹麦育肥猪屠宰时疑似人为造成的皮肤损伤的表观发生率。
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Nov 1;117(1):200-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.08.003. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
7
Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool.良好的动物福利具有经济意义:屠宰场猪肉检验作为福利监测工具的潜力。
Ir Vet J. 2012 Jun 27;65(1):11. doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-65-11.
8
Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public.动物福利:公众所要求的护理、可持续性和食品质量的一个方面。
J Vet Med Educ. 2010 Spring;37(1):83-8. doi: 10.3138/jvme.37.1.83.
9
Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches.评估动物福利:不同的理念,不同的科学方法。
Zoo Biol. 2009 Nov;28(6):507-18. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20253.
10
Prevalence of clinical signs of disease in Danish finisher pigs.丹麦育肥猪疾病临床症状的发生率。
Vet Rec. 2008 Mar 22;162(12):377-82. doi: 10.1136/vr.162.12.377.