Health scores for farmed animals: Screening pig health with register data from public and private databases.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
09
09
2019
accepted:
16
01
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
24
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32017788
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228497
pii: PONE-D-19-25353
pmc: PMC6999879
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0228497Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [FN, TK, AW], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors TM and SH are employed by a commercial company: "QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH, Germany". This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors declare that they have no further competing interests.
Références
Animal. 2017 Oct;11(10):1816-1824
pubmed: 28249629
Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Mar 29;57:18
pubmed: 25887329
Fam Med. 2005 May;37(5):360-3
pubmed: 15883903
Animals (Basel). 2017 Dec 06;7(12):
pubmed: 29211009
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Nov 1;117(1):200-6
pubmed: 25172120
J Vet Med Educ. 2010 Spring;37(1):83-8
pubmed: 20378884
Animal. 2015 Mar;9(3):509-15
pubmed: 25385251
Prev Vet Med. 2003 Mar 20;57(3):117-25
pubmed: 12581595
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 25;12(8):e0182661
pubmed: 28841685
Ir Vet J. 2012 Jun 27;65(1):11
pubmed: 22738170
Vet Rec. 2008 Mar 22;162(12):377-82
pubmed: 18359931
Zoo Biol. 2009 Nov;28(6):507-18
pubmed: 19434682