首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Veterinary Science >Comparison of alternative meat inspection regimes for pigs from non-controlled housing – considering the cost of error
【24h】

Comparison of alternative meat inspection regimes for pigs from non-controlled housing – considering the cost of error

机译:比较不受控制的猪场的生猪的替代肉品检验制度-考虑错误的成本

获取原文
           

摘要

Denmark has not had cases of bovine tuberculosis (bovTB) for more than 30 years but is obliged by trade agreements to undertake traditional meat inspection (TMI) of finisher pigs from non-controlled housing to detect bovTB. TMI is associated with higher probability of detecting bovTB but is also more costly than visual-only inspection (VOI). To identify whether VOI should replace TMI of finisher pigs from non-controlled housing, the cost of error – defined here as probability of overlooking infection and associated economic costs - should be assessed and compared with surveillance costs. First, a scenario tree model was set up to assess the ability of detecting bovTB in an infected herd (HSe) calculated for three within-herd prevalences, WHP (1%, 5% and 10%), for four different surveillance scenarios (TMI and VOI with or without serological test, respectively). HSe was calculated for six consecutive 4-week surveillance periods until predicted bovTB detection (considered high-risk periods HRP). 1-HSe was probability of missing all positives by each HRP. Next, probability of spread of infection, Pspread, and number of infected animals moved were calculated for each HRP. Costs caused by overlooking bovTB were calculated taking into account Pspread, 1-HSe, eradication costs, and trade impact. Finally, the average annual costs were calculated by adding surveillance costs and assuming one incursion of bovTB in either 1, 10 or 30 years. Input parameters were based on slaughterhouse statistics, literature and expert opinion. Herd sensitivity increased by high-risk period and within-herd prevalence. Assuming WHP=5%, HSe reached median 90% by 2nd HRP for TMI, whereas for VOI this would happen after 6th HRP. Serology had limited impact on HSe. The higher the probability of infection, the higher the probability of detection and spread. TMI resulted in lowest average annual costs, if one incursion of bovTB was expected every year. However, when assuming one introduction in 10 or 30 years, VOI resulted in lowest average costs. It may be more cost-effective to focus on imported high-risk animals coming into contact with Danish livestock, instead of using TMI as surveillance on all pigs from non-controlled housing.
机译:丹麦已经有30多年没有发生牛结核病(bovTB)的情况,但是根据贸易协定,丹麦必须从不受控制的房屋中对育成猪进行传统的肉类检验(TMI),以检测bovTB。 TMI与检测bovTB的可能性更高相关,但比仅视觉检查(VOI)的成本更高。为了确定VOI是否应替代不受控制的猪场的育肥猪的TMI,应评估错误成本-在此定义为忽略感染的可能性以及相关的经济成本-并将其与监督成本进行比较。首先,建立了一个情景树模型,以评估针对四种不同监视情景(TMI)的三种畜群内流行率WHP(1%,5%和10%)计算出的感染畜群(HSe)中检测bovTB的能力。和有或没有血清学检测的VOI)。在连续六个星期的监视期内计算HSe,直到预测到bovTB检测到为止(被认为是高风险时期HRP)。 1-HSe是每个HRP缺失所有阳性结果的概率。接下来,针对每个HRP计算感染传播的概率,传播程度和感染的动物数量。忽略bovTB造成的成本是在考虑Pspread,1-HSe,根除成本和贸易影响的基础上计算得出的。最后,通过添加监视成本并假设在1年,10年或30年内一次感染bovTB来计算平均年成本。输入参数基于屠宰场统计数据,文献和专家意见。高风险期和群内流行率增加了牧群敏感性。假设WHP = 5%,TMe的第二次HRP可使HSe达到中值90%,而VOI会在第六次HRP之后达到中值。血清学对HSe影响有限。感染的可能性越高,检测和传播的可能性就越高。如果预计每年会发生一次bovTB入侵,那么TMI的年平均成本最低。但是,如果假设在10或30年内引入一次,VOI的平均成本最低。将重点放在与丹麦牲畜接触的进口高风险动物上,而不是使用TMI监视不受控制的住房中的所有猪,可能更具成本效益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号