MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2733359754

Investigating biosecurity risks associated with the delivery of feed to swine farms

2015· article· en· W2733359754 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Catherine E. Dewey, Kate Bottoms, Z. Poljak

Notice bibliographique

RevueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Swine Health Board
Mots-clésBiosecurityBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental healthAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Biosecurity protocols reduce the introduction and spread of pathogens among swine farms. For pigs, biosecurity ensures market stability, maintains export opportunities, and controls spread of production and public health diseases. Salmonella, the second most common cause of bacterial foodborne illness, causes gastrointestinal illness. Pigs can be asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria and pork products are a known source of salmonellosis in humans. Salmonella have been isolated from pigs, boots, flies, rodents, bird feces, feed, feed-ingredients, and feed trucks. The objective was to identify management factors to reduce the risk of disease spread among swine farms through feed trucks. Materials and Methods The study was conducted in two phases - the first phase included a series of focus groups and key-informant interviews; discussions held with swine producers and feed company personnel explored the protocols currently in place that reduce the risk of disease spread through the delivery of feed. Participants were asked to identify possible management changes that could further reduce the risk, and to rate these ideas in terms of their effect on disease control, and feasibility based on implementation and economics. This information was used to structure the second phase of the study – a pilot study. The pilot study was conducted over 6 weeks in the winter of 2013, and included 40 feed truck drivers from 3 Ontario feed companies. Truck drivers filled out log sheets as they delivered feed to swine farms, and provided information about the prevalence of the identified biosecurity risks during the day-to-day delivery of feed. Drivers were randomly assigned to be in either the treatment or control groups. Drivers in the control group delivered feed as they normally do. Drivers in the treatment group were: i) asked not to enter the barn unless absolutely necessary, and ii) were provided with re-usable, washable rubber over-shoes and were asked to wear a clean pair at each farm when they felt safe doing so. Chisquared tests were used to compare the usage of clean boots between drivers in the treatment and control groups. In total, 40 drivers from 3 companies, delivering feed to 2202 farms over 6 weeks (in the winter) collected descriptive data on the factors and compared use of different boots. Results The factors followed by the proportion of farms and drivers where the factor was found were found as follows: Most farms were: keeping areas (driveway, feed bin and barnyard) clean of mud and manure (82%), and dead-stock (91%) was appropriately disposed of and not visible to the driver. Some farms had an outbuilding to deliver bagged feed (24%). Other factors that were identified that producers should work on were to provide farm boots and coveralls for the driver if the driver needed to go into the barn, ordering the correct amount of feed to decrease the numbers of deliveries (or frequencies of deliveries) of feed, and notifying feed mill of a disease outbreak on the farm. Feed truck driver factors included wearing a separate pair of clean, disinfected, dried boots (25%) and gloves (50%) at each farm that is visited (even if the driver does not go into the barn, remaining outside the barn (92%); washing the steering wheel (49%), floor mat (77%) and outside of the truck (32%) every 24 hours. From these results, it may be advisable to increase the frequency of washing the truck. Another factor identified was for the driver to know and follow the farm biosecurity protocols. Half of the time, the driver left the feed bill outside barn (54%). Drivers given disinfected rubber boots were more likely to wear these on farms (42%) than plastic disposable boots (4%) (P<0.05). These drivers were also more likely to wear disinfected rubber boots than the control drivers (11%) (P<0.001). Conclusions and Discussion Biosecurity is a responsibility that is shared among all members of the industry. Feed personnel were encouraged to know more about disease transmission. Acknowledgments Canadian Swine Health Board for funding, feed company personnel and producers for participation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,043

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,154
Tête enseignante GPT0,366
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research)→Même sujetSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→Travaux en français237 207→