Article Text

PDF
Comparison of postmortem inspection procedures for detecting caseous lymphadenitis of Australian sheep and goats
  1. Andrew Pointon1,
  2. David Hamilton2 and
  3. Andreas Kiermeier3
  1. 1 APFoodIntegrity, Grange, South Australia, Australia
  2. 2 South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  3. 3 Statistical Process Improvement Consulting & Training Pty Ltd, Gumeracha, South Australia, Australia
  1. E-mail for correspondence; andypointon.food{at}iinet.com.au

Abstract

Alternative postmortem inspection procedures for the detection of gross abnormalities due to Caseous Lymphadenitis (CLA) of sheep and goats were compared quantitatively against the current Australian Standard (AS4696). Studies on sheep and goats in Australia during 2016 addressed data gaps regarding current prevalence, combinations of multiple lesions within affected carcases and sensitivity of inspection procedures enabling a comparison of alternative with current procedures. Using these contemporary inspection data from 54 915 sheep and 48 577 goats a desktop study estimated the effect of implementing alternative procedures of reduced palpation from eleven carcase sites to the four sites most commonly affected. Under current procedures it was estimated that 86 sheep and 34 goat carcases with CLA lesions are missed per 10,000 carcases. Under alternative procedures it is estimated that an additional 48.4 sheep and 10.5 goat carcases with CLA lesions would be missed per 10 000 carcases. Of these, 38.2 sheep and 5.6 goat per 10 000 carcases would contain CLA only in routinely discarded, non-edible tissue sites. Hence, only an additional 10.2 sheep and 4.9 goat carcases per 10 000 inspected, with CLA in edible tissue sites are estimated to be missed. These alternative procedures have now been officially implemented in the Australian domestic standard.

  • risk-based
  • prevalence
  • observation (visual) inspection
  • sensitivity
  • validation

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This research was funded by Meat and Livestock Australia (grant number: V.RBP.0020).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.