Factors associated with cattle necropsy submissions in Switzerland, and their importance for surveillance.

Pathology data have been reported to be important for surveillance, as they are crucial for correctly recognizing and identifying new or re-emerging diseases in animal populations. However, there are no reports in the literature of necropsy data being compared or complemented with other data. In our study, we compared cattle necropsy reports extracted from 3 laboratories with the Swiss fallen stock data and clinical data collected by the association of Swiss Cattle Breeders. The objective was to assess the completeness, validity and representativeness of the necropsy data, as well as evaluate potential factors for necropsy submission and how they can benefit animal health surveillance. Our results showed that, on average, 1% of Swiss cattle that die are submitted for post-mortem examinations. However, different factors influence cattle necropsy submissions, such as the age of the animal, the geographical location and the number of sick and/or dead animals on the farm. There was a median of five animals reported sick and two animals reported dead within 30 days prior to a necropsy submission, providing quantitative evidence of a correlation between on farm morbidity/mortality and post-mortem examination. Our results also showed that necropsy data can help improve the accuracy and completeness of health data for surveillance systems. In this study, we were able to demonstrate the importance of veterinary pathology data for AHS by providing quantitative evidence that necropsied animals are indicative of farms with important disease problems and are therefore critically important for surveillance. Furthermore, thanks to the amount of information provided by combined data sources, the epidemiology (e.g. season, geographic region, risk factors) of potential diseases can be analysed more precisely and help supporting animal health surveillance systems.

A German-language replication study analysing the role of figurative speech in reasoning.

According to the metaphorical framing model, the use of metaphors in discussing an issue influences recipients' understanding and assessment of that issue. In a recent study, participants read a text referring to a city's crime problem either as a beast or a virus and then proposed counter-measures for that problem. Participants' suggestions differed depending on the metaphor they had read. This replication matched the original procedure regarding the content of the rhetorical figures (beast vs virus), the topic under focus (crime) and the measurement of the dependent variable (open-end format to collect participants' proposals). The procedure differed from the original with respect to language (German instead of English) and by including the formal type of rhetorical figure (metaphor or simile) as a factor. A systematic influence of the content of the figure on subjects' proposals was observed. Presenting the rhetorical figure as a metaphor or a simile had no effect. Taken together, we were able to replicate the main effect of the original study. Metaphors do indeed frame reasoning.