{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03565970453387672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015282730514518594, 'mean_word_length': 5.439344262295082, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Retrospective evaluation of the results of the microbiological meat examination (MFU) from calves and cows].

The microbiological meat examination (MFU), consisting of a bacteriological analysis and a testing for antibiotic residues, is one of several additional analyses used for an edibility rating of carcasses made during meat inspection. Reasons for performing a microbiological meat examination and procedures in the laboratory are defined in the Swiss ordinance for meat examination (FUV). The aim of this study was to analyze the data of 313 microbiological meat examinations from calves and 2882 microbiological meat examinations from cows carried out at the Institute for Food Safety and Hygiene during a period of 8 years. Reasons for microbiological meat examinations as reported by the meat inspectors were mainly classified to the category of "inflammation and necroses" (FUV, Annex 4, Pt 1.2; calves: 73%, cows: 48%). As declarations of the age of the pathological-anatomical changes (that influences directly the probability of detection of pathogens) were generally missing, it is not surprising that the compliance between a particular pathological-anatomical change and a specific detection of pathogens is poor (calves: 19%, cows: 18% of all MFU). About 18% (calves) and 45% (cows) of the reasons for microbiological meat examinations did not correspond to one of the reasons mentioned in the ordinance for meat examination. However, according to the data set, some reasons require a microbiological meat examination due to an often-found specific detection of pathogens. Otherwise, a remarkable number of reasons mentioned were missing the link to bacteriological etiology. Moreover, 14% (calf) and 7% (cow) of microbiological meat examinations with the declaration "no pretreatment" as well as 15% (calf) and 11% (cow) of microbiological meat examinations without declaration showed a positive result in the testing for antibiotic residues.