Table 3

List of variables used to fit the model for TB occurrence in Ciudad Real
Polyserial correlation Rho Phi coefficient
Description of the variables Quantitative standardized Value pvalue Dichotomous Value pvalue4 Source
1. Area of the municipality (km2) Yes 0.343 <0.01 Yes 0.273 <0.01 A
2. Human population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) Yes −0.430 <0.01 No1 0.129 0.153 B
3. Male population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) Yes −0.427 <0.01 No1 0.129 0.153 B
4. Female population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) Yes −0.432 <0.01 No1 0.129 0.153 B
5. Area of water areas in the municipality (km2) Yes 0.023 <0.01 Yes 0.173 0.074 C
6. Area of rivers in the municipality (km2) Yes 0.456 <0.01 Yes 0.429 <0.01 C
7. Area of water areas and rivers in the municipality (km2) Yes 0.263 <0.01 No2 0.429 <0.01 C
8. Area of roads in the municipality (km2) Yes 0.256 <0.01 Yes 0.175 0.066 C
9. Proportion of water areas in the municipality (%) Yes 0.010 <0.01 No1 0.111 0.248 *(C)
10. Proportion of rivers in the municipality (%) No1 0.398 0.283 Yes 0.242 0.01 *(C)
11. Proportion of water areas and rivers in the municipality (%) Yes 0.208 <0.01 No1 0.058 0.543 *(C)
12. Proportion of roads in the municipality (%) No1 −0.078 0.235 No1 0.097 0.301 *(C)
13. Number of hunting estates in the municipality Yes 0.615 <0.01 Yes 0.443 <0.01 D
14. Mean number of hunting seasons in which the hunting estates of the municipality have been inspected (max. 10 seasons) Yes 0.593 <0.01 Yes 0.416 <0.01 D
15. Number of hunting events taking place in the municipality per hunting season 2006-07 Yes 0.512 <0.01 Yes 0.415 <0.01 D
16. Number of sampled red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of red deer relative abundance Yes 0.408 <0.01 Yes 0.333 <0.01 D
17. Number of “TB-positive” red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 Yes 0.588 <0.01 Yes 0.435 <0.01 D
18. Number of sampled wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of wild boar relative abundance Yes 0.344 <0.01 Yes 0.374 <0.01 D
19. Number of “TB-positive” wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 Yes 0.554 <0.01 Yes 0.406 <0.01 D
20. Apparent TB prevalence in red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) Yes 0.559 <0.01 Yes 0.404 <0.01 *(D)
21. Apparent TB prevalence in wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) Yes 0.568 <0.01 Yes 0.406 <0.01 *(D)
22. Number of bovine farms in the municipality in 2006 Yes 0.667 <0.01 Yes 0.433 <0.01 D
23. Mean of the years in which the bovine farms of the municipality have been submitted to the sanitary plan (max. 6 years) Yes 0.663 <0.01 Yes 0.441 <0.01 D
24. Number of sampled cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 Yes 0.666 <0.01 Yes 0.569 <0.01 D
25. Number of bTB-positive cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 Yes 0.501 <0.01 Yes 0.583 <0.01 D
26. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal in 2006 Yes 0.678 <0.01 No2 0.583 <0.01 D
27. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.521 <0.01 No2 0.583 <0.01 *(D)
28. Apparent TB prevalence in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) Yes 0.237 <0.01 No2 0.583 <0.01 *(D)
29. Number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 Yes 0.597 <0.01 Yes 0.504 <0.01 *(D)
30. Proportion of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) Yes 0.523 <0.01 Yes 0.391 <0.01 *(D)
31. Number of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 Yes 0.414 <0.01 Yes 0.504 <0.01 *(D)
32. Proportion of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) Yes 0.244 <0.01 Yes 0.391 <0.01 *(D)
33. Increment in the number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 (number of farms becoming positive – number of farms becoming negative) Yes −0.081 <0.01 Yes 0.434 <0.01 *(D)
34. Number of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 Yes 0.158 <0.01 No1 0.019 0.842 D
35. Proportion of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes −0.027 <0.01 No1 0.019 0.842 *(D)
36. Number of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 Yes 0.656 <0.01 Yes 0.562 <0.01 D
37. Proportion of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.605 <0.01 Yes 0.466 <0.01 *(D)
38. Sum of animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 Yes 0.459 <0.01 Yes 0.425 <0.01 D
39. Number of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 Yes 0.503 <0.01 No2 0.425 <0.01 D
40. Mean of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 Yes 0.255 <0.01 No2 0.425 <0.01 *(D)
41. Number of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 Yes 0.446 <0.01 Yes 0.344 <0.01 D
42. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 Yes 0.620 <0.01 Yes 0.412 <0.01 D
43. Number of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 No3 0.508 <0.01 Yes 0.319 <0.01 D
44. Number of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 No3 0.363 <0.01 Yes 0.234 0.017 D
45. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 No3 0.454 <0.01 Yes 0.243 0.016 D
46. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.265 <0.01 Yes 0.344 0.001 *(D)
47. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.236 <0.01 Yes 0.412 <0.01 *(D)
48. Proportion of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.127 <0.01 Yes 0.319 <0.01 *(D)
49. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.371 <0.01 Yes 0.234 0.017 *(D)
50. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) Yes 0.052 <0.01 Yes 0.243 0.016 *(D)

The variables were grouped into three categories: (1) variables for factors related to human demographics and environmental features (variables 1 to 12); (2). variables for factors related to wild animals (variables 13 to 21); and (3) variables for factors related to bovine herds (variables 22 to 50). Polyserial correlation’s Rho values, phi coefficients and p-values were estimated to each candidate variables.

1: excluded variables because of a p-value > 0.10.

2: excluded dichotomous variables because they have the same values as other related variables, due to the variable transformation process.

3: excluded variables because they have few observations different from 0.

4: p-value obtained from the chi-square test.

A: ArcGIS estimation.

B: National Institute of Statistics (January 1st 2007).

C: Research Institute in Hunting Resources (IREC).

D: Castile-La Mancha region agriculture authorities.

*: Transformed from raw data.

Rodríguez-Prieto et al.

Rodríguez-Prieto et al. BMC Veterinary Research 2012 8:148   doi:10.1186/1746-6148-8-148

Open Data