Department of Biological Sciences, Forensic Investigation Research Station, Colorado Mesa University, 1100 North Avenue Grand Junction, Grand Junction, CO, 81501-7611

Search for more papers by this author

Melissa Connor Ph.D.,

Corresponding Author

Melissa Connor Ph.D.

[email protected]

Forensic Investigation Research Station, Colorado Mesa University, 1100 North Ave, Grand Junction, CO, 81506

Additional information and reprint requests:

Melissa Connor, Ph.D.

Forensic Investigation Research Station

Colorado Mesa University

1100 North Ave

Grand Junction

CO 81506

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Christiane Baigent M.Sc.,

Christiane Baigent M.Sc.

Forensic Investigation Research Station, Colorado Mesa University, 1100 North Ave, Grand Junction, CO, 81506

Search for more papers by this author

Eriek S. Hansen Ph.D.,

Eriek S. Hansen Ph.D.

Department of Biological Sciences, Forensic Investigation Research Station, Colorado Mesa University, 1100 North Avenue Grand Junction, Grand Junction, CO, 81501-7611

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 28 December 2017

https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13727

Citations: 52

^†

Presented in part at the 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 22-27 2016, in Las Vegas, NV.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Pigs are a common human analogue in taphonomic study, yet data comparing the trajectory of decomposition between the two groups are lacking. This study compared decomposition rate and gross tissue change in 17 pigs and 22 human remains placed in the Forensic Investigation Research Station in western Colorado between 2012 and 2015. Accumulated degree days (ADD) were used to assess the number of thermal units required to reach a given total body score (TBS) (1) which was used as the measure of decomposition. A comparison of slopes in linear mixed effects model indicated that decomposition rates significantly differed between human donors and pig remains χ²₍₁₎ = 5.662, p = 0.017. Neither the pig nor the human trajectory compared well to the TBS model. Thus, (i) pigs are not an adequate proxy for human decomposition studies, and (ii) in the semiarid environment of western Colorado, there is a need to develop a regional decomposition model.

References

1Megyesi M, Nawrocki SP, Haskell NH. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. J Forensic Sci 2005; 5(3): 618–26.
Google Scholar
2Pakosh CM, Rogers TL. Tissue decomposition of submerged, dismembered pig limbs enclosed in plastic. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54(6): 1223–8.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01161.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Troutman L, Moffatt C, Simmons TA. Preliminary examination of differential decomposition patterns in mass graves. J Forensic Sci 2014; 59(3): 621–6.
10.1111/1556-4029.12388
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Rodriguez WC, Bass WM. Insect activity and its relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in east Tennessee. J Forensic Sci 1983; 28(2): 423–32.
10.1520/JFS11524J
Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Reed HB. A study of dog carcass communities in Tennessee with special reference to insects. Am Midl Nat 1958; 59: 213–45.
10.2307/2422385
Google Scholar
6Schoenley KG, Haskell NH, Hall RD, Gbur JR. Comparative performance and complementarity of four sampling methods and arthropod preference tests from human and porcine remains at the forensic anthropology center in Knoxville, Tennessee. J Med Entomol 2007; 44: 881–94.
10.1093/jmedent/44.5.881
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Haskell NH, Schoenly K, Hall RD. Testing reliability of animal models in research and training programs in forensic entomology, part II, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), 2002.
Google Scholar
8Shafer W. The ecology and paleoecology of marine environments. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Google Scholar
9Payne JS. A summer carrion study of the baby pig Sus Scrofa Linnaeus. Ecology 1965; 46(5): 592–602.
10.2307/1934999
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Micozzi MS. Postmortem change in human and animal remains: a systematic approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1991.
Google Scholar
11Stokes KL, Forbes SL, Tibbett M. Human versus animal: contrasting decomposition dynamics of mammalian analogues in experimental taphonomy. J Forensic Sci 2013; 58(3): 583–91.
10.1111/1556-4029.12115
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Wang L, Wang Y, Li L, Wang J, Wang M, Zhang Y, et al. Temperature-dependent development of parasarcophaga similis (Meade 1876) and its significance in estimating postmortem interval. J Forensic Sci 2017; 62(5): 1234–43.
10.1111/1556-4029.13389
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Dautartas AM, Jantz LM, Vidoli GM, Steadman DW. A multidisciplinary validation study of non-human animal models for decomposition research: a time series approach. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2015 Feb 16-21; Orlando, FL. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2015.
Google Scholar
14Spears CF, Kleven EV. Soil survey of Mesa County area, Colorado. Washington, DC/Fort Collins, CO: Soil Conservation Service and Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, 1978.
Google Scholar
15Vass AA, Bass WM, Wolt JD, Foss JE, Ammons JT. Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution. J Forensic Sci 1992; 37(5): 1236–53.
10.1520/JFS13311J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Baigent CA, editor. TBS and photography protocol. Forensic Investigation Research Station. Connor M, series editor. FIRS Technical Report Series #2. Grand Junction, CO: Colorado Mesa University, 2017.
Google Scholar
17Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67(1): 1–48.
10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017; https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed September 30, 2017).
Google Scholar
19Meurens F, Summerfield A, Nauwynck H, Saif L, Gerdts V. The pig: a model for human infectious diseases. Trends Microbial 2012; 20(1): 50–7.
10.1016/j.tim.2011.11.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Keogh N, Myburgh J, Steyn M. Scoring of decomposition: a proposed amendment to the method when using a pig model for human students. J Forensic Sci 2017; 62(4): 986–93.
10.1111/1556-4029.13390
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Zhou C, Byard R. Factors processes causing accelerated decomposition in human cadavers – an overview. J Forensic Leg Med 2011; 18(1): 6–9.
10.1016/j.jflm.2010.10.003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Proudfoot K, Habing G. Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: current knowledge and future directions. Vet J 2015; 206(1): 15–21.
10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.05.024
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Bearson BL, Bearson SM. The role of the QseC quorum-sensing sensor kinase in colonization and norepinephrine-enhanced motility of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Microb Pathog 2008; 44(4): 271–8.
10.1016/j.micpath.2007.10.001
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Giles TA, Belkhiri A, Barrow PA, Foster N. Molecular approaches to the diagnosis and monitoring of production diseases in pigs. Res Vet Sci 2017; 114: 266–72.
10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.05.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume63, Issue5

September 2018

Pages 1350-1355

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies^†

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies†

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies^†