Estimation of the sensitivity of environmental sampling for detection of Salmonella in commercial layer flocks post-introduction of national control programmes

Epidemiology and Infection

Volumn 142, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1061-1069

  Arnold, M E ^a   Martelli, F ^a   Mclaren, I ^a   Davies, R H ^a  

^a VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal pathogens; Bayesian methods; laying flocks; Salmonella; sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BACTERIAL COUNT; BACTERIAL TRANSMISSION; BACTERIUM CULTURE; BACTERIUM DETECTION; BAYES THEOREM; COLONY FORMING UNIT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING; FECES ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; INFECTION CONTROL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONHUMAN; POULTRY; SALMONELLA; SALMONELLOSIS; SAMPLING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ANIMAL HEALTH AND VETERINARY LABORATORIES AGENCY; CECUM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DUST; EUROPEAN UNION; FECES; NATIONAL CONTROL PROGRAMME; OVIDUCT; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; EGGS; ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FECES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POULTRY; POULTRY DISEASES; SALMONELLA; SALMONELLA INFECTIONS, ANIMAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84897084677     PISSN: 09502688     EISSN: 14694409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268813002173     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anon. The Community Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents, Antimicrobial Resistance and Foodborne Outbreaks in the European Union in 2006. EFSA Journal 2007; 130: Chapter 3•1 pp. 24-105
2. Coyle EF, et al. Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 infection: Association with hen's eggs. Lancet 1988; 2: 1295-1297
3. Gillespie IA, et al. Foodborne general outbreaks of Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 4 infection, England and Wales 1992-2002: Where are the risks? Epidemiology and Infection 2005; 133: 795-801
4. Anon. Decision (EC) No 2160/2003 of 17 November 2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents
5. Aho M. Problems of Salmonella sampling. International Journal of Food Microbiology 1992; 15: 225-235
6. Davies RH, Breslin M. Environmental contamination and detection of Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in laying flocks. Veterinary Record 2001; 149: 699-704
7. Carrique-Mas JJ, et al. Comparison of environmental sampling methods for detection of salmonella in commerical flocks in the UK. Letters in Applied Microbiology 2008; 47: 514-519
8. Arnold ME, Carrique-Mas JJ, Davies RH. Estimation of the sensitivity of environmental sampling for detection of Salmonella Enteriditis in commercial egg-laying flocks relative to the within-flock prevalence. Epidemiology and Infection 2010; 138: 330-339
9. Arnold ME, et al. A comparison of pooled and individual bird sampling for detection of salmonella in commercial egg laying flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2011; 99: 176-184
10. Mahe A, et al. Bayesian estimation of flock-level sensitivity of detection of Salmonella spp., Enteritidis and Typhimurium according to the sampling procedure in French laying-hen houses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008; 84: 11-16
11. EFSA. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. EFSA Journal 2007; 97: 1-84
12. Anon. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1237/2007 of 23 October 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision 2006/696/EC as regards the placing on the market of eggs from Salmonella infected flocks of laying hens
13. Arnold ME, et al. Estimation of the rate of egg contamination from Salmonella infected chickens. Zoonoses and Public Health (in press
14. EFSA. Preliminary Report on the Analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. EFSA Journal 2006; 81: 1-71
15. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). UK national control programme for Salmonella in layers (Gallus gallus), Defra, 2007
16. Wales A, Breslin M, Davies R. Semiquantitative assessment of the distribution of Salmonella in the environment of caged layer flocks. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2006; 101: 309-318
17. Spiegelhalter DJ, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2002; 64: 583-640
18. Lunn DJ, et al. WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10: 325-337
19. Brooks SP, Gelman A. Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Compuational and Graphical Statistics. 1998; 7: 434-455
20. Van Hoorebeke S, et al. Faecal sampling underestimates the actual prevalence of Salmonella in laying hen flocks. Zoonoses and public health 2009; 56: 471-476
21. Van Hoorebeke S, et al. Determination of the within and between flock prevalence and identification of risk factors for Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks housed in conventional and alternative systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2010; 94: 94-100
22. Carrique-Mas JJ, et al. Persistence and clearance of different Salmonella serovars in buildings housing laying hens. Epidemiology and Infection 2008; 19: 1-10
23. Garber L, et al. Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis in table egg layer house environments and in mice in US layer houses and associated risk factors. Avian Diseases 2003; 47: 134-142
24. Davies R, Breslin M. Environmental contamination and detection of Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in laying flocks. Veterinary Record 2001; 149: 699-704
25. Davies RH, Wray C. Mice as carriers of Salmonella enteritidis on persistently infected poultry units. Veterinary Record 1995; 137: 337-341
26. Henzler D J, Opitz HM. The role of mice in the epizootiology of Salmonella enteritidis infection on chicken layer farms. Avian Diseases 1992; 36: 625-631
27. Holt PS, et al. The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality. Poultry Science 2011; 90: 251-262.