Author
Listed:
- Don Klinkenberg
- Ekelijn Thomas
- Francisco F. Calvo Artavia
- Annemarie Bouma
Abstract
Design of surveillance programs to detect infections could benefit from more insight into sampling schemes. We address the effect of sampling schemes for Salmonella Enteritidis surveillance in laying hens. Based on experimental estimates for the transmission rate in flocks, and the characteristics of an egg immunological test, we have simulated outbreaks with various sampling schemes, and with the current boot swab program with a 15‐week sampling interval. Declaring a flock infected based on a single positive egg was not possible because test specificity was too low. Thus, a threshold number of positive eggs was defined to declare a flock infected, and, for small sample sizes, eggs from previous samplings had to be included in a cumulative sample to guarantee a minimum flock level specificity. Effectiveness of surveillance was measured by the proportion of outbreaks detected, and by the number of contaminated table eggs brought on the market. The boot swab program detected 90% of the outbreaks, with 75% fewer contaminated eggs compared to no surveillance, whereas the baseline egg program (30 eggs each 15 weeks) detected 86%, with 73% fewer contaminated eggs. We conclude that a larger sample size results in more detected outbreaks, whereas a smaller sampling interval decreases the number of contaminated eggs. Decreasing sample size and interval simultaneously reduces the number of contaminated eggs, but not indefinitely: the advantage of more frequent sampling is counterbalanced by the cumulative sample including less recently laid eggs. Apparently, optimizing surveillance has its limits when test specificity is taken into account.
Suggested Citation
Don Klinkenberg & Ekelijn Thomas & Francisco F. Calvo Artavia & Annemarie Bouma, 2011.
"Salmonella Enteritidis Surveillance by Egg Immunology: Impact of the Sampling Scheme on the Release of Contaminated Table Eggs,"
Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1260-1270, August.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:8:p:1260-1270
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01582.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:8:p:1260-1270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.