title: Estimation of the sensitivity of environmental sampling for detection of Salmonella in commercial layer flocks post-introduction of national control programmes.
abstract: A key element of national control programmes (NCPs) for Salmonella in commercial laying flocks, introduced across the European Union, is the identification of infected flocks and holdings through statutory sampling. It is therefore important to know the sensitivity of the sampling methods, in order to design effective and efficient surveillance for Salmonella. However, improved Salmonella control in response to the NCP may have influenced key factors that determine the sensitivity of the sampling methods used to detect Salmonella in NCPs. Therefore the aim of this study was to compare estimates of the sensitivity of the sampling methods using data collected before and after the introduction of the NCP, using Bayesian methods. There was a large reduction in the sensitivity of dust in non-cage flocks between the pre-NCP studies (81% of samples positive in positive flocks) and post-NCP studies (10% of samples positive in positive flocks), leading to the conclusion that sampling dust is not recommended for detection of Salmonella in non-cage flocks. However, cage dust (43% of samples positive in positive flocks) was found to be more sensitive than cage faeces (29% of samples positive in positive flocks). To have a high probability of detection, several NCP-style samples need to be used. For confirmation of Salmonella, five NCP faecal samples for cage flocks, and three NCP faecal boot swab samples for non-cage flocks would be required to have the equivalent sensitivity of the EU baseline survey method, which was estimated to have an 87% and 75% sensitivity to detect Salmonella at a 5% within-flock prevalence in cage and non-cage flocks, respectively.
authors.affiliation: Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, UK.
authors.forename: M E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Arnold
authors.affiliation: Department of Bacteriology and Food Safety, AHVLA, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Martelli
authors.affiliation: Department of Bacteriology and Food Safety, AHVLA, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: McLaren
authors.affiliation: Department of Bacteriology and Food Safety, AHVLA, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
authors.forename: R H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Davies
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D004531:Eggs / Q000382:microbiology; D004783:Environmental Microbiology; D004784:Environmental Monitoring; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D008954:Models, Biological; D011200:Poultry / Q000382:microbiology; D011201:Poultry Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology*; D012475:Salmonella / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D012481:Salmonella Infections, Animal / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
references.citation: Poult Sci. 2011 Jan;90(1):251-62
references.pmid: 21177467
references.citation: Avian Dis. 2003 Jan-Mar;47(1):134-42
references.pmid: 12713168
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 2005 Oct;133(5):795-801
references.pmid: 16181497
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 1992 Mar-Apr;15(3-4):225-35
references.pmid: 1419527
references.citation: Vet Rec. 1995 Sep 30;137(14):337-41
references.pmid: 8560683
references.citation: Lancet. 1988 Dec 3;2(8623):1295-7
references.pmid: 2904015
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Mar;138(3):330-9
references.pmid: 19698210
references.citation: Epidemiol Infect. 2009 Jun;137(6):837-46
references.pmid: 19017427
references.citation: Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Dec;47(6):514-9
references.pmid: 19120919
references.citation: Vet Rec. 2001 Dec 8;149(23):699-704
references.pmid: 11787781
references.citation: Avian Dis. 1992 Jul-Sep;36(3):625-31
references.pmid: 1417592
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2009 Oct;56(8):471-6
references.pmid: 19243563
references.citation: Prev Vet Med. 2008 Apr 17;84(1-2):11-26
references.pmid: 18055045
references.citation: Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Feb;61(1):18-27
references.pmid: 23398774
references.citation: Prev Vet Med. 2010 Apr 1;94(1-2):94-100
references.pmid: 20031240
references.citation: Prev Vet Med. 2011 May 1;99(2-4):176-84
references.pmid: 21288584
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2006 Aug;101(2):309-18
references.pmid: 16882138