4.7 Article

Salmonella seroprevalence at the population and herd level in pigs in The Netherlands

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 171-184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00387-4

关键词

Salmonella enterica subsp enterica; prevalence; pig-bacteria; ELISA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to provide baseline data on the population and herd Salmonella seroprevalence in sows and finishers. For the population estimates in 1996 and 1999 and the herd prevalences for sows and gilts, blood samples from swine vesicular disease (SVD) and pseudorabies monitoring programmes were used and tested in an indirect Salmonella enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The herd prevalence for finishers was determined using blood samples collected at two slaughterhouses. The population prevalence for finishers in 1996 and 1999 was 23.7 and 24.5%. respectively, and for sows 40.5 and 60.4%, respectively. The prevalence in free range (FR) finishers was significantly higher (44.6%) than in intensively housed finishers in 1999, identifying a hazard group for possible extra pork and pork product contamination. Of 406 finishing herds, 9% were completely seronegative for Salmonella (cur-off OD% > 10). Of these 406 finishing herds, 69.7% had Salmonella-status I (low prevalence), 21.7% status II (moderate prevalence) and 8.6% status III (high prevalence) (cut-off OD% > 40). In 46 multiplying sow herds, 20 breeding sow herds and 20 matching replacement gilt herds, the average herd prevalences were 54, 44.4 and 19.3%, respectively. Two gilt herds were completely seronegative. The prevalence in the gilt herds was never higher than in the matching breeding sow herds. Agreement on methodology and calibration of ELISA tests would make these results comparable between countries and is a prerequisite for a co-ordinated and integrated program to reduce Salmonella in pork in the European Union. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据