The objective was to study how surveillance for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) could be made more resource-effective in a bTB free country. A stochastic scenario tree model was developed to: (1) evaluate the sensitivity (CSe) of four surveillance system components (SSC) ( i.e., meat inspection of slaughtered domestic cattle, farmed deer and pigs, and tuberculin testing of adult export cattle) given that bTB would enter one of these components, (2) estimate the probability of freedom (PFree) from bTB over time, and (3) evaluate how future alternative programmes based on visual meat inspection would affect the confidence in freedom from bTB at the very low animal-level design prevalence 0.0002% and a low probabilities of introduction (1%). All, except the export cattle component reached a PFree above 96% within five years. The PFree was slightly reduced if surveillance was changed to visual inspection, e.g., PFree was reduced from 96.5% to 94.3% in the cattle component, and from 98.5% to 97.7% in the pig component after 24 years. In conclusion, visual meat inspection of pigs and cattle will only reduce the confidence in freedom from bTB slightly. However, with negligible probability of introduction (0.1%) the PFree could be maintained well above 99% in the cattle, pigs and deer components, which highlights the importance of rigid testing and quarantine procedures in trade of livestock.
References
[1]
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. World Trade Organization. Available online: http://www.wto.org (accessed on 5 November 2012).
[2]
EFSA. Technical specifications on harmonized epidemiological indicators for public health hazards to be covered by meat inspection of swine. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2371. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[3]
Terrestrial Animal Health Code. World Organization for Animal Health. Available online: http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.11.6.htm (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[4]
EEC. Council Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-community trade in bovine animals and swine. Off. J. 1964, 121, 1977–2012.
[5]
Animal Health in Denmark 2011. Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. Available online: http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Publikationer/Alle%20publikationer/2012095.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[6]
Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organizations of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Off. J. 2004, L 226, 83–127.
[7]
Sergeant, E.; Happold, J.; Hutchison, J.; Langstaff, I. Evaluation of Australian Surveillance for Freedom from Bovine Tuberculosis. Report Prepared for the Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease; AusVet Animal Health Services: City, Country, 2010; pp. 1–42.
[8]
Welby, S.; Govaerts, M.; Vanholme, L.; Hooyberghs, J.; Mennens, K.; Maes, L.; van der Stede, Y. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012, 106, 152–161, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.02.010.
[9]
Wahlstr？m, H.; Fr？ssling, J.; Lewerin, S.S.; Ljung, A.; Cedersmyg, M.; Cameron, A. Demonstrating freedom from Mycobacterium bovis infection in Swedish farmed deer using non-survey data sources. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 94, 108–118, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.11.017.
[10]
Bovine tuberculosis. The Center for Food Security and Public Health. Available online: http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/DiseaseInfo/disease.php?name=bovine-tuberculosis (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[11]
The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne outbreaks in 2010. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2597. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[12]
Michel, A.L.; Müller, B.; van Helden, P.D. Mycobacterium bovis at the animal-human interface: A problem, or not? Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 140, 371–381, doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.08.029.
[13]
F？devaretyrelsen. Available online: http://www.fodevarestyrelsen.dk/Dyr/Dyresundhed_og_dyresygdomme/Dyresygdomme_og_zoonoser/Mistankedatabase.htm (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[14]
Videncenter for Svineproduktion. Available online: http://vsp.lf.dk/~/media/Files/DANISH/DANISH%20produktstandard/Produkt_Standard_UK.ashx (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[15]
Humblet, M.F.; Boschiroli, M.L.; Saegerman, C. Classification of worldwide bovine tuberculosis risk factors in cattle: A stratified approach. Vet. Res. 2009, 5, 40–50.
[16]
Annual Report on Zoonoses in Denmark 2011. National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark. Available online: http://www.food.dtu.dk/upload/Institutter/Food/Pdfer/annual_report2011.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[17]
Martin, P.A.J.; Cameron, A.R.; Greiner, M. Demonstrating freedom from disease using multiple complex data sources: 1: A new methodology based on scenario trees. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007, 79, 71–97, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.09.008.
[18]
Alban, L.; Boes, J.; Kreiner, H.; Petersen, J.V.; Willeberg, P. Towards a risk-based surveillance for Trichinella spp. in Danish pig production. Prev. Vet. Med. 2008, 87, 340–357, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.008.
[19]
Fr？ssling, J.; ？gren, E.C.C.; Eliasson-Selling, L.; Lewerin, S.S. Probability of freedom from disease after the first detection and eradication of PRRS in Sweden: Scenario-tree modeling of the surveillance system. Prev. Vet. Med. 2009, 91, 137–145, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.05.012.
[20]
Boklund, A.; Dahl, J.; Alban, L. Assessment of confidence in freedom from Aujeszky’s disease and classical swine fever in Danish pigs based on serological sampling-effect of reducing the number of samples. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 214–222, doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.027.
[21]
Corner, L.A.; Melville, L.; McCubbin, K.; Small, K.J.; McCormick, B.S.; Wood, P.R.; Rothel, J.S. Efficiency of inspection procedures for the detection of tuberculous lesions in cattle. Aust. Vet. J. 1990, 67, 389–392, doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1990.tb03020.x.
[22]
De Kantor, I.N.; Nader, A.; Bernardelli, A.; Giron, D.O.; Man, E. Tuberculous infection in cattle not detected by slaughterhouse inspection. J. Vet. Med. 1987, B 34, 202–205.
[23]
Asseged, B.; Woldesenbet, Z.; Yimer, E.; Lemma, E. Evaluation of abattoir inspection for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle at Addis Ababa abattoir. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2004, 36, 537–546, doi:10.1023/B:TROP.0000040934.32330.44.
[24]
Norby, B.; Bartlett, P.C.; Fitzgerald, S.D.; Granger, L.M.; Bruning-Fann, C.S.; Whipple, D.L.; Payeur, J.B. The sensitivity of gross necropsy, caudal fold and comparative cervical tests for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2004, 16, 126–131, doi:10.1177/104063870401600206.
[25]
De la Rua-Domenech, R.; Goodchild, A.T.; Vordermeir, H.M.; Herwinson, R.G.; Christiansen, K.H.; Clifton-Hadley, R.S. Ante mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle: A review of the tuberculin tests, gamma-interferon assay and other ancillary diagnostic techniques. Res. Vet. Sci. 2006, 81, 190–210, doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2005.11.005.
[26]
Meat inspection circular (in Danish). Available online: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=139770&exp=1#Bil2 (accessed on 28 December 2012).
