Annex III of The EFSA Journal Opinion on Risk

Document Sample
Annex III of The EFSA Journal Opinion on Risk Powered By Docstoc
					              Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                           mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




ANNEX III of the Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards on the request
from the Commission related to “Risk assessment and mitigation options of Salmonella
in pig production”




                         Proposal of Baseline Study on the
                Prevalence of Salmonella in Fattening Pigs in the EU1

                                        Technical Specifications



FOREWORD
Before designing the proposal for the baseline study for the prevalence of Salmonella in
fattening pigs some choices were made. The scientific reasoning behind is explained below.

It is recommended that lymph nodes and carcass swabs shall be taken from slaughter pigs
during slaughter to estimate the baseline prevalence.

Recommendations are based on the following arguments:

1) The purpose of the survey is to determine a baseline for human exposure to Salmonella
   infection. The most appropriate baseline is thus the prevalence of infection in the
   national herd at the point of slaughter.

2) Comparability: it is intended that prevalence be compared among Member States (MS)
   and potentially, at a future date, in order to assess progress toward community targets.
   This demands standardisation through simple and repeatable sample selection and
   isolation methods. These are most readily achieved via use of mesenteric lymph nodes
   and carcass swabs collected at slaughter and using the Modified Semi-Solid Rappaport-
   Vassiliadis Medium (MSRV) methods that have been established and quality ensured at
   National Reference Laboratories (NRL) in all MS.

3) Baseline versus monitoring: it might be emphasised that the most appropriate methods
   for establishing the baseline national prevalence were not necessarily the most
   appropriate for on-going monitoring of a control programme. Certain Member States,
   including United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Republic of Ireland and Denmark, have
   successfully used serological methods for such purposes.


1
    For citation purposes: Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
    mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”



www.efsa.eu.int                                                                          Page 117 of 131
           Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                        mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”



4) Slaughterhouse sampling:

   a. random sampling with selection of individual pigs according to abattoir throughput
      and adjusted for bias by day of the week and month can be simply implemented in a
      readily standardised manner,

   b. the survey design will ensure that the majority of pigs slaughtered in each MS is
      represented in the prevalence estimate. For example, where live pigs are introduced
      into a second MS, these may represent a significant public health threat that would
      not otherwise be detected at the European Union (EU) level,

   c. sampling at the slaughterhouse instead of in herds is preferable because a survey
      performed at slaughter is easier to standardise than sampling in herds,

   d. results of slaughterhouse surveys will therefore be more comparable between
      countries as well more comparable over time, i.e. to detect any trend in prevalence in
      the pig population that is of public health significance.


5) Lymph nodes are taken because:

   a.    Lymph nodes are less likely to be affected by contamination during transport and
        lairage compared to caecal contents, unless the time in transport and lairage is
        unduly prolonged (e.g. more than 24 hours). Estimation of the prevalence of infected
        lymph nodes will therefore better reflect the status of the pig sent to slaughter than
        caecal contents;

   b. the sensitivity of isolation of Salmonella from lymph nodes is improved by the
      absence of competitive flora;

   c. sampling of lymph nodes is more practical as there is less risk of faecal
      contamination and they are easy to sample;

   d. there is a potential problem of differential translocation to the lymph nodes.
      Translocation will probably not be the same for all serovars and the technique may
      favour certain serovars such as S. Typhimurium whilst under-estimating the
      prevalence of less invasive serovars. However, it may be considered that this point to
      be of less importance than the advantages mentioned above.

6) Carcass swabs are also recommended as:

   a. transport, lairage and the slaughter process considerably influence the final
      contamination of the carcass;

   b. in order to estimate the risk to public health sampling of carcasses is deemed
      necessary;




www.efsa.eu.int                                                              Page 118 of 131
          Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                       mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”



   c. furthermore, a MS might end up in situations where the prevalence in the national
      herd has decreased through pre-harvest controls and a target has been achieved but
      no effect can be seen in pork (as contamination at slaughter might still occur) and
      therefore no effect on human exposure can be expected. Such an event would surely
      be a severe draw back on any attempt to continue to control Salmonella at pre-
      harvest level;

   d. finally, carcass swabs are recommended instead of a tissue-excision procedure
      because excision damages the carcass and a swabbing method defined by a large
      swabbing area (1 400 cm2) can be performed quite easily and with the sensitivity
      comparable to that of an excision procedure which samples much smaller area.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                           Page 119 of 131
                  Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                               mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................. 117

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................. 121

2. POPULATIONS TO MAKE INFERENCE ABOUT............................................................................. 121

3. DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................................................... 121

4. SAMPLING FRAME ................................................................................................................................ 121
    4.1 SAMPLING UNIT ..................................................................................................................................... 121
    4.2 SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION ................................................................................................................... 121
    4.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND RANDOMIZATION ....................................................................................... 122
5. SAMPLES .................................................................................................................................................. 124
    5.1 SAMPLING OF ILEOCAECAL LYMPH NODES ............................................................................................. 124
    5.2 CARCASS SAMPLING BY SURFACE SWABS-SAMPLING ............................................................................. 125
6. TRANSPORT............................................................................................................................................. 126

7. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES....................................................................................................................... 126
    7.1 SAMPLES PREPARATION ......................................................................................................................... 127
    7.2 DETECTION METHOD .............................................................................................................................. 127
    7.3 SEROTYPING .......................................................................................................................................... 128
    7.4 PHAGETYPING ........................................................................................................................................ 128
    7.5 TESTING OF ANTI-MICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY....................................................................................... 128
    7.6 RECORDS AND SAMPLE STORAGE ........................................................................................................... 129
8. REPORTING FROM MS......................................................................................................................... 130

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 131




 www.efsa.eu.int                                                                                                                     Page 120 of 131
              Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                           mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




1. Objectives of the study
The objective is to estimate the prevalence of Salmonella infection in fattening pigs
slaughtered in MS of the EU and in pork carcasses produced at slaughterhouses in the MS.
The resultant estimates of prevalence shall be comparable between MS. The study shall
cover a one year period.

Results of anti-microbial susceptibility tests shall give also valuable information on the
prevalence of antimicrobial resistant serotypes.


2. Populations to make inference about
The aim of the study is to make inferences to the population of fattening pigs slaughtered in
respective MS and the population of pork carcasses produced at slaughterhouses in the MS.


3. Definitions
Slaughter pig: a swine farmed not for reproductive purposes, but intended to be taken to a
slaughterhouse for the production of meat and meat products.

Pigs/carcasses positive for Salmonella: the number of pigs/carcasses positive for any
Salmonella, irrespective of the serovar isolated.

Pigs/carcasses positive for the individual serovar: the number of pigs/carcasses positive
for the serovar specified.


4. Sampling frame2
The sampling frame shall include as many slaughterhouses as possible, preferably all, but
MS will make sure that as a minimum the largest capacity slaughterhouses which together
represent at least 80 % of the slaughtered fattening pig population of each MS are included.

            4.1 Sampling unit
The sampling unit is the individual slaughtered pig/pork carcass.

            4.2 Sample size calculation
The total sample size provides the number of animals to be tested. It is calculated on the
basis of the following criteria:

•     Prevalence used for sampling calculation: 50 %
•     Desired confidence level: 95 %
•     Accuracy: 2 %
2
    The sampling frame is the information about the target population that enables to draw a sample



www.efsa.eu.int                                                                             Page 121 of 131
               Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                            mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”



•      Non response should be anticipated.
Countries shall sample the number of animals as calculated on the basis of the above
criteria, whatever estimates of prevalence may have been derived from previous studies.

The calculated sample size is 2 400 slaughter pigs/carcasses for countries where the number
of fattening pigs slaughtered/year is higher than 100 000. Available data show that all MS
are expected to slaughter more than 100 0003 fattening pigs annually and thus, all MS
should sample 2 400 fattening pigs to meet the requirements.

MS should take a 10% extra number of samples, to be analyzed in case some samples
would be excluded from the study for various reasons (see below).

             4.3 Sampling procedure and randomization
Samplings shall be stratified by month to ensure to cover the different seasons.

Sampling shall be stratified by slaughterhouses that participate and proportional to
slaughterhouse capacity. Each MS will rank all slaughterhouses according to their fattening
pig throughput in the previous year. Thus, each MS will identify those plants that accounted
for at least 80% of all slaughtered fattening pigs.

The total number of pigs and carcasses to be sampled in each of the slaughterhouses
included in the study shall be estimated by multiplying the sample size (2 400) by the
proportion of fattening pigs processed in the previous year. For example, if one
slaughterhouse accounted for 25% of fattening pigs slaughtered in the selected
slaughterhouses (those representing at least 80% of all fattening pigs slaughtered in the
MS), then (2 400 x 0.25) 600 pigs would be sampled. These would be evenly divided so that
50 pigs were sampled in every month, for 12 months. A further example is shown in
Table 1.

Naturally, if a slaughterhouse is no longer in production, if a new facility has been opened
or there is predicted to be a significant change in plant throughput during the survey, then
the estimated throughput should be adjusted accordingly.




3
    According to: Eurostat, “Monthly statistics of meat”, 11-2005.



www.efsa.eu.int                                                                Page 122 of 131
               Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                            mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




Table 1. Weighing of slaughterhouses for the purpose of allocating the number of fattening
pigs to be sampled from each slaughterhouse; calculation of sampled animals per
slaughterhouse.

Slaughterhouse              Number of       Percent of    Number of samples Samples per
ID                        fattening pigs total slaughter per slaughterhouse       month
                            processed      included in                             (/12)
                          previous year     the study
AXD                            88 000          17.6      0.176* x 2 400 = 422.4 422.4:12=364
SVH                             25 000                5.0
TPB                             75 000              15.0
MLG                            100 000              20.0
GHT                            212 000              42.4
Total                  500 0005          100.0
(Slaughterhouse AXD should sample in total 36 animals every month).
* Proportion of slaughtered pigs x 2 400 = total number of sample per Member State

For each slaughterhouse each month, a number between 1 and 31 shall be selected at
random. If the randomly selected number is a slaughtering day, for that month, then that day
is selected for sampling. If not, then a new number is selected randomly. This process is
performed once a month and repeated so many times as there are samples to be collected at
the slaughterhouse. For example, in the slaughterhouse AXD the process shall be repeated at
least 36 times to select at least 36 working days randomly. Naturally, it might be more than
one carcass to be sampled on the same day.

As the number of animals slaughtered on a specific day may vary enormously, the random
selection of the individual animal must take place at the slaughterhouse at the day randomly
selected for sampling. The given day, the total number of animals is known, and the
personnel of the slaughterhouse can then randomly select a carcass or carcasses using the
randomization sheet which has been provided to them and which has been generated using a
maximum that exceeds the highest possible number of fattening pigs slaughtered on any
given day in any slaughterhouse in the MS.

A randomization table may then look as shown in Table 2.




4
    The sample size should be rounded up.
5
    This number should represent at least 80 % of slaughtered fattening pigs in a Member State.



www.efsa.eu.int                                                                              Page 123 of 131
           Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                        mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




Table 2. Randomization table.

Slaughterhouse       Day of the month          Identity of Carcass (*)
AXD                          19                          5
                             4                           2
                             12                         124
                             12                          2
                              8                       59
                                                 th
(*)i.e. the 5th carcass to be processed on the 19 day of that month should be sampled for
the survey.

The following animals should be excluded from the baseline study:

-   animals with a live weight of more than 170 kg,
-   animals that have undergone emergency slaughter,
-   any carcass that is totally condemned.
Sampling shall be performed by the competent Authority or under its supervision, by bodies
to which it has delegated this responsibility.


5. Samples
From each selected animal the following samples should be taken:

-   at least 5 lymph nodes in the ileocaecal regions,
-   swabs samples from the carcass.
Carcasses shall be properly identified in order to make sure that both sample types are
collected from the same carcass.

         5.1 Sampling of ileocaecal lymph nodes
From each carcass at least 5 lymph nodes in the ileocaecal regions shall be collected and
pooled to one pooled sample. The mesenterium between the caecum and the part of the
ileum that is closest to the caecum is torn and the ileocaecal lymph nodes are presented at
the surface of the torn-open area. Without a knife, but with gloved fingers, the lymph nodes
are bluntly "harvested" from such opened mesenterium. Lymph nodes are placed in a plastic
bag which is marked with date, time, slaughterhouse identification and sample identification
code.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                            Page 124 of 131
          Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                       mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




         5.2 Carcass sampling by surface swabs-sampling
Sampling of the carcass shall be performed after evisceration and before chilling. The
surfaces for swabbing are (Figure 1):

-   the upper inner part of both hind legs including approximately 5 cm of the skin and the
    pelvic entrance; approximately 30 cm x 20-25 cm shall be swabbed,
-   the cut surface area of the abdomen and chest including approximately 5 cm of the skin
    surface will be tested; approximately 70-80 cm x 8-10 cm shall be swabbed.
A total area of approximately 1 400 cm2 of carcass surface shall be swabbed.

                   Figure 1: pig carcass surfaces to be swabbed.




                                                    1 swab:
                                                    for the upper inner part



                                                  1 swab:
                                                  for the surface area of the
                                                  abdomen




Two sterile swabs (10 x 10 cm) moistened with phosphate buffered saline shall be used for
swabbing, one swab for the upper inner part and one for the surface area of the abdomen.
Open the bag containing the sterile swab and add about 10 ml of salt diluent.

Squeeze and massage the swab from outside the bag to thoroughly moisten it. Either hold
the bag outside and turn inside out (use as a glove) or use a fresh pair of sterile gloves to
wipe the swab over the test surface, 10 times in the horizontal direction, and then 10 times
in the vertical direction with a firm pressure. Place the swab back in its plastic bag and add
further diluents to make a total of 25 ml (ISO/FDIS 17604:20039). Samples shall be kept at
max. 7°C under storage and transportation. The plastic bag is marked with date, time,
slaughterhouse identification and sample identification code.



www.efsa.eu.int                                                                 Page 125 of 131
          Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                       mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




6. Transport
All samples shall be kept refrigerated during the period of sampling until sent to the
laboratory. Samples shall be sent refrigerated within 36 hours by fast mail or courier and
shall reach the laboratory no later than 72 hours after sampling. Samples arriving later than
within 72 hours after sampling must be discarded unless analysis is initiated within 96 hours
after sampling and the cold chain was not interrupted.


7. Analysis of samples
Analysis and serotyping shall take place at the National Reference Laboratory (NRL). In
case that the NRL does not have the capacity to perform all analyses or if it is not the
laboratory that performs detection routinely, the competent authorities may decide to
designate a limited number of other laboratories involved in official control of Salmonella to
perform the analyses. These laboratories should have proven experience of using the
required detection method and have a quality assurance system complying with ISO
standard 17025 and be submitted to the supervision of the NRL.

At the laboratory, samples should be kept refrigerated until examination, which should be
carried out within 24 hours after receipt and so that analysis is initiated no later than 96
hours after the sample was collected - see Chapter 6 above.

Samples including less that 5 lymph nodes or weighing less than 25 g shall be excluded.
Records shall be kept at the slaughterhouse on the time and date of sampling of each sample
and the time and date and name of the courier that takes delivery of the samples. Records
shall be comparable to the example given in Table 3.

Table 3. Example of records to be kept at slaughterhouse.

Slaughterhouse identification: (name, location) EU-number:
Sample                   Sampling                           Delivery to courier
ID and         Date       Time       Name         Date       Time       Courier      Name
type*
1L          2-10-06        8:45       PW        3-10-06      10:00       TNT          WE
2S          2-10-06        8:55       PW        3-10-06      10:00       TNT          WE
3L          3-10-06        7:10       PW        3-10-06      10:00       TNT          WE
4S          3-10-06        7:25       PW        3-10-06      10:00       TNT          WE
Etc
* type of sample: L = lymph nodes or S = swab




www.efsa.eu.int                                                              Page 126 of 131
          Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                       mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




         7.1 Samples preparation
Lymph nodes are surface de-contaminated before analysis by either one of the two
following methods:

-   dip for a few times (max for 5 seconds) the lymph nodes in boiling water and put the
    lymph nodes in sturdy plastic bags,
-   dip the lymph nodes into absolute alcohol and flame the alcohol.
Lymph nodes are closed in the plastic bag and banged with a hammer or so on the plastic bag
smashing the lymph node.

The homogenised lymph nodes are weighed and placed in a sterile container with pre-
warmed buffered peptone water (BPW) in dilution 1:10. Containers are incubated for a total
of (18 ± 2) hours at (37 ± 1)oC.

Regarding swabs samples, at the laboratory, to each sample consisting of two swabs, 100 ml
of BPW is added for pre-enrichment. The sample is incubated at 37°C overnight and
examined for Salmonella using MRSV-method (draft Annex D of the ISO 6579: 2002(E)).

         7.2 Detection method
The method recommended by the Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) for Salmonella
in Bilthoven, Netherlands, shall be used: the method is a modification of ISO 6579 (2002),
where a semi solid medium (MSRV) is used as the single selective enrichment medium. The
semi-solid medium should be incubated at 41.5 ± 1°C for 2x (24 ± 3) hours.

Composition and preparation of the media and reagents of the ‘prescribed’ method are
described in Annex B, and in draft Annex D of the ISO 6579: 2002(E). Complete ready-to-
use media or dehydrated media may also be used, as long as the composition is in
accordance with the information given in the ISO protocol. The quality of the media has to
be controlled before use.

Analysis shall be initiated within 96 hours after sampling (see Chapter 6).

Inoculate the MSRV plates with three drops of BPW culture, with a total volume of 0.1 ml.
Incubate (not upside down) at (41.5 ± 1)oC for (24 ± 3) hours and if negative for another (24
± 3) hours.

After 24 hours, inoculate, by means of a loop, from the suspect MSRV plates (see draft
Annex D of ISO 6579), the surface of an isolation medium in a large size Petri dish or two
standard size Petri dish (d= 9 cm). The following isolation media will be used: xylose lysine
desoxycholate agar (XLD) and Brilliant Green agar (BGA). Place the Petri dishes with the
bottom up in the incubator set at (37 ± 1)°C and incubate for 24 h ± 3 hours, examine the
Petri dishes for the presence of typical colonies of Salmonella.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                               Page 127 of 131
           Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                        mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”



After a total incubation time of two times (24 ± 3) hours of the MSRV-plates, repeat the
procedure described above at first isolation after 24 hours.

For confirmation take from each Petri dish of each isolation medium, 1 colony considered to
be typical or suspect (use only well isolated colonies). Store the isolation plates at (5 ± 3)oC.
Before biochemical and serological confirmation, streak each typical colony onto the
surface of a nutrient agar plate with the corresponding label number, in order to develop
well isolated colonies. Incubate the inoculated plates at (37 ± 1)° C for (24 ± 3) hours.

By means of a loop, inoculate the media specified below with the colony selected as typical
Salmonella or Salmonella suspect. For each of the mentioned media follow the instructions
in 9.5 of ISO 6579 (2002):

-   TSI agar,
-   Urea agar,
-   l-Lysine decarboxylation medium.
Optionally inoculate other media which are routinely used for biochemical confirmation.

         7.3 Serotyping
All strains isolated and confirmed as Salmonella spp. shall be serotyped according to the
Kaufmann-White scheme.

For quality assurance, 16 typable strains and 16 non-typable isolates shall be sent to the
CRL. If a less number of strains has been isolated, all shall be sent.

         7.4 Phagetyping
All isolates of Salmonella serovar Typhimurium and Salmonella serovar Enteritidis shall be
phage typed by methods described by WHO reference centre for phage typing of Salmonella
of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), Colindale, UK.

         7.5 Testing of anti-microbial susceptibility
For epidemiological purposes, at least one isolate per serovar per month shall be tested for
anti-microbial susceptibility. A validated and controlled method for testing should be used,
such as those recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards
(NCCLS, since 1st of January 2005: "Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute” - CLSI).

Both agar diffusion and broth dilution methods are acceptable. Results should be reported
both as quantitative data (MIC for dilution methods and inhibition zone diameter for
diffusion methods) and as qualitative data (proportion resistant isolates). Qualitative data
should be based on interpretation according to epidemiological cut-off values presented by
the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST)
http://www.eucast.org.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                                 Page 128 of 131
           Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                        mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




The isolates shall be tested for the susceptibility to the antimicrobial substances listed
below:

-   Ampicillin or Amoxicillin
-   Tetracycline
-   Chloramphenicol
-   Florfenicol
-   Nalidixic acid
-   Ciprofloxacin (preferably) or Enrofloxacin
-   Sulphonamide (preferably Sulfametoxazole)
-   Sulphonamide/Trimethoprim or Trimethoprim
-   Gentamicin
-   Streptomycin
-   Kanamycin (preferably) or Neomycin
-   3rd generation cephalosporin, (preferably cefotaxime)
-   Colistin (optional)
Before initiation of the study MS are encouraged to organize training for the involved parties.

         7.6 Records and sample storage
Records shall be kept on all samples processed in a format like or comparable to the
example given in Table 4.

All strains isolated shall be stored at the NRLs of the different MS as long as it ensures
integrity of the strains for a minimum of 5 years.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                              Page 129 of 131
                                            Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                                                         mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




Table 4. example of records to be taken on all processed samples.

                                        Sample                               Receipt                                   Analysis
Sample ID + type*

                        Slaughterhouse ID




                                                                                                                                    Antibiogram
                                                                                              Pos or Neg




                                                                                                                                                  Storage ID
                                                                                                                     Phagetype
                                                                                                           Serovar
                                                Name




                                                                      Name
                                                               Time




                                                                                       Time
                                                       Date




                                                                               Date
1 S EU012 PW 3-10-06 12:00 AB 3-10 14:00 Neg
2 L EU023 PW 4-10 12:30 AB 4-10 14:00 Pos Typh DT104 ASTSu (IDnr)
3 L EU083 PW 8-10 16:30 AB 9-10 9:00 Pos Agona n.a.# ASTE (IDnr)
Etc
* type of sample: L = lymph nodes or S = swab
# n.a. = not applicable (phagetyping is only done for Salmonella Typhimurium and
Salmonella Enteritidis


8. Reporting from MS
The national Authority responsible for the preparation of the yearly national report on the
monitoring of Salmonella in animals pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC shall
collect and evaluate the results and report to the Commission.

The MS shall submit the results of the investigation in the form of raw data using a data
dictionary and data collection forms provided by the Commission. This dictionary and
forms will be established by the Commission in consultation with MS and involved parties
as appropriate (CRL, European Food Safety Authority - EFSA, EFSA’s Zoonoses
Collaboration Centre – ZCC).

These data shall include at least the following information:

1. Overall description on the implementation of the programme:

•                   description of the population under study stratified according to slaughterhouses
                    capacity,
•                   description of randomisation procedure, including notification system,
•                   sample size calculated,
•                   details of authorities and laboratories involved in sampling/testing/typing,
•                   overall results of the study (samples analyzed, number of positive, serovar, phage type
                    and antibiotic resistance testing).




www.efsa.eu.int                                                                                                                  Page 130 of 131
           Annex III of The EFSA Journal (2006), 341, Opinion on “Risk assessment and
                        mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”




2. Complete data on each animal sampled and corresponding tests results:

•   reference of the slaughterhouse,
•   capacity of the slaughterhouse,
•   date and time of sampling,
•   reference of the samples (e.g. number),
•   type of samples taken: lymph nodes, carcass swab,
•   date of shipment to the laboratory.

The following information should be collected in MS for each sample sent to the laboratory:

•   ID of the laboratory (in case several laboratories are involved),
•   means of transport of samples,
•   date of reception by the laboratory,
•   when testing lymph nodes, weight of the specimen,
•   result for the individual sample tested: “negative” or in case positive for Salmonella
    spp., also the results of serotyping “Salmonella serovar” or “untypable”,
•   results for strains subject to antimicrobial susceptibility testing and/or phagetyping
    results.
The relevant data collected for the purpose of the study shall be supplied to the EFSA, upon
request from the Commission. Any use of the data submitted by the MS for purposes other
than the objective of this study will be subject to prior agreement of the MS.

National aggregated data and results will be made available publicly in a form that ensures
confidentiality. Preparation of the Community report will be done in consultation between
the Commission, EFSA, CRL and MS.

A progress report on the state of play with the implementation of the study after 3 months,
including any difficulties encountered, shall be provided to the Commission.


9. Acknowledgements
The Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the
working group that prepared the draft proposal: T. Blaha, P. Beloeil, A. Cook, D. Lau
Baggesen, A. Ricci, P. van der Wolf, H. Wahlström.




www.efsa.eu.int                                                             Page 131 of 131