|
Analysis in relation to | Possible difference in prevalence of mycobacteria in small mammals collected in reacting and nonreacting farms | Indication on transmission direction and the involvement of other source(s) of infection* |
|
(1) Current reactor status | (a) No difference | Transmission between small mammals and cattle might occur, but cattle and small mammals probably have a different source of infection |
(b) Higher prevalence in currently reacting as compared to non reacting farms | Transmission between small mammals and cattle might occur, but common source of infection more probable. |
(c) Higher prevalence in currently nonreacting as compared to reacting farms | Transmission between small mammals and cattle might occur, but cattle and small mammals probably have a different source of infection |
(2) Future reactor status | (a) No difference | Transmission from small mammals to cattle might occur, but cattle also has another source of infection |
(b) Higher prevalence in future reacting as compared to non reacting farms | Tranmission from small mammals to cattle may occur, either directly or indirectly |
(c) Higher prevalence in future nonreacting as compared to reacting farms | Transmission from small mammals to cattle might occur, but cattle has another, probably more important, source of infection |
(3) Past reactor status | (a) No difference | Transmission from cattle to small mammals might occur, but small mammals also have another source of infection |
(b) Higher prevalence in past reacting as compared to non reacting farms | Transmission from cattle to small mammals may occur, either directly or indirectly |
(c) Higher prevalence in past nonreacting as compared to reacting farms | Transmission from cattle to small mammals might occur, but small mammals have another, probably more important, source of infection |
|