Epizootiology: [Chapter 9 in Biology of the Acanthocephala]

In practice, epizootiology deals with how parasites spread through host populations, how rapidly the spread occurs and whether or not epizootics result. Prevalence, incidence, factors that permit establishment of infection, host response to infection, parasite fecundity and methods of transfer are, therefore, aspects of epizootiology. Indeed, most aspects of a parasite could be related in sorne way to epizootiology, but many of these topics are best considered in other contexts. General patterns of transmission, adaptations that facilitate transmission, establishment of infection and occurrence of epizootics are discussed in this chapter. When life cycles are unknown, little progress can be made in understanding the epizootiological aspects of any group of parasites. At the time Meyer's monograph was completed (1933), intermediate hosts were known for only 17 species of Acanthocephala, and existing descriptions are not sufficient to permit identification of two of those. Laboratory infections of intermediate hosts had apparently been produced for only two species. Study at that time was primarily devoted to species descriptions, host and geographical distribution, structure and ontogeny. Little or nothing was known about adaptations that promote transmission and the concept of paratenic hosts was unclear. In spite of the paucity of information, Meyer (1932) summarized pathways of transmission among principal groups of hosts, visualized the relationships among life cycle patterns for the major groups of Acanthocephala, and devised models for the hypothetical origin of terrestrial life cycles from aquatic ones. Nevertheless, most of our knowledge regarding epizootiology has been recently acquired.

Food Handling Practices, Knowledge and Beliefs of Families with Young Children Based on the Health Belief Model

Objective: To determine current food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs of primary food handlers with children 10 years old and the relationship between these components. Design: Surveys were developed based on FightBac!™ concepts and the Health Belief Model (HBM) construct. Participants: The majority of participants (n= 503) were females (67%), Caucasians (80%), aged between 30 to 49 years old (83%), had one or two children (83%), prepared meals all or most of the time (76%) and consumed meals away from home three times or less per week (66%). Analysis: Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) (p<0.05 and one-tail) and Chi-square were used to examine frequency and correlations. Results: Few participants reached the food safety objectives of Healthy People 2010 for safe food handling practices (79%). Mixed results were reported for perceived susceptibility. Only half of the participants (53-54%) reported high perceived severity for their children if they contracted food borne illness. Most participants were confident of their food handling practices for their children (91%) and would change their food handling practices if they or their family members previously experienced food poisoning (79%). Participants’ reasons for high self-efficacy were learning from their family and independently acquiring knowledge and skills from the media, internet or job. The three main barriers to safe food handling were insufficient time, lots of distractions and lack of control of the food handling practices of other people in the household. Participants preferred to use food safety information that is easy to understand, has scientific facts, causes feelings of health-threat and has lots of pictures or visuals. Participants demonstrate high levels of knowledge in certain areas of the FightBac!TM concepts but lacked knowledge in other areas. Knowledge and cues to action were most supportive of the HBM construct, while perceived susceptibility was least supportive of the HBM construct. Conclusion: Most participants demonstrate many areas to improve in their food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs. Adviser: Julie A. Albrecht

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.