Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:26:25.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution of Nematode Eggs when using a Dilution-Egg-Count Procedure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

J. E. Dunn ,
R. W. Poteet  and
D. P. Conway
J. E. Dunn
Affiliation:
Departments of Mathematics and Animal Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
R. W. Poteet
Affiliation:
Departments of Mathematics and Animal Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
D. P. Conway
Affiliation:
Departments of Mathematics and Animal Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By combining a number of well-known but scattered results, a theoretical model has been constructed to explain the observed quadratic increase in sample variance of egg counts over sample mean with increasing egg concentration. Our contention is that the over-dispersion arises because of inherent variation in volumetric deliveries of faecal suspension onto the counting slide. Even though the observed variation of volumetric deliveries appears to be small, we have shown that it is adequate to cause a considerable increase in egg count variance over mean at not unreasonably high concentrations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 40 , Issue 3-4 , September 1966 , pp. 309 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anscombe, F. J., 1950.—“Sampling theory of the negative binomial and logarithmic series distributions”. Biometrika, 37, 358–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, M. S., 1947.—“The use of transformations”. Biometrics, 3, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blom, G., 1954.—“Transformations of the binomial, negative binomial, Poisson and x2 distributions”. Biometrika, 41, 302–316.Google Scholar
Brambell, M. R., 1903.—“Variation in counts of Haemonchus contortus eggs in the faeces of housed sheep”. J. Helminth., 37, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W., 1943.—“On a general class of ‘contagious’ distributions”. Ann. Math. Stat., 14, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W. 1950.—An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Wiley, , pp. 400–402.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., 1941.—“The negative binomial distribution”. Ann. Eugenics, 11, 182–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A., 1950.—Statistical methods for research workers. Hafner, . Ed. 11, pp. 54–57.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. E., 1965.—“Examination of faeces for helminth eggs and larvae”. Vet. Bull., 35, 403–410.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M. and Yule, G. V., 1920.—“An inquiry into the nature of frequency distribution representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents”. J. Royal Stat. Soc., 83, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. C. and Quenouille, M. H., 1952.—“A statistical examination of the worm egg count sampling for sheep”. J. Helminth., 26, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. and Stuart, A., 1961.—The advanced theory of statistics. Vol. 2, Hafner, ., p. 430.Google Scholar
Pearson, E. S. and Hartley, H. O., 1958.—Biometrika tables for statisticians, vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 58–61.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. and Leiper, J. W. G., 1940.—“The variation in dilution counts of helminth eggs”. J. Helminth., 18, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R., 1952.—Advanced statistical methods in biometric research. Wiley, , pp. 218–219.Google Scholar
”STUDENT”, 1907.—“On the error of counting with a haemacytomcter”. Biometrika, 5, 351–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilks, S. S., 1962.—Mathematical statistics. Wiley, , pp. 417–422.Google Scholar
Whitlock, J. H., 1941.—“A practical dilution-egg-count procedure”. J. Am. vet. med. Assoc., 98, 466–469.Google Scholar