Cargando…

On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles

Limitations in quality bedding material have resulted in the growing need to re-use litter during broiler farming in some countries, which can be of concern from a food-safety perspective. The aim of this study was to compare the Campylobacter levels in ceca and litter across three litter treatments...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chinivasagam, H. N., Estella, W., Rodrigues, H., Mayer, D. G., Weyand, C., Tran, T., Onysk, A., Diallo, I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Poultry Science Association, Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26908887
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew003
_version_ 1782444190461853696
author Chinivasagam, H. N.
Estella, W.
Rodrigues, H.
Mayer, D. G.
Weyand, C.
Tran, T.
Onysk, A.
Diallo, I.
author_facet Chinivasagam, H. N.
Estella, W.
Rodrigues, H.
Mayer, D. G.
Weyand, C.
Tran, T.
Onysk, A.
Diallo, I.
author_sort Chinivasagam, H. N.
collection PubMed
description Limitations in quality bedding material have resulted in the growing need to re-use litter during broiler farming in some countries, which can be of concern from a food-safety perspective. The aim of this study was to compare the Campylobacter levels in ceca and litter across three litter treatments under commercial farming conditions. The litter treatments were (a) the use of new litter after each farming cycle; (b) an Australian partial litter re-use practice; and (c) a full litter re-use practice. The study was carried out on two farms over two years (Farm 1, from 2009–2010 and Farm 2, from 2010–2011), across three sheds (35,000 to 40,000 chickens/shed) on each farm, adopting three different litter treatments across six commercial cycles. A random sampling design was adopted to test litter and ceca for Campylobacter and Escherichia coli, prior to commercial first thin-out and final pick-up. Campylobacter levels varied little across litter practices and farming cycles on each farm and were in the range of log 8.0–9.0 CFU/g in ceca and log 4.0–6.0 MPN/g for litter. Similarly the E. coli in ceca were ∼log 7.0 CFU/g. At first thin-out and final pick-up, the statistical analysis for both litter and ceca showed that the three-way interaction (treatments by farms by times) was highly significant (P < 0.01), indicating that the patterns of Campylobacter emergence/presence across time vary between the farms, cycles and pickups. The emergence and levels of both organisms were not influenced by litter treatments across the six farming cycles on both farms. Either C. jejuni or C. coli could be the dominant species across litter and ceca, and this phenomenon could not be attributed to specific litter treatments. Irrespective of the litter treatments in place, cycle 2 on Farm 2 remained Campylobacter-free. These outcomes suggest that litter treatments did not directly influence the time of emergence and levels of Campylobacter and E. coli during commercial farming.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4957531
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Poultry Science Association, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49575312016-09-01 On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles Chinivasagam, H. N. Estella, W. Rodrigues, H. Mayer, D. G. Weyand, C. Tran, T. Onysk, A. Diallo, I. Poult Sci Microbiology and Food Safety Limitations in quality bedding material have resulted in the growing need to re-use litter during broiler farming in some countries, which can be of concern from a food-safety perspective. The aim of this study was to compare the Campylobacter levels in ceca and litter across three litter treatments under commercial farming conditions. The litter treatments were (a) the use of new litter after each farming cycle; (b) an Australian partial litter re-use practice; and (c) a full litter re-use practice. The study was carried out on two farms over two years (Farm 1, from 2009–2010 and Farm 2, from 2010–2011), across three sheds (35,000 to 40,000 chickens/shed) on each farm, adopting three different litter treatments across six commercial cycles. A random sampling design was adopted to test litter and ceca for Campylobacter and Escherichia coli, prior to commercial first thin-out and final pick-up. Campylobacter levels varied little across litter practices and farming cycles on each farm and were in the range of log 8.0–9.0 CFU/g in ceca and log 4.0–6.0 MPN/g for litter. Similarly the E. coli in ceca were ∼log 7.0 CFU/g. At first thin-out and final pick-up, the statistical analysis for both litter and ceca showed that the three-way interaction (treatments by farms by times) was highly significant (P < 0.01), indicating that the patterns of Campylobacter emergence/presence across time vary between the farms, cycles and pickups. The emergence and levels of both organisms were not influenced by litter treatments across the six farming cycles on both farms. Either C. jejuni or C. coli could be the dominant species across litter and ceca, and this phenomenon could not be attributed to specific litter treatments. Irrespective of the litter treatments in place, cycle 2 on Farm 2 remained Campylobacter-free. These outcomes suggest that litter treatments did not directly influence the time of emergence and levels of Campylobacter and E. coli during commercial farming. Poultry Science Association, Inc. 2016-02-16 2016-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4957531/ /pubmed/26908887 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew003 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science Association. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
spellingShingle Microbiology and Food Safety
Chinivasagam, H. N.
Estella, W.
Rodrigues, H.
Mayer, D. G.
Weyand, C.
Tran, T.
Onysk, A.
Diallo, I.
On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title_full On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title_fullStr On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title_full_unstemmed On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title_short On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
title_sort on-farm campylobacter and escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: re-used bedding does not influence campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles
topic Microbiology and Food Safety
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26908887
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew003
work_keys_str_mv AT chinivasagamhn onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT estellaw onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT rodriguesh onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT mayerdg onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT weyandc onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT trant onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT onyska onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles
AT dialloi onfarmcampylobacterandescherichiacoliincommercialbroilerchickensreusedbeddingdoesnotinfluencecampylobacteremergenceandlevelsacrosssequentialfarmingcycles