| Literature DB >> 24933419 |
Luu Quynh Huong1, Anita Forslund2, Henry Madsen3, Anders Dalsgaard4.
Abstract
Small-scale biogas digesters are widely promoted worldwide as a sustainable technology to manage livestock manure. In Vietnam, pig slurry is commonly applied to biogas digesters for production of gas for electricity and cooking with the effluent being used to fertilize field crops, vegetables and fish ponds. Slurry may contain a variety of zoonotic pathogens, e.g. Salmonella spp., which are able to cause disease in humans either through direct contact with slurry or by fecal contamination of water and foods. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of Salmonella spp. and the fecal indicator bacteria, enterococci, E. coli, and spores of Clostridium perfringens in biogas digesters operated by small-scale Vietnamese pig farmers. The serovar and antimicrobial susceptibility of the Salmonella spp. isolated were also established. The study was conducted in 12 farms (6 farms with and 6 farms without toilet connected) located in Hanam province, Vietnam. Sampling of pig slurry and biogas effluent was done during two seasons. Results showed that the concentration of enterococci, E. coli, and Clostridium perfringens spores was overall reduced by only 1-2 log10-units in the biogas digesters when comparing raw slurry and biogas effluent. Salmonella spp. was found in both raw slurry and biogas effluent. A total of 19 Salmonella serovars were identified, with the main serovars being Salmonella Typhimurium (55/138), Salmonella enterica serovar 4,[5],12:i:- (19/138), Salmonella Weltevreden (9/138) and Salmonella Rissen (9/138). The Salmonella serovars showed similar antimicrobial resistance patterns to those previously reported from Vietnam. When promoting biogas, farmers should be made aware that effluent should only be used as fertilizer for crops not consumed raw and that indiscriminate discharge of effluent are likely to contaminate water recipients, e.g. drinking water sources, with pathogens. Relevant authorities should promote safe animal manure management practices to farmers and regulations be updated to ensure food safety and public health.Entities:
Keywords: Biogas; Effluent; Fecal indicators; Food safety; Salmonella; Vietnam
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24933419 PMCID: PMC7106344 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2014.04.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health ISSN: 1438-4639 Impact factor: 5.840
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of the biogas digester system operated by Vietnamese small-scale pig farmers (1: inlet tank; 2: inlet pipe; 3: digester tank; 4: gas collection pipe; 5: outlet pipe; 6: compensation tank; 7: overflow pipe; 8: effluent tank).
Farm information and manure management practices by small-scale pig farmersa with biogas digesters in Hoang Tay and Nhat Tan commune. Range values are shown in brackets.
| Hoang Tay ( | Nhat Tan ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toilet connected to biogas digester | Toilet connected to biogas digester | |||
| Yes ( | No ( | Yes ( | No ( | |
| Number of persons living at farms | 4 (2–7) | 4 (1–7) | 4.5 (3–7) | 3.6 (2–6) |
| Number of sows per farm | 2.4 (0–6) | 6.2 (2–20) | 0.9 (0–3) | 9.9 (0–40) |
| Number of fattening pigs per farm | 4.6 (0–22) | 18.4 (0–62) | 16.5 (5–26) | 41.6 (8–150) |
| Number of piglets per farm | 8.3 (0–35) | 27.6 (0–90) | 0.5 (0–5) | 24.5 (0–130) |
| Biogas volume (m3) | 10.1 (7.5–13) | 12.1 (10–14) | 11.1 (6–17) | 13.9 (7.5–20) |
| Farms using disinfectants in pigpen | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Effluent tank present | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Farmers applying protective measures when handling manure | 6 | 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Farmers applying protective measures when handling effluent | 7 | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Farmers using personal hygiene activity after handling manure/effluent | 9 | 11 | 8 | 10 |
| Farmers experienced reduced fly problems | 11 | 11 | 9 | 10 |
| Farmers experienced reduced smell problems | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 |
Farmers include one per farm (either husband or wife).
Boots, clothes, gloves, and mask.
Shower, wash hand with water, wash hand with soap.
Fig. 2Box plots showing concentration of fecal indicator bacteria (a–c) and prevalence of Salmonella spp. (d) in slurry and biogas effluent illustrated by season, commune and toilet connected. The concentration of bacteria or spores detected in slurry and biogas effluent is presented as cfu/mL or pfu/mL. The horizontal line within the box shows the median, the box the interquartile range and the whiskers show the adjacent values (i.e. up to 1.5 times the interquartile range below the 25th percentile or above the 75th percentile). Values outside this range are shown by markers.
Fig. 3Distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella spp. by source (slurry, biogas effluent) and season (summer, winter), n = number of Salmonella spp. isolates that are resistant to a specific antimicrobial.
Salmonella serovars isolated from pig manure and biogas effluent.
| No. of farms | Farms without toilet connected to biogas | Farms with toilet connected to biogas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slurry | Effluent | Slurry | Effluent | ||
| 4 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 11 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| 2 | 2 | ||||
Distribution of MIC values to antimicrobials among Salmonella spp. isolated (n = 138) from pig slurry and biogas effluent.
aThe shaded areas indicate the range of dilutions tested for each antimicrobial. Single vertical bars indicate the breakpoints for susceptibility, while double vertical bars indicate the breakpoints for resistance. Numbers in the un-shaded area indicate the number of isolates with MICs greater than the highest tested concentrations. Numbers listed for the lowest tested concentrations represent the number of isolates with MICs equal to or less than the lowest tested concentration.
Multi-drug (≥3) resistance patterns of Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella 4,[5],12:i:-.
| Multi-drug resistance patterns | ||
|---|---|---|
| STR, SMX, TET | 8 (14.5) | |
| AMP, STR, SMX, TET | 10 (52.6) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, SMX, TMP | 1 (1.8) | |
| AMP, STR, SXM, TET, TMP | 1 (5.3) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, SMX, TET, TMP | 8 (14.5) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, STR, SMX, TET | 1 (1.8) | |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, NAL, SMX, TET | 1 (1.8) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, GEN, STR, SXM, TET | 1 (5.3) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, STR, SMX, TET, TMP | 12 (21.8) | 1 (5.3) |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, STR, SMX, TET, TMP | 12 (21.8) | |
| AMP, CHL, FFN, KAN, NAL, SMX, TET, TMP | 1 (5.3) | |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, KAN, NAL, SMX, TET, TMP | 3 (5.4) | 1 (5.3) |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, NAL, STR, SMX, TET, TMP | 1 (1.8) | |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, GEN, KAN, NAL, SMX, TET, TMP | 4 (7.3) | 1 (5.3) |
| AMP, CHL, CIP, FFN, GEN, KAN, NAL, STR, SMX, TET, TMP | 1 (1.8) | 2 (10.5) |
| AMP, FOT, TAZ, CHL, CIP, COL, FFN, GEN, KAN, NAL, STR, SMX, TET, TMP | 2 (3.6) | 1 (5.3) |
Abbreviation: Ampicillin (AMP), cefotaxime (FOT), ceftazidime (TAZ), chloramphenicol (CHL), ciprofloxacin (CIP), colistin (COL), florfenicol (FFN), gentamicin (GEN), kanamycin (KAN), nalidixic acid (NAL), streptomycin (STR), sulfamethoxazole (SMX), tetracycline (TET), and trimethoprim (TMP).