Literature DB >> 25681611

Comparison of sampling procedures and microbiological and non-microbiological parameters to evaluate cleaning and disinfection in broiler houses.

K Luyckx1, J Dewulf2, S Van Weyenberg1, L Herman1, J Zoons3, E Vervaet3, M Heyndrickx4, K De Reu5.   

Abstract

Cleaning and disinfection of the broiler stable environment is an essential part of farm hygiene management. Adequate cleaning and disinfection is essential for prevention and control of animal diseases and zoonoses. The goal of this study was to shed light on the dynamics of microbiological and non-microbiological parameters during the successive steps of cleaning and disinfection and to select the most suitable sampling methods and parameters to evaluate cleaning and disinfection in broiler houses. The effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection protocols was measured in six broiler houses on two farms through visual inspection, adenosine triphosphate hygiene monitoring and microbiological analyses. Samples were taken at three time points: 1) before cleaning, 2) after cleaning, and 3) after disinfection. Before cleaning and after disinfection, air samples were taken in addition to agar contact plates and swab samples taken from various sampling points for enumeration of total aerobic flora, Enterococcus spp., and Escherichia coli and the detection of E. coli and Salmonella. After cleaning, air samples, swab samples, and adenosine triphosphate swabs were taken and a visual score was also assigned for each sampling point. The mean total aerobic flora determined by swab samples decreased from 7.7±1.4 to 5.7±1.2 log CFU/625 cm2 after cleaning and to 4.2±1.6 log CFU/625 cm2 after disinfection. Agar contact plates were used as the standard for evaluating cleaning and disinfection, but in this study they were found to be less suitable than swabs for enumeration. In addition to measuring total aerobic flora, Enterococcus spp. seemed to be a better hygiene indicator to evaluate cleaning and disinfection protocols than E. coli. All stables were Salmonella negative, but the detection of its indicator organism E. coli provided additional information for evaluating cleaning and disinfection protocols. Adenosine triphosphate analyses gave additional information about the hygiene level of the different sampling points.
© 2015 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  broiler farm; cleaning; disinfection; evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25681611     DOI: 10.3382/ps/pev019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  12 in total

1.  Individual training for farmers based on results from protein and ATP rapid tests and microbiological conventional cultural methods improves hygiene in pig fattening pens.

Authors:  Céline Heinemann; Isabell Meyer; Franziska T Bögel; Simone M Schmid; Jason J Hayer; Julia Steinhoff-Wagner
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  A 10-day vacancy period after cleaning and disinfection has no effect on the bacterial load in pig nursery units.

Authors:  K Luyckx; S Millet; S Van Weyenberg; L Herman; M Heyndrickx; J Dewulf; K De Reu
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.741

3.  Comparison of competitive exclusion with classical cleaning and disinfection on bacterial load in pig nursery units.

Authors:  K Luyckx; S Millet; S Van Weyenberg; L Herman; M Heyndrickx; J Dewulf; K De Reu
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.741

4.  Evaluation of an enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocol in Salmonella contaminated pig holdings in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Francesca Martelli; Mark Lambert; Paul Butt; Tanya Cheney; Fabrizio Antonio Tatone; Rebecca Callaby; André Rabie; Rebecca J Gosling; Steve Fordon; Graham Crocker; Robert H Davies; Richard Piers Smith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Repeated disinfectant use in broiler houses and pig nursery units does not affect disinfectant and antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli field isolates.

Authors:  H Maertens; E Van Coillie; S Millet; S Van Weyenberg; N Sleeckx; E Meyer; J Zoons; J Dewulf; K De Reu
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Low Dose Colonization of Broiler Chickens With ESBL-/AmpC- Producing Escherichia coli in a Seeder-Bird Model Independent of Antimicrobial Selection Pressure.

Authors:  Caroline Robé; Anja Blasse; Roswitha Merle; Anika Friese; Uwe Roesler; Sebastian Guenther
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 7.  Are There Effective Intervention Measures in Broiler Production against the ESBL/AmpC Producer Escherichia coli?

Authors:  Evelyne Becker; Michaela Projahn; Elke Burow; Annemarie Käsbohrer
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2021-05-15

8.  Environmental adaptation and vertical dissemination of ESBL-/pAmpC-producing Escherichia coli in an integrated broiler production chain in the absence of an antibiotic treatment.

Authors:  Michaela Projahn; Katrin Daehre; Torsten Semmler; Sebastian Guenther; Uwe Roesler; Anika Friese
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 5.813

9.  European survey and evaluation of sampling methods recommended by the standard EN ISO 18593 for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas fluorescens on industrial surfaces.

Authors:  Thomas Brauge; Lena Barre; Guylaine Leleu; Stéphane André; Catherine Denis; Aurélie Hanin; Bastien Frémaux; Morgan Guilbaud; Jean-Marie Herry; Nadia Oulahal; Béatrice Anger; Christophe Soumet; Graziella Midelet
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.742

10.  Effect of different cleaning procedures on water use and bacterial levels in weaner pig pens.

Authors:  Shilpi Misra; Corina E van Middelaar; Kieran Jordan; John Upton; Amy J Quinn; Imke J M de Boer; Keelin O'Driscoll
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.