| Literature DB >> 33919578 |
Marwa F E Ahmed1, Amr Abd El-Wahab2,3, Jan-Philip Kriewitz3, Julia Hankel3, Bussarakam Chuppava3, Christine Ratert3, Venja Taube4, Christian Visscher3, Josef Kamphues3.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the influences of different flooring designs and feed particle sizes on the spread of Salmonella (S.) in broiler chickens. Birds (n = 480) were allocated to four different housing systems (fully littered with and without floor heating, partially and fully slatted flooring with sand bath) and two dietary treatments (finely and coarsely ground diets) in 24 boxes. Two broilers per box were experimentally infected with S. Enteritidis (8.00 log10 CFU/bird) at d 17. Salmonella prevalence in caecal contents and the liver was highest in broilers housed on fully slatted floor until d 36/37 (88.1% and 91.5%, respectively), and lowest in litter flooring (caecal content 64.4%) and litter flooring with floor heating (liver 61.7%). In turn, broilers on littered flooring expressed the lowest Salmonella counts in caecal content at d 36/37 (2.21 ± 1.75 log10 CFU/g), partial slatted flooring the highest (3.76 ± 1.46 log10 CFU/g). The mean Salmonella count in the caecal content was significantly lower for birds fed a coarsely ground diet (0.96 and 1.94 log10 CFU/g) than a finely ground diet (5.07 and 3.34 log10 CFU/g) at d 23 and d 36/37, respectively (p < 0.0001). Slatted flooring with a sand bath did not show advantages in terms of Salmonella reduction, whereas the coarsely ground diet markedly reduced the spread of Salmonella.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella; broiler; diets physical form; floor designs
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919578 PMCID: PMC8073070 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9040874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Flooring design of the four different housing systems: (A) entire floor pen covered with litter; (B) floor pen covered with litter and floor heating; (C) partially slatted flooring; (D) fully slatted flooring with sand bath.
Figure 2Overview of the trial procedure and sample time plan.
Salmonella Enteritidis prevalence at d 23 and 36/37 of contact birds (not experimentally infected) housed in different flooring systems.
| Samples | Day | L+H− | L+H+ | L+/−H− | L−H− | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Positive Samples/No. of Samples (%) | ||||||
| Caecal content | 23 | 33/48 (68.8) a | 29/48 (60.4) a | 28/48 (58.3) a | 33/48 (68.8) a | 0.5982 |
| 36/37 | 38/59 (64.4) c | 41/60 (68.3) b,c | 50/60 (83.3) a,b | 52/59 (88.1) a | 0.0050 | |
| Liver | 23 | 28/48 (58.3) a | 20/48 (41.7) a | 21/48 (43.8) a | 28/48 (58.3) a | 0.1927 |
| 36/37 | 45/59 (76.3) b,c | 37/60 (61.7) c | 52/60 (86.7) a,b | 54/59 (91.5) a | 0.0003 | |
L+H−: entire floor pen covered with litter; L+H+: floor pen covered with litter and with floor heating; L+/−H−: partially slatted flooring; L−H−: fully slatted flooring with sand bath. a,b,c Different subscripts within a row mark significant differences (p < 0.05).
Salmonella Enteritidis counts in caecal content at d 23 and 36/37 of contact birds (not experimentally infected, log10 CFU/g) housed in different flooring systems.
| Day | L+H− | L+H+ | L+/−H− | L−H− | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Max | N | Mean ± SD | Max | N | Mean ± SD | Max | N | Mean ± SD | Max | N | ||
| 23 | 3.44 a ± 3.17 | 7.70 | 48 | 2.50 a ± 2.33 | 8.18 | 48 | 2.79 a ± 2.88 | 7.41 | 48 | 3.04 a ± 2.98 | 7.89 | 48 | 0.783 |
| 36/37 | 2.21 b ± 1.75 | 5.10 | 59 | 2.26 a,b ± 1.76 | 6.81 | 60 | 3.76 a ± 1.46 | 7.66 | 60 | 2.89 a,b ± 1.31 | 5.28 | 59 | 0.001 |
L+H−: entire floor pen covered with litter; L+H+: floor pen covered with litter and with floor heating; L+/−H−: partially slatted flooring; L−H−: fully slatted flooring with sand bath. a,b Different subscripts within a row mark significant differences (p < 0.05).
Salmonella Enteritidis counts in the manure or the sand bath material (log10 CFU/g sample material) in different flooring systems at d 37.
| Finely Ground Diet | Coarsely Ground Diet | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L+H− | L+H+ | L+/−H− | L−H− | L+H− | L+H+ | L+/−H− | L−H− * | |
| Number of samples | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Means (log10 CFU/g) | 5.30 a,b | 4.17 b | 6.13 a | 5.00 a,b | 3.52 a | 2.89 a | 4.18 a | 4.63 a |
| ±SD | 1.22 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.10 | 1.41 | 0.32 | 1.28 | 0.54 |
| 0.033 | 0.239 | |||||||
L+H−: entire floor pen covered with litter; L+H+: floor pen covered with litter and with floor heating; L+/−H−: partially slatted flooring; L−H−: fully slatted flooring with sand bath. *: in the group L−H−, the material was obtained from the sand bath. a,b Different subscripts within a row mark significant differences (p < 0.05).
Salmonella Enteritidis prevalence of contact birds (not experimentally infected) of different dietary treatments at d 23 and 36/37.
| Sample | Day | Finely Ground Diet | Coarsely Ground Diet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Samples | No. of Positive Samples | % of Positive Samples | No. of Samples | No. of Positive Samples | % of Positive Samples | |||
| Caecal contents | 23 | 96 | 94 | 97.9 a | 96 | 29 | 30.2 b | <0.0001 |
| 36/37 | 120 | 112 | 93.3 a | 118 | 69 | 58.5 b | <0.0001 | |
| Liver | 23 | 96 | 79 | 82.3 a | 96 | 18 | 18.8 b | <0.0001 |
| 36/37 | 120 | 110 | 91.7 a | 118 | 78 | 66.1 b | <0.0001 | |
a,b Different subscripts within a row mark significant differences (p < 0.05).
Salmonella Enteritidis counts in caecal content of contact birds (not experimentally infected, log10 CFU/g) of different dietary treatments at d 23 and 36/37.
| Finely Ground Diet | Coarsely Ground Diet | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Maximum | N | Mean | SD | Maximum | N | ||
| Day 23 | 5.07 a | 2.17 | 8.18 | 96 | 0.96 b | 1.69 | 7.34 | 96 | <0.0001 |
| Day 36/37 | 3.34 a | 1.40 | 7.66 | 120 | 1.94 b | 1.73 | 5.36 | 118 | <0.0001 |
a,b Different subscripts within a row mark significant differences (p < 0.05).