Frequency of Salmonella detection in a broiler flock depending on different litter materials - a field study

被引:5
|
作者
Voelkel, Inger [1 ]
Schmitz, Christina [2 ]
Moors, Eva [2 ]
Gauly, Matthias [2 ]
Czerny, Claus-Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Gottingen, Div Microbiol & Anim Hyg, Dept Anim Sci, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany
[2] Univ Gottingen, Div Livestock Prod Syst, Dept Anim Sci, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany
来源
关键词
Salmonella; broiler flock; litter material; REARING CONDITIONS; ACIDIFIED LITTER; STOCKING DENSITY; SAMPLING METHODS; CHICKEN FLOCKS; WATER ACTIVITY; CAMPYLOBACTER; DERMATITIS; POULTRY; TRANSMISSION;
D O I
10.2376/0005-9366-124-71
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
During the fattening period of a broiler flock four different litter materials (peat, chopped straw, shavings, silage) were tested simultaneously. The separated sections were tested for the presence of Salmonella bacteria using the sock-sampling method as described in the regulation EC No. 646/2007 with slight modifications in the sampling technique and the laboratory protocol. In addition, some chemical and physical parameters regarding litter quality and house climate were analysed. Samples were taken at day 0 (housing of animals), day 14, and day 30. At the end of the fattening period Salmonella Paratyphi B (d-tartrate +), representing a common strain in German broiler flocks, were isolated from culture. According to the various types of bedding materials some differences in the frequency of Salmonella detection were found. With three samples out of six samples being positive, wood shavings showed the highest Salmonella prevalence, followed by peat with two positive results. Corn silage was found to be a suitable alternative for common litter materials and revealed only one positive sample. Chopped straw was found to be free of Salmonella in our study. However, the latter had a higher risk for negative side effects concerning animal health and house climate. The study showed that the choice of an appropriate litter material might be of considerable importance in order to decrease the Salmonella burden within poultry flocks.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 77
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Risk Factors Associated with Detection of Salmonella in Broiler Litter at the Time of New Flock Placement
    Volkova, V. V.
    Wills, R. W.
    Hubbard, S. A.
    Magee, D. L.
    Byrd, J. A.
    Bailey, R. H.
    ZOONOSES AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2011, 58 (03) : 158 - 168
  • [2] DETECTION OF SALMONELLA-TYPHIMURIUM IN A BROILER CHICKEN FLOCK
    JUNIOR, AB
    DECARVALHO, AM
    FERNANDES, SA
    IBA, AM
    REVISTA DE MICROBIOLOGIA, 1993, 24 (03): : 212 - 213
  • [3] Improving drag swab detection of Salmonella in broiler litter
    Buhr, R. J.
    Richardson, L. J.
    Cason, J. A.
    Cox, N. A.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2006, 85 : 18 - 18
  • [4] The preferences of broiler chicks for different litter materials
    Khosravinia, H
    INDIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2006, 83 (04): : 445 - 446
  • [5] COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIALS FOR BROILER LITTER
    ANDREWS, LD
    MCPHERSON, BN
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 1963, 42 (01) : 249 - &
  • [6] Comparison of four sampling methods for the detection of Salmonella in broiler litter
    Buhr, R. J.
    Richardson, L. J.
    Cason, J. A.
    Cox, N. A.
    Fairchild, B. D.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2007, 86 (01) : 21 - 25
  • [8] Influence of different litter materials on cecal microbiota colonization in broiler chickens
    Torok, V. A.
    Hughes, R. J.
    Ophel-Keller, K.
    Ali, M.
    MacAlpine, R.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2009, 88 (12) : 2474 - 2481
  • [9] Effect of Yucca schidigera additions to different litter materials on broiler performance, footpad dermatitis and litter characteristics
    Onbasilar, Ebru E.
    Erdem, E.
    Unal, N.
    Kocakaya, A.
    Torlak, E.
    EUROPEAN POULTRY SCIENCE, 2014, 78
  • [10] Detection of flock movement and behaviour of broiler chickens at different feeders using image analysis
    Neves, Diego Pereira
    Mehdizadeh, Saman Abdanan
    Tscharke, Matthew
    Nääs, Irenilza de Alencar
    Banhazi, Thomas Michael
    Information Processing in Agriculture, 2015, 2 (3-4): : 177 - 182