Peculiarities of rearing poultry by floor method on deep bedding
Abstract
In poultry rearing on deep bedding systems, microorganisms that cause infectious diseases develop within the bedding. This study aimed to determine the physical properties and microbial accumulation capacity of different types of bedding. Methods used included thermo-programmed desorption mass spectrometry, microbiological methods, and scanning electron microscopy. The hygroscopic properties of straw bedding deteriorated by 269.90% from the seventh to the fortysecond day. In the experimental room, where a dry disinfectant was added to the straw bedding, the hygroscopic capacity was 86.70% at the end of the experiment, a difference of 183.2%. Wood shavings bedding, with the addition of disinfectant, exhibited a water absorption capacity 102.82% higher than the control on the forty-second day. Granulated bedding with disinfectant retained moisture 150.33% better compared to the control. At the end of the experiment, the pH of straw bedding was 8.13 in the control group compared to 7.56 in the treated group; for wood shavings was 7.95 versus 7.16; and for granule was 7.35 versus 6.35, due to the use of the disinfectant. At the conclusion of the experiment, granulated bedding exhibited the lowest pH compared to straw and wood shavings, affecting the growth and reproduction of microorganisms. Monitoring of microorganisms in the bedding revealed the presence of bacteria: Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella pullorum, Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumonia, Listeria monocytogenes, as well as microscopic fungi: Fusarium sporotrichioides, Aspergillus niger, and Eimeria oocysts. The use of disinfectant reduced bacterial contamination of straw bedding by 12.35-199.19%, fungal contamination by 633.91-1959.14%, and Eimeria by 676.50%. In the wood shavings bedding, bacterial contamination was reduced by 32.84-257.93%, fungal contamination by 487.08-1098.4%, and Eimeria by 570.21%. Granulated bedding showed reduced bacterial accumulation by 50.93-228.87%, fungal accumulation by 169.89-500.9%, and Eimeria by 301.56%. The practical significance of this study lies in the improved physical properties of poultry bedding and the reduction in bacterial, fungal, and Eimeria oocyst accumulation
Keywords
hygroscopic properties; bedding pH; bacteria; microscopic fungi; Eimeria
[1] Bindari, Y.R., Moore, R.J., Van, T.T.H., Hilliar, M., Wu, S.B., Walkden-Brown, S.W., & Gerber, P.F. (2021). Microbial communities of poultry house dust, excreta and litter are partially representative of microbiota of chicken caecum and ileum. PlOS One, 16(8), article number e0255633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255633.
[2] Brochu, N.M., Guerin, M.T., Varga, C., Lillie, B.N., Brash, M.L., & Susta, L. (2021). Demographic characteristics and husbandry and biosecurity practices of small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada. Avian Diseases, 65(2), 287-294. doi: 10.1637/aviandiseases-D-20-00108.
[3] Çavuşoğlu, E., & Petek, M. (2019). Effects of different floor materials on the welfare and behaviour of slow- and fast-growing broilers. Archives Animal Breeding, 62(1), 335-344. doi: 10.5194/aab-62-335-2019.
[4] Chu, J., Zhang, Q., Zuo, Z., El-Ashram, S., Guo, Y., Zhao, P., Huang, S., He, C., & Khan, A. (2017). Co-infection of Chlamydia psittaci with H9N2, ORT and Aspergillus fumigatus contributes to severe pneumonia and high mortality in SPF chickens. Scientific Reports, 7, article number 13997. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14519-1.
[5] Crippen, T.L., Sheffield, C.L., Singh, B., Byrd, J.A., & Beier, R.C. (2019). How management practices within a poultry house during successive flock rotations change the structure of the soil microbiome. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, article number 2100. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02100.
[6] Cuevas-Cianca, S.I., Romero-Castillo, C., Gálvez-Romero, J.L., Sánchez-Arreola, E., Juárez, Z.N., & Hernández, L.R. (2023). Latin American plants against microorganisms. Plants, 12(23), article number 3997. doi: 10.3390/ plants12233997.
[7] European Commission European Citizens Initiative on “End the Cage Age”. (2021). Retrieved from https:// ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_21_3298.
[8] European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. (1986). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168007a67b.
[9] Fisher, R.A., & Mosteller, F. (1948). Questions and answers. The American Statistician, 2(5), 30-31. doi: 10.2307/2681650. JSTOR 2681650.
[10] Gerber, P.F., Gould, N., & McGahan, E. (2020). Potential contaminants and hazards in alternative chicken bedding materials and proposed guidance levels: A review. Poultry Science, 99(12), 6664-6684. doi: 10.1016/j. psj.2020.09.047.
[11] Gutierrez, A., & Schneider, K.R. (2022). Survival and inactivation kinetics of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in irradiated and natural poultry litter microcosms. PlOS One, 17(4), article number e0267178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267178.
[12] Hanišáková, N., Vítězová, M., & Rittmann, S.K.R. (2022). The historical development of cultivation techniques for methanogens and other strict anaerobes and their application in modern microbiology. Microorganisms, 10(2), article number 412. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020412.
[13] Hartung, T. (2010). Comparative analysis of the revised Directive 2010/63/EU for the protection of laboratory animals with its predecessor 86/609/EEC – a t4 report. ALTEX - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 27(4), 285-303. doi: 10.14573/altex.2010.4.285.
[14] Kwon, B.Y., Park, J., Kim, D.H., & Lee, K.W. (2024). Assessment of welfare problems in broilers: Focus on musculoskeletal problems associated with their rapid growth. Animals, 14(7), article number 1116. doi: 10.3390/ ani14071116.
[15] Kyakuwaire, M., Olupot, G., Amoding, A., Nkedi-Kizza, P., & Basamba, T.A. (2019). How safe is chicken litter for land application as an organic fertilizer?: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), article number 3521. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193521.
[16] Law of Ukraine No. 249 “On the Procedure for Carrying out Experiments and Experiments on Animals by Scientific Institutions”. (2012, March). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0416-12#Text.
[17] Mesa, C., Gómez-Osorio, L. M., López-Osorio, S., Williams, S.M., & Chaparro-Gutiérrez, J.J. (2021). Survey of coccidia on commercial broiler farms in Colombia: Frequency of Eimeria species, anticoccidial sensitivity, and histopathology. Poultry Science, 100(8), article number 101239. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101239.
[18] Milanov, D., Knežević, S., Vidaković, S., Pajić, M., Živkov-Baloš, M., & Aleksić, N. (2019). Microbial contamination of poultry litter during fattening period. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 35(3), 253-265.
[19] Murphy, C.J., Ardy Nugroho, F.A., Härelind, H., Hellberg, L., & Langhammer, C. (2021). Plasmonic temperatureprogrammed desorption. Nano Letters, 21(1), 353-359. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03733.
[20] Oxendine, A., Walsh, A A., Young, T., Dixon, B., Hoke, A., Rogers, E.E., Lee, M.D., & Maurer, J.J. (2023). Conditions necessary for the transfer of antimicrobial resistance in poultry litter. Antibiotics, 12(6), article number 1006. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12061006.
[21] Rothrock, M.J., Jr, Davis, M.L., Locatelli, A., Bodie, A., McIntosh, T.G., Donaldson, J.R., & Ricke, S.C. (2017). Listeria occurrence in poultry flocks: Detection and potential implications. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4, article number 125. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00125.
[22] Sadhukhan, S.K. (2022). Prevention and control of parasitic zoonoses. In S.C. Parija & A. Chaudhury (Eds.), Textbook of parasitic zoonoses (pp. 83-90). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-7204-0_9.
[23] Seyedtaghiya, M.H., Fasaei, B.N., & Peighambari, S.M. (2021). Antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of Satureja hortensis essential oil against Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from poultry. Iranian Journal of Microbiology, 13(1), 74-80. doi: 10.18502/ijm.v13i1.5495.
[24] Shkromada, O., Fotina, T., Dudnyk, Y., Petrov, R., Levytska, V., Chivanov, V., Bogatko, N., Pikhtirova, A., & Bordun, O. (2022). Reducing the biogenic corrosion of concrete in a pigsty by using disinfectants. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(6(118), 57-66. doi: 10.15587/1729-4061.2022.263310.
[25] Sieńkowska, M., Dzierżanowska-Góryń, D., & Albera-Łojek, A. (2019). Evaluation of companion animal substrates in the light of surveys. Wiadomości Zootechniczne, 57(2), 112-128.
[26] Sorour, H.K., Shalaby, A.G., Abdelmagid, M.A., & Hosny, R.A. (2023). Characterization and pathogenicity of multidrug-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolates in chickens. International Microbiology, 26, 9891000. doi: 10.1007/s10123-023-00354-0.
[27] Suwannarach, N., Kumla, J., Zhao, Y., & Kakumyan, P. (2022). Impact of cultivation substrate and microbial community on improving mushroom productivity: A review. Biology, 11(4), article number 569. doi: 10.3390/ biology11040569.
[28] Swelum, A.A., Elbestawy, A.R., El-Saadony, M.T., Hussein, E.O.S., Alhotan, R., Suliman, G.M., Taha, A.E., Ba-Awadh, H., El-Tarabily, K.A., & Abd El-Hack, M.E. (2021). Ways to minimize bacterial infections, with special reference to Escherichia coli, to cope with the first-week mortality in chicks: An updated overview. Poultry Science, 100(5), article number 101039. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101039.
[29] Wang, Y., Jiang, J., Fotina, H., Zhang, H., & Chen, J. (2020). Advances in antibody preparation techniques for immunoassays of total aflatoxin in food. Molecules, 25(18), article number 4113. doi: 10.3390/ molecules25184113.
[30] Winkler, S., Coufal, C., Harmel, D., Martin, E., Brooks, J.P., Popham, S., & Gentry, T.J. (2017). Within-house spatial distribution of fecal indicator bacteria in poultry litter. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46(5), 1003-1009. doi: 10.2134/jeq2017.05.0188.