RESEARCH PAPER
Comparison of Campylobacter spp. and flock health indicators of broilers in Iceland
Michal Seman 1, 2
,   Gabriela Gregova 1  
,   Peter Korim 1
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Košice, Slovak Republic
2
Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority (MAST), Iceland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Gabriela Gregova   

University of veterinary medicine and pharmacy in Košice, Komenskeho, 04181, Košice, Slovak Republic
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The safety of poultry meat products and contamination with microorganisms is based on appropriate reduction of the presence of pathogens during poultry rearing and is closely related to the level of rearing hygiene, including the type of housing, stocking density, microclimate, sanitation and ventilation.

Objective:
The aim of the study is to evaluate the prevalence of Campylobacter-positive samples in Iceland during 2016–2018, and to compare the potential influence of individual parameters of welfare on the prevalence of Campylobacter spp.

Material and methods:
Positivity of excrement and caecum samples for Campylobacter spp. was determined according to ISO 10272–1: 2006 and 2017. Data of welfare indicators were collected during the rearing period and in the slaughterhouse.

Results:
Considerable seasonality was observed in the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. The prevalence of campylobacteriosis on the investigated broiler farms was significantly higher (p ˂0.05) during the summer. Comparison of welfare parameters on Campylobacter-positive and Campylobacter-negative farms failed to indicate a significantly higher level of observed welfare indicators in birds from Campylobacter-positive farms (p˃0.05). In comparing small, medium and big farms, a significantly higher occurrence was observed (p<0.05) of the FPD score over 40, stocking density, and the average slaughter weight, and percentage of mortality over 2% in small farms.

Conclusions:
Intensive management and the environment affect the welfare of poultry and its resistance to infections (Campylobacteriosis) and thus increase the health risk. Checking the welfare parameters in a slaughter house provides delayed improvement of the environment on farms, but it can also lead to changes in the following production cycles (decreasing of stocking density).

 
REFERENCES (30)
1.
RSPCA (2017). RSPCA welfare standards for chickens. https://www.berspcaassured.org... (access: 2019.12.1).
 
2.
EFSA 2010, Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal, 2010; 8: 7.
 
3.
Gottstein B, Pozio E, Nöckler K. Epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and control of trichinellosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009; 22(1): 127–145.
 
4.
EFSA SCIENTIFIC REPORT The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2016. EFSA J. 2017; 15(12): 5077, doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5077.
 
5.
Murphy D, Jolly C, MacDonald S, Troughton R. Myocarditis associated with Campylobacter jejuni. N Z Med J. 2013; 126(1375): 95–98.
 
6.
Sibanda N, Mckenna A, Richmond A, Ricke SC, Callaway T, Stratakos ACH, et al. A Review of the Effect of Management Practices on Campylobacter Prevalence in Poultry Farms. Front Microbiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.... (access: 2019.12.1).
 
7.
Bull SA, Allen VM, Domingue G, Jorgensen F, Frost JA, Ure R, et al. Sources of Campylobacter spp. colonizing housed broiler flocks during rearing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006; 72(1): 645–652.
 
8.
Stern NJ, Meinersmann RJ, Cox NA, Bailey JS, Blankenship LC. Influence of host lineage on caecal colonization by Campylobacter jejuni in chickens. Avian Dis. 1990; 34(3): 602–606.
 
9.
Newell DG, Fearnley C. Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003; 69(8): 4343–4351.
 
10.
Ridley AM, Morris VK, Cawthraw SA, Iversen JE, Harris JA, Kennedy EM, et al. Longitudinal molecular epidemiological study of thermophilic campylobacters on one conventional broiler chicken farm. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011; 77(1): 98–107.
 
11.
Messens W, Herman L, De Zutter L, Heyndrickx M. Multiple typing for the epidemiological study of contamination of broilers with thermotolerant Campylobacter. Vet Microbiol. 2009; 138(1–2): 120–131.
 
12.
McDowell SW, Menzies FD, McBride SH, Oza AN, McKenna JP, Gordon AW, et al. Campylobacter spp. in conventional broiler flocks in Northern Ireland: epidemiology and risk factors. Prev Vet Med. 2008; 15(84): 261–276.
 
13.
Stern NJ, Reiersen J, Lowman R, Bisaillon JR, Fridriksdottir V, Gunnarsson E, et al. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in cecal contents among commercial broilers in Iceland. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2005; 2(1): 82–89.
 
14.
Humphrey T. Are happy chickens safer chickens? Poultry welfare and disease susceptibility. Br Poult Sci. 2006; 47(4): 379–391.
 
15.
Barrios PR, Reiersen J, Lowman R, Bisaillon JR, Michel P, Fridriksdóttir V, et al. Risk factors for Campylobacter spp. colonization in broiler flocks in Iceland. Prev Vet Med. 2006; 74(4): 264–278.
 
16.
de Jong IC, van Harn J, Gunnink H, Hindle VA, Lourens A. Footpad dermatitis in Dutch broiler flocks: Prevalence and factors of influence. Poult Sci. 2012; 91(9): 1569–1574.
 
17.
Welfare Quality 2009. The Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). The Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
 
18.
EN ISO 10272-1:2006 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs — Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. — Part 1: Detection method.
 
19.
EN ISO 10272-1:2017 Microbiology of food and animal feed – Horizontal method for detection and determination of the counts of Campylobacter spp. – Part 1: Method of detection.
 
20.
EN ISO 10272–2:2006 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs — Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. — Part 2: Colony-count technique.
 
21.
EN ISO 10272-2:2017 Microbiology of the food chain — Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. — Part 2: Colony-count technique.
 
22.
NMKL 119, (NORDVAL INTERNATIONAL), 3. eddition, 2007, Thermotolerant Campylobacter. Detection, semi-quantitative and quantitative determination in foods and drinking water.
 
23.
Stern NJ, Hiett KL, Alfredsson GA, Kristinsson KG, Reiersen J, Hardardottir H, et al. Campylobacter spp. in Icelandic poultry operations and human disease. Epidemiol Infect. 2003; 130(1): 23–32.
 
24.
Bořilová G, Svobodová I, Steinhauserová I, Gallas L. Occurrence of selected intestinal pathogens in slaughter chickens (In Czech). In Veterinářství. 2008; 58: 721–725.
 
25.
Lake IR, Colón-González FJ, Takkinen J, Rossi M, Sudre B, Gomes Dias J, et al. Exploring Campylobacter seasonality across Europe using The European Surveillance System (TESSy), 2008 to 2016 Euro Surveill. 2019; 24(13): 1800028. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.13.180028.
 
26.
Alpigiani I, Abrahantes JC, Michel V, Huneau-Salaün A, Chemaly M, Keeling LJ, et al. Associations between animal welfare indicators and Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens under commercial settings: A case study. Prev Vet Med. 2017; 1(147): 186–193.
 
27.
Jacobs L, Delezie E, Duchateau L, Goethals K, Tuyttens FA. Broiler chickens dead on arrival: associated risk factors and welfare indicators. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(2): 259–265.
 
28.
Farhadi D, Hosseini SM, Dezfuli BT. Effect of house type on growth performance, litter quality and incidence of foot lesions in broiler chickens reared in varying stocking density. J Biosci Bioeng. 2016; 5(1): 69–78.
 
29.
Dawkins MS, Donnelly CA, Jones TA. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature. 2004; 427: 342–344.
 
30.
Jones TA, Donnelly CA, Dawkins MS. Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poult Sci. 2005; 84: 1155–1165.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966