Research Article Open Access

A New Approach to Evaluate the Hygienic Condition of Commercial Hatcheries

Authors

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Z. Moustafa Gehan
Department of Veterinary Hygiene and Management,Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Published on: October 15, 2009
DOI 10.3923/ijps.2009.1047.1051
PDF

Abstract

Hatchery hygiene was evaluated in two commercial broiler hatcheries using open-plate method, surface swabbing and microbiological examination of hatchery fluff. Air samples and surface swabs were collected from: inside the hatch unit, the corridor outside the hatch unit and the chick processing room, while, fluff samples were collected after hatching from the hatch unit and the chick processing room. After cleaning and disinfection process of the hatch, four commercial disinfectants were evaluated for their effectiveness for controlling the hatchery contaminants, TH4®(combination of glutaraldehyde + quaternary ammonium compound), Virucidal extra® (chlorine preparation), Advantage 256® (phenolics) and Perasan® (per-acetic acid). The obtained results indicated that surface swabbing and microbiological examination of hatch fluff could detect higher degree of contamination than open-plate method in the two investigated hatcheries. Per-acetic acid preparations and (glutaraldehyde + quaternary ammonium compound) could reduce completely hatchery contaminants after 30 min of application. Conclusively, open-plate method is easy to perform and inexpensive but may give false indication that the air is clean when it is not. So, surface swabbing and microbiological examination of hatch fluff are more reliable methods for evaluating the hygienic status of a hatchery. Moreover, Surface swabbing method is more accurate than open-plate method in evaluating the decontamination process of the hatch. Hatchery sanitation and the proper use of effective disinfectant are essential for successful operation of any commercial poultry hatchery. Per-acetic acid and (glutaraldehyde + quaternary ammonium compound) proved their efficiency in controlling hatchery contaminants and can be used as safe alternatives to formalin in poultry hatcheries.

Keywords:

Fluff, hatchery hygiene, open-plate methods, perasan, TH4

Article Metrics

206 Abstract Views
141 File Views
0 Downloads

License

Copyright (c) 2009 Asian Network for Scientific Information

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Article Citation Metrics

Find A New Approach to Evaluate the Hygienic Condition of Commercial Hatcheries on PlumX

How to Cite

Gehan, Z. M. (2009). A New Approach to Evaluate the Hygienic Condition of Commercial Hatcheries. International Journal of Poultry Science, 8(11), 1047–1051. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2009.1047.1051
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

1.
Bauermeister, L.J., J.W. Bowers, J.C. Townsend and S.R. Mckee, 2008. Validating the efficacy of per acetic acid mixture as an antimicrobial in poultry chillers. J. Food Prot., 71: 119-122.
2.
Berrang, E., N.A. Cox and J.S. Bailey, 1995. Measuring air-borne microbial contamination of broiler hatching cabinets. J. Applied Poult. Res., 4: 83-87.
3.
Chen, S.J., T.E. Lee, E.M. Wang, T.J. Cho and C.H. Wang, 2002. Monitoring the hygene of chicken hatcheries in Taiwan during 1999-2001. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect., 35: 236-242.
4.
Chute, H.S. and M. Gershman, 1961. A new approach to hatchery sanitation. Poult. Sci., 70: 1092-1098.
5.
Davies, R.H. and C. Wray, 1994. An approach to reduction of salmonella infection in broiler chicken flocks through intensive sampling and identification of cross-contamination hazards in commercial hatcheries. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 24: 147-160.
6.
Deeba, F., H. Afzal, M. Siddique and F.M. Khan, 2003. Bacteriological monitoring of hatcheries fluff and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates. Pak. Vet. J., 23: 15-18.
7.
Ernst, R.E., 1987. Microbiological monitoring of hatchery and hatching egg sanitation. World`s Poult. Sci. J., 43: 56-63.
8.
Furuta, K. and S. Maruyama, 1981. Bacterial contamination on eggs during incubation and hatching and of fluffs of newly-hatched chicks. Br. Poult. Sci., 22: 247-254.
9.
Gentry, R.F., M. Mitrovic and G.E. Bubash, 1962. Application of Anderson sampler in hatchery sanitation. Poult. Sci., 41: 794-804.
10.
Kaskova, A., O. Ondrasovicova, M. Vargova, M. Ondrasovic and J. Venglovsky, 2007. Application of per acetic acid and quaternary ammonium disinfectants as a part of sanitary treatment in a poultry house and poultry processing plant. Zoonoses Public Health, 54: 125-130.
11.
Kungu, J., 2007. Taking air samples for mold testing: Settle plate method. Mold and Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL).
12.
MacFaddin, J.F., 1980. Biochemical Tests for Identification of Medical Bacteria. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore.
13.
Magwood, S.E. and H. Marr, 1964. Studies in hatchery sanitation. 2. A simplified method assessing bacterial populations on surfaces within hatcheries. Poult. Sci., 43: 1558-1566.
14.
McDonnell, G. and A.D. Russell, 2001. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action and resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 14: 227-227.
15.
Moubarak, S.T., 2007. Microbiological monitoring of hatchery sanitation. Egypt. J. Biomed. Sci., 24: 94-105.
16.
Nichols, A.A., C.W. Leaver and J.J. Panes, 1967. Hatchery hygiene evaluation as measured by microbiological examination of samples of fluff. Br. Poult. Sci., 8: 297-310.
17.
Ramesh, N., S.W. Joseph, L.E. Carr, L.W. Douglass and F.W. Wheaton, 2002. Evaluation of chemical disinfectants for the elimination of Salmonella biofilms from poultry transport containers. Poult. Sci., 81: 904-910.
18.
Rodgers, J.D., J.J. McCullagh, P.T. McNamee, J.A. Smyth and H.J. Ball, 2001. An investigation into the efficacy of hatchery disinfectants against strains of staphylococcus aureus associated with poultry industry. Vet. Microbiol., 82: 131-140.
19.
Rodgers, J.D., J.J. McCullagh, P.T. McNamee, C. Bell, N. Brice, J.A. Smyth and H.J. Ball, 2003. An investigation into the efficacy of hatchery disinfectants against strains of StaphyLococcus aureus associated with the poultry industry. Vet. Record., 153: 656-657.
20.
Sander, J.E. and J.L. Wilson, 1999. Effect of hydrogen peroxide disinfection during incubation of chicken eggs on microbial levels and productivity. Avian Dis., 43: 227-233.
21.
Sander, J.E., C.L. Hofacre, I.H. Cehg and R.D. Wyatt, 2002. Investigation of resistance of bacteria from commercial poultry sources to commercial disinfectants. Avian Dis., 46: 997-1000.
22.
Shane, S.M., 1993. Use of Reuter centrifugal air sampler to monitor the microbial level in hatcheries. J. Applied Poult. Res., 2: 249-252.
23.
Sheldon, B.W. and J. Brake, 1991. Hydrogen peroxide as an alternative hatching egg disinfectant. Poult. Sci., 70: 1092-1098.
24.
Soliman, E.S., M.A.A. Sobeih, Z.H. Ahmad, M.M. Hussein and H.A.A. Moneim, 2009. Evaluation of commercial disinfectants against bacterial pathogens isolated from broiler farms. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 8: 728-732.
25.
Suweify, H.A., 1999. Studies on the effectiveness of selective disinfectants for disinfection of poultry houses with special reference to aerosol disinfection. M.Sc. Thesis, Veterinary Hygiene, Assiut University, Egypt.
26.
Willinghan, E.M., J.E. Sander, S.G. Thayer and J.L. Wilson, 1996. Investigation of bacterial resistance to hatchery disinfectant. Avian Dis., 40: 510-515.

Most read articles by the same author(s)