Year 2020, Volume 3 , Issue 2, Pages 64 - 70 2020-04-01

Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns

Müge ERKAN CAN [1]

In all type farms, animal health and the environment represents a major component, besides feeding, genetics and management quality. A healthy animal can only be grown in health and hygienic conditions. Health and environmental hygiene should not be ignored feature of the all types of farm production process quality. Animal health and care can be solved by prevention applications, vaccination strategies, disease reduction precautions and risk management approaches. Animal health - care management strategies and risk applications, several animal hygiene issues, have not been widely adopted and it is not known to most businesses yet. Appropriate animal health-care takes into consideration not only the zootechnical and veterinary affairs, but also the disease aspects and environmental hygiene conditions, economic relevances and furthermore product-production process quality related features. Enterprise-level hygiene covering all farm units is an important indicator of welfare for farm animals and is mostly dependent on facilities, management strategies of enterprise owners, climate conditions, and the behavior of the animals. According to the information given above, the objective of this study is to determine the associations between farm animal (cattle, sheep and chicken) behaviors, barn hygiene, animal hygiene, environmental conditions and the qualities of experiencing in Turkey.
Farm animals, Animal barns, Environment, Hygiene conditions
  • Alexopoulos A, Tzatzimakis G, Bezirtzoglou E, Plessas S, Stavropoulou E, Sinapis E, Abas Z. 2011. Microbiological quality and related factors of sheep milk produced in farms of NE Greece. Anaerobe 17 (2011) 276-279.
  • BAMN, 2001. An introduction to infectious disease control on dairy farms (biosecurity) & biosecurity on dairies. Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition (BAMN). Biosecurity on Dairies.
  • Bojesen AM, Nielsen SS, Bisgaard M. 2010. Prevalence and transmission of haemolytic Gallibacterium species in chicken production systems with different biosecurity levels. Avian Pathol. 32:503–510
  • Caroprese M. 2008. Sheep housing and welfare. Small Ruminant Research.Volume 76, Issues 1–2, April 2008, p. 21-25.
  • CRWL, 2000. Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock; Sheep. Accessed July 2019.
  • Davidson TJ, Dohoo IR, Donald AW, Hariharan H, Collins K. 1992. A cohort study of coagulase negaative staphylococcal mastitis in selected dairy herdss in Prince Edward Island. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 56: 275-280.
  • De Haas Y, Barkema HW, Veerkamp RF. 2002. The effect of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on the lactation curve for somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 1314-1323.
  • De Palo P, Tateo A, Zezza F, Corrente M, Centoducati P. 2006. Influence of free-stall flooring on comfort and hygiene of dairy cows during warm climatic conditions. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 4583–4595.
  • DeVries, TJ, Aarnoudse MG, Barkema HW, Leslie KE, von Keyserlingk MAG. 2012. Associations of dairy cow behavior, barn hygiene, cow hygiene and risk of elevated somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci. 95: 5730–5739.
  • Dwyer CM. 2009. Welfare of sheep: Providing for welfare in an extensive environment. Small Ruminant ResearchVolume 86, Issues 1–3, October 2009, Pages 14-21.
  • Erkan Can M. 2019. Evaluation of Anımal Drinking Water Quality of Cattle Enterprises. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Volume 28 – No. 4A/2019 pages 3527-3535.
  • FAO and OIE, 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) /World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Guıde to Good Farmıng Practices for Animal Production Food Safety. Rome, 2010. FAO E-ISBN 978-92-5-006145-0 (pdf), OIE ISBN 978-92-9044-819-8.
  • Folorunso OR, Kayode S, Onibon VO. 2014. Poultry farm hygiene: microbiological quality assessment of drinking water used in layer chickens managed under the battery cage and deep litter systems at three poultry farms in southwestern Nigeria. Pak J Biol Sci. 2014 Jan 1;17(1):74-9.
  • Gibbens JC, Pascoe SJS, Evans SJ, Davies RH, Sayers AR. 2001. A trial of biosecurity as a means to control Campylobacter infection of broiler chickens. Prev. Vet. Med. 48:85– 99.
  • Harmon RJ. 1994. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 77:2103-2112.
  • Hartung J, Schulz J. 2011. Occupational and environmental risks caused by bio-aerosols in and from farm animal houses. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal, Manuscript No.1173. 13: 1-8.
  • Hauge SJ, Kielland C, Ringdal G, Skjerve E, Nafstad O. 2012. Factors associated with cattle cleanliness on Norwegian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(5): 2485–2496.
  • Hogan J. 2005. Controlling coliform mastitis. Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference,Stoneleigh,p.53-59.
  • Hogan J, Smith KL. 2003. Coliform mastitis. Veterinary Research 34:507-519.
  • Honkanen-Buzalski T, Griffin TK, Dodd FH. 1984. Observation on Corynebacterium bovis infection of the bovine mammary gland. I.Natural Infection Journal of Dairy Research 51: 371-378.
  • Hultgren J, Bergsten C. 2001. Effects of a rubber-slatted flooring system on cleanliness and foot health in tied dairy cows. Prev.Vet. Med. 52:75–89.
  • Jonsson P, Olsson SO, Olofson AS, Falth C, Holmberg O, Funke H. 1991. Bacteriological investigations of clinical mastitis in heifers in Sweden. Journal of Dairy Research 58: 179-185.
  • Kirk J, Mellenberger R. 2001. Mastitis control programme for Pseudomonas mastitis in dairy cows.
  • Kirk JH, Bartlett PC. 1984. Nonclinical Psuedomonas aeruginosa mastitis in a dairy herd. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 184:671-673.
  • Köseman A, Şeker İ. 2016. Current Status of Cattle Farms in Malatya: II. Biosecurity Applications in Animal Health and Stable Hygene Perspective (Malatya İlinde Sığırcılık İşletmelerinin Mevcut Durumu:II. Hayvan Sağlığı ve Ahır Hijyeni Perspektifinde Biyogüvenlik Uygulamaları - In Turkish) Kocatepe Vet J (2016) 9(2): 61-69.
  • Kymäläinen HR, Kuisma R. 2014. Hygiene of environmental surfaces in a cattle barn. Agric. Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 16(1): 45-54.
  • Lamsal P. 2018. Cattle Hygiene Status and Its Relation with Subclinical Mastitis: A Study in Commercial Farms in Rampur, Nepal. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. Vol 6(3): 252-254. DOI: 10.3126/ijasbt.v6i3.21180
  • Liljebjelke KA, Hofacre CL, Liu T, White DG, Ayers S, Young S, Maurere JJ. 2005. Vertical and horizontal transmission of Salmonella within integrated broiler production system. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2:90–102.
  • Madelin TM, Wathes CM. 2007. Air hygiene in a broiler house: Comparison of deep litter with raised netting floors. Journal British Poultry Science. 30:23-37 DOI: 10.1080/00071668908417122
  • Mead GC. 1995. Hygiene Problems and Control of Process Contamination. In: Mead G.C. (eds) Processing of Poultry. Springer, Boston, MA DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-2059-7_6 Online ISBN; 978-1-4615-2059-7.
  • Meroz M, Samberg Y. 1995. Disinfecting poultry production premises. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 14(2):273-291.
  • Nielsen HL, Mogensen L, Krohn C, Hindhede J, Sorensen JT. 1997. Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Appl.Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:307–316.
  • O’Driscoll K. 2009. Effect of housing systems on Dairy Cow Hygiene and under health. Sustainable Animal Production. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Pages 107-119. DOI: 10.390/978-90-8686-685-4. Accessed July 2019.
  • Osimani A, Aquilanti L, Pasquini M, Clementi F. 2017. Prevalence and risk factors for thermotolerant species of Campylobacter in poultry meat at retail in Europe. Poult. Sci. 96:3382– 3391.
  • Petersson_wolfe CS, Wolf SL, Hogan JS. 2007. In vitro growth of Enterococci of bovine origin in bovine mammary secretions from various stages of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 4226-4231.
  • Roger PA. 2008. The impact of disease and disease prevention on sheep welfare. Small Ruminant Research 76 (2008) 104–111.
  • Ruud LE, Kielland C, Østerås O, Bøe KE. 2011. Free-stall cleanliness is affected by stall design. Livestock Science, 135(2-3): 265–273.
  • Sant’Anna AC, Paranhos da Costa MJR. 2011. The relationship between dairy cow hygiene and somatic cell count in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 94 :3835–3844. Schreiner DA, Ruegg PL. 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 86:3460–3465.
  • Smith KL, Todhunter DA, Schoenberger PS. 1985. Environmental mastitis: cause, prevalence, prevention. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1531-1553.
  • Tablante NL, Myint MS, Johnson YJ, Rhodes K, Colby M, Hohenhaus G. 2002. A survey of biosecurity practices as risk factors affecting broiler performance on the Delmarva Peninsula. Avian Dis. 46:730–734
  • Van De G Iessen AW, Ilburg JJHC, Itmeester TWSR, Van Der Plas J. 1998. Reduction of campylobacter infections in broiler flocks by application of hygiene measures. Epidemiol. Infect., 121, 57–66.
  • Zdanowicz M, Shelford JA, Tucker CB, Weary DM, Von Keyserlingk MAG. 2004. Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free-stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1694–1701.
  • Zurbrigg K, Kelton D, Anderson N, Millman S. 2005. Tie-stall design and its relationship to lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3201–3210.
Primary Language en
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Reviews

Orcid: 0000-0002-0744-1496
Author: Müge ERKAN CAN (Primary Author)
Country: Turkey


Publication Date : April 1, 2020

Bibtex @review { bsengineering628540, journal = {Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science}, issn = {}, eissn = {2619-8991}, address = {}, publisher = {Uğur ŞEN}, year = {2020}, volume = {3}, pages = {64 - 70}, doi = {10.34248/bsengineering.628540}, title = {Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns}, key = {cite}, author = {ERKAN CAN, Müge} }
APA ERKAN CAN, M . (2020). Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science , 3 (2) , 64-70 . DOI: 10.34248/bsengineering.628540
MLA ERKAN CAN, M . "Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns". Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 3 (2020 ): 64-70 <>
Chicago ERKAN CAN, M . "Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns". Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 3 (2020 ): 64-70
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns AU - Müge ERKAN CAN Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - doi: 10.34248/bsengineering.628540 DO - 10.34248/bsengineering.628540 T2 - Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 64 EP - 70 VL - 3 IS - 2 SN - -2619-8991 M3 - doi: 10.34248/bsengineering.628540 UR - Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns %A Müge ERKAN CAN %T Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns %D 2020 %J Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science %P -2619-8991 %V 3 %N 2 %R doi: 10.34248/bsengineering.628540 %U 10.34248/bsengineering.628540
ISNAD ERKAN CAN, Müge . "Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns". Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 3 / 2 (April 2020): 64-70 .
AMA ERKAN CAN M . Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns. BSJ Eng. Sci.. 2020; 3(2): 64-70.
Vancouver ERKAN CAN M . Hygiene Conditions and Animal-Environment Relations in Farm Animals Barns. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science. 2020; 3(2): 70-64.