Ticari bir dezenfektanın broyler üretim kümeslerindeki etkinliğinin belirlenmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 90 Issue: 2, 92 - 97, 15.06.2019

Güzin İplikçioğlu Çil Bahar Onaran U. Tansel Şireli

https://doi.org/10.33188/vetheder.519658

Abstract

Etkili ve yeterli bir
sanitasyon programı kanatlı yetiştiriciliğinde biyogüvenliğin kritik
adımlarından biridir. Çalışmanın amacı, perasetik asit, hidrojen peroksit ve
didesil dimetil amonyum klorit içeren yeni bir ticari dezenfektanın, kümes
dezenfeksiyonunda etkinliğinin belirlenmesidir. Çalışma 3 farklı kümeste
yürütülmüştür. Kümeslerden biri kontrol grubu olarak kullanılmış ve
dezenfeksiyonu %16’lık gluteraldehit ile yapılmıştır. Diğer iki kümeste ise
ticari dezenfektan üreticinin önerisi doğrultusunda uygulanmıştır.
Dezenfeksiyon yapılmadan önce temizlikten 24 saat sonra, dezenfeksiyondan
sonra, civciv girişinden önce ve civciv girişinden sonra olmak üzere
yetiştirmenin farklı dönemlerinde örnekleme yapılmıştır. Üretim tipi ve üretim
için kritik görülebilecek yerler dikkate alınarak kümes içerisindeki farklı
noktalardan swap tekniği ile örnekler alınmıştır. Örnekler aerob genel canlı,
koliform, Enterobacteriaceae, koagulaz pozitif Staphylococccus, Salmonella spp.
ve E. coli yönünden analiz edilmiştir. Dezenfeksiyon sonrası çoğu noktada 2-4
log arası düşüşlerin olduğu gözlenmiştir. Kümeslerde koagulaz pozitif
Staphylococcus ve Salmonella spp.’ye rastlanmamıştır. Sonuç olarak
dezenfektanın kümeslerde istenilen seviyede hijyeni sağlayabildiği ancak fakat
üç farklı kümesteki hijyenik koşullar arasında bir fark olmadığı ortaya
konmuştur.

Keywords

Dezenfeksiyon, Dezenfektan, Broyler, Hijyen

Determination of the effectiveness of a commercial disinfectant in broiler production houses

Abstract

An effective and
adequate sanitation program is one of the critical steps in biosecurity in
poultry farming. The aim of this study was to control the hygienic conditions
of the broiler houses which’s disinfection was made with a commercial
disinfectant contains peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and didesil dimethyl
ammonium chloride. The study was conducted in 3 different broiler houses. One
of the broiler houses was used as a control group and disinfection was made
with 16 % gluteraldehyde. In the other two broiler houses commercial
disinfectant was used according to the manusfacturers recommendation. Samples
were taken from different periods of breeding; 24 hours after cleaning before
disinfection, after disinfection before chicks arrival and after chicks
arrival. Svap samples were taken from different points in the house considering
the places that can be critical for the production. Aerobic bacteria, coliform,
Enterobacteriaceae, coagulase
positive Staphylococccus, Salmonella spp. and E. coli were analyzed from the samples. It was observed that there
were 2-4 log decreases at most points after disinfection also, no coagulase
positive Staphylococcus and Salmonella spp. were detected. According
to the results, commercial disinfectant was found to be effective but there was
no difference detected between the hygienic conditions of the three broiler
houses.    

Keywords

Broiler, disinfectant, disinfection, hygiene

References

• Smith S, Messam LLMV, Meade J, Gibbons J, McGill K, Bolton D, Whyte P (2016): The impact of biosecurity and partial depopulation on Campylobacter prevalence in Irish broiler flocks with differing levels of hygiene and economic performance. Infect Ecol Epidemiol, 6, 31454.
• Taylor NM, Wales AD, Ridley AM, Davies RH (2016): Farm level risk factors for fluoroquinolone resistance in E. coli and thermophilic Campylobacter spp. on poultry farms. Avian Pathol, 45(5), 559–568.
• Mead GC (2000) Fresh and further-processed poultry. Microbiol Saf Qual Food. 1, 445-471.
• Djeffal S, Mamache B, Elgroud R, Hireche S, Bouaziz O (2018): Prevalence and risk factors for Salmonella spp. contamination in broiler chicken farms and slaughterhouses in the northeast of Algeria. Vet World, 11(8), 1102.
• Gehan ZM, Anwer W, Amer HM, EL-Sabagh IM, Rezk A, Badawy EM (2009): In vitro efficacy comparisons of disinfectants used in the commercial poultry farms. Int J Poult Sci, 8(3), 237-241.
• Juan MPA, Claudia, ENG, Alberto PP (2016): Biosecurity Control Systems in Two Phases for Poultry Farms. World Acad Sci, 10 (7), 424-429.
• Doyle MP, Erickson MC (2006): Reducing the carriage of foodborne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poult Sci, 85, 960–973.
• Kaskova A, Ondrasovicova O, Vargova M, Ondrasovic M, Venglovsky J (2007): Application of Peracetic Acid and Quarternary Ammonium Disinfectants as a Part of Sanitary Treatment in a Poultry House and Poultry Processing Plant. Zoo Pub Health, 54(3-4), 125–130.
• Gibson H, Taylor JH, Hall KE, Holah JT (1999): Effectiveness of cleaning techniques used in the food industry in terms of the removal of bacterial biofilms. J Appl Microbiol, 87, 41-48.
• Mueller-Doblies D, Carrique-Mas JJ, Sayers AR, Davies RH (2010): A comparison of the efficacy of different disinfection methods in eliminating Salmonella contamination from turkey houses. J Appl Microbiol, 109(2), 471–479.
• Logan M, Bartlet S (2001): Evaluation of coliform removal at ½ inch depth of poultry house floor using Impact-S process. Virginia:Environ Dyn, 41 p.
• Moore G, Griffith C (2002): A comparison of traditional and recently developed methods for monitoring surface hygiene within the food industry: An industry trial. Int J Environ Health Res, 12(4), 317-29.
• Ramesh N, Joseph SW, Carr LE, Douglass LW, Wheaton FW (2002): Evaluation of Chemical Disinfectants for the Elimination of Salmonella Biofilms from Poultry Transport Containers. Poult Sci, 81: 904–910.
• Barbalho TCF, Almeida PF, Almeida RCC, Hofer E (2005): Prevalence of Listeria spp. at a poultry processing plant in Brazil and a phage test for rapid confirmation of suspect colonies. Food Cont, 16(3), 211–216.