Determination of morphological characteristics of bacterial isolates in hatching eggs

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine the morphological characteristics of bacterial isolates in hatching eggs. For this purpose, 1920 hatching eggs were obtained from breeding commercial enterprise and 35 eggs were taken at random. Egg samples were scanned with sterile cotton-tipped swaps to provide bacterial load. Colonies which are different from each other according to morphology and coloring have been determined. Vitek® 2 Advanced Colorimetry ™ device was used to determine the biochemical properties of the bacterial isolates. As a result of research, 15 isolates of 16 isolates were identified and 13 different bacterial species were obtained. From the bacterial isolates, TB3-1 was found to be 99% of Streptococcus pneumoniae, TB5-1, TB7-1 ve TB16-1 was found to be 99% of Staphylococcus xylosus, TB6-1 was found to be %99 of Micrococcus luteus, TB8-1 was found to be 95% of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius bacteria. Also, TB9-1 was found to be %95 Kocuria rosea, TB10-1 was found to be %96 Globicatella sulfidifaciens, TB1-1 was found to be %98 Staphylococcus simulans bacteria. In same way, TB12-1 ve TB13-1 was found to be %98 Aerococcus viridans, TB14-1 was found to be %98 Staphylococcus equorum, TB14-2 was found to be %90 Pantoea spp, TB2-1 was found to be %99 Dermacoccus nishinomiyaensis, TB0-1 was found to be %99 Escherichia coli bacteria. As a result of the research, it was seen that the eggs were infected with bacteria in different ways, even though the source was different. Therefore, it was very important that the eggs were effectively disinfected before eggs enter the hatchery and eggs were placed in incubator.

Keywords

• Hen egg,Hatchery,Disinfectant,Bacterial isolate

Kuluçkalık yumurtalarda bulunan bakteriyel izolatların morfolojik özelliklerinin belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, kuluçkalık yumurtalarda bulunan bakteriyel izolatların morfolojik özelliklerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla damızlık bir işletmeden temin edilen 1920 adet kuluçkalık yumurtalardan rastgele 35 adet seçilmiştir. Yumurta örnekleri steril pamuk uçlu swaplarla yüzeylerinden taranarak bakteri yüklenmesi sağlanmıştır. Morfolojisine ve rengine göre birbirinden farklı olan koloniler belirlenmiştir. Bakteriyel izolatların biyokimyasal özelliklerinin belirlenmesinde Vitek® 2 Advanced Colorimetry™ cihazı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda 16 izolatın 15’i tanımlanmış ve 13 farklı bakteri türü elde edilmiştir. Bakteriyel izolatlardan TB3-1’in % 99 oranında Streptococcus pneumoniae, TB5-1, TB7-1 ve TB16-1’nın % 99 oranında Staphylococcus xylosus, TB6-1’nın % 99 oranında Micrococcus luteus ve TB8-1’inin ise % 95 oranında Staphylococcus pseudintermedius bakteri olduğu tespit edilmiştir. TB9-1’in % 95 oranında Kocuria rosea, TB10-1’in % 96 oranında Globicatella sulfidifaciens ve TB1-1’in % 98 oranında Staphylococcus simulans bakteri olduğu belirlenmiştir. TB12-1 ve TB13-1’in % 98 oranlarında Aerococcus viridans, TB14-1’in % 98 oranında Staphylococcus equorum,     TB14-2’inin % 90 oranında Pantoea spp, TB2-1’in % 99 oranında Dermacoccus nishinomiyaensis ve TB0-1’in % 99 oranında Escherichia coli bakteri olduğu saptanmıştır. Araştırma neticesinde bakterilerin kaynağı farklı olsa da değişik yollarla yumurtalara bulaştığı görülmektedir. Bu nedenle yumurtaların kuluçkahaneye girmeden ve gelişim makinelerine yerleştirilmeden önce etkin bir şekilde dezenfekte edilmelerinin oldukça önemli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Tavuk yumurtası,Kuluçkahane,Dezenfektan,Bakteriyel izolat

References

1. Attien P, Sina, H, Moussaoui W, Dadié T, Chabi Sika K, Djéni T, Bankole HS, Kotchoni SO, Edoh V, Prévost G, Djè M, Baba-Moussa L (2013) Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus strains isolated from meat products sold in Abidjan streets (Ivory Coast). African Journal Microbiology Research, 7(26): 3285-3293.
2. Benson HJ (1985) Microbiological Applications: A Laboratory Manual in General Microbiology, 4th ed. W. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.
3. Çadırcı S (2009) Disinfection of hatching eggs by formaldehyde fumigation – a review. Archive Geflügelkunde, 73 (2): 116–123.
4. Chute HL, Gershman M (1961) A new approach to hatchery sanitation. Poultry Science, 40: 468-571.
5. Cox HU, Newman, SS, Roy AF, Hoskins JD (1984) Species of Staphylococcus isolated from animal infections. Cornell Veterinary, 74: 124-135.
6. De Campos, A, Marconato JC, Martinsfranchetti SM (2011) Biodegradation of blend films PVA/PVC, PVA/PCL in soil and soil with landfill leachate. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 54(6): 1367-1378.
7. Elibol O (2014) Embriyo gelişimi ve kuluçka: Tavukçuluk Bilimi Yetiştirme, Besleme ve Hastalıklar, Editörler: Türkoğlu, M., Sarıca, M., Genişletilmiş 4. Baskı, Bey Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara, s. 165-206.
8. Ernst RA, Bickford AA, Glick-Smith J (1980) Microbiological monitoring of hatcheries and hatching eggs. Poultry Science, 59: 1604.

9. Kaban G, Kaya M (2007) Staphylococcus xylosus ve Lactobacillus plantarum Suşlarının Sucuğun Duyusal Özellikleri ve Renk Değerleri Üzerine Etkileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1): 83-89.
10. Kılıç A, Başustaoğlu A, Özyurt M, Güney Ç, Aydoğan H (2001) Klinik örneklerden izole edilen Streptococcus pneumoniae suşlarının penisilin direnci ve diğer antibiyotiklere duyarlılıkları. İnfeksiyon Dergisi, 15(2): 243-247.
11. Miller AO, Buckwalter SP, Henry MW, Wu F, Maloney KF, Abraham BK, Hartman BJ, Brause BD, Whittier S, Walsh TJ, Schuetz AN (2017) Globicatella sanguinis Osteomyelitis and Bacteremia: Review of an Emerging Human Pathogen with an Expanding Spectrum of Disease. Open Forum Infections Disease, 4(1): 277.
12. Perreten V, Kadlec K, Schwarz S, Grönlund Andersson U, Finn M, Greko C (2010) Clonal spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in Europe and North America: an international multicentre study. Journal Antimicrob Chemother, 65(6): 1145-1154.
13. Plewa K, Lonc-Copd E (2011) Analysis of airborne contamination with bacteria and moulds in poultry farming: a case study, Polish Journal of Environmental Study, 20(3): 725-731.
14. Razauskas M, Couto N, Pavilonis, A, Klimiene I, Siugzdiniene R, Virgailis M, Vaskeviciute L, Anskiene L, Pomba C (2016) Characterization of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from diseased dogs in Lithuania. Polish Journal of Veterinary Science, 19(1): 7–14.
15. Riley W, Remis RS, Helgerson SD, McGee HB, Wells JG, Davis BR, Hebert RJ, Olcott ES, Johnson LM, Hargrett NT, Blake PA, Cohen ML (1983) Hemorrhagic colitis associated with a rare Escherichia coli serotype. New England Journal Medicine, 308: 681-685.
16. Sheldon B. W, Ball J (1986) Efficacy of ozon disinfection in poultry hatcheries. Industry Summary report 119, Southheastern poultry and egg association, Decatum. G.A.
17. Schleifer KH, Kilpper-Bälz R, Devries LA (1984) Staphylococcus arlettae sp. nov., S. equorum sp. nov. and S. k1oosii sp. nov.: Three New Coagulase-Negative, Novobiocin-Resistant Species from Animals. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 5(4): 501-509.
18. Suzzi G, Gardini F (2003) Biogenic Amines in Dry Fermented Sausages: A Review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 88(1): 41-54.
19. Tarr PI (1995) Escherichia coli O157:H7: clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological aspects of human infection. Clinical Infections Disease, 20: 1-10.
20. Turtura GC, Lorenzelli P (1994) Gram-positive cocci isolated from slaughtered poultry. Microbiological Research, 149(2): 203-213.
21. Ünsaldı E, Çiftçi MK (2010) Formaldehit, kullanım alanları, risk grubu, zararlı etkileri ve koruyucu önlemler. YYÜ Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1): 71-75.
22. Verweij PE, Breuker IM, Rijs AJ (1999) Comparative study of seven commercial yeast identification systems. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 52: 271- 273.
23. Vidal L, Christen P, Coello MN (2000) Feather degradation by Kocuria rosea in submerged culture. World Journal Microbiology Biotechnology, 16: 551-554.