Chinivasagam Helene Nalini, Estella Wiyada, Finn Damien, Mayer David G, Rodrigues Hugh, Diallo Ibrahim
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Eco Sciences Precinct, Dutton Park QLD 4102, Australia.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Biosecurity Sciences Laboratory, Coopers Plains QLD 4108.
AIMS Microbiol. 2024 Jan 16;10(1):12-40. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024002. eCollection 2024.
A multi-stage option to address food-safety can be produced by a clearer understanding of 's persistence through the broiler production chain, its environmental niche and its interaction with bacteriophages. This study addressed levels, species, genotype, bacteriophage composition/ levels in caeca, litter, soil and carcasses across commercial broiler farming practices to inform on-farm management, including interventions. Broilers were sequentially collected as per company slaughter schedules over two-years from 17 farms, which represented four commercially adopted farming practices, prior to the final bird removal (days 39-53). The practices were conventional full clean-out, conventional litter re-use, free-range-full cleanout and free-range-litter re-use. Caeca, litter and soil collected on-farm, and representative carcases collected at the processing plant, were tested for levels, species dominance and bacteriophages. General community profiling via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of the gene was used to establish the population relationships between various farming practices on representative isolates. The farming practice choices did not influence the high caeca levels (log 7.5 to log 8.5 CFU/g), the carcass levels (log 2.5 to log 3.2 CFU/carcass), the / dominance and the on-farm bacteriophage presence/levels. A principal coordinate analysis of the distribution for farm and litter practices showed strong separation but no obvious farming practice related grouping of . Bacteriophages originated from select farms, were not practice-dependent, and were detected in the environment (litter) only if present in the birds (caeca). This multifaceted study showed no influence of farming practices on on-farm dynamics. The significance of this study means that a unified on-farm risk-management could be adopted irrespective of commercial practice choices to collectively address caeca levels, as well as the potential to include bacteriophage biocontrol. The impact of this study means that there are no constraints in re-using bedding or adopting free-range farming, thus contributing to environmentally sustainable (re-use) and emerging (free-range) broiler farming choices.
通过更清晰地了解[具体细菌名称]在肉鸡生产链中的持久性、其环境生态位以及它与噬菌体的相互作用,可以制定出一个多阶段的食品安全应对方案。本研究针对商业肉鸡养殖实践中盲肠、垫料、土壤和胴体中的[具体细菌名称]水平、种类、基因型、噬菌体组成/水平进行了研究,以为农场管理(包括干预措施)提供信息。在两年时间里,按照公司屠宰计划,从17个农场依次收集肉鸡,这些农场代表了四种商业采用的养殖方式,收集时间在最后一批鸡出栏前(第39 - 53天)。这些养殖方式分别是传统全清栏、传统垫料再利用、散养全清栏和散养垫料再利用。对农场收集的盲肠、垫料和土壤,以及在加工厂收集的代表性胴体,检测其[具体细菌名称]水平、种类优势和[具体细菌名称]噬菌体。通过对[具体细菌名称]基因进行变性梯度凝胶电泳的一般群落分析,来确定代表性[具体细菌名称]分离株在不同养殖方式之间的种群关系。养殖方式的选择并未影响盲肠中较高的[具体细菌名称]水平(log 7.5至log 8.5 CFU/g)、胴体水平(log 2.5至log 3.2 CFU/胴体)、[具体细菌名称]/优势以及农场中噬菌体的存在/水平。对农场和垫料养殖方式的[具体细菌名称]分布进行主坐标分析,结果显示有明显分离,但没有与养殖方式相关的明显[具体细菌名称]分组。噬菌体源自特定农场,不依赖于养殖方式,并且只有在鸟类(盲肠)中存在时才会在环境(垫料)中被检测到。这项多方面的研究表明养殖方式对农场[具体细菌名称]动态没有影响。本研究的意义在于,无论商业养殖方式如何选择,都可以采用统一的农场风险管理措施来共同应对盲肠[具体细菌名称]水平,以及纳入[具体细菌名称]噬菌体生物防治的可能性。本研究的影响在于,在垫料再利用或采用散养养殖方面没有限制,从而有助于实现环境可持续(再利用)和新兴(散养)的肉鸡养殖选择。