4.2 Article

Incidence of Clostridium perfringens in broiler chickens and their environment during production and processing

期刊

AVIAN DISEASES
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 887-896

出版社

AMER ASSOC AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.2307/1592868

关键词

Clostridium perfringens; broiler chickens; hatchery; rearing house; processing plant; farm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During a calendar year, a study was conducted involving 16 broiler flocks on four different farms, two farms belonging to each of two major U.S. poultry integrators. As determined by the detection of Clostridium perfringens in fecal or cecal samples, 15 (94%) of the flocks, became positive for this bacterial enteropathogen, and only one remained negative throughout the 6-to-8-wk rearing period. Paper pads beneath chicks that were transported from the hatchery to the rearing house were contaminated with C. perfringens in 15 (94%) of the flocks. When sampled biweekly through grow out, 13 of the flocks were C perfringens positive at 2 wk of age. These results suggest that colonization of the intestinal tract of broilers by C. perfringens is an early event. Of the environmental samples, all but feed in the hopper were contaminated before placement for at least one of the rearing periods. All sample types were contaminated at some point during the 6-to-8-wk grow-out period. Of the on-farm environmental samples, the highest incidences (percentage positive) of C perfringens were detected in wall swabs (53%), fan swabs (46%), fly strips (43%), dirt outside the house entrance (43%), and swabs of workers' boots (29%). Birds were usually transported to the processing plant in coops that were already contaminated with C. perfringens. In the plant, C perfringens was isolated more frequently from samples of scald water than from those of chill water. Clostridium perfringens was recovered from broiler carcasses after chilling in 13 (81%) of the 16 flocks. The proportion of C perfringens-positive carcasses for the contaminated flocks ranged from 8% to 68% with a mean of 30%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据