Search

In 2021, France faced large avian influenza outbreaks, like in 2016 and 2017. Controlling these outbreaks required the preventive depopulation of a large number of duck farms. A previous study in 2017 showed that the quality of decontamination of trucks and transport crates used for depopulation was often insufficient. A new study was then set up to evaluate cleaning and disinfection (C&D) of trucks and crates used for duck depopulation and whether practices had changed since 2017. Three methods were used to assess decontamination: 1) detection of avian influenza virus (AIV) genome, 2) visual inspection of cleanliness, and 3) microbial counts, considering that 2 and 3 are commonly used in abattoirs. Another objective of the study was to evaluate the correlation between results obtained with the 3 methods. In 5 abattoirs, 8 trucks and their crates were sampled by swabbing to detect AIV genome by rRT-PCR before and after decontamination. Visual cleanliness scores and coliform counts were also determined on crates after C&D. Trucks and crates were decontaminated according to the abattoirs’ protocols. Before C&D, 3 quarters of crates (59/79) and 7 of 8 trucks were positive for AIV genome. C&D procedures were reinforced in 2021 compared to 2017; use of detergent solution and warm water were more common. Nevertheless, 28% of the crates were positive for AIV genome after C&D, despite the fact that cleaning scores and microbiological counts were satisfactory for 84% and 91% of the crates, respectively. No correlation was observed between results for AIV genome detection and results from visual control or from coliform counts. Abattoirs are encouraged to use environmental sampling coupled with AIV genome detection to monitor the quality of cleaning and disinfection of trucks and crates during AI outbreaks. Reinforcement of biosecurity measures at abattoirs is still needed to avoid residual contamination of the equipment and cross-contamination during the decontamination process.

Agricultural workers, and pig and poultry farmers in particular, are exposed to airborne contaminants including organic dusts, gases, fungi, bacteria, and endotoxins that can have adverse effects on their respiratory health. To date, data comparing the aerial dust concentrations in the different hen-housing systems used by commercial poultry farmers are scarce. An epidemiological study was conducted in commercial housing facilities for laying hens, half of which were housed in a cage system without litter and the remaining half on an on-floor system with litter. The aims were to measure and compare the ambient dust concentrations in the different housing systems and identify any factors in building design and hen management that could influence the dust burden. An average concentration of respirable ambient dusts (≤4 μm) of 0.37 mg/m(3) (95% CI [0.31-0.42]) was measured in the on-floor system, and this value was higher than average values in the cage system {0.13 mg/m(3) (95% CI [0.11-0.14]) P = 0.01}. The highest dust concentration was observed in aviaries (1.19 mg/m(3) [0.80-1.59]). The type of housing and the presence of litter therefore had a preponderant effect on air quality. Dust concentrations in caged buildings were influenced by cage design and rearing practices, whereas litter management, the age of hens, and temperature control were determining factors for dust levels in on-floor houses. This study underlines the need for information and preventive measures to reduce the exposure of poultry workers to bioaerosols, particularly in alternative systems where high levels of ambient dust were observed.

This study investigates the influence of litter provision and linings used for nests and pecking and scratching areas on cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality. Research was carried out in furnished cages, each housing 60 beak-trimmed ISA Brown hens. Four different treatments were compared in a factorial arrangement, including 2 different nest linings (artificial turf vs. plastic mesh), either used alone or combined with the use of litter (wheat bran) spread over the rubber mat in the pecking and scratching area (PSA). An additional treatment, using artificial turf mat in the PSA and nests (as commonly used in commercial flocks), was used to compare the effect of PSA lining in the other treatments. We observed laying location, the number of dirty and broken eggs, the microbiological contamination of eggshells according to laying location, and general cage hygiene. The use of nests for laying decreased when they were lined with plastic mesh. Eggs laid outside the nest were of lower quality than those laid inside it, and this was particularly true for eggs laid in the PSA. Although hygiene was low on artificial turf mats, eggs laid on PSA covered with a rubber mat were dirtier and had a higher count of mesophilic bacteria on the eggshell than those laid on PSA covered with an artificial turf mat. Rubber mats in PSA were rapidly destroyed and proved to be unsuitable. The provision of litter had no effect on cage hygiene but substantially increased wear on mats. This study shows nest lining and litter provision methods to be key factors that need to be taken into account to encourage the use of nest boxes for laying, and hence, to ensure good egg quality. Further research into new linings for PSA is needed for the future improvement of egg-laying conditions.