Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T20:04:24.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some aspects of control of salmonella infection in poultry for minimising contamination in the food chain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

W.A. AWAD  and
K. GHAREEB
W.A. AWAD*
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Clinic for Poultry and Fish Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria: Department of Animal Hygiene, Poultry and Environment, and Department of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, 83523 Qena, Egypt
K. GHAREEB
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Hygiene, Poultry and Environment, and Department of Animal Behaviour and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University, 83523 Qena, Egypt Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Nutrition and Functional Plant Compounds, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Salmonellosis is one of the most frequent zoonotic diseases in humans and is associated with major public health and economic losses globally. Eggs and poultry meat represent one of the main sources of infection. Chickens are considered as a main carrier for salmonella and infected birds rarely show any clinical signs. The control of salmonella in commercial poultry production is essential because of the economic and public health consequences. Accordingly, the current European approach is based on a farm-to-fork strategy, in which each sector implements measures to minimise or reduce salmonella contamination. Control measures are most effective at the source, i.e. at farm level. Measures to decrease the prevalence of Salmonella enterica in poultry farms are expected to result in a lower incidence of human salmonellosis. The pre-harvest phase involves the use of all available tools, such as vaccination, implementation of biosecurity measures and additional efforts to achieve salmonella-free feed production. Amongst those tools, nutritional approaches can greatly contribute to reduce salmonella shedding and to minimise salmonella during processing, thereby producing safer food. Due to the high number of introductory sources for salmonella to infect a flock, various intervention strategies have to be implemented to minimise risks. Recently, it has been shown that salmonella impacts the gut integrity in chickens, therefore it is important to develop new strategies or combine different strategies to improve gut barrier function and gut health. This review describes certain selected strategies that may be used in farm control programmes in poultry.

Keywords

salmonellacolonisationintestinal barrierfeed contamination
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 519 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANONYMOUS (2009) The Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonotic agents in the European Union in 2007.The EFSA Journal 2009. Parma, Italy.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., ASCHENBACH, J.R., KHAYAL, B., HESS, C. and HESS, M. (2012) Intestinal epithelial responses to Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis: effects on the intestinal permeability and ion transport. Poultry Science 91: 2949-2957.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., GHAREEB, K., ABDEL-RAHEEM, S. and BÖHM, J. (2009) Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Probiotic and Synbiotic on Growth Performance, Organs Weight and Intestinal Histomorphology of Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science 88: 49-56.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., GHAREEB, K. and BÖHM, J. (2010) Effect of addition of a probiotic micro-organism to broiler diet on intestinal mucosal architecture and electrophysiological parameters. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 94: 486-494.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., BÖHM, J., RAZZAZI-FAZELI, E., GHAREEB, K. and ZENTEK, J. (2006) Effect of addition of a probiotic microorganism to broiler diets contaminated with deoxynivalenol on performance and histological alterations of intestinal villi of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 85: 974-979.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., GHAREEB, K. and BÖHM, J. (2011) Evaluation of the chicory inulin efficacy on ameliorating the intestinal morphology and modulating the intestinal electrophysiological properties in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 95: 65-72.Google Scholar
AWAD, W.A., GHAREEB, K., PAßLACK, N. and ZENTEK, J. (2013) Dietary inulin alters the intestinal absorptive and barrier function of piglet intestine after weaning. Research in Veterinary Science 95: 249-254.Google Scholar
BAILEY, J.S. (1988) Integrated colonisation control of Salmonella in poultry. Poultry Science 67: 928-932.Google Scholar
BARROW, P.A. (2007) Salmonella infections: immune and non-immune protection with vaccines. Avian Pathology 36: 1-13.Google Scholar
BARROW, P.A., HUGGINS, M.B., LOVELL, M.A. and SIMPSON, J.M. (1987) Observations of the pathogenesis of experimental Salmonella Typhimurium infection in chickens. Research in Veterinary Science 42: 194-199.Google Scholar
BARROW, P.A. (1996) Immunity to Salmonella and other bacteria, in: DAVIDSON, T.F., MORRIS, T.R. & PAYNE, L.N. (Eds) Poultry Immunology, Poultry Science Symposium Series, vol. 24, pp. 243-263 (Carfax Publishing Company, Abingdon, Oxon, UK).Google Scholar
BERENDS, B.R., URLINGS, H.A.P., SNIJDERS, J.M.A. and VAN KNAPEN, F. (1996) Identification and quantification of risk factors in animal management and transport regarding Salmonella spp. in pigs. International Journal of Food Microbiology 30: 37-53.Google Scholar
BERRANG, M.E., NORTHCUTT, J.K., FLETCHER, D.L. and COX, N.A. (2003) Role of Dump Cage Fecal Contamination in the Transfer of Campylobacter to Carcasses of Previously Negative Broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 12: 190-195.Google Scholar
BERTELSEN, L.S., PAESOLD, G., MARCUS, S.L., FINLAY, B.B., ECKMANN, L. and BARRETT, K.E. (2004) Modulation of chloride secretory responses and barrier function of intestinal epithelial cells by the Salmonella effector protein SigD. American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology 287: C939-C948.Google Scholar
BOYLE, E.C., BISHOP, J.L., GRASSL, G.A. and FINLAY, B.B. (2007) Salmonella: from pathogenesis to therapeutics. Journal of Bacteriology 189: 1489-1495.Google Scholar
BYRD, J.A., ANDERSON, R.C., CALLAWAY, T.R., MOORE, R.W., KNAPE, K.D., KUBENA, L.F., ZIPRIN, R.L. and NISBET, D.J. (2003) Effect of experimental chlorate product administration in the drinking water on Salmonella typhimurium contamination of broilers. Poultry Science 82: 1403-1406.Google Scholar
CARAMORI, J.G. Jr (2001) Effect of probiotics and prebiotics in the diet of broilers on performance, carcass yield, chemical characteristics and the presence of Salmonella in meat [thesis]. Botucatu (SP): São Paulo State University.Google Scholar
CHATFIELD, S., ROBERTS, M., LONDONO, P., CROPLEY, I., DOUCE, G. and DOUGAN, G. (1993) The development of oral vaccines based on live attenuated Salmonella strains. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 7: 1-7.Google Scholar
CHEESEMAN, J.H., KAISER, M.G., CIRACI, C., KAISER, P. and LAMONT, S.J. (2007) Breed effect on early cytokine mRNA expression in spleen and cecum of chickens with and without Salmonella enteritidis infection. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 31: 52-60.Google Scholar
COLLINS, M.D. and GIBSON, G.R. (1999) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69: 1052S-1057S.Google Scholar
COOPER, G.L., VENABLES, L.M. and LEVER, M.S. (1996) Airborne challenge of chickens vaccinated orally with the genetically defined Salmonella Enteritidis aroA strain CVL30. Veterinary Record 139: 447-448.Google Scholar
COOPER, G.L., VENABLES, L.M., WOODWARD, M.J. and HORMAECHE, C.E. (1994) Vaccination of chickens with strain CVL30, a genetically defined Salmonella Enteritidis aroA live oral vaccine candidate. Infection and Immunity 62: 4747-4754.Google Scholar
DAVIES, R.H. and WRAY, C. (1996) Persistence of salmonella enteritidis in poultry units and poultry food. British Poultry Science 37: 589-586.Google Scholar
EFSA (EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY) (2008) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Biological Hazards on a request from the European Commission on a quantitative microbiological risk assessment on Salmonella in meat: Source attribution for human salmonellosis from meat. The EFSA Journal 625: 1-32.Google Scholar
EFSA (EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY) (2010) The community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2008. EFSA Journal 8: 1496-1906.Google Scholar
EFSA (EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY) (2011) The Community summary report on food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2010. EFSA Journal 9: 2101.Google Scholar
FEBERWEE, A., DE VRIES, T.S., HARTMAN, E.G., DE WIT, J.J., ELBERS, A.R. and DE JONG, W.A. (2001) Vaccination against Salmonella enteritidis in Dutch commercial layer flocks with a vaccine based on a live Salmonella gallinarum 9R strain: evaluation of efficacy, safety, and performance of serologic Salmonella tests. Avian Diseases 45: 83-91.Google Scholar
FOLEY, S.L., NAYAK, R., HANNING, I.B., JOHNSON, T.J., HAN, J. and RICKE, S.C. (2011) Population dynamics of Salmonella enterica Serotypes in commercial egg and poultry production. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77: 4273-4279.Google Scholar
FURLAN, R.L. (2005) Evaluation and use of pre-and probiotics. 6th Symposium South Brazil of Poultry; Chapecó, Santa Catarina. Brazil pp. 58-76.Google Scholar
GANTOIS, I., DUCATELLE, R., PASMANS, F., HAESEBROUCK, F., GAST, R., HUMPHREY, T.J. and VAN IMMERSEEL, F. (2009) Mechanisms of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 33: 718-738.Google Scholar
GAST, R.K., GUARD-BOULDIN, J. and HOLT, P.S. (2005) The relationship between the duration of fecal shedding and the production of contaminated eggs by laying hens infected with strains of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Heidelberg. Avian Diseases 49: 382-386.Google Scholar
GAST, R.K., GURAYA, R., GUARD-BOULDIN, J., HOLT, P.S. and MOORE, R.W. (2007) Colonisation of specific regions of the reproductive tract and deposition at different locations inside eggs laid by hens infected with Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Heidelberg. Avian Diseases 51: 40-44.Google Scholar
GAST, R.K., STONE, H.D., HOLT, P.S. and BEARD, C.W. (1992) Evaluation of the efficacy of an oil immersion bacterin for protecting chicks against Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Diseases 36: 992-999.Google Scholar
GHAREEB, K., AWAD, W.A., MOHNL, M., PORTA, R., BIARNÉS, M., BÖHM, J. and SCHATZMAYR, G. (2012) Evaluating the efficacy of an avian-specific probiotic to reduce the colonisation of Campylobacter jejuni in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 91: 1825-1832.Google Scholar
GHAREEB, K., AWAD, W.A., MOHNL, M., BÖHM, J. and SCHATZMAYR, G. (2013) Control strategies for Campylobacter infection in poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 57-76.Google Scholar
GIBSON, G.R. and ROBERFROID, M.B. (1995) Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concepts of prebiotics. Journal of Nutrition 125: 1401-1412.Google Scholar
HAEGGBLOM, P. (2009) Salmonella control of feed in Sweden. www.ages.at.Google Scholar
HIGGINS, J.P., HIGGINS, S.E., WOLFENDEN, A.D., HENDERSON, S.N., TORRES-RODRIGUEZ, A., VICENTE, J.L. and TELLEZ, G. (2010) Effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture treatment timing on Salmonella enteritidis in neonatal broilers. Poultry Science 89: 243-247.Google Scholar
HOLT, P.S., GAST, R.K., PORTER, R.E. and STONE, H.D. (1999) Hyporesponsiveness of the systemic and mucosal humoral immune systems in chickens infected with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis at one day of age. Poultry Science 78: 1510-1517.Google Scholar
HUMPHREY, T.J. (1999) Contamination of meat and eggs with Salmonella serotype Enteritidis, in: A.M. SAEED (Ed) Salmonella enteric serotype Enteritidis in humans and animals, pp. 183-192 (Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa).Google Scholar
HUMPHREY, T.J., BASKERVILLE, A., CHART, H. and ROWE, B. (1989) Infection of egg laying hens with S. Enteritidis PT 4 by oral inoculation. Veterinary Record 125: 531-532.Google Scholar
IJI, P.A. and TIVEY, D.R. (1998) Natural and synthetic oligossaccharides in broiler chickens diets. World's Poultry Science Journal 54: 129-143.Google Scholar
JEPSON, M.A., SCHLECHT, H.B. and COLLARES-BUZATO, C.B. (2000) Localisation of dysfunctional tight junctions in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium-infected epithelial layers. Infection and Immunity 68: 7202-7208.Google Scholar
JEURISSEN, S.H.M., JANSE, E.M., KOCH, G. and DE BOER, G.F. (1989) Postnatal development of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue in chickens. Cell and Tissue Research 258: 119-124.Google Scholar
KIM, Y.S. and HO, S.B. (2010) Intestinal goblet cells and mucins in health and disease: recent insights and progress. Current Gastroenterology Reports 12: 319-330.Google Scholar
KINDE, H., READ, D.H., CHIN, R.P., BICKFORD, A.A., WALKER, R.L., ARDANS, A., BREITMEYER, R.E., WILLOUGHBY, D., LITTLE, H.E., KERR, D. and GARDNER, I.A. (1996) Salmonella enteritidis, Phage Type 4 infection in a commercial layer flock in southern california: bacteriologic and epidemiologic findings. Avian Diseases 40: 665-671.Google Scholar
KIRKWOOD, J.K., CUNNINGHAM, A.A., MACGREGOR, S.K., THORNTON, S.M. and DUFF, J.P. (1994) Salmonella enteritidis excretion by carnivorous animals fed on day-old chicks. Veterinary Record 134: 683.Google Scholar
KOHLER, H., SAKAGUCHI, T., HURLEY, B.P., KASE, B.A., REINECKER H.C. and MCCORMICK, B.A. (2007) Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium regulates intercellular junction proteins and facilitates transepithelial neutrophil and bacterial passage. American Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 293: G178-G187.Google Scholar
KOYUNCU, S., ANDERSSON, M.G., CHARLOTTA L., SKANDAMIS P.N., GOUNADAKI, A., ZENTEK, J. and HÄGGBLOM, P. (2013) Organic acids for control of salmonella in different feed materials. BMC Veterinary Research 9: 81-89.Google Scholar
LAMONT, S.J., KAISER, M.G. and LIU, W. (2002) Candidate genes for resistance to Salmonella enteritidis colonisation in chickens as detected in a novel genetic cross. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 87: 423-428.Google Scholar
LIU, W., YANG, Y., CHUNG, N. and KWANG, J. (2001) Induction of humoral immune response and protective immunity in chickens against Salmonella enteritidis after a single dose of killed bacterium-loaded microspheres. Avian Diseases 45: 797-806.Google Scholar
LÜCKSTÄDT, C. and THEOBALD, P. (2009) Effect of a formic acid-sodium formate premixture on Salmonella, Campylobacter and further gut microbiota in broilers. Proceedings and Abstracts of the 17th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, p. 246.Google Scholar
MURRAY, C.J. (2003) Environmental aspects of Salmonella, in: WRAY, C. & WRAY, A. (Eds) Salmonella in domestic animals, pp. 265-283 (CABI Publ.).Google Scholar
OTTE, J.M. and PODOLSKY, D.K. (2004) Functional modulation of enterocytes by gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. American Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 286: G613-G626.Google Scholar
RAJASHEKARA, G., HAVERLY, E., HALVORSON, D.A., FERRIS, K.E., LAUER, D.C. and NAGARAJA, K.V. (2000) Multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 in poultry. Journal of Food Protection 63: 155-161.Google Scholar
REVOLLEDO, L., FERREIRA, A.J.P. and MEAD, G.C. (2006) Prospects in Salmonella Control: Competitive Exclusion, Probiotics, and Enhancement of Avian Intestinal Immunity. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 15: 341-351.Google Scholar
RIBEIRO, A.M.L., VOGT, L.K., CANAL, C.W., CARDOSO, M.R.I., LABRES, R.V., STRECK, A.F. and BESSA, M.C. (2007) Effects of prebiotics and probiotics on the colonisation and immune response of broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 9: 193-200.Google Scholar
ROBERTO, M., RAGIONE, L. and WOODWARD, M.J. (2003) Competitive exclusion by Bacillus subtilis spores of Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and Clostridium perfringens in young chickens. Veterinary Microbiology 94: 245-256.Google Scholar
SCHNEITZ, C. and MEAD, G. (2000) Competitive exclusion, in: WRAY, C. & WRAY, A. (Eds) Salmonella in Domestic Animals (Common Wealth Agricultural Bureau Internal (CABI) Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK).Google Scholar
SLADER, J., DOMINGUE, G., JØRGENSEN, F., MCALPINE, K., OWEN, R.J., BOLTON, F.J. and HUMPHREY, T.J. (2002) Impact of Transport Crate Reuse and of Catching and Processing on Campylobacter and Salmonella Contamination of Broiler Chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68: 713-719.Google Scholar
SMITH, D.P., CASON, J.A. and BERRANG, M.E. (2005) Effect of fecal contamination and cross-contamination on numbers of coliform, Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella on immersion-chilled broiler carcasses. Journal of Food Protection 68: 1340-1345.Google Scholar
SPENCER, J.L., CHAMBERS, J.R. and MODLER, H.W. (1998) Competitive exclusion of Salmonella typhimurium in broilers fed with Vermicompost and complex carbohydrates. Avian Pathology 27: 244-249.Google Scholar
STERN, N.J. (1994) Mucosal competitive exclusion to diminish colonisation of chickens to Campylobacter jejuni. Poultry Science 73: 402-407.Google Scholar
STERN, N.J., COX, N.A., BAILEY, J.S., BERRANG, M.E. and MUSGROVE, M.T. (2001) Comparison of mucosal competitive exclusion and competitive exclusion treatment to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter sp. colonisation in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 80: 156-160.Google Scholar
TELLEZ, G., PIXLEY, C., WOLFENDEN, R.E., LAYTON, S.L. and HARGIS, B.M. (2012) Probiotics/direct fed microbials for Salmonella control in poultry. Food Research International 45: 628-633.Google Scholar
THORNS, C.J. (2000) Bacterial food-borne zoonoses. Revue scientifique et technique 9: 226-239.Google Scholar
TURNER, J.R. (2009) Intestinal mucosal barrier function in health and disease. Nature Reviews Immunology 9: 799-809.Google Scholar
VAN IMMERSEEL, F., DE BUCK, J., DE SMET, I., MAST, J., HAESEBROUCK, F. and DUCATELLE, R. (2002) The effect of vaccination with a Salmonella Enteritidis aroA mutant on early cellular responses in caecal lamina propria of newly-hatched chickens. Vaccine 20: 3034-3041Google Scholar
VICENTE, J., TORRES-RODRIGUEZ, A., HIGGINS, S., PIXLEY, C., TELLEZ, G., DONOGHUE, A.M. and HARGIS, B.M. (2008) Effect of a selected Lactobacillus spp-based probiotic on Salmonella enteritidis-infected broiler chicks. Avian Diseases 52: 143-146.Google Scholar
VILA, B., FONTGIBELL, A., BADIOLA, I., ESTEVE-GARCIA, E., JIMENEZ, G., CASTILLO, M. and BRUFAU, J. (2009) Reduction of Salmonella enterica var. enteritidis colonisation and invasion by Bacillus cereus var. toyoi inclusion in poultry feeds. Poultry Science 88: 975-979.Google Scholar
WHO (WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION) (2005) Drug-resistant Salmonella. Fact sheet No.139.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, L.D., BURDOCK, G.A., JIMENEZ, G. and CASTILLO, M. (2009) Literature review on the safety of toyocerin, a non-toxigenic and non-pathogenic Bacillus cereus var. toyoi preparation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 55: 236-246.Google Scholar
WOODWARD, M.J., GETTINBY, G.C., CORKISH, J. and HOUGHTON, S. (2002) Field trial of Salenvac, a Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis iron restricted Bacterin Vaccine, in Free range Chickens. Avian Pathology 31: 383-392.Google Scholar
ZAREPOUR, M., BHULLAR, K., MONTERO, M., MA, C., HUANG, T., VELCICH, A., XIA, L. and VALLANCE, B.A. (2013) The mucin Muc2 limits pathogen burdens and epithelial barrier dysfunction during Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium colitis. Infection and Immunity 81: 3672-3683.Google Scholar