Login | Register
Kazakh National Agrarian Research University ISSN 2304-3334 (Print)  ·  ISSN 2304-3334 (Online)
submit an article
Menu
submit an article
STOCK-RAISING AND VETERINARY

BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS

Tatiana Melnikova 1 , Gulnur Bakirova 2 , Anastasia Bezrukova 3 , Azamat Izmukan 4 , Galiya Mussina 4 , Gulya Jamalova 5

1 Scientific and Diagnostic Center «Animal Expert Group» LLP ; 2 «Research and production center UniVet» LLP ; 3 SDC «AEG» LLP; 4 «RPC UniVet» LLP; 5 SDC «AEG»  LLP

doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04 pp. 33-47 Admitted 09.10.2024 Published 30.12.2024

Abstract

The scientific and industrial potential of environmental, breeding, genetic, zootechnical, and sanitary-veterinary measures ensures improvements in productivity and resistance of agricultural chickens to infectious diseases, particularly bacterial ones, at poultry farms. In industrial poultry farming, infectious bacterial diseases exert significant pressure on bird health, productivity indicators, and mortality rates. The article presents the results of a study revealing the features of bacterial contamination in pathological material (198 composite samples) from agricultural chickens. These studies were conducted for the first time at poultry farms in the Akmola, Almaty, and West Kazakhstan regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Samples from the poultry farm in the Akmola region tested positive for Enterococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp., Almaty region for Clostridium spp. (poultry farm №2), Staphylococcus spp. (poultry farm №2), and Escherichia coli (poultry farm № 2-4), and West Kazakhstan region for Enterococcus spp. (poultry farm № 2-4) and Escherichia coli (poultry farm №5). Antibiotic resistance testing of Enterococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. strains showed that Enterococcus spp. strains were highly resistant to the Tifarm (100%) and Spelink (67%) drugs, while Staphylococcus spp. strains demonstrated high resistance to the Enroxil (100%) and Quinolone (67%) antibacterial drugs. The study of bacterial contamination in pathological material allowed the examined poultry farms to take necessary measures to ensure biosecurity and minimize the level of contamination in production matrices by bacterial pathogens.

poultry farming, poultry farm, biosecurity, pathological sample, microbiology, infectious bacteria, antibiotic resistance

01 Introduction

The full text of the article is available for download in PDF format on the right panel.

02 References

  1. 1 Poulsen L.L. Longitudinal study of transmission of Escherichia coli from broiler breeders to broilers [text] / L.L. Poulsen, I. Thøfner, M. Bisgaard, J.P. Christensen, R.H. Olsen, H. Christensen / Vet. Microbiol. - 2017, 207, P. 13–18. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28757012/ (accessed on 24.08.2024)
  2. 2 Putman B. A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010 [text] / B. Putman, G. Thoma, J. Burek, M. Matlock / Agric Syst. 2017, 157, 107–117. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X16300944 (accessed on 24.08.2024)
  3. 3 Broiler. Management Handbook-Aviagen. 2018. Available. 148 p. URL: https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerHandbook2018-EN.pdf (accessed on 09.10.2024)
  4. 4 Quinn P.J. Veterinary Microbiology and Microbial Disease [text] / P.J. Quinn, B.K. Markey, M.E. Carter, W.J. Donnelly, F.C. Leonard / Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, 2002.- 536 p. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340368/
  5. 5 Ribeiro J. Antibiotic Resistance among Gastrointestinal Bacteria in Broilers: A Review Focused on Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli [text] / J. Ribeiro, V. Silva, A. Monteiro, M. Vieira-Pinto, G. Igrejas, F.S. Reis, L. Barros, P. Poeta /Animals. 2023. 13(8), Р.1362. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13081362 (accessed on 09.09.2024)
  6. 6 Oliveira Gd.S. Control of Escherichia coli in Poultry Using the In Ovo Injection Technique [text] / Gd.S. Oliveira, C. McManus, V.M. dos Santos / Antibiotics. 2024. 13(3), Р.205. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030205. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/3/205 (accessed on 29.09.2024)
  7. 7 Aryal S. Clostridium perfringens - аn Overview [text] / S. Aryal / 2003. URL: https://microbenotes.com/clostridium-perfringens/#habitat-of-clostridium-perfringens (accessed on 29.09.2024)
  8. 8 Dai F. Pathogenicity characteristics of Enterococcus faecium from diseased black bears [text] / F. Dai, X. Xiang, G. Duan, B. Duan, X. Xiao, H. Chang / Iran J Vet Res. 2018. Spring;19(2), Р. 82-86. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6056144/ (accessed on 30.09.2024)
  9. 9 Agarwal A.N. Sensitivity and Specificity of a Novel Colony Characteristic for Determination of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus [text] / A.N. Agarwal, S.D. Dallas, D.D. Mais / Cureus. 2022. 14(6):e26040. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26040 URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35865434/ (accessed on 09.09.2024)
  10. 10 Rahman M.S. Antibiotic susceptibility profile and extended spectrum β-lactamases production by uropathogenic Escherichia coli from tertiary care hospital of rural settings [text] / M.S. Rahman, R. Garg, V.A. Singh, D. Biswas / International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2018. 6(12). Р. 4022-4027
  11. 11 Mora Z.V. Clostridium perfringens as Foodborne Pathogen in Broiler Production: Pathophysiology and Potential Strategies for Controlling Necrotic Enteritis [text] / Z.V. Mora, M.E. Macías-Rodríguez, J. Arratia-Quijada, Y.S. Gonzalez-Torres, K. Nuño, A. Villarruel-López / Animals (Basel). 2020. 10(9). Р.1718. doi: 10.3390/ani10091718. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/9/1718 (accessed on 09.09.2024)
  12. 12 Dolka B. Characterization of pathogenic Enterococcus cecorum from different poultry groups: Broiler chickens, layers, turkeys, and waterfowl [text] / B. Dolka, D. Chrobak-Chmiel, M. Czopowicz, P. Szeleszczuk / PLoS One. 2017. 12(9):e0185199. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185199. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608366/ (accessed on 02.08.2024)
  13. 13 Wijesurendra D.S. Pathological and microbiological investigations into cases of bacterial chondronecrosis and osteomyelitis in broiler poultry [text] / D.S. Wijesurendra, A. Chamings, R.N. Bushell, D.O. Rourke, M. Stevenson, M. Marenda, A.H. Noormohammadi, A. Stent / Avian Pathol. 2017. 46. Р. 1–12. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28669198/ (accessed on 12.08.2024)
  14. 14 Hess C. Escherichia coli Isolated from Organic Laying Hens Reveal a High Level of Antimicrobial Resistance despite No Antimicrobial Treatments [text] / C. Hess, S. Troxler, D. Jandreski-Cvetkovic, A. Zloch, M. Hess / Antibiotics (Basel). 2022. 11(4):467. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11040467. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35453218/ (accessed on 17.09.2024)
  15. 15 de Saraiva, M.M.S. Antimicrobial Resistance in the Globalized Food Chain: A One Health Perspective Applied to the Poultry Industry [text] / M.M.S. de Saraiva, K. Lim, D.F.M. do Monte, P.E.N. Givisiez, L.B.R. Alves, O.C.F. de Neto, S. Kariuki, A.B. Júnior, C.J.B. de Oliveira, W.A. Gebreyes / Braz. J. Microbiol. 2022. 53. Р. 465–486. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34775576/ (accessed on 17.09.2024)
  16. 16 Dea M.O. Genomic, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Public Health Insights into Enterococcus spp. from Australian Chickens [text] / M.O. Dea, S. Sahibzada, D. Jordan, T. Laird, T. Lee, K. Hewson, S. Pang, R. Abraham, G.W. Coombs, T. Harris et al / J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019. 57. e00319
  17. 17 Żbikowska K. The Use of Bacteriophages in the Poultry Industry [text]./ K. Żbikowska, M. Michalczuk, B. Dolka / Animals. 2020. 10. Р. 872. doi.org/10.3390/ani10050872. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31118269/ (accessed on 10.10.2024)
  18. 18 Hermana N.S.P. Antibiotic resistance profile of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp. and Klebsiella spp. isolated form chicken farm in Bogor, Sukabumi and Cianjur [text] / N.S.P. Hermana / West Java. J. Phys. Conf. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1430/1/012021

Citation Links

[1]2024. BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. Izdenister natigeler. 4 (104) (Dec. 2024), 33–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04.
(1)BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. Izdenister natigeler 2024, No. 4 (104), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04.
BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. (2024). Izdenister Natigeler, 4 (104), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04
BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. Izdenister natigeler, [S. l.], n. 4 (104), p. 33–47, 2024. DOI: 10.37884/4-2024/04. Disponível em: https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/728. Acesso em: 15 sep. 2026.
“BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS”. 2024. Izdenister Natigeler, no. 4 (104) (December): 33-47. https://doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04.
“BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS” (2024) Izdenister natigeler, (4 (104), pp. 33–47. doi:10.37884/4-2024/04.
[1]“BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS”, Izdenister natigeler, no. 4 (104), pp. 33–47, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.37884/4-2024/04.
“BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS”. Izdenister Natigeler, no. 4 (104), Dec. 2024, pp. 33-47, https://doi.org/10.37884/4-2024/04.
“BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS”. Izdenister natigeler, no. 4 (104) (December 30, 2024): 33–47. Accessed September 15, 2026. https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/728.
1.BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. Izdenister natigeler [Internet]. 2024 Dec. 30 [cited 2026 Sep. 15];(4 (104):33-47. Available from: https://agrosoil.kaznaru.edu.kz/index.php/research/article/view/728
1.BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION FEATURES IN PATHOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM AGRICULTURAL CHICKENS. Izdenister natigeler. 2024;(4 (104):33-47. doi:10.37884/4-2024/04