medigraphic.com
Centro de Investigaciones Regionales Dr. Hideyo Noguchi, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán

2002, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Biomed 2002; 13 (3)

Microbiological contamination of animal feedstuff for ruminants elaborated with poultry manure

Castellanos-Ruelas AF, Murguía-Olmedo ML

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 171-177
PDF size: 31.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objetive. Estimate the amount of bacteria in fresh and dehydratated poultry manure, as well as in ruminant feedstuff, measuring the effect of storage time on bacteria UFC.
Material and methods. Poultry manure and animal feedstuff were sampled in an animal feedmill located in the village of Uman, in the Yucatan state, Mexico. Poultry manure was dehydrated at 110°C for 12 minutes. Samples of poultry manure were taken fresh, and recently dehydratated (time zero). The animal feedstuff was elaborated using poultry manure treated at 80°C and it was sampled when it was recently elaborated. Microbiological count was carried out to estimate the UFC of aerobic mesophilics, total and fecal coli at time zero, at 14 days and at 28 days storage time. Samples were analysed to detect Salmonella, Shigella and fungi.
Results. Dehydratation of poultry manure reduced microorganism count, especially coli bacteria. As storage time passed by, mesophilics were reduced considerably; in the mean time coli bacteria increased but did not reach the amount that originally appeared in fresh poultry manure. In the animal feedstuff microorganisms increased as storage time increased, especially at 28 days storage time. Fecal coli bacteria reached almost 900% more quantity at day 28 compared to the amount found at time zero. Salmonella and Shigella were not found in any sample tested, but Aspergillus spp was identified in poultry manure.
Conclusion. Dehydratation and storage of poultry manure induced a significant reduction in bacteria UFC, therefore it is an alternative to reduce its pollution capacity. Animal feedstuff did not reduce UFC as time of storage increased. Dehydratation of poultry manure did not eliminate fungi.


REFERENCES

  1. Zinn RA, Barajas R, Montaño M, Shen Y. Protein and energy value of poultry excreta in diets for feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 1996;74:2331-5.

  2. Segura CVM, Tepal CHJ, Carvajal AJ, Castellanos RAF. La pollinaza como fuente de fósforo para rumiantes en pastoreo. Livestock Res Rural Development [serial on line] 2000 february [cited 2000 August 5]; 12(2); [11 screens]. Available from: URL: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd12/2/cas122htm.

  3. Barnett G M. Phosphorus forms in animal manure. Bioresource Tech 1994:139-42.

  4. Moguel OY, G.Cantón CJ, Sauri E, Castellanos RAF. Contenido de algunos macro y microminerales en las deyecciones avícolas de Yucatán. Téc Pecu Méx 1995; 33:100-4.

  5. G.Cantón CJ, Moguel YB, Castellanos RAF. Utilización de las deyecciones avícolas como fuente fosforada para rumiantes. Téc Pecu Méx 1996; 34:160-6.

  6. Cooke JA, Fontenot JP. Utilization of phosphorus and certain other minerals from swine waste and broiler litter. J Anim Sci 1990; 68:2852-63.

  7. Parker MB, Perkins HF, Fuller HL. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of poultry manure and some factors influencing its composition. Poultry Sci. 1959; 38:1154-8.

  8. Smith LW, Wheeler WE. Nutritional and economic value of animal excreta. J Anim Sci 1979; 48:144-56.

  9. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Recycling and utilizing manure for purposes other than plant nutrition. In: Integrated animal waste management. Ames, Iowa: The Council; 1996.

  10. Castellanos RAF, G.Cantón CJ, Murguía OML, Moguel 0Y. Ventajas y precauciones en el uso de la pollinaza como alimento para rumiantes. [Folleto divulgativo para productores]. 1999. INIFAP-SAGAR y Fundación Yucatán Produce, A.C. Mérida, Yuc. México.

  11. Latala A, Krzysko-Lupicka T, Grata K, Nabrdalik M. Microbiological contamination of poultry manure from poultry farms. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 1999; 55: 451-454.

  12. Moore PA, Daniel TC, Edwards DR, Miller DM. Evaluation of chemical amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization form poultry litter. Poultry Sci 1996; 75:315-20.

  13. Peter L. Health hazards and safety considerations. En: Müller ZO, editor. Feed from animal wastes: state of knowledge. FAO/UN 1980. Rome, Italy.

  14. Webb KE, Fontenot JP. Medical drug residues in broiler litter and tissues form cattle fed litter. J Anim Sci 1975; 41:1212-6.

  15. Brugman HH, Dickey HC, Plummer BE, Gooten J. Drug residues on lamb carcasses fed poultry litter. J Anim Sci 1967; 26:915-21.

  16. Caswell LF, Fontenot J P, Webb KE. Effect of processing method on pasteurization and nitrogen components of broiler litter and on nitrogen utilization by sheep. J Anim Sci 1975; 40:750-9.

  17. Castellanos RAF, Murguía OML, Moguel OY. Efecto del deshidratado sobre el valor nutritivo de la pollinaza y la presencia de microorganismos. Tec Pecu Mex 2000; 38:219-30.

  18. Badui SD. Química de los Alimentos. México: Alhambra Mexicana; 1993. pp 24-34.

  19. Fennema OR. Food Chemestry. New York; Marcel Dekker. 1996.p 26.

  20. American Association of Avian Pathologists. A laboratory manual for the isolation and the identification of avian pathogens. Univ of Pennsylvania. U.S.A. 1989.

  21. Latala A, Krzysko LT, Grata K, Nabrdalik M. Microbiological contamination of poultry manure from poultry farms. Med Weterynaryja 1999;55:451-4.

  22. Audoin L. The role of nitrogen and phosphorus in pollution of animal origin. Rev Sci Tech 1991;10:629-54.

  23. Williams CM, Barker JC, Sims JT. Management and utilization of poultry wastes. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 1999;162:105-57.

  24. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Mycotoxins. Economic and Health Risks. Ames: The Council; 1989.

  25. Himathongkham S, Nuanaulsuwan S, Reimann H. Survival of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella thyphimurium in chicken manure at differet levels of water activity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999;172:159-63.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com