Download PDF
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2020; 48(06): 406-413
DOI: 10.1055/a-1264-2332
Original Article

Use of electron irradiation versus formaldehyde fumigation as hatching egg disinfectants – efficacy and impact on hatchability and broiler performance

Einsatz von Elektronenstrahlung versus Formaldehydbegasung zur Bruteidesinfektion – Effizienz und Einfluss auf Schlupf und Leistung
Michael Pees
1   Department for Birds and Reptiles, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, University of Leipzig, Germany
,
Gerzon Motola
2   Institute of Poultry Diseases, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
,
Mohamed Hafez Hafez
2   Institute of Poultry Diseases, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
,
Josef Bachmeier
3   Veterinary Practice, Straubing, Germany
,
Sarah Brüggemann-Schwarze
2   Institute of Poultry Diseases, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
,
Wiebke Tebrün
1   Department for Birds and Reptiles, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, University of Leipzig, Germany
4   Clinic for Birds, Small Mammals, Reptiles & Ornamental Fish Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The use of low-energy electron irradiation for hatching egg disinfection was compared to formaldehyde fumigation.

Material and methods To assess the efficacy, eggshells were examined for bacteria before and after disinfection. During incubation, hatching and fattening of 1400 Ross 308 broilers per group candling data, hatching rate, mortality rate and body mass development were recorded to evaluate the impact on health and performance. Additionally, data from the slaughter house and histological evaluation of organ samples were included in the health screening.

Results Regarding the efficacy, irradiation and formaldehyde significantly reduced the number of bacteria compared to non-disinfected eggs. However, no significant difference was recorded between both treatments. The irradiated group performed better than the reference group concerning the number of infertile eggs, early and late dead embryos and fertile eggs. The performance during fattening was nearly identical in both groups, while mortality differed slightly between the irradiated group and the group treated with formaldehyde. Upon slaughter, there were minor variations concerning the distribution of findings between the groups, but the number of anomalies was not higher than reference values suggest.

Conclusion In both groups no health problems were observed during rearing and the fattening performance met the targets of the manufacturer Aviagen for the used broiler line Ross 308.

Clinical relevance Lower-energy electron irradiation proves to be an efficient and well-tolerated hatching egg disinfection procedure. Further field trials are necessary to establish low-energy electron irradiation as an alternative to formaldehyde fumigation.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel Der Einsatz niedrigenergetischer Elektronenstrahlung zur Bruteidesinfektion wurde mit dem Verfahren der Formaldehydbegasung verglichen.

Material und Methoden Zur Beurteilung der Effizienz wurden Eierschalen vor und nach Desinfektion auf Bakterien untersucht. Während Brut, Schlupf und Mast von 1400 Ross-308-Broilerküken pro Gruppe wurden Daten vom Schieren, Schlupfrate, Mortalitätsrate und Gewichtszunahmen erfasst, um den Einfluss auf Tiergesundheit und Mastleistung zu überprüfen. Zusätzlich wurden am Schlachthof erfasste Daten sowie Ergebnisse der histologischen Untersuchung von Organproben in die Gesundheitsüberprüfung einbezogen.

Ergebnisse Sowohl durch Elektronenstrahlung als auch durch Formaldehydbegasung ließ sich die Anzahl an Bakterien auf der Eioberfläche im Vergleich zu nicht desinfizierten Eiern signifikant verringern. Ein signifikanter Unterschied zwischen den beiden Verfahren bestand nicht. Die mit Elektronenstrahlung behandelte Gruppe zeigte beim Schieren bessere Werte bezüglich der Anzahl unbefruchteter Eier, abgestorbener Embryonen und befruchteter Eier als die mit Formaldehyd behandelte Gruppe. Die Tageszunahmen und das Mastendgewicht waren in beiden Gruppen fast identisch, während die Mortalitätsrate leicht differierte. Bei der Schlachtung gab es Varianzen im Hinblick auf die Verteilung von Schlachtbefunden, doch war die Anzahl auffälliger Tierkörper nicht höher, als Referenzen es vermuten lassen.

Schlussfolgerung In beiden Gruppen wurden im Verlauf der Aufzucht keine Gesundheitsprobleme beobachtet und die Mastleistung entspach den Zielvorgaben des Herstellers Aviagen für die verwendete Broilerlinie Ross 308.

Klinische Relevanz Niedrigenergetische Elektronenstrahlung erweist sich als ein wirksames und verträgliches Verfahren zur Bruteidesinfektion. Es sind weitere Feldversuche nötig, um das Verfahren als Alternative zur Formaldehydbegasung zu etablieren.

Key words

Poultry - fattening - hatching egg hygiene - decontamination

Schlüsselwörter

Geflügel - Mast - Bruteihygiene - Dekontamination


Publication History

Received: 13 May 2020

Accepted: 20 August 2020

Article published online:
04 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Olsen R, Kudirkiene E, Thofner I. et al. Impact of Egg Disinfection of Hatching Eggs on the Eggshell Microbiome and Bacterial Load. Poult Sci 2017; 96 (11) 3901-3911 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pex182.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rothrock MJ, Feye KM, Kim SA. et al. Semi-Quantification of Total Campylobacter and Salmonella during Egg Incubations Using a Combination of 16 S rDNA and Specific Pathogen Primers for qPCR. Front Microbiol 2018; 9 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02454.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dierikx CM, van der Goot JA, Smith HE. et al. Presence of ESBL/AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in the Broiler Production Pyramid: A Descriptive Study. Plos One 2013; 8 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cadirci S. Disinfection of Hatching Eggs by Formaldehyde Fumigation – a Review. Arch Geflugelk 2009; 73 (02) 116-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kalidari GA, Moayyedian H, Eslamian A. et al. Isolation and Identification of Non-coliform Gram-negative Bacteria in Hatching Eggs to Evaluate the Effect of Egg Fumigation by Formaldehyde. J Poult Sci 2009; 46 (01) 59-62 DOI: 10.2141/jpsa.46.59.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duong A, Steinmaus C, McHale CM. et al. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Formaldehyde: a Systematic Review. Mutat Res 2011; 728 (03) 118-138 DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2011.07.003.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Williams JE, Siegel HS. Formaldehyde Levels on and in Chicken Eggs Following Preincubation Fumigation. Poult Sci 1969; 68 (02) 552-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zulkifli I, Fauziah O, Omar AR. et al. Respiratory Epithelium, Production Performance and Behaviour of Formaldehyde-exposed Broiler Chicks. Vet Res Commun 1999; 23 (02) 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 GMBl 2013, 297–332 (Ausgabe 15 v. 07.03.2013) Inhalt Ausgabe Nr. 15/2013, Amtlicher Teil
    PubMed
  • 10 EU Regulation 605/2014 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1272/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Einstufung, Kennzeichnung und Verpackung von Stoffen und Gemischen zwecks Einfügung von Gefahren- und Sicherheitshinweisen in kroatischer Sprache und zwecks Anpassung an den technischen und wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt
    PubMed
  • 11 Keita A, Huneau-Salaun A, Guillot A. et al. A Multi-pronged Approach to the Search for an Alternative to Formaldehyde as an Egg Disinfectant without Affecting Worker Health, Hatching, or Broiler Production Parameters. Poult Sci 2016; 95 (07) 1609-1616 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pew058.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yildirim I, Ozsan M, Yetisir R. The use of Oregano (Origanum vulgare L) Essential Oil as Alternative Hatching Egg Disinfectant versus Formaldehyde Fumigation in Quails (Cotumix coturnix japonica) Eggs. Rev Med Vet 2003; 154 (05) 367-370
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Russell SM. The Effect of Electrolyzed Oxidative Water Applied Using Electrostatic Spraying on Pathogenic and Indicator Bacteria on the Surface of Eggs. Poult Sci 2003; 82 (01) 158-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bourassa DV, Buhr RJ, Wilson JL. Hatchability of Eggs Sanitized with Increasing Concentrations of BioSentry 904 or Bio-Phene. J Appl Poult Res 2002; 11 (04) 397-401 DOI: 10.1093/japr/11.4.397.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Whistler PE, Sheldon BW. Bactericidal Activity, Eggshell Conductance, and Hatchability Effects of Ozone versus Formaldehyde Disinfection. Poult Sci 1989; 68 (08) 1074-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Melo EF, Clímaco WLS, Triginelli MV. et al. An Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Sanitizing Hatching Eggs. Poult Sci 2019; 98: 2466-2473 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez022.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kundu D, Gill A, Lui C. et al. Use of Low Dose E-beam Irradiation to Reduce E. coli O157:H7, non-O157 (VTEC) E. coli and Salmonella Viability on Meat Surfaces. Meat Sci 2014; 96 (01) 413-418 DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.034.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Todoriki S, Hayashi T. Disinfection of Seeds and Sprout Inhibition of Potatoes with Low Energy Electrons. Rad Phys Chem 2000; 57 (03/06) 253-255 DOI: 10.1016/S0969–806X(99)00389–8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Maxim JE, Neal JA, Castillo A. Development of a Novel Device for Applying Uniform Doses of Electron Beam Irradiation on Carcasses. Meat Sci 2014; 96 (01) 373-378 DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.030.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Skowron K, Olszewska H, Paluszak Z. et al. Radiation Hygienization of Cattle and Swine Slurry with High Energy Electron Beam. Rad Phys Chem 2013; 87: 88-96 DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2013.02.008.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nablo SV, Chrusciel J, Cleghorn DA. et al. Developments in Low Energy Electron Beam Machinery and Processes. Nucl Instr Meth Phys Res 2003; 208: 90-97 DOI: 10.1016/S0168–583X(03)00985–6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chalise PR, Rahman MS, Ghomi H. et al. Bacterial Inactivation Using Low-Energy Pulsed-Electron Beam. IEEE Transact Plasma Sci 2004; 32 (04) 1532-1539 DOI: 10.1109/TPS.2004.830967.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dressler M, Thate A, Schiefer C. Elektronenbehandlung im Getreide – ​Schriftenreihe der Sächsischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft – Heft 11 2008. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fan X, Sokorai K, Weidauer A. et al. Comparison of Gamma and Electron Beam Irradiation in Reducing Populations of E. coli Artificially Inoculated on Mung Bean, Clover and Fenugreek Seeds, and Affecting Germination and Growth of Seeds. Rad Phys Chem 2017; 130: 306-315 DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.09.015.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Röder O, Jahn M, Schröder T. et al. Die e-ventus Technologie – eine Innovation zur nachhaltigen Reduktion von Pflanzenschutzmitteln mit Empfehlung für Bio-Saatgut. J Verbraucherschutz Lebensm 2009; 4 (02) 107-117 DOI: 10.1007/s00003–009–0476–3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Castaneda SMP, Tellez IG, Bustos RE. et al. Effect of Electron Irradiation on Hatchability and Broiler Performance of Hatching Eggs. Acta Aliment 1996; 25 (03) 305-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sokovnin SY, Krivonogova AS, Isaeva AG. et al. Using the Method of Nanosecond Beam of Accelerated Electrons for Egg Sterilization in Poultry Industry. Int J Adv Biotechnol Res 2017; 8 (02) 680-686
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sokovnin SY, Balezin ME, Vazirov RA. et al. Research into the Properties of Hens’ Eggs under Surface Irradiation by Nanosecond Electron Beam. Rad Phys Chem 2019; 165: 108398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gerrits AR, Dijk DJ. Effect of X-ray Irradiation of Hatching Eggs on Hatching Time, Hatchability and Broiler Weight. Arch Geflugelk 1992; 56 (04) 179-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zakaria AH. Effect of Low Doses of Gamma Irradiation Prior to Egg Incubation on Hatchability and Body Weight of Broiler Chickens. Br Poult Sci 1991; 32 (01) 103-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tellez IG, Trejo RM, Sanchez RE. et al. Effect of Gamma Irradiation on Commercial Eggs Experimentally Inoculated with Salmonella Enteritidis. Rad Phys Chem 1995; 46 (04/06) 789-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Verordnung über die Behandlung von Lebensmitteln mit Elektronen-, Gamma- und Röntgenstrahlen, Neutronen oder ultravioletten Strahlen (Lebensmittelbestrahlungsverordnung – LMBestrV). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lmbestrv_2000/BJNR173000000.html Accessed: April 17, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 RL1999/2/EG. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0002 Accessed: April 17, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 RL 1999/3/EG. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0003 Accessed: April 17, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tebrün W, Motola G, Hafez MH. et al. Preliminary Study: Health and Performance Assessment in Broiler Chicks following Application of Six Different Hatching Egg Disinfection Protocols. PlosOne. 2020 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Musgrove MT, Jones DR, Northcutt JK. et al. Shell Rinse and Shell Crush Methods for the Recovery of Aerobic Microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae from Shell Eggs. J Food Protect 2005; 68 (10) 2144-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung – TierSchNutztV). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschnutztv/ Accessed: April 17, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Fries R, Bergmann V, Fehlhaber K. Hrsg. Praxis der Geflügelfleischuntersuchung. Hannover: Schluetersche; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Laboratory Protocols, Veterinary Pathology, University of Bristol, UK. Online: https://www.ole.bris.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/institution/Faculty%​20of%20Health%20Sciences/Veterinary%20Science/eLearning%20resources/Pathology/Tutorials/Histology%20-%20Processing%20In%20Detail/process.htm? Accessed: April 17, 2020
    PubMed
  • 40 Fletcher OJ, Abdul-Aziz T. Avian Histopathology. 3rd ed.. Madison: American Association of Avian Pathologists; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Samberg Y, Meroz M. Application of Disinfectants in Poultry Hatcheries. Rev Sci Techn OiE 1995; 14: 365-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Aviagen. Ross 308 Broiler – Parent Stock Objectives 2016. http://ap.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_PS//Ross308-PS-PO-EN-2016.pdf Accessed January 31, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hashemzadeh M, Farajzedeh N. A Machine Vision for Detecting Fertile Eggs in the Incubation Industry. Int J Comput Intell Syst 2016; 9 (05) 850-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Aviagen. Ross 308 Broiler – Performance Objectives 2014. http://en.staging.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-308-Broiler-PO-2014-EN.pdf Accessed: January 31, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Herenda D, Jakel O. Poultry Abattoir Survey of Carcass Condemnation for Standard, Vegetarian and Free Range Chickens. Can Vet J 1994; 32: 293-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 McGovern RH, Feddes JJR, Robinson FE. et al. Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and the Incidence of Ascites in Broilers in Response to Feed Restriction and Litter Oiling. Poult Sci 1999; 78: 522-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Garcia RG, Almeida Paz ICL, Caldara FR. et al. Litter Materials and the Incidence of Carcass Lesions in Broiler Chickens. Braz J Poult Sci 2012; 14 (01) 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar