Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908887›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2016

On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles.

H N Chinivasagam, W Estella, H Rodrigues, D G Mayer, C Weyand, T Tran, A Onysk, I Diallo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Influence of Different Litter Regimens on Ceca Microbiota Profiles inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Impact of Built-up-Litter and Commercial Antimicrobials onFrontiers in veterinary science · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

H N ChinivasagamEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia nalini.chinivasagam@daf.qld.gov.au.
W EstellaEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
H RodriguesEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
D G MayerEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
C WeyandEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
T TranEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
A OnyskEcoSciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dutton Park 4102, Queensland, Australia.
I DialloBiosecurity Sciences Laboratory, Health and Food Sciences Precinct, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, PO Box 156 Archerfield BC 4108, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limitations in quality bedding material have resulted in the growing need to re-use litter during broiler farming in some countries, which can be of concern from a food-safety perspective. The aim of this study was to compare the Campylobacter levels in ceca and litter across three litter treatments under commercial farming conditions. The litter treatments were (a) the use of new litter after each farming cycle; (b) an Australian partial litter re-use practice; and (c) a full litter re-use practice. The study was carried out on two farms over two years (Farm 1, from 2009-2010 and Farm 2, from 2010-2011), across three sheds (35,000 to 40,000 chickens/shed) on each farm, adopting three different litter treatments across six commercial cycles. A random sampling design was adopted to test litter and ceca for Campylobacter and Escherichia coli, prior to commercial first thin-out and final pick-up. Campylobacter levels varied little across litter practices and farming cycles on each farm and were in the range of log 8.0-9.0 CFU/g in ceca and log 4.0-6.0 MPN/g for litter. Similarly the E. coli in ceca were ∼log 7.0 CFU/g. At first thin-out and final pick-up, the statistical analysis for both litter and ceca showed that the three-way interaction (treatments by farms by times) was highly significant (P<0.01), indicating that the patterns of Campylobacter emergence/presence across time vary between the farms, cycles and pickups. The emergence and levels of both organisms were not influenced by litter treatments across the six farming cycles on both farms. Either C. jejuni or C. coli could be the dominant species across litter and ceca, and this phenomenon could not be attributed to specific litter treatments. Irrespective of the litter treatments in place, cycle 2 on Farm 2 remained Campylobacter-free. These outcomes suggest that litter treatments did not directly influence the time of emergence and levels of Campylobacter and E. coli during commercial farming.

Indexed as

ChickensFloors and FloorcoveringsAnimalsCampylobacterCampylobacter InfectionsCecumEnvironmental MicrobiologyEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsHousing, AnimalPoultry DiseasesCampylobactercecachickensE. colilitter

Identifiers

PMID26908887
PMCPMC4957531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.