Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36924591›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2023

Evaluation of the impact of formaldehyde fumigation during the hatching phase on contamination in the hatch cabinet and early performance in broiler chickens.

C M Selby, L C Beer, A J Forga, M E Coles, L E Graham, K D Teague, G Tellez-Isaias, B M Hargis, C N Vuong, B D Graham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

C M SelbyDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
L C BeerDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
A J ForgaDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
M E ColesDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
L E GrahamDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
K D TeagueDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
G Tellez-IsaiasDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
B M HargisDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
C N VuongDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
B D GrahamDepartment of Poultry Science, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA. Electronic address: bmahaffe@uark.edu.
University of Arkansas System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Commercial hatch cabinet environments promote replication of microorganisms. These pathogenic or apathogenic microorganisms may serve as pioneer colonizers of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of poultry. Some of these pioneer colonizers, such as Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp., are opportunistic pathogens that lead to reduced performance in commercial poultry. Effective hatchery sanitation is imperative to limit contamination of naïve neonatal chicks and poults. Formaldehyde fumigation has been traditionally used to reduce the pathogen load in commercial hatch cabinets. To investigate potential alternatives to formaldehyde fumigation, models to mimic the microbial bloom in a laboratory setting must be utilized. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of a multispecies environmental challenge model (PM challenge) with and without formaldehyde fumigation during the hatching phase on early performance in broiler chicks. Three experiments were conducted to evaluate microbial contamination in the hatch cabinet environment (air samples, fluff samples), enteric colonization at day-of-hatch (DOH), and 7-day performance. In all experiments, significantly (P < 0.05) more gram-negative bacteria were recovered from the GIT at DOH in the PM challenge control group as compared to the nonchallenged control (NC) group and the formaldehyde-treated group (PM + F). There were no statistical differences in 7-day body weight gain or feed conversion ratio between the PM challenge control group, the NC group or the PM + F group. These data suggest this model could be utilized to evaluate alternatives to formaldehyde fumigation for controlling the microbial load during the hatching phase in a laboratory setting.

Indexed as

ChickensFumigationAnimalsEscherichia coliFormaldehydeTurkeysFormaldehydebroilerchallengehatcherymodelpathogen

Identifiers

PMID36924591
PMCPMC10166707
OpenAlexW4320921447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.