Next Article in Journal
Research and Experiment on Airflow Field Control Technology of Harvester Cleaning System Based on Load Distribution
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of a Modified Drinking System and Barn Climate on the Behavior of Fattening Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Unbalanced Incentives on Threshing Drum Stability during Rice Threshing
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Soil and Water Pollutants Released from Poultry Farming on the Growth and Development of Two Plant Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture14050778
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dust and Bacterial Air Contamination in a Broiler House in Summer and Winter

by
Ivica Ravić
1,
Mario Ostović
2,*,
Anamaria Ekert Kabalin
3,
Matija Kovačić
4,
Kristina Matković
2,
Željko Gottstein
5 and
Danijela Horvatek Tomić
5
1
Independent Researcher, 88220 Široki Brijeg, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2
Department of Animal Hygiene, Behavior and Welfare, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Department of Animal Breeding and Livestock Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
4
Kovačić Family Farm, Šopron, 48267 Orehovec, Croatia
5
Department of Poultry Diseases with Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(5), 778; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050778
Submission received: 22 April 2024 / Revised: 14 May 2024 / Accepted: 16 May 2024 / Published: 18 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Influence of Environmental Factors on Farming Animals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate dust and bacterial air contamination in a broiler house during different seasons. The study was carried out in commercial housing conditions during five weeks of the rearing cycle in summer and winter. The total dust concentration ranged from 1.90 to 4.50 mg/m3 in summer and from 2.80 to 5.10 mg/m3 in winter. The total bacterial count ranged from 2.85 × 104 to 1.03 × 105 CFU/m3 in summer and from 2.12 × 104 to 2.28 × 105 CFU/m3 in winter. The study results showed the dust concentration to be increased in winter as compared to summer, yielding a significant correlation (r = 0.602, p < 0.05) with a significantly higher airborne bacterial count in winter (p < 0.001). Furthermore, dust concentration showed significant correlations (p < 0.05) with air temperature (r = −0.418), relative humidity (r = 0.673), and broiler activity (r = 0.709), while bacterial count yielded significant correlations (p < 0.05) with air temperature (r = −0.756), relative humidity (r = 0.831), and airflow rate (r = 0.511). The results obtained in the study can prove useful in the field. Seasonal variability in dust and bacterial air contamination should be considered in the development of guidelines or standards of air quality in broiler housing and evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial strategies.

1. Introduction

The air in intensive livestock production houses is always contaminated with some level of pollutants such as dust and microorganisms, with high concentrations of these pollutants posing a threat to animal and human health and welfare, production efficiency, and the external environment [1,2,3].
Dust in livestock houses is up to 90% of organic origin [4]. The sources of dust are animals and their excrements, litter, feed, and microbial cells or fragments [5,6]. According to aerodynamic particle diameter, dust is classified as the total or inhalable dust (<100 μm), thoracic dust (<10 μm), and respirable dust (<4 or 5 μm) [7,8]. The smaller the particles, the deeper they penetrate in the respiratory system and are health riskier [9]. In livestock houses, the respirable fraction generally accounts for 5% to 10% of inhalable particles [8]. The impact of dust particles on health can be described as mechanical, chemical, infectious, immunosuppressive, allergic, and toxic [10].
Saprophytes are the most common microorganisms detected in livestock house air; however, pathogenic microorganisms may also occur [11,12]. About 90% of the microorganisms identified in livestock house air were gram-positive bacteria [13,14], with staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci being the most common [11]. The high proportion of gram-positive bacteria in livestock house air can be attributed to their resistance to environmental conditions owing to their tough cell wall [14]. Unlike these, gram-negative bacteria account for a small proportion of airborne bacteria ranging from 0.02% to 5.2% [15].
Comparative research on air quality in livestock houses has indicated that dust concentration is highest in the air of poultry houses. So, Radon et al. [16] report on the median total airborne dust concentration in poultry houses of 7.01 mg/m3, while Takai et al. [17] report on the mean concentration of inhalable and respirable dust of 3.60 mg/m3 and 0.45 mg/m3, respectively. In the study by Kim and Ko [18], the mean concentration of total and respirable airborne dust in poultry houses was 4.39 mg/m3 and 2.33 mg/m3, respectively. Skóra et al. [12] report on the mean concentration of total airborne dust in poultry houses of 1.44 mg/m3 and Bakutis et al. [19] on 11.4 mg/m3. Ellen et al. [20] found the airborne dust concentration in poultry houses to range from 0.02 mg/m3 to 81.33 mg/m3 of inhalable dust and from 0.01 mg/m3 to 6.5 mg/m3 of respirable dust.
Poultry houses are livestock houses with the highest level of airborne microorganisms as well [14,16,21]. Duan et al. [22] found that the total bacterial count in the air of poultry houses ranged from 3.80 × 105 to 2.57 × 106 CFU/m3, whereas according to Bródka et al. [23], it ranged from 4.74 × 104 to 1.89 × 108 CFU/m3. In the study performed by Bakutis et al. [19], the total bacterial count in the air of poultry houses did not exceed 105 CFU/m3. These findings are consistent with the report by Matković et al. [24] that the bacterial count in the air of poultry houses usually ranges from 104 to 108 CFU/m3.
Besides animal species, animal category and housing systems have also been found to affect the concentration of air contaminants in livestock houses. So, the concentrations of airborne dust and bacteria were higher in broiler houses as compared with laying hen houses [14,18,25], as well as in broiler houses with deep litter systems as compared with other floor systems [26,27]. Other factors that can contribute to poultry house air contamination with dust and bacteria include poultry age, weight and activity, stocking density, lighting programs, type of bedding and feeding, type of ventilation and ventilation rate, farm management, microclimate conditions, and seasons, as well as the method and time of sampling [6,11,20,28,29].
Regarding season and microclimate conditions, previous studies have demonstrated no clear consensus on their impact on airborne dust and bacterial concentrations in broiler houses. For instance, Saleh et al. [30] and Wójcik et al. [31] report that the total bacterial count in broiler house air is higher in winter than in summer, whereas opposite results were recorded by Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32] and Chen et al. [33]. In the study by Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32], bacterial count in broiler house air showed a significant positive correlation with relative humidity but no significant correlation with air temperature, whereas Banhazi et al. [34] recorded a significant positive correlation between bacterial count and air temperature but no significant correlation with relative humidity. Kim and Ko [18] and Saleh et al. [30] determined the lower total dust concentration in broiler houses in summer than in winter attributing it to a higher ventilation rate in summer. In contrast, Vučemilo et al. [35] recorded no significant correlation between airflow rate and total dust concentration in a broiler house.
This study contributes to the assessment of seasonal airborne dust and bacterial contamination in intensive broiler production housing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals, Housing, and Farm Management

The study was carried out in a commercial broiler house during five weeks of rearing cycle in summer (July–August 2016) and winter (December–January 2016/2017). The farm is located in northwest Croatia with a moderate continental climate. The poultry house is of a closed type, length 104 m, width 12 m, and height 4 m, with a controlled microclimate. During both rearing cycles, there were 18,000 Ross hybrid broilers in the house. From the beginning of the rearing period, broilers were evenly distributed all over the house and kept on a litter made of pine sawdust (2-cm lower layer) and chopped wheat straw (8-cm upper layer), stocking density up to 33 kg/m2. The litter was not turned over nor was new litter added during the two rearing cycles. The house is heated by fuel oil heaters, while ventilation is forced via negative pressure. Longitudinal walls have 49 air inlets, a width of 0.54 m, and a height of 0.26 m, with covers made of solid plastic, which are automatically opened and closed. Five exhaust fans are located along the mid-ceiling. Four sidewall fans are only operating at high temperatures but were out of function during the study period. The ventilation system operated at a minimum rate in winter, reaching a maximum rate in summer. Ventilation rates were set according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Big Dutchman International GmbH, Vechta, Germany). Lighting is artificial with a total of 32 neon light fixtures of 36-W. The lighting regimen was compliant with recommendations for Ross broilers [36]. Chickens were fed a complete feeding mixture (Biodar, Varaždin, Croatia), with both feed and water offered ad libitum from 390 round pan feeders and 1116 nipple drinkers with cups. The poultry house was cleaned and disinfected with high-pressure cleaners and rested for two weeks after each rearing cycle. Floor was disinfected with caustic soda (PCC Rokita SA, Brzeg Dolny, Poland) and the rest of the house, as well as an equipment, with Ecocid® S (Krka d.d., Novo Mesto, Slovenia). After the litter material was spread, the house was fumigated with a Formaster G tablet (Formaster di Emanuela Magnani & C.s.a.s., Piacenza, Italy).

2.2. Data Collection

The concentration of airborne dust and bacteria was measured once a week during each rearing cycle. A SAS 100TM instrument (PBI International, Milan, Italy) was used to determine bacterial count, with an airflow rate of 10 L/10 s. The sampling head was sterilized prior to each sampling and disinfected between measurements with 70% isopropyl alcohol (VWR International PBI, Milan, Italy). The air samples were collected into Petri dishes with Tryptic Soy Agar (Biolife, Milan, Italy) for enumeration of total aerobic mesophilic bacteria, as reported elsewhere [37,38,39,40,41]. After incubation at 37 °C for 24 h, the grown colonies (CFU/m3) were counted using a digital colony counter (J.P. Selecta, Barcelona, Spain), with results corrected as per the table and formula attached to the instrument. Dust in the house air (mg/m3) was sampled by use of the SKC pump (SKC Ltd., Blandford Forum, UK), with airflow through the filter (Whatman International Ltd., Maidstone, UK) at a rate of 4 L/min over 4 h. Total dust concentration in the poultry house air was determined by weighing the filter before and after air sampling. The filters were weighed in the laboratory at an air temperature of 22 °C (±2 °C) and relative humidity of 45% (±5%). Measurements were performed in the morning at nine sites (bacteria) and at three sites (dust) in the poultry biozone, with the dust sampling pump being relocated every 80 min. Measurements of air temperature, relative humidity, and airflow rate in the house were also performed at weekly intervals, as reported by Horvatek Tomić et al. [42]. Broiler activity was also assessed by direct observation of broilers employing the method reported by Weeks et al. [43] and Shields et al. [44]. Once a week, the behavior of 120 broilers was observed for one hour at five-minute intervals at different sites within the house and the results were expressed as the rate (%) of active broilers.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted by Statistica v. 14.1.0.8 reference software (Cloud Software Group, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2023, Data Science Workbench, http://tibco.com, accessed on 11 December 2023). Depending on the normality of data distribution as assessed by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the statistical significance of differences in the average values of dust concentration, bacterial count, and rate of active broilers, as well as bacterial count according to particular rearing weeks between the seasons, was calculated by use of a Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences in bacterial count among particular rearing weeks within a season were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test for post hoc analysis or Friedman ANOVA. Correlations among investigated parameters were determined by Spearman rank order correlations. In all tests, p < 0.05 was considered as a statistically significant value.

3. Results and Discussion

The total airborne dust concentration, rate of active broilers, and total airborne bacterial count according to rearing weeks in summer and winter are illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3, whereas the average values of these parameters throughout the summer and winter rearing cycles are presented in Table 1. Correlations among investigated parameters are shown in Table 2.
The total airborne dust concentration was consistent with the results previously reported in broiler houses [18,34,35,45], although some studies recorded much higher dust concentrations in the air of such houses [37]. In both seasons, dust concentration was lowest at the beginning of the rearing cycle, showing a rise thereafter and eventually decreasing at the end of the rearing cycle (Figure 1). These findings could be ascribed to higher broiler weight and lower activity at the end of the rearing cycle, as also discussed by Vučemilo et al. [35,45]; however, these authors did not quantify broiler activity. Our study indicated a comparable pattern of dust concentration and broiler activity during the rearing cycle in both seasons (Figure 1 and Figure 2), where the mean rate of active broilers did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between the seasons (Table 1). There was a significant positive correlation (r = 0.709; p < 0.05) between the rate of active broilers and dust concentration (Table 2). Calvet et al. [7] report on a strong positive correlation between broiler activity and air concentration of dust particles less than 10 μm in diameter.
Although the mean dust concentration was higher in winter than in summer (4.16 mg/m3 and 3.32 mg/m3, respectively), there was no significant between-season difference (p > 0.05) (Table 1). The same was indicated by the results reported by Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32]. Kim and Ko [18] recorded a significantly higher mean total dust concentration in broiler house air in winter than in summer. In the study by Saleh et al. [30], the total dust concentration in broiler houses was also higher in winter as compared to summer, reaching even double values at the end of the rearing cycle in winter. In the studies by Kim and Ko [18] and Saleh et al. [30], the lower dust concentration measured in summer was ascribed to a higher house ventilation rate in summer, as also discussed by Takai et al. [17]. In our study, there was no significant correlation between airflow rate and dust concentration (r = −0.043; p > 0.05) (Table 2), as also reported by Vučemilo et al. [35]. Banhazi et al. [34] reported a significant negative correlation between airflow rate and respirable dust concentration in the air of broiler houses but failed to record a significant correlation with inhalable particle concentration, indicating that these particles may not be easily eliminated by increasing airflow rate.
High temperature triggers a cascade of events that can influence airborne dust concentration, such as increased ventilation rate [11]. Although in our study there was no significant correlation between airflow rate and dust concentration, a significant negative correlation was recorded for air temperature with airflow rate (r = −0.356; p < 0.05) and dust concentration (r = −0.418; p < 0.05) (Table 2). In contrast, other authors report a significant positive correlation between air temperature and total dust concentration in the air of broiler houses [34,35], whereas no significant correlation was found between air temperature and smaller dust particles [32,34]. Zhao et al. [11] report on the correlation of airborne dust concentration and air temperature to change from positive to negative at extremely high temperatures, possibly because animal activity is reduced at high temperatures, thus decreasing the airborne dust concentration. In our study, there was no significant correlation between air temperature and the rate of active broilers (r = 0.093; p > 0.05) (Table 2).
Vučemilo et al. [35] report that high air humidity can precipitate sedimentation of dust particles, whereas low air humidity results in high airborne dust concentration. These authors, however, recorded a significant positive correlation between relative humidity and total dust concentration in the air of a broiler house, as also confirmed by our study (r = 0.673; p < 0.05) (Table 2). This finding may be related to the significant positive correlation among the rate of active broilers, dust concentration, and relative humidity, where higher broiler activity yielded higher dust concentration, as well as higher air humidity (r = 0.397; p < 0.05) (Table 2). Banhazi et al. [34] recorded a significant negative correlation between relative humidity and respirable dust concentration in broiler houses, however, without any effect of air humidity on inhalable dust concentration. In the study by Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32], relative humidity in broiler houses had no impact on airborne dust particles less than 10 μm in diameter.
The values of air temperature, relative humidity, and airflow rate in the broiler house were consistent with those reported elsewhere. The mean temperature and airflow rate did not differ significantly between the seasons, whereas the mean relative humidity was significantly higher in winter as compared with summer [42]. There was a significant negative correlation between air temperature and relative humidity (r = −0.443; p < 0.05), while airflow rate showed a significant negative correlation with air temperature and a significant positive correlation with relative humidity (r = 0.405; p < 0.05) (Table 2). On the one hand, relative air humidity was expected to decrease with increased airflow rate, whereas, on the other hand, it was quite understandable that airflow rate increased due to broiler growth and increased humidity in the house.
Dust can act as a carrier of microorganisms [4,8,11], as also demonstrated by this study. Dust concentration yielded a significant positive correlation with bacterial count in the air (r = 0.602; p < 0.05) (Table 2). The total bacterial count in the broiler house air was consistent with the results reported by Vučemilo et al. [45] and Matković et al. [46], whereas higher values have been reported by Saleh et al. [30], Wójcik et al. [31], Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32], Oppliger et al. [37], and Haas et al. [47]. In our study, the median bacterial count was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in winter (5.70 × 104 CFU/m3) than in summer (4.13 × 104 CFU/m3) (Table 1), which is consistent with the results reported by Saleh et al. [30] and Wójcik et al. [31] but opposite to the results reported by Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32] and Chen et al. [33]. According to Chen et al. [33], the higher bacterial count in broiler house air in summer should be attributed to high temperature and humidity that favor the growth of microorganisms.
The bacterial burden of air in broiler houses has been shown to rise with broiler age and stage of the production cycle [32,37,45,47,48]; in addition to animal growth, it is caused by increased concentration of feces, litter, and feed residues [6]. Saleh et al. [30] and Wójcik et al. [31] report on comparable findings. These authors attributed lower bacterial count determined in the broiler house air in the last rearing week both in summer and winter to reduced broiler activity (although it was not quantified) and higher indoor airflow rate, respectively. On the other hand, Banhazi et al. [34] did not record any effect of the airflow rate on the bacterial count in broiler house air. In this study, bacterial count in the broiler house air in summer increased by the middle of the rearing cycle to decrease thereafter, whereas, in winter, it showed a continuous rise throughout the rearing cycle. A comparison of the seasonal patterns showed that bacterial count was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at the beginning and in the middle of the rearing cycle in summer, whereas, in winter, it was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at the end of the rearing cycle due to a continuous increase in their number (Figure 3). There was a significant positive correlation between airflow rate and bacterial count (r = 0.511; p < 0.05) (Table 2), suggesting that a higher indoor airflow rate is associated with higher bacterial circulation. There was no significant correlation between the rate of active broilers and airborne bacterial count (r = 0.198; p > 0.05) (Table 2).
Air temperature yielded a significant negative correlation (r = −0.756; p < 0.05) and relative humidity yielded a significant positive correlation (r = 0.831; p < 0.05) with airborne bacterial count (Table 2). The latter correlation could explain their significantly higher median count during the rearing cycle in winter as compared to summer. Lawniczek-Walczyk et al. [32] also report on a significant positive correlation between bacterial count in broiler house air and relative humidity but no significant correlation with air temperature, whereas Banhazi et al. [34] describe opposite results.
As the effects of the factors influencing dust and bacterial concentration in livestock housing air are interrelated, they require integrated research [11]. Improved knowledge of these contaminants and factors influencing their concentrations is important for the assessment of their impact, proposing appropriate mitigation strategies and setting the standards of air quality in livestock housing, including poultry houses [21,25,49].

4. Conclusions

Study results indicated that there were seasonal differences in broiler house air contamination with dust and bacteria, suggesting it to be greater in winter. Airborne dust and bacterial concentrations were found to be affected by the same factors including air temperature and relative humidity but also by additional factors such as airflow rate (bacteria) and broiler activity (dust), the latter factor being hardly quantified in previous research. The findings obtained in our study can prove useful in the field. Seasonal variability in concentrations of air contaminants should be taken into account when developing the guidelines or standards of air quality in broiler housing and assessing the effectiveness of remedial strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.R., M.O. and D.H.T.; Methodology, I.R., M.O. and D.H.T.; Validation, I.R., M.O. and D.H.T.; Formal Analysis, A.E.K.; Investigation, I.R., M.O., D.H.T. and M.K.; Resources, I.R., M.O., D.H.T. and M.K.; Data Curation, A.E.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, I.R., M.O. and D.H.T.; Writing—Review and Editing, I.R., M.O., A.E.K., M.K., K.M., Ž.G. and D.H.T.; Visualization, A.E.K., K.M. and Ž.G.; Supervision, M.O. and D.H.T.; Project Administration, M.O. and D.H.T.; Funding Acquisition, I.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee in Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia (class: 640-01/16-17/43; record no.: 251-61-01/139-16-2; 21 April 2016).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be addressed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Matija Kovačić was employed by the company Kovačić Family Farm. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lonc, E.; Plewa, K. Microbiological air contamination in poultry houses. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mostafa, E. Air-polluted with particulate matters from livestock buildings. In Air Quality—New Perspective; Lopez Badilla, G., Valdez, B., Schorr, M., Eds.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chmielowiec-Korzeniowska, A.; Trawińska, B.; Tymczyna, L.; Bis-Wencel, H.; Matuszewski, Ł. Microbial contamination of the air in livestock buildings as a threat to human and animal health—A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2021, 21, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J. Emission of airborne particulates from animal production. In Livestock Farming and the Environment: Proceedings of Workshop 4 on Sustainable Animal Production, Held at Hannover, 28 September 2000; Hartung, J., Wathes, C.M., Eds.; Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL): Braunschweig, Germany, 2001; pp. 15–22. Available online: https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/zi025653.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  5. Wathes, C.M. Air and surface hygiene. In Livestock Housing; Wathes, C.M., Charles, D.R., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1994; pp. 123–148. [Google Scholar]
  6. Clauß, M. Emission of Bioaerosols from Livestock Facilities: Methods and Results from Available Bioaerosol Investigations in and around Agricultural Livestock Farming; Thünen Working Paper, No. 138a; Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut: Braunschweig, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/213023/1/1687421714.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  7. Calvet, S.; Van den Weghe, H.; Kosch, R.; Estellés, F. The influence of the lighting program on broiler activity and dust production. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2504–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. David, B.; Moe, R.O.; Michel, V.; Lund, V.; Mejdell, C. Air quality in alternative housing systems may have an impact on laying hen welfare. Part I—Dust. Animals 2015, 5, 495–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Plewa, K.; Lonc, E. Seasonal biodiversity of pathogenic fungi in farming air area. Case study. Wiad. Parazytol. 2011, 57, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hartung, J.; Saleh, M. Composition of dust and effects on animals. Landbauforsch. Volk. 2007, 308, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhao, Y.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; De Jong, M.C.M.; Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. Airborne microorganisms from livestock production systems and their relation to dust. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 44, 1071–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Skóra, J.; Matusiak, K.; Wojewódzki, P.; Nowak, A.; Sulyok, M.; Ligocka, A.; Okrasa, M.; Hermann, J.; Gutarowska, B. Evaluation of microbiological and chemical contaminants in poultry farms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hartung, J. Emissions of airborne substances from stalls of domestic animals. Pneumologie 1992, 46, 196–202. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  14. Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J.; Schröder, M.; Linkert, K.H.; Phillips, V.R.; Holden, M.R.; Sneath, R.W.; Short, J.L.; White, R.P.; Pedersen, S.; et al. Concentrations and emissions of airborne endotoxins and microorganisms in livestock buildings in northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zucker, B.A.; Trojan, S.; Müller, W. Airborne gram-negative bacterial flora in animal houses. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 2000, 47, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Radon, K.; Danuser, B.; Iversen, M.; Monso, E.; Weber, C.; Hartung, J.; Donham, K.J.; Palmgren, U.; Nowak, D. Air contaminants in different European farming environments. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2002, 9, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  17. Takai, H.; Pedersen, S.; Johnsen, J.O.; Metz, J.H.M.; Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G.; Uenk, G.H.; Phillips, V.R.; Holden, M.R.; Sneath, R.W.; Short, J.L.; et al. Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, K.Y.; Ko, H.J. Field survey on concentration and emission of dust in different types of poultry houses of South Korea. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bakutis, B.; Monstviliene, E.; Januskeviciene, G. Analyses of airborne contamination with bacteria, endotoxins and dust in livestock barns and poultry houses. Acta Vet. Brno 2004, 73, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ellen, H.H.; Bottcher, R.W.; Von Wachenfelt, E.; Takai, H. Dust levels and control methods in poultry houses. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2000, 6, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matković, K.; Vučemilo, M.; Vinković, B. Airborne fungi in dwellings for dairy cows and laying hens. Arh. Hig. Rada Toksikol. 2009, 60, 395–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duan, H.; Chai, T.; Zhang, X.; Ma, R. Microbiological aerosols in poultry houses and its ambience. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Tartu, Estonia, 17–21 June 2007; Volume 1, pp. 526–532. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bródka, K.; Kozajda, A.; Buczyńska, A.; Szadkowska-Stańczyk, I. The variability of bacterial aerosol in poultry houses depending on selected factors. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2012, 25, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Matković, K.; Vučemilo, M.; Vinković, B. Influence of microclimate on dust and on concentration of microorganisms in the air of poultry houses for laying hens. Stočarstvo 2009, 63, 57–63. (In Croatian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, S.-J.; Kim, K.-Y. On-site investigation of airborne bacteria and fungi according to type of poultry houses in South Korea. Processes 2021, 9, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Madelin, T.M.; Wathes, C.M. Air hygiene in a broiler house: Comparison of deep litter with raised netting floors. Br. Poult. Sci. 1989, 30, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Soliman, E.S.; Hassan, R.A. Influence of housing floor on air quality, growth traits, and immunity in broiler chicken farms. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2020, 8, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sethi, P.; Muduli, S.; Mishra, A.; Roul, A.K.; Mishra, A. Poultry dust and risks associated with public health. Pharma Innov. 2019, 8, 1188–1192. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, K.; Shen, D.; Dai, P.; Li, C. Particulate matter in poultry house on poultry respiratory disease: A systematic review. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Saleh, M.; Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J. Influence of animal age and season on bio-aerosol concentrations in a broiler house. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland, 4–8 September 2005; Volume 2, pp. 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wójcik, A.; Chorąży, Ł.; Mituniewicz, T.; Witkowska, D.; Iwańczuk-Czernik, K.; Sowińska, J. Microbial air contamination in poultry houses in the summer and winter. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 1045–1050. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lawniczek-Walczyk, A.; Górny, R.L.; Golofit-Szymczak, M.; Niesler, A.; Wlazlo, A. Occupational exposure to airborne microorganisms, endotoxins and ß-glucans in poultry houses at different stages of the production cycle. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2013, 20, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen, H.; Yan, H.; Xiu, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Yu, X.; Zhu, H.; Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; et al. Seasonal dynamics in bacterial communities of closed-cage broiler houses. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 1019005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Banhazi, T.M.; Seedorf, J.; Laffrique, M.; Rutley, D.L. Identification of the risk factors for high airborne particle concentrations in broiler buildings using statistical modelling. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 101, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vučemilo, M.; Matković, K.; Vinković, B.; Macan, J.; Varnai, V.M.; Prester, L.; Granić, K.; Orct, T. Effect of microclimate on the airborne dust and endotoxin concentration in a broiler house. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 53, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aviagen. Ross Broiler Management Handbook 2018. Available online: https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerHandbook2018-EN.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2023).
  37. Oppliger, A.; Charrière, N.; Droz, P.O.; Rinsoz, T. Exposure to bioaerosols in poultry houses at different stages of fattening; use of real-time PCR for airborne bacterial quantification. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Witkowska, D.; Sowinska, J. The effectiveness of peppermint and thyme essential oil mist in reducing bacterial contamination in broiler houses. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2834–2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Konieczny, P.; Cegielska-Radziejewska, R.; Mroczek, E.; Dziedzic, J. Analysis of air quality in selected areas of a poultry processing plant with the use of a microbiological air. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2016, 18, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wolny-Koładka, K. Microbiological quality of air in free-range and box-stall stable horse keeping systems. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Grzyb, J.; Podstawski, Z.; Bulski, K. Bacterial aerosol, particulate matter, and microclimatic parameters in the horse stables in Poland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 26992–27006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Horvatek Tomić, D.; Ravić, I.; Kabalin, A.E.; Kovačić, M.; Gottstein, Ž.; Ostović, M. Effects of season and house microclimate on fungal flora in air and broiler trachea. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Weeks, C.A.; Danbury, T.D.; Davies, H.C.; Hunt, P.; Kestin, S.C. The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 67, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Shields, S.J.; Garner, J.P.; Mench, J.A. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1816–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Vučemilo, M.; Matković, K.; Vinković, B.; Jakšić, S.; Granić, K.; Mas, N. The effect of animal age on air pollutant concentration in a broiler house. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 52, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matković, K.; Vučemilo, M.; Matković, S.; Pavičić, Ž.; Ostović, M. Influence of biosafety measures on broilers behavior and welfare. Krmiva 2013, 55, 115–121. (In Croatian) [Google Scholar]
  47. Haas, D.; Miskovic, T.; Fritz, T.; Galler, H.; Habib, J.; Köck, S.; Kropsch, M.; Pless, P.; Stonitsch, M.; Zentner, E.; et al. Concentrations of mesophilic bacteria in a poultry farm over two fattening periods focusing on the presence of staphylococci and enterococci. FEMS Microbes 2022, 3, xtac023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, E.; Jiang, L.; Tang, J.; Li, M.; Zhao, X.; Chen, G.; Zhu, H.; Yu, X.; et al. Bacterial communities in PM2.5 and PM10 in broiler houses at different broiler growth stages in spring. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2019, 22, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cambra-López, M.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Zhao, Y.; Calvet, S.; Torres, A.G. Airborne particulate matter from livestock production systems: A review of an air pollution problem. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 14 00778 g001
Figure 1. Total dust concentration in broiler house air per rearing week in summer and winter.
Figure 1. Total dust concentration in broiler house air per rearing week in summer and winter.
Agriculture 14 00778 g001
Agriculture 14 00778 g002
Figure 2. The rate of active broilers (of 120 broilers observed weekly) per rearing week in summer and winter.
Figure 2. The rate of active broilers (of 120 broilers observed weekly) per rearing week in summer and winter.
Agriculture 14 00778 g002
Agriculture 14 00778 g003
Figure 3. Mean (±95% confidence interval) total bacterial count in broiler house air per rearing week in summer and winter. a,b Same letters mark weekly values of the same season that were not significantly different, while others differed significantly (p < 0.01). * Asterisk marks weekly values in different seasons that were not significant, others differed significantly (p < 0.001).
Figure 3. Mean (±95% confidence interval) total bacterial count in broiler house air per rearing week in summer and winter. a,b Same letters mark weekly values of the same season that were not significantly different, while others differed significantly (p < 0.01). * Asterisk marks weekly values in different seasons that were not significant, others differed significantly (p < 0.001).
Agriculture 14 00778 g003
Table 1. Total dust concentration and total bacterial count in broiler house air and rate of active broilers during five weeks of rearing cycle in summer and winter.
Table 1. Total dust concentration and total bacterial count in broiler house air and rate of active broilers during five weeks of rearing cycle in summer and winter.
ParameterSummerWinter
Total dust (mg/m3)
Mean ± SD (Min–Max)		3.32 ± 0.99
(1.90–4.50)		4.16 ± 0.97
(2.80–5.10)
Total bacteria (CFU/m3)
Median (Min–Max)		4.13 × 104 *
(2.85 × 104–1.03 × 105)		5.70 × 104 *
(2.12 × 104–2.28 × 105)
Active broilers (% of 600 broilers observed per season)
Mean ± SD (Min–Max)		48.17 ± 17.55
(21.67–69.17)		61.83 ± 15.81
(35.00–75.83)
* p < 0.001.
Table 2. Correlations among microclimate parameters, total dust, and total bacteria in broiler house air and rate of active broilers.
Table 2. Correlations among microclimate parameters, total dust, and total bacteria in broiler house air and rate of active broilers.
ParameterAir Temperature (°C)Relative Humidity (%)Airflow Rate (m/s)Total Dust
(mg/m3)		Total Bacteria
(CFU/m3)		Active Broilers (%)
Air Temperature (°C)1.000−0.443 *−0.356 *−0.418 *−0.756 *0.093
Relative Humidity (%) 1.0000.405 *0.673 *0.831 *0.397 *
Airflow Rate
(m/s)		 1.000−0.0430.511 *−0.187
Total Dust
(mg/m3)		 1.0000.602 *0.709 *
Total Bacteria
(CFU/m3)		 1.0000.198
Active Broilers (%) 1.000
* p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ravić, I.; Ostović, M.; Ekert Kabalin, A.; Kovačić, M.; Matković, K.; Gottstein, Ž.; Horvatek Tomić, D. Dust and Bacterial Air Contamination in a Broiler House in Summer and Winter. Agriculture 2024, 14, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050778

AMA Style

Ravić I, Ostović M, Ekert Kabalin A, Kovačić M, Matković K, Gottstein Ž, Horvatek Tomić D. Dust and Bacterial Air Contamination in a Broiler House in Summer and Winter. Agriculture. 2024; 14(5):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050778

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ravić, Ivica, Mario Ostović, Anamaria Ekert Kabalin, Matija Kovačić, Kristina Matković, Željko Gottstein, and Danijela Horvatek Tomić. 2024. "Dust and Bacterial Air Contamination in a Broiler House in Summer and Winter" Agriculture 14, no. 5: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050778

APA Style

Ravić, I., Ostović, M., Ekert Kabalin, A., Kovačić, M., Matković, K., Gottstein, Ž., & Horvatek Tomić, D. (2024). Dust and Bacterial Air Contamination in a Broiler House in Summer and Winter. Agriculture, 14(5), 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050778

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop