Contamination of litter in a broiler grow-out house with Salmonella prior to placement of a new flock has been shown to be a precursor of the flock's Salmonella contamination further down the production continuum. In the southern USA, broiler grow-out houses are primarily built on dirt pad foundations that are placed directly on top of the native soil surface. Broiler litter is placed directly on the dirt pad. Multiple grow-out flocks are reared on a single litter batch, and the litter is kept in the houses during downtime between flocks. The effects of environmental determinants on conditions in broiler litter, hence Salmonella ecology within it, has received limited attention. In a field study that included broiler farms in the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Texas we assessed Salmonella in broiler litter at the end of downtime between flocks, i.e. at the time of placement of a new flock for rearing. Here we utilized these results and the U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO) data to test if properties of soil at farm location impacted the probability of Salmonella detection in the litter. The significance of soil properties as risk factors was tested in multilevel regression models after accounting for possible confounding differences among the farms, the participating broiler complexes and companies, and the farms' geographical positioning. Significant associations were observed between infiltration and drainage capabilities of soil at farm location and probability of Salmonella detection in the litter.
Milner KC, Shaffer MF (1952) Bacteriologic studies of experimental Salmonella infections in chicks. Journal of Infectious Diseases 90: 81–96.
[3]
Nurmi E, Rantala M (1973) New Aspects of Salmonella Infection in Broiler Production. Nature 241: 210–211.
[4]
Blankenship EM, Mead C, Cox NA, Stern NJ, Brewer R, et al. (1993) Two-step mucosal competitive exclusion flora treatment to diminish Salmonellae in commercial broiler chickens. Poultry Science 72: 1667–1672.
[5]
Rose N, Beaudeau F, Drouin P, Toux JY, Rose V, et al. (1999) Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica contamination in French broiler-chicken flocks at the end of rearing period. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 39: 265–277.
[6]
Rose N, Mariani JP, Drouin P, Toux JY, Rose V, et al. (2003) A decision-support system for Salmonella in broiler-chicken flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 59: 27–42.
[7]
Cardinale E, Tall F, Gueye EF, Cisse M, Salvat G (2004) Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica infection in senegalese broiler-chicken flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 63: 151–161.
[8]
Volkova VV, Bailey RH, Rybolt ML, Dazo-Galarneau K, Hubbard SA, et al. (2009) Interrelationships of Salmonella status of flock and grow-out environment at sequential segments in broiler production and processing. Zoonoses and Public Health In press.
[9]
Botts CW, Ferguson LC, Birkeland JM, Winter AR (1952) The influence of litter on the control of Salmonella infections in chicks. American Journal of Veterinary Research 13: 562–565.
[10]
Tucker JF (1967) Survival of Salmonellae in built-up litter for housing of rearing and laying fowls. British Veterinary Journal 123: 92–103.
[11]
Snoeyenbos GH, Carlson VL, McKie BA, Smyser CF (1967) An epidemiological study of salmonellosis in chickens. Avian Diseases 11: 653–667.
[12]
Olesiuk OM, Snoyenbos GH, Smyser CF (1971) Inhibitory effects of used litter on Salmonella typhimurium transmission in the chicken. Avian Diseases 15: 118–124.
[13]
Turnbull PCB, Snoyenbos GH (1973) The roles of ammonia, water activity, and pH in the salmonellacidal effect of long-used poultry litter. Poultry Science 12: 72–86.
[14]
Bhatia TR, McNabb GD, Wyman H, Nayar GP (1979) Salmonella isolation from litter as an indicator of flock infection and carcass contamination. Avian Diseases 23: 838–847.
[15]
Bhatia TR, McNabb GD (1980) Dissemination of Salmonella in broiler-chicken operations. Avian Diseases 24: 616–624.
[16]
Opara OO, Carr LE, Russek-Cohen E, Tate CR, Mallinson ET, et al. (1992) Correlation of water activity and other environmental conditions with repeated detection of Salmonella contamination on poultry farms. Avian Diseases 36: 664–671.
[17]
Opara OO, Carr LE, Tate CR, Miller RG, Mallinson ET, et al. (1994) Evaluation of possible alternatives to double-strength skim milk used to saturate drag swabs for Salmonella detection. Avian Diseases 38: 293–296.
[18]
Opara OO, Mallinson ET, Tate CR, Carr LE, Miller RG, et al. (1992) The effect of exposure, storage times, and types of holding media on the draw-swab monitoring technique for Salmonella. Avian Diseases 36: 63–68.
[19]
Carr LE, Mallinson ET, Tate CR, Miller RG, Russek-Cohen E, et al. (1995) Prevalence of Salmonella in broiler flocks: effect of litter water activity, house construction, and watering devices. Avian Diseases 39: 39–44.
[20]
Hayes JR, Carr LE, Mallinson ET, Douglass LW, Joseph SW (2000) Characterization of the contribution of water activity and moisture content to the population distribution of Salmonella spp. in commercial poultry houses. Poultry Science 79: 1557–1561.
[21]
Pope MJ, Cherry TE (2000) An evaluation of the presence of pathogens on broilers raised on poultry litter treatment？-treated litter. Poultry Science 79: 1351–1355.
[22]
Mallinson ET, Joseph SW, deRezende CL, Tablante NL, Carr LE (2001) Salmonella control and quality assurance at the farm end of the food safety continuum. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218: 1919–1922.
[23]
Line JE, Bailey JS (2006) Effect of on-farm litter acidification treatments on Campylobacter and Salmonella populations in commercial broiler houses in northeast Georgia. Poultry Science 85: 1529–1534.
[24]
Rose N, Beaudeau F, Drouin P, Toux JY, Rose V, et al. (2000) Risk factors for Salmonella persistence after cleansing and disinfection in French broiler-chicken houses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 44: 9–20.
[25]
Soil Survey Staff NRCS, United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS, USDA), U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO), [on line] [consulted 2006].
[26]
Eriksson de Rezende CL, Mallinson ET, Gupte A, Joseph SW (2001) Salmonella spp. are affected by different levels of water activity in closed microcosms. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 26: 222–225.
[27]
Gomez Villafane IE, Cavia R, Busch M, Bilenca DN (2003) Intra-farm variation of rodent infestations on poultry farms of central Argentina. British Poultry Science 44: 669–673.
[28]
Bailey JS, Stern NJ, Fedorka-Gray P, Craven SE, Cox NA, et al. (2001) Sources and movement of Salmonella through integrated poultry operations: a multistate epidemiological investigation. Journal of Food Protection 64: 1690–1697.
[29]
Jacobs-Reitsma WF, Bolder NM, Mulder RW (1994) Cecal carriage of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Dutch broiler flocks at slaughter: a one-year study. Poultry Science 73: 1260–1266.
[30]
Heyndrickx M, Vandekerchove D, Herman L, Rollier I, Grijspeerdt K, et al. (2002) Routes for Salmonella contamination of poultry meat: epidemiological study from hatchery to slaughterhouse. Epidemiology and Infection 129: 253–265.
[31]
Kingston DJ (1981) A comparison of culturing drag swabs and litter for identification of infections with Salmonella spp. in commercial chicken flocks. Avian Diseases 25: 513–516.
[32]
Caldwell DJ, Hargis BM, Corrier DE, Williams JD, Vidal L, et al. (1994) Predictive value of multiple drag-swab sampling for the detection of Salmonella from occupied or vacant poultry houses. Avian Diseases 38: 461–466.
[33]
Rybolt ML, Wills RW, Bailey RH (2005) Use of secondary enrichment for isolation of Salmonella from naturally contaminated environmental samples. Poultry Science 84: 992–997.
[34]
Condon J, Kelly G, Bradshaw B, Leonard N (2004) Estimation of infection prevalence from correlated binomial samples. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 64: 1–14.
[35]
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[36]
Schukken YH, Grohn YT, McDermott B, McDermott JJ (2003) Analysis of correlated discrete observations: background, examples and solutions. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 59: 223–240.
