Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.P., J.S., A.K. and N.B.; methodology, M.P., J.S., G.C.-C., E.B., F.R. and A.K.; formal analysis, M.P., G.C.-C. and A.M.; investigation, M.P., J.S., C.T., E.B., C.H., F.R., A.K. and N.B.; resources, C.R. and U.R.; data curation, M.P., G.C.-C. and E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P., G.C.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.B., A.K. and N.B.; visualization, M.P. and G.C.-C.; project administration, J.S. and N.B.; funding acquisition, A.K. and N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Distribution and statistics for CTX-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding, ST3-after defeathering, ST4-after evisceration; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; results of nonparametric multiple contrast test are shown as: n.s.—not significant, ***—p < 0.001. The lower and upper hinges of the boxes correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The line in the box between the lower and upper hinges corresponds to the median. The upper whisker extends from the upper hinge to the largest value but no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge (where IQR is the inter-quartile range, or distance between the first and third quartiles). The lower whisker extends from the lower hinge to the smallest value but at most 1.5 × IQR of the hinge.
Figure 1.
Distribution and statistics for CTX-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding, ST3-after defeathering, ST4-after evisceration; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; results of nonparametric multiple contrast test are shown as: n.s.—not significant, ***—p < 0.001. The lower and upper hinges of the boxes correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The line in the box between the lower and upper hinges corresponds to the median. The upper whisker extends from the upper hinge to the largest value but no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge (where IQR is the inter-quartile range, or distance between the first and third quartiles). The lower whisker extends from the lower hinge to the smallest value but at most 1.5 × IQR of the hinge.
Figure 2.
Distributions and statistics for total Enterobacteriaceae; ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding, ST3-after defeathering, ST4-after evisceration; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; results of nonparametric multiple contrast test are shown as: n.s.—not significant, **—p < 0.01, ***—p < 0.001. The lower and upper hinges of the boxes correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The line in the box between lower and upper hinge corresponds to the median. The upper whisker extends from the upper hinge to the largest value but no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge (where IQR is the inter-quartile range, or distance between the first and third quartiles). The lower whisker extends from the lower hinge to the smallest value but at most 1.5 × IQR of the hinge.
Figure 2.
Distributions and statistics for total Enterobacteriaceae; ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding, ST3-after defeathering, ST4-after evisceration; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; results of nonparametric multiple contrast test are shown as: n.s.—not significant, **—p < 0.01, ***—p < 0.001. The lower and upper hinges of the boxes correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). The line in the box between lower and upper hinge corresponds to the median. The upper whisker extends from the upper hinge to the largest value but no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge (where IQR is the inter-quartile range, or distance between the first and third quartiles). The lower whisker extends from the lower hinge to the smallest value but at most 1.5 × IQR of the hinge.
Figure 3.
Visible fecal contamination inspection after arrival; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Figure 3.
Visible fecal contamination inspection after arrival; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Figure 4.
Chicken vise distribution of the total scoring values related to measures of bacterial counts for CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae, CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; grey dots—not scored.
Figure 4.
Chicken vise distribution of the total scoring values related to measures of bacterial counts for CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae, CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; grey dots—not scored.
Figure 5.
Plot of the log10 values of the initial concentration of CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae at station 1 (ST1) against the reduction of the bacterial counts after scalding (ST1-ST2). Scalding temperatures in °C (temp) are displayed in a color scale; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; grey—temperature not determined.
Figure 5.
Plot of the log10 values of the initial concentration of CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae at station 1 (ST1) against the reduction of the bacterial counts after scalding (ST1-ST2). Scalding temperatures in °C (temp) are displayed in a color scale; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion; grey—temperature not determined.
Figure 6.
Plotting log10 values of numbers of CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae at station 2 (ST2, after scalding) against the reduction of the bacterial counts after defeathering (ST2-ST3). CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Figure 6.
Plotting log10 values of numbers of CTX-resistant and total Enterobacteriaceae at station 2 (ST2, after scalding) against the reduction of the bacterial counts after defeathering (ST2-ST3). CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 1.
Animal parameters for all groups; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 1.
Animal parameters for all groups; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Parameters | CG | DW | RR | 25 kg/sqm | CE |
---|
Breed | Ross308 | Ross308 | Rowan × Ranger | Ross308 | Ross308 |
Fattening time | 34 days | 38 days | 47 days | 34 days | 34 days |
Mean weight carcasses | 2044 g | 1934 g | 1992 g | 1889 g | 1987 g |
Mean weight internal organ bundle | 239 g | 238 g | 239 g | 257 g | 266 g |
Outdoor temperatures during transportation | Max 22 °C | Max 23 °C | Max 7 °C | Max 10 °C | Max 22 °C |
Month of slaughter | April | August | November | March | October |
Table 2.
Qualitative and quantitative data (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) of the swab samples (n = 40 per sampling point) concerning Cefotaxime (CTX)-resistant Enterobacteriaceae for all groups and all samplings; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 2.
Qualitative and quantitative data (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) of the swab samples (n = 40 per sampling point) concerning Cefotaxime (CTX)-resistant Enterobacteriaceae for all groups and all samplings; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
| CG | DW | RR | 25 kg/sqm | CE |
---|
ST1, before slaughter | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 39 | 39 | 31 | 11 | 17 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 4.21 | 4.72 | 3.46 | 2.98 | 2.41 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 3.70 | 4.35 | 2.51 | 0 | 0 |
ST2, after scalding | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 37 | 32 | 0 | 3 | 7 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 4.03 | 3.47 | 0 | 0.72 | 1.56 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.99 | 2.95 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
ST3, after defeathering | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 39 | 37 | 10 | 23 | 16 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.70 | 2.68 | 1.47 | 2.54 | 1.96 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.42 | 2.08 | 0 | 1.48 | 0 |
ST4, after evisceration | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 40 | 38 | 13 | 21 | 23 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.84 | 2.77 | 1.54 | 2.38 | 3.21 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.62 | 2.29 | 0 | 1.48 | 1.57 |
Table 3.
Qualitative and quantitative data (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) of the swab samples (n = 40, each group and station) concerning total Enterobacteriaceae for all groups and all samplings; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 3.
Qualitative and quantitative data (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) of the swab samples (n = 40, each group and station) concerning total Enterobacteriaceae for all groups and all samplings; CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
| CG | DW | RR | 25 kg/sqm | CE |
---|
ST1, before slaughter | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 39 | 39 | 38 | 25 | 37 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 4.59 | 5.08 | 4.38 | 3.36 | 4.49 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 4.20 | 4.77 | 3.72 | 2.18 | 3.30 |
ST2, after scalding | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 40 | 32 | 3 | 9 | 27 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 4.27 | 3.51 | 0.95 | 2.15 | 3.36 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 3.70 | 2.96 | 0 | 0 | 2.05 |
ST3, after defeathering | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 38 | 39 | 40 | 39 | 35 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 3.21 | 2.85 | 2.88 | 3.12 | 2.80 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 2.90 | 2.38 | 2.80 | 2.52 | 2.48 |
ST4, after evisceration | | | | | |
No of positive samples | 40 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 39 |
Mean log10 CFU/20 cm² | 3.32 | 2.91 | 3.88 | 2.98 | 4.29 |
Median log10 CFU/20 cm² | 3.11 | 2.43 | 3.05 | 2.57 | 3.21 |
Table 4.
Means of scoring values for the broiler chickens in each experimental group averaged over all scorers. Mean minimum and maximum values were given in brackets. CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 4.
Means of scoring values for the broiler chickens in each experimental group averaged over all scorers. Mean minimum and maximum values were given in brackets. CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Experimental Group. | Appearance Feathers/Coat | Dirt/Fecal Contamination | Total Sum Score |
---|
CG | 2.51 (1.83–3.00) | 1.81 (0.83–2.00) | 4.32 (3.17–5.00) |
RR | 2.10 (0.83–3.00) | 1.76 (0.17–2.00) | 3.86 (1.83–5.00) |
25 kg/sqm | 1.15 (0.33–1.67) | 1.03 (0.00–2.00) | 2.18 (0.33–3.50) |
CE | 1.55 (0.50–2.50) | 1.35 (0.33–2.00) | 2.90 (1.17–4.33) |
Table 5.
Means of total sum scoring values for the broiler chickens for each of the six different scoring persons. CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 5.
Means of total sum scoring values for the broiler chickens for each of the six different scoring persons. CG-control group, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Scorer | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|
Experimental Group | | | | | | |
CG | 4.68 | 4.03 | 4.53 | 4.45 | 4.65 | 3.63 |
RR | 4.21 | 3.58 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.29 | 3.05 |
25 kg/sqm | 2.34 | 1.82 | 2.79 | 2.13 | 2.08 | 1.89 |
CE | 3.48 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 2.85 | 2.68 | 2.40 |
Table 6.
Mean bacterial concentrations (log10 CFU/20 cm²) after arrival (ST1) and after scalding (ST2), as well as the mean reduction via scalding for all groups. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion
Table 6.
Mean bacterial concentrations (log10 CFU/20 cm²) after arrival (ST1) and after scalding (ST2), as well as the mean reduction via scalding for all groups. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion
Experimental Group | Mean Scalding Temperature (Range in °C) | CTX-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae | Total Enterobacteriaceae |
---|
Mean ST1 | Mean ST2 | Reduction (Ratio in %) | Mean ST1 | Mean ST2 | Reduction (Ratio in %) |
---|
CG | 65 °C (71–78) | 4.21 | 4.03 | 0.18 (33.93) | 4.59 | 4.27 | 0.32 (52.19) |
DW | 69 °C (59–71) | 4.72 | 3.47 | 1.25 (94.38) | 5.08 | 3.51 | 1.57 (97.31) |
RR | 73 °C (68–74) | 3.46 | <LOD * | 3.46 (>98.95) | 4.38 | 0.95 | 3.43 (99.96) |
25 kg/sqm | 67 °C (63–67) | 2.98 | 0.72 | 2.26 (99.45) | 3.36 | 2.15 | 1.21 (93.83) |
CE | 71 °C (68–71) | 2.41 | 1.56 | 0.85 (85.87) | 4.49 | 3.36 | 1.13 (92.59) |
Table 7.
Results of two linear models for the log10-reduction of bacterial counts on carcass surfaces due to scalding. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion, ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding.
Table 7.
Results of two linear models for the log10-reduction of bacterial counts on carcass surfaces due to scalding. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion, ST1-after arrival, ST2-after scalding.
Dependent Variable: Log Reduction between ST1 and ST2 |
---|
| Model for Resistant Enterobacteriaceae | Model for all Enterobacteriaceae |
---|
Predictors | Estimates | CI | p | Estimates | CI | p |
---|
(Intercept) | −21.34 | −34.77–−7.91 | 0.002 | −6.68 | −11.28–−2.08 | 0.005 |
temperature | 0.29 | 0.08–0.50 | 0.006 | 0.06 | −0.01–0.13 | 0.105 |
logST1 | 0.84 | 0.7 –0.95 | <0.001 | 0.81 | 0.68–0.94 | <0.001 |
DW | −7.61 | −26.57–1.36 | 0.430 | 1.09 | 0.51–1.66 | <0.001 |
RR | 22.63 | 3.56–41.69 | 0.020 | 2.93 | 2.11–3.76 | <0.001 |
25 kg/sqm | 21.55 | 7.4–35.62 | 0.003 | 2.64 | 2.05–3.23 | <0.001 |
CE | 26.44 | 8.90–43.98 | 0.003 | 1.39 | 0.76–2.02 | <0.001 |
temp:DW | 0.10 | −0.18–0.39 | 0.478 | | | |
temp:RR | −0.30 | −0.58–−0.03 | 0.031 | | | |
temp:25kg/sqm | −0.29 | −0.51–−0.08 | 0.008 | | | |
temp:CE | −0.37 | −0.63–−0.10 | 0.006 | | | |
Observations | 190 | 190 |
R2/R2 adjusted | 0.684/0.666 | 0.621/0.608 |
Table 8.
Mean bacterial concentrations (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) after scalding (ST2) and after defeathering (ST3), as well as the mean reduction via defeathering for all groups. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Table 8.
Mean bacterial concentrations (log10 CFU/20 cm² values) after scalding (ST2) and after defeathering (ST3), as well as the mean reduction via defeathering for all groups. CG-control group, DW-drinking water supplement, RR-slow growing breed Rowan × Ranger, 25 kg/sqm-reduced stocking density, CE-competitive exclusion.
Experimental Group | CTX-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae | Total Enterobacteriaceae |
---|
Mean ST2 | Mean ST3 | Reduction | Mean ST2 | Mean ST3 | Reduction |
---|
CG | 4.03 | 2.7 | 1.33 | 4.27 | 3.21 | 1.06 |
DW | 3.47 | 2.68 | 0.79 | 3.51 | 2.85 | 0.66 |
RR | 0 | 1.47 | −1.47 | 0.95 | 2.88 | −1.93 |
25 kg/sqm | 0.72 | 2.54 | −1.82 | 2.15 | 3.12 | −0.97 |
CE | 1.56 | 1.96 | −0.4 | 3.36 | 2.8 | 0.56 |
Table 9.
Developed scoring system for the evaluation of the level of visible external contamination as indicator for the microbiological contamination level.
Table 9.
Developed scoring system for the evaluation of the level of visible external contamination as indicator for the microbiological contamination level.
Score | Appearance of Feathers/Coat | Score # | Dirt/Fecal Contamination |
---|
0 | Chickens have a fluffy appearance with dry (white *) feathers. | 0 | There are no or at least very few small visible contaminations on the feathers or the breast skin. |
1 | Chickens still have some fluffy appearance with mostly dry (white *) feathers. Only some feathers are wet or slightly discolored. | 1 | There are few small contaminations of the feathers and the breast skin with only 1–2 large loosely attached contaminations on the coat. |
2 | There are wet or discolored feathers but mostly around breast skin area. Some of the feathers appear separated. | 2a | Chickens are obviously contaminated on the breast skin and/or the coat (mainly small contaminations) |
3 | Large areas of the coat have wet or discolored feathers. Most of these feathers appear separated. | 2b | Chickens are obviously contaminated on the breast skin and/or the coat (mainly large loosely attached contaminations) |