52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Microbiological Safety of Chicken Litter or Chicken Litter-Based Organic Fertilizers: A Review

      ,
      Agriculture
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references87

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review.

          New livestock production systems, based on intensification in large farms, produce huge amount of manures and slurries without enough agricultural land for their direct application as fertilisers. Composting is increasingly considered a good way for recycling the surplus of manure as a stabilised and sanitised end-product for agriculture, and much research work has been carried out in the last decade. However, high quality compost should be produced to overcome the cost of composting. In order to provide and review the information found in the literature about manure composting, the first part of this paper explains the basic concepts of the composting process and how manure characteristics can influence its performance. Then, a summary of those factors such as nitrogen losses (which directly reduce the nutrient content), organic matter humification and compost maturity which affect the quality of composts produced by manure composting is presented. Special attention has been paid to the relevance of using an adequate bulking agent for reducing N-losses and the necessity of standardising the maturity indices due to their great importance amongst compost quality criteria.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Release of antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes in the effluent and biosolids of five wastewater utilities in Michigan.

            The purpose of this study was to quantify the occurrence and release of antibiotic resistant genes (ARGs) and antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) into the environment through the effluent and biosolids of different wastewater treatment utilities including an MBR (Membrane Biological Reactor) utility, conventional utilities (Activated Sludge, Oxidative Ditch and Rotatory Biological Contactors-RBCs) and multiple sludge treatment processes (Dewatering, Gravity Thickening, Anaerobic Digestion and Lime Stabilization). Samples of raw wastewater, pre- and post-disinfected effluents, and biosolids were monitored for tetracycline resistant genes (tetW and tetO) and sulfonamide resistant gene (Sul-I) and tetracycline and sulfonamide resistant bacteria. ARGs and ARB concentrations in the final effluent were found to be in the range of ND(non-detectable)-2.33 × 10(6) copies/100 mL and 5.00 × 10(2)-6.10 × 10(5) CFU/100 mL respectively. Concentrations of ARGs (tetW and tetO) and 16s rRNA gene in the MBR effluent were observed to be 1-3 log less, compared to conventional treatment utilities. Significantly higher removals of ARGs and ARB were observed in the MBR facility (range of removal: 2.57-7.06 logs) compared to that in conventional treatment plants (range of removal: 2.37-4.56 logs) (p 0.05). In biosolids, ARGs and ARB concentrations were found to be in the range of 5.61 × 10(6)-4.32 × 10(9) copies/g and 3.17 × 10(4)-1.85 × 10(9) CFU/g, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in concentrations of ARGs (except tetW) and ARB between the advanced biosolid treatment methods (i.e., anaerobic digestion and lime stabilization) and the conventional dewatering and gravity thickening methods. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Population dynamics of Salmonella enterica serotypes in commercial egg and poultry production.

              Fresh and processed poultry have been frequently implicated in cases of human salmonellosis. Furthermore, increased consumption of meat and poultry has increased the potential for exposure to Salmonella enterica. While advances have been made in reducing the prevalence and frequency of Salmonella contamination in processed poultry, there is mounting pressure on commercial growers to prevent and/or eliminate these human pathogens in preharvest production facilities. Several factors contribute to Salmonella colonization in commercial poultry, including the serovar and the infectious dose. In the early 1900s, Salmonella enterica serovars Pullorum and Gallinarum caused widespread diseases in poultry, but vaccination and other voluntary programs helped eradicate pullorum disease and fowl typhoid from commercial flocks. However, the niche created by the eradication of these serovars was likely filled by S. Enteritidis, which proliferated in the bird populations. While this pathogen remains a significant problem in commercial egg and poultry production, its prevalence among poultry has been declining since the 1990s. Coinciding with the decrease of S. Enteritidis, S. Heidelberg and S. Kentucky have emerged as the predominant serovars in commercial broilers. In this review, we have highlighted bacterial genetic and host-related factors that may contribute to such shifts in Salmonella populations in commercial poultry and intervention strategies that could limit their colonization.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                ABSGFK
                Agriculture
                Agriculture
                MDPI AG
                2077-0472
                March 2014
                January 28 2014
                : 4
                : 1
                : 1-29
                Article
                10.3390/agriculture4010001
                b7ecd1e1-b6c8-4270-bd25-4a30cbac67be
                © 2014

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article