Assessment of microbial quality in poultry drinking water on farms in Austria

Azra Mustedanagic; Monika Matt; Karin Weyermair; Anna Schrattenecker; Isabella Kubitza; Clair L Firth; Igor Loncaric; Martin Wagner; Beatrix Stessl

doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1254442

Assessment of microbial quality in poultry drinking water on farms in Austria

Front Vet Sci. 2023 Nov 22:10:1254442. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1254442. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Azra Mustedanagic^{1

2}, Monika Matt³, Karin Weyermair⁴, Anna Schrattenecker², Isabella Kubitza², Clair L Firth⁵, Igor Loncaric⁶, Martin Wagner^{1

2}, Beatrix Stessl²

Affiliations

¹ FFoQSI GmbH-Austrian Competence Centre for Feed and Food Quality, Safety and Innovation, Tulln, Austria.
² Unit of Food Microbiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
³ Department of Statistics and Analytical Epidemiology, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Innsbruck, Austria.
⁴ Department of Statistics and Analytical Epidemiology, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Graz, Austria.
⁵ Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
⁶ Institute of Microbiology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Abstract

The quality of poultry drinking water has a significant effect on broiler health and performance. This study conducted an analysis of aerobic mesophilic counts (AMC), Enterobacteriaceae (EB), Pseudomonadaceae (PS), and screened for the presence of Campylobacter spp. in water samples collected from a total of 14 farms in Austria, with either a public or private water source. The efficacy of two water line treatment methods was evaluated: a chemical treatment of the water lines with 4.0 ppm ClO₂ (T1) and a combined chemical (4.0 ppm active ClO₂ and 3.0% peracetic acid) and mechanical treatment (purging of the water lines with a high-pressure air pump; T2). However, both the T1 and T2 treatments failed to reduce the AMC counts below the maximum acceptable microbial limit of 4.0 log₁₀ CFU/ml in water samples. In addition, no significant reduction in EB and PS counts was observed in water samples after either T1 or T2 water line treatment. The water samples showed a high level of microbial diversity with 18 to 26 different genera. The genus Pseudomonas was most frequently isolated across all poultry farms, while Campylobacter jejuni was identified in a single sample collected before water line treatment. Isolate analysis revealed the presence of opportunistic pathogens in water samples both before (T1 43.1%, T2 30.9%) and after (T1 36.3%, T2 33.3%) water line treatment. Opportunistic pathogens belonging to genera including Pseudomonas spp., Stenotrophomonas spp., and Ochrobactrum spp., were most frequently isolated from poultry drinking water. These isolates exhibited multidrug resistance and resistance phenotypes to antimicrobials commonly used in Austrian poultry farms. The findings of this study emphasize the potential risk of exposure to opportunistic pathogens for poultry and personnel, underscoring the importance of efficient water line management.

Keywords: Pseudomonas; antimicrobial susceptibility; opportunistic pathogens; poultry health; water line treatment.

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The competence center FFoQSI is funded by the Austrian ministries BMVIT, BMDW, and the Austrian provinces Lower Austria, Upper Austria and Vienna within the scope of COMET – Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies. The COMET program is handled by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG.