The full text of this item is not available at this time because the student has placed this item under an embargo for a period of time. The Libraries are not authorized to provide a copy of this work during the embargo period, even for Texas A&M users with NetID.
Cleaning and Disinfection of Caged Layer Facilities
MetadataShow full item record
A rapid and effective means to clean and disinfect affected premises is needed by the poultry industry. Commercially available foaming disinfectants and cleaners applied via a compressed air foam system (CAFS) may be used to significantly reduce aerobic bacteria in a commercial caged layer complex. Using a variety of agricultural products against bacterial species may also provide information on which products are most efficacious against specific microorganisms on cage floors. In the first study, six field trials were conducted to evaluate current industry cleaning and disinfection protocols and the proposed CAFS application. A commercially available chlorinated alkaline cleaner (CHL/ALK) in trials 1 & 2 was applied by CAFS to one half of the house, and the other half of the house was not treated. The entire house was then washed with a high pressure water rinse (HPWR). A commercially available peroxyacetic acid (PAA) in trials 3 & 4 or a 14% glutaraldehyde (HI GLUT)/2.5% quaternary ammonia (QAC) blended disinfectant in trials 5 & 6 was applied by CAFS to one half of a washed house. The remainder of each house was treated with 7% (LO GLUT)/26% QAC, which was the spray application applied to cages by the integrator. Environmental swabs of drinker cups and cage floors were collected pre and post treatment to determine if aerobic bacteria levels were reduced. The HPWR and the CHL/ALK treatments did not consistently reduce aerobic bacteria on treated surfaces. Significant differences were observed with each of the CAFS applications of the PAA, HI GLUT/QAC, and LO GLUT/QAC product. The objective of the second study was to determine the efficacy of commonly used products on soiled layer cages. Trial one was conducted in a small layer barn at the Texas A&M University Poultry Science Research, Teaching, and Extension Center. Trial two was performed at a commercial pullet house. In each trial, treatments were applied by a garden sprayer and six samples per treatment were collected. All products were mixed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Treatments consisted of a negative control, a low pressure water rinse (LPWR, garden hose), a high pressure water rinse (HPWR, pressure washer), a soap, a chlorinated alkaline cleaner, a QAC, a glutaraldehyde, a peroxyacetic acid, a phenolic, a potassium peroxymonosulfate, a hydrogen peroxide, and a QAC/glutaraldehyde blend product. Swabs of cage floors were collected post treatment to determine if bacterial loads were reduced as compared to the appropriate controls. Aerobic bacteria, coliforms, Staphylococcus spp., and Pseudomonas ssp. were enumerated to evaluate the efficacy of the treatments. Aerobic bacterial colonization was significantly reduced by the oxidizer, peroxyacetic acid, aldehyde, and QAC disinfectants in trial one and by all seven disinfectants in trial two against the HPWR control. No treatment, in the first trial, significantly decreased coliforms or Staphylococcus spp. when compared to controls of nothing and the HPWR. However, reduction (P < 0.05) of coliforms and Staphylococcus spp. were observed with all disinfectants in trial two. The aldehyde and QAT disinfectant products in trial one, and all disinfectant products except the hydrogen peroxide and QAT/glutaraldehyde compound in trial two significantly reduced the levels of Pseudomonas spp. These data suggest that characteristics of cleaning and disinfection regimens can vary significantly.
Subjectcompressed air foam system
cleaning and disinfection
reportable disease response
White, Dima Lynn (2017). Cleaning and Disinfection of Caged Layer Facilities. Master's thesis, Texas A & M University. Available electronically from