The growing threat of antimicrobial resistance worldwide has led to an increasing concern in the human, veterinary, and environmental fields, highlighting the need for strategies to effectively control bacterial contamination. Correct biosecurity practices, including the appropriate use of disinfectants, play a crucial role in controlling bacterial contamination. This study aimed to verify whether the recommended concentrations defined according to the Defra General Orders concentration (GO, published by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ disinfectant-approval scheme) of five commercial disinfectant preparations (peroxygen-based, phenol-based, two halogen-releasing agents, and glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium compound-based; disinfectants A to E, respectively) were sufficient to inhibit growth and inactivate selected bacterial strains, including some that carry known phenotypic patterns of multidrug resistance. The effectiveness of each disinfectant was expressed as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values, determined by the broth-microdilution method. The results indicate that the type of disinfectant and its concentration influence the inhibitory and bactericidal efficacy. The glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium compound-based (disinfectant D) and chlorocresol-based products (disinfectant B) were the most effective, and the GO concentration was bactericidal in all the strains tested. The efficacy of the other compounds varied, depending on the bacterial species tested. The GO concentrations were at least able to inhibit the bacterial growth in all the products and bacterial strains tested. A greater tolerance to the compounds was observed in the strains of E. coli with multidrug-resistance profiles compared to the strains that were sensitive to the same antimicrobials.

Introduction: Salmonella Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium are the two most clinically important zoonotic Salmonella serovars and vaccination of breeding and laying hens affords effective Salmonella control. The use of live vaccines has proven beneficial for a number of reasons, including ease of application, protection from the first day of life onwards and initiation of a strong local immune response. Live vaccines can be applied in the drinking water from the first day of life onwards, but some rearers choose to wait until the end of the first week to ensure sufficient water consumption. However, this practice leaves the birds unprotected during the crucial first week of life, where they are most susceptible to colonization by field strains. The aim of this study was to determine if successful vaccine uptake is achieved when layer pullets are vaccinated as early as day one.Methods: Three pullet flocks were vaccinated at 1, 2, 3 or 5 days-of-age with AviPro™ Salmonella DUO, a live vaccine containing attenuated strains of S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium (Elanco Animal Health, Cuxhaven, Germany). The vaccine was administered via the drinking water following manufacturer’s instructions. Two days post-vaccination, 10 birds per flock were culled and caecal and liver samples taken, along with two pools of faeces per flock. Levels of vaccine strains were determined by quantitative and qualitative bacteriology.Results: Vaccine strains were detected in all birds from all age groups indicating successful uptake of the vaccine. Levels of the S. Enteritidis vaccine were higher than levels of the S. Typhimurium vaccine, with the latter frequently only detectable following enrichment. There was an inverse correlation between age and caecal levels of vaccines, with the highest numbers seen in birds vaccinated at 1-day-of-age. Interestingly, S. Enteritidis vaccine strain levels in liver samples were highest when birds were vaccinated at 5 days-of-age.Discussion: These results show that successful uptake of both vaccine strains was evident in all age groups. The earlier the chicks were vaccinated, the higher the vaccine levels in caecal contents. We therefore recommend vaccination of pullets as early as practicably possible to ensure protection against exposure to field strains.

The aim of this study was to develop a multiplex bead assay using a Brucella rLPS antigen, a Brucella suis smooth antigen, and a Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 antigen that not only discriminates Brucella-infected from Brucella-uninfected pigs and wild boar, but also overcomes the cross reactivity with Y. enterocolitica O:9. Sera from 126 domestic pigs were tested: 29 pigs were Brucella infected, 80 were non-infected and 17 were confirmed to be false positive serological reactors (FPSR). Sera from 49 wild boar were tested: 18 were positive and 31 were negative. Using the rLPS antigen, 26/29 Brucella-infected domestic pigs and 15/18 seropositive wild boar were positive, while 75/80 non-Brucella infected domestic pigs, all FPSR, and all seronegative wild boar were negative. Using the smooth B. suis 1330 antigen, all Brucella-infected domestic pigs, 9/17 FPSR and all seropositive wild boar were positive, while all non-infected pigs and 30/31 seronegative wild boar were negative. The ratio of the readouts from the smooth B. suis antigen and Y. enterocolitica O:9 antigen enabled discriminating all Brucella infected individuals from the FPSR domestic pigs. These results demonstrate the potential of this assay for use in the surveillance of brucellosis, overcoming the cross-reactivity with Y. enterocolitica.