The Flame Sanitizer A Poultry House Sanitation Tool S.E. Watkins Center of Excellence for Poultry Science University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas
Broiler Production Average farm size is 3.23 houses for Tyson Foods Tyson Foods has 5,852 broiler farms with 18,901 houses Median number of flocks placed per farm is 5-6 Median number of broiler farms per complex is 150-199 Broiler farms with more than 100,000 birds per farm make up 93% of production for all of industry
Introduction: Heat Sterilization, An Old Idea Louis Pasteur first to recommend surgeons flame hands to prevent contamination Heat widely used in sterilization Heat very forgiving no residues, no resistance Blow lamp tested in 1940 for effectiveness against coccidia
Heat Sanitation: New Application Most chemical disinfectants limited effectiveness in organic matter Bacterial spores, viruses, worm eggs and fungi resistant to many of chemical disinfectants Turkey company first to develop flamer in attempt to burn out corona virus
Flame Engineering Flame Sanitizer
Change in Floor Temperature Post Flaming F 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Time in seconds Temperature
Poultry Sanitizer Evaluations Turkey Brood House Litter removed Washed and disinfected Sterile drag swabs Zig-zag through house on both sides Pre and post Flame samples CFU/sponge E. coli, coliforms Incidence of Salmonella
Effect of Floor Flaming on E. coli and Coliform Levels 250 200 CFU/ 150 sponge 100 220 210 PRE POST 50 0 E Coli Coliforms Pr >.0001 N= 4 Pr >.0001 2 Log Reduction 99% Kill
Effect of Floor Flaming on Total Aerobic Bacteria 3500000 3000000 CFU/ 2500000 Sponge2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 3096706 Aerobic Bacteria 24592 N= 4 Pr >.0001 2 Log Reduction 99 % Kill PRE POST
Effect of Flamer on Litter Microbial Populations Farm 1-1 flamed litter surface in four broiler houses Litter used for 6 flocks Pre and post drag swabs, 2 sites/house Farm 2-flamed 2 litter surface in two houses Determined CFU/sponge Total aerobic bacteria, E. coli, coliform Incidence of Salmonella
Total Aerobic Bacteria Count in Litter Surface of Broiler Houses 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 CFU 1200000 /sponge 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 a a b b FARM 1 FARM 2 PRE POST N=12 Pr=.0003 N=8 P=.0002
Moisture Level in Shallow Litter Samples Pre and Post Flaming 25 20 % Moisture 15 10 20.89 17.23 Pre Post 5 0 Litter N=12 samples Pr =.07
Effect of Floor Flaming on Litter ph 10 9 ph 8 7 6 7.18 7.17 PRE POST 5 4 Ltter Pr >.7951
Flock Performance 6.05 6 Pounds 5.95 5.9 5.85 5.8 5.75 5.7 5.84 Control Houses 6.04 Burn Houses Average market weight of birds N=8 houses
Flock Livability For Birds Reared on Flamed Litter % 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.5 93 92.5 97.02 Burn Houses 94.17 Control Houses Flamed House livability reflects high first week mortality for one house
Clostridium Evaluation Farm 1 was broiler house with gangrenous dermatitis outbreak 6 areas sampled Farm 2 had a botulism problem 2 areas sampled Flamed floor after clean out Drag swab pre and post burn
Effect of Flaming on Clostridium Levels in Broiler House Floor 2000 CFU/ sponge 1500 1000 1883 PRE POST 500 a 121 b 0 FARM 1 N=12 P=.0007
Effect of Flaming on Clostridium Levels in a Broiler House Floor CFU/ sponge 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 822242 755 FARM 2 N=4 P=.1628 PRE POST
Sanitizer Used on Farm With E. Coli Outbreak First flock on new litter High incidence of E. Coli beginning week one Litter surface for two houses was flamed immediately after flock loadout Drag swabs taken pre and post flaming Measured total aerobic bacteria, E. coli, coliform,, yeast and mold
Total Aerobic Bacteria in Litter Surface 2500000 CFU/ Sponge 2000000 1500000 1000000 Pre Post 500000 2244399 634892 0 Pr > F=.0001
Effect of Flaming Litter Surface on E. coli and Coliform Levels CFU/ Sponge 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 83 38 8 1 E. Coli Coliforms Pre Post Pr >.0007 Pr >.0001
Total Yeast and Mold in Litter Surface 6000 CFU/ Sponge 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 5572 334 750 273 Yeast Mold Pr >.0001 Pr >.0260 Pre Post
Flame Engineering Turkey Farm Trial Impact on Aerobic Bacteria 8 7 Log 10 CFU/ Sponge 6 5 4 3 5.249 Pre Post 2 7.316 1 0 a b Pr > F=..0547
Flame Engineering Turkey Farm Trial Impact on Total Coliforms 0.8 0.7 Log 10 CFU/ Sponge 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.79 0.3 Pre Post 0.1 0 Pr > F=.0750
Flame Engineering Turkey Farm Trial Impact on Mold Log 10 CFU/ Sponge 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 4.54 a 3.17 b Pre Post Pr > F=.0012
Flame Engineering Turkey Farm Trial Impact on Yeast 4.5 4 3.5 Log 10 CFU/ Sponge 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 4.19 a b Pre Post 0 0.306 Pr > F=.0056
Conclusion Flame Sanitizer can be an effective tool in a sanitation program Provides options to reduce pathogen load in production facilities Will not replace good sanitation and management Challenge is to promote Flame Sanitizer as safe alternative to chemical treatments