In February, we sadly said goodbye to our director, Nikki, who has now retired and is looking to enjoy her time now travelling the country. Good Luck Nikki, we will miss your valuable input and guidance dearly!
With Nikki’s departure, we welcomed our new MD, James Bigmore! James has moved up the ranks from being the Office Manager and is now focused on steering Hysolv into a bright new future – we can’t wait to see where Hysolv reaches next.
Some may notice that we are becoming more active with our online presence, and there is plenty of content planned for the future that should be of interest. So make sure you follow us on our social media accounts to keep up-to-date with any news, product updates, how-to’s and more!
Facebook: @hysolvltd | Instagram: @hysolvlimited | LinkedIn: Hysolv-limited
You can also contact us via email or our web form to be put in touch with a member of the team.
Use Alkaliene to clean the surfaces, then disinfect.
In APHA tests, Intercid and Interkokask could break through biofilm build-up and disinfect the surface. All Hysolv disinfectants are proven effective against AI.
So, whenever you’re looking for a terminal disinfectant to be sprayed or fogged, or disinfectants for boot dips..
Don’t take chances,
use products proven in the field
and in DEFRA/APHA tests!
Intercid, Interkokask, Interkokask Concentrate! Hysolv is committed to ensure continuous supply of disinfectants despite changing import requirements and global difficulties in sourcing some raw-materials. Your help in forecasting demand for product is greatly appreciated and priority will be given to companies that have placed orders for products. Ask our team for more information.
Most farmers are only too well aware of the value of cleaning and disinfection. Much advice is given on the importance of the thoroughness of this task. But often the missing link is the actual choice of product. There is little point in spending time and energy in meticulous cleaning and disinfection if the wrong, or unsuitable, product is being used in the first place. This is especially true if a particular disease is being targeted.
Jim Bigmore, director of specialist hygiene company, Hysolv, looks at the options for poultry farmers.
“We don’t have enough money to buy a cheap product,” my father always told me. What he meant by that was spending a little more and buying a quality product will usually save you money in the long run. This is echoed by the saying: “The most expensive product, is one that doesn’t work well.”
In the broiler business, buying a disinfectant purely because of a low price per litre may not bring the savings that are being sought. So, the first piece of advice is don’t let the company’s accounts department choose the farm’s disinfectants!
So, what decisions should guide the choice of disinfectant?
When this list of questions is considered, which of these could be answered by an accountant? Probably only the last question – No. 7!
________________________________________________________________
Don’t let your accountant choose your disinfectant!
________________________________________________________________
The farm manager or the veterinary surgeon, on the other hand, should be able to answer all seven questions. The disinfectants companies can be used as sources of information, but usually they will favour their own products. Therefore, it is good advice to use the Defra and IHO websites to double-check the information you receive and then make sure you can answer the seven questions, before making your choice. In my experience in the field, the time spent can repay the effort many times!
In a broiler farm, performance and flock health are closely connected. Flock health and the choice of the correct disinfectant are also connected. So, instead of letting your accountant go through the books to find the cheapest disinfectant, ask the farm manager to go through the daily weight gain, feed conversion rate figures, to see, for instance, if a coccidial oocyst disinfectant has been good value for money. Or look whether the losses caused by disease have fallen when a different disinfectant has been chosen. That is the true bottom-line. This is the real criteria when choosing a disinfectant!
In the past year, everyone has become much more conscious of the need for strict biosecurity. For egg producers, salmonella is still a disease against which they just cannot afford to drop their guard. In giving some topical tips, Jim Bigmore, managing director of hygiene specialists, Hysolv, says
RTFM – a good start for salmonella control
“RTFM” first entered my life in 1983 when the company for which I worked bought its first computer. The mighty IBM XT computer boasted a mindboggling 10MB hard drive, a small screen with green lettering and almost limitless opportunities for making mistakes when incorrect commands were entered after the c:\ appeared on the screen. Our computer guru would usually respond to our mistakes with his own command – “RTFM”, or “Read The Flaming Manual” although “flaming” wasn’t the actual word he used!
This notion of reading and following instructions may seem obvious but, in my experience, in the animal health world, products are regularly used in ways that defy logic – or at least the logic envisaged by the manufacturer. The usual reasons for not following instructions are:
And so on…
Quite often the result of being adventurous with products is that unexpected consequences occur, most of which are costly!
Salmonella control, as we all know, is one of the most vital health procedures on any layer farm. Any mishap can be extremely damaging.
Getting value from vaccines
Vaccines have been very much in the news lately and I am sure we are all aware just how crucial it is to follow correct recommendations. When a manufacturer is called to a farm to investigate a vaccine complaint, or a ministry vet arrives to investigate a salmonella-positive farm, they will have in mind that if the product is being blamed for not functioning, it is probably the only part of the vaccination process that has been quality controlled and has been tested to prove it works!
The manufacturer’s representative, or veterinary surgeon, will ask the farmer a number of questions to find out what happened. These may include this small, but important, selection:
All of these questions will try to ascertain whether the user had RTFM. In this case the label, or pack leaflet, being the “Manual”. If the manufacturer is asking the questions usually the reason will be to avoid liability.
So, the thing about vaccines is that, in order to work correctly, they have to be used exactly in accordance with the instructions on the pack leaflet and bottle label.
If the manufacturers could have produced a vaccine that could be stored at room temperature, that worked using one half dose and given to birds that were protected by maternal antibodies, or removed salmonella from infected birds. They would have sold it as such. They are bound by rules that insist they give good instructions and proof of efficacy.
Difficulties with disinfectants
Disinfectants are another issue altogether and are often the front-line of defence against bringing disease onto a unit or into a poultry house. Most standard disinfectants will eliminate bacteria, viruses and fungi if the correct concentrations and exposure times are used. The trick is to find out exactly what the correct concentration and exposure time should be for the particular disinfectant being used, as not all disinfectants are the same. In this case, the trouble with disinfectants still concerns reading the manual But here the problem is actually finding which manual to read from!
The DEFRA tests for disinfectants1 that apply to poultry are General Orders and Poultry Orders. The tests are conducted at 4°C and over 30 minutes. This is a very low temperature and a very short exposure time. To generalise, these are conditions that would be useful for boot-dip disinfectants in winter.
Other disinfectant tests according to European standards generally use higher temperatures, either 10°C, or 20°C, and longer exposure times of up to two hours. These are conditions that would more reflect disinfecting animal housing in warmer weather.
To demonstrate the problem with the disinfectant’s “manual”.
Low temperatures that would be experienced by boot-dips, favour peroxygen and peracetic disinfectants as they remain active at these levels. Many sales brochures for the peraceric and peroxygen-type disinfectants promote them as being fast-acting. Unfortunately, these types of disinfectants are exactly the sort less able to work in the conditions with high organic matter generally found, for instance, in boot-dips. Low temperatures slow down the activity of glutaraldehyde and chlorocresol disinfectants, but these are better able to handle the high organic matter loading found in boot-dips.
The usefulness of chlorocresol disinfectants in boot dips was demonstrated in the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) campylobacter boot-dip trial2 . Chlorocresols consistently killed “campy” 30 times faster than other disinfectants, with the peracetic disinfectants failing to kill campy at all.
This particular piece of work identified which type of disinfectant was effective against campy, but there were no product names against the results. This was of particular importance for iodophor disinfectants, as one was as good as the chlorocresol disinfectants against campy while the other was useless. We found out from personal communications that Interkokask was one of the successful chlorocresols, but the other?
Campy has become the single most important food borne zoonosis now that salmonella is under control. This experiment could have been a useful guide to farmers wishing to improve campy control, but all the trial has proved is that some chlorocresols are better than other disinfectants in boot-dips to control this problem.
So this shows that all chlorocresols disinfectants are not the same.
Another trial conducted by APHA3 focused on salmonella, compared the ability of different disinfectants to break through biofilm, underlined this point.
This study really demonstrated the difference between various products containing the same active ingredient, and named the products used.
Such a contrast to the campy trial result which was next to useless to the farmer and veterinary surgeon as it didn’t identify which products are effective.
The Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) disinfectant comparison trials4 against salmonella, was much more useful as it named disinfectants and showed results “warts and all”. Generally, the most effective boot-dip disinfectant (Wet Model in the DEFRA trial) was our chlorocresol disinfectant Interkokask. With the glutaraldehyde and two glutaraldehyde + formaldehyde disinfectants, performing consistently well as a building surface disinfectant (Dry Model in the DEFRA trial).
In my opinion, this “Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination” trial still remains the most useful comparison of disinfectants that has ever been conducted by an independent laboratory. The results were clear and the products used in the trials were identified.
It really is a manual for disinfectants and salmonella control.
The future of the farming industry depends upon disease prevention, rather than disease cure. As the role of antibiotics dwindles, the reliance upon vaccines and biosecurity will increase. In my opinion, there must be compliance from farmers in the use of vaccines, and there has to be a better manual written for the disinfectant’s market than just the DEFRA approved disinfectants list.
So, if the farmer should RTFM, then there should be a “M” to “F” well “R”!
References:
1 “DEFRA approved disinfectants list” http://disinfectants.defra.gov.uk/DisinfectantsExternal/Default.aspx?Module=ApprovalsList_SI
2 The efficacy of broiler farm boot-dip disinfectants against Campylobacter jejuni J.D. Rodgers, N.H. Kell, R.H. Davies, A.B. Vidal.
3 “Efficacy of disinfectants and detergents intended for a pig farm environment where Salmonella is present Rebecca J. Gosling, Ian Mawhinney, Kelly Vaughan, Robert H. Davies, Richard P. Smith”
4 “Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination Ian McLaren, Andrew Wales, Mark Breslin and Robert Davies”
By Jim Bigmore, managing director of hygiene specialists, Hysolv
It is a very odd thing to say, particularly to a farming readership, but I may be unique having benefited, since the early 1990s, from poultry having salmonella! At that time, I worked for Hoechst Animal Health where we were offered a strain of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 by the UK Government.
The strain was very interesting to us, particularly since a certain junior health minister had wreaked havoc on the UK poultry industry. This made the introduction of strict control measures for salmonella in layers essential to build back the lost trust of the consumer. Since then, I have been involved with two other salmonella vaccines, so my career has been inextricably linked to this scourge of poultry farmers!
For the UK’s layer farmer, the introduction of the British Egg Industry Council’s (BEIC) “Lion Eggs” has been a crucial factor in the control of salmonella, as it coordinated the measures necessary to manage salmonella under the Lion Code of Practice. This defines all the processes required to produce salmonella-free eggs and has resulted in the tremendous improvement in salmonella control throughout the industry. It has been so successful it has been used as a model for salmonella control in other countries.
Why then, do we still have a problem with salmonella?
The answer, like the problem is multifactorial. Salmonella is ubiquitous. It has been successfully causing problems to mankind for at least 2,000 years. It was even thought to be the cause of the Great Plague of Athens in 430 BCE.
It can be found on many of the things we eat and touch and can enter poultry units via many different vectors. For the poultry industry, the most important of these are feedstuffs, poultry, eggs, people, mice, beetles, red mite, other insects and, of course, vehicles.
Simply put, there should always be a three-way approach to salmonella control:
These three aspects are interrelated, so good management for example would involve the use of effective biosecurity and vaccination. Having only one of these aspects working well isn’t enough.
Almost every farm I’ve ever visited has perfect management – or so they told me! So, firstly, let’s concentrate on vaccination of the birds and biosecurity. In particular, let’s look at the less well-known bits of advice.
Vaccination
Birds should be “well” when vaccinated. In particular, they should not have salmonella when the vaccine is administered. Vaccinating a salmonella infected bird, will not remove the infection. Even if an infected bird is treated with antibiotics, it may simply become an asymptomatic carrier, posing a risk to other birds.
Most modern salmonella vaccines are ‘live’ preparations. This means that they contain, in effect, bacteria, almost the same as a ‘field’ salmonella. Therefore, the same practices that kill and prevent field salmonella will kill and prevent the vaccine-strain of salmonella from working when administered through the water system. So, don’t give vaccines directly after, or at the same time as, probiotics, antibiotics, or water sanitisers as they will kill the vaccine. The general rule is to leave a three-day break between such activities and vaccination.
Biosecurity
Biosecurity is the front line of defence against salmonella. So, make sure that boot dips are used and changed on a regular basis. A general guide for renewing boot dips is:
Therefore, if an oxidising disinfectant is a one-third of the cost per litre of a phenolic disinfectant, it may be still be costing the same on a weekly basis! And that is ignoring the chore of the daily change – which can be easily overlooked in times of stress, staff changes, etc. Another bonus of using the phenolic boot dip disinfectant is that it should also prevent live coccidial oocysts and campylobacter being walked back into the clean poultry house.
Another point often overlooked is the need to apply disinfectants to dry surfaces! A damp surface may contain 50ml-100ml per m2 water.
If a disinfectant is applied at either 200ml per m2 or 300ml per m2 with a concentration of 1% the following drop in concentrations will occur:
Original spray concentration and application rate (ml/m2) | New concentration with 50ml surface water/m2 | New concentration with 100ml surface water/m2 |
1% (300ml/m2) | 0.88% | 0.75% |
1% (200ml/m2) | 0.8% | 0.67% |
Some disinfectants stop working if the concentration is too low. It’s not just a case of “leave it a bit longer it will be OK!” It won’t!
Please don’t forget hand sanitisers! Farms have been in a permanent state of “lock-down” for decades. People, and particularly hands, can transmit salmonella and campylobacter. So, put an alcohol hand sanitiser next to each door and use them. We should all be well aware of this in the current situation!
There is one last fact to bear in mind when choosing a hand sanitiser. Remember the famous slogan “Removes 99 per cent of all known household germs?” This means that if a surface has 1 million bacteria before treatment, it will still have 10,000 after treatment. Since salmonella can double in number every 20-35 minutes, the number of bacteria can be back to 1 million in two to four hours!
Some hand sanitisers kill 99.999 per cent of bacteria, meaning hands with 1 million bacteria before treatment, will have 10 bacteria left, which would require 6-10 hours to grow back to 1 million. Therefore, 99.999 per cent reduction is 1,000 times more effective than the 99 per cent reduction!
Food for thought – or should I say thought for food if you’ve just sanitised your hands before eating a sandwich!
By Jim Bigmore, managing director of hygiene specialists, Hysolv
Irrespective of whether the latest UK outbreaks have come from viruses circulating in our native birds, or from migrating birds, avian influenza, “Bird Flu” is here and cannot be ignored!
In all cases, where there is the threat of a notifiable disease, such as avian influenza, the first stop should be the DEFRA website. This source of information and advice can help farmers greatly in deciding which actions to take – firstly, to avoid the disease and, secondly, how to proceed if the worst comes to the worst and the disease is found on their farm.
In the case of avian influenza, it is a good idea to use a web search engine, such as Google, with the search “Avian Influenza Latest Situation Gov.UK”, to find out what must be done to protect the farm’s flock or flocks.
The best practice for biosecurity against influenza involves a few simple, but important, rules. These can be further simplified as:
DEFRA also tests disinfectants specifically for effectiveness against avian flu, in case it becomes a problem. The Poultry Orders test is described as “Diseases of Poultry and the Avian Influenza and Influenza of Avian Origin in Mammals” and the obligatory dilutions of disinfectants for use against avian influenza are also listed in the DEFRA list of approved disinfectants.
The DEFRA dilutions for Poultry Orders can also be found on the label of disinfectant canisters. Interestingly – or perhaps we should say worryingly – these often vary from the manufacturer’s own recommendations for the product. Sometimes by a factor of 6!
Much of this information may be well-known to most farmers and will provide enough detail for disinfecting poultry housing after cleaning. However, when dealing with vehicle disinfection and boot-dip disinfectants perhaps the following information may be new to some people:
Temperature and disinfection
The DEFRA tests are performed at a temperature of 4°C and therefore all disinfectants tested by DEFRA will destroy the avian influenza virus in 30 minutes at that temperature.
When the temperature drops below 4°C, some disinfectants will continue to work within the same 30-minute time-period. These can be given the general description of peroxygen disinfectants, or oxidising agents, and cover disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic/acetic acid and potassium peroxomonosulphate.
Phenolic and glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants tend to work more slowly under 4°C, but they do work effectively. They do not stop working as implied by over-zealous salespeople of competitor peroxygen products.
Some glutaraldehyde and peroxygen products may even have antifreeze added and can be used down to -25°C!
Organic matter and disinfection
Boot dips are an essential barrier to viruses, bacteria and other micro-organisms entering the poultry house. All disinfectants work well in a boot dip when freshly diluted with clean water. However, it is inevitable that a boot dip will be subject to an increasing organic matter load as farm staff disinfect their boots entering and leaving the poultry house. Equally, well-washed vehicles can be disinfected using all types of disinfectants but, unless the vehicle is thoroughly dried first, an increased concentration of disinfectant should be used to compensate for any remaining water on the vehicle.
If vehicles are unable to be power washed in a spray gate first, then glutaraldehyde, or preferably glutaraldehyde/formaldehyde disinfectants are preferable as they are better able to cope with any remaining organic matter or biofilm, as shown in the 2011 and 2017 DEFRA/APHA disinfectant comparison tests.
Peroxygen disinfectants tend to lose efficacy due to their reaction with organic matter. Therefore, boot dips filled with these disinfectants need to be replenished very often.
Glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants are reported as not readily inhibited by organic matter, with phenolic based disinfectants even less. This results in the boot dips needing just bi-weekly, or weekly replenishments respectively (depending upon the frequency of their use).
Corrosion and disinfection
The corrosive nature of some peroxygen disinfectants is not a problem when rubber boots are used in plastic boot dips. However, when vehicles are being disinfected, it is very important to use disinfectants that are non-corrosive at recommended dilutions. Glutaraldehyde and phenolic based disinfectants are not corrosive to metal.
Summary of the key disinfectant properties
We are all very conscious of the need for scrupulous attention to hygiene in these difficult times. It really is well worth a farmer or manager’s time to thoroughly research the bio-security system and the disinfectant that is most suited to the farm’s particular situation. This effort can pay for itself many times over if just one outbreak of bird flu is avoided.
By Jim Bigmore, managing director of hygiene specialists, Hysolv
Some years ago, a major UK broiler integrator tried a new anticoccidial disinfectant in a problem site. This was a brave decision as the product was at least 25 per cent more expensive than the product currently being used.
When checking the flock records, the owner of the integration noticed improvements in the flock’s performance. He asked he farm manager: “What’s been changed?”. The worried manager explained that he was using a new disinfectant, but it was expensive. The owner retorted: “I don’t care what it costs, keep using it!”
That statement by the owner showed why this integrated operation was one of the most successful in the UK. Put simply he understood the cost structure of his business.
Table 1 is an example of the costs for a typical broiler unit. But the principle works for pullet rearers, layers and breeders. The greatest expense per bird is the feed cost. If this can be positively influenced, the farm becomes more profitable. The next highest cost is for chicks (in layer farms this would be pullets). If the mortality of the chicks can be reduced, this also represents a major improvement in profitability.
The cost of disinfectant is hidden in the “other variable costs”. The two percent of other variable costs includes rodenticides, parasiticides, alkaline cleaners, disinfectants, as well as tea, coffee, etc. So, the actual cost of disinfectants would probably represent about 0.5% of all costs.
Our typical broiler farm is using an anticoccidial disinfectant to help reduce losses linked to coccidiosis, including losses due to poor feed conversion rate (FCR) and lower daily weight gain (DWG), poor flock uniformity and higher mortality.
The mathematics are simple – the approximate cost of the more expensive disinfectant amounts to 0.2% of total costs. Coccidiosis can result in loses to the flock of:
It has been estimated that between 95.6% – 89.1% of all economic losses in broiler flocks are caused by coccidiosis.[ii] [iii] Skimping on the cost of disinfection, could backfire in a very serious way.
Other less obvious benefits of using a good anticoccidial disinfectant may include improvement of coccidial vaccination by removing competing wild strains of Eimeria present in the house at the time of vaccination. Also, over the long term the removal of all Eimeria may also reduce resistance build-up by eliminating resistant strains at terminal disinfection.
While all these factors are specific to the anticoccidial disinfectant, the product is also reducing the risks from all other diseases, including those connected with bacterial spores. In short, an effective disinfectant applied at the correct dilution will help control a whole raft of other diseases.
________________________________________________________________
“…….the most expensive product is actually the one that doesn’t do the job…..”
________________________________________________________________
In the case of pullet rearers and layer farms, the same type of calculation is needed, but the disinfectants costs are proportionately lower than for broilers as the cost is spread over 19 and 53 weeks respectively, rather than six weeks for the broiler.
Instead of coccidiosis and diseases such as Gumboro disease, the major headaches for pullet rearers and layer farms include many viral and bacterial diseases, especially salmonella. As all egg producers are aware, the threat of salmonella being found on the farm can lead to serious consequences, while in the older hen the problem of red mite infestation can be an on-going problem.
The farmer’s dilemma is therefore to choose the best product to protect his business from these diseases.
Table 2. The choice between a well-known cheaper chlorocresol disinfectant (the term “cost-effective” is not appropriate in this case) and a “more expensive” chlorocresol-based disinfectant.
EN = refers to European Norms (British Standards in the UK) that have been agreed by the member states of the EU as the common disinfectants testing regime.
DVG = theDeutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft (German Veterinary Medicine Association) provide an equivalent function of disinfectants testing as DEFRA in the UK.
Each of the diseases/problems listed could have severe effects on the FCR, egg production and/or mortality. The lack of information about the efficacy of the “cheap” product, raises questions about the usefulness of such a product. If the tests had been conducted, why weren’t they published? Presumably, the tests simply haven’t been conducted and the dose rates have been estimated. A search through the internet also revealed that the dilution rate recommended in the UK for one particular product as a standard dilution, was twice the dilution (i.e. half the concentration) of that recommended by the manufacturer, who supplied the product to the UK distributor? This made the product look very cheap!
Each one of the diseases/problems featured in the Table 2 have consequences to the layer farmer. They range from depressed egg production to increased bird mortality or, in the worst case, culling of the whole flock. It is, therefore, important to use a disinfectant that is reliable and has been proven to be effective when used according to the instructions on the product’s label. It certainly should not be a gamble which, if unsuccessful, could result in severe losses for the farmer using the product.
High costs for disinfectants don’t always mean that they are the best. However, it is interesting to note that in the DEFRA disinfectant comparison paper of 2011[iv] the more expensive products routinely performed better than less expensive products.
So, returning to the comments of the integration’s owner, his statement that the cost of disinfectant was not important, was absolutely true when compared with improvements in the FCR, egg production or bird mortality rates. It’s also noteworthy that the results after the use of the new disinfectant were so marked that he noticed them from the flock records!
So, it is well worth remembering that the most expensive product is actually the one that doesn’t do the job for which it was intended!
References:
[i] The economic impact of infection with Eimeria spp. in broiler farms from Romania Adriana Györke, Zsuzsa Kalmár, Loredana Maria Pop, Ovidiu Loan Şuteu
[ii] Willi ams, R. B. 1999. A compartmentalised model for the estimation of the cost of coccidiosis to the world’s chicken production industry. International Journal for Parasitology29:1209-1229.
[iii] Bera, A. K.; Bhattacharya, D.; Pan, D.; Dhara, A.; Kumar, S. and Das, S. K. 2010. Evaluation of economic losses due to coccidiosis in poultry industry in India. Agricultural Economics Research23:91-96.
[iv] Ian McLaren, Andrew Wales, Mark Breslin & Robert Davies (2011) Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination, Avian Pathology, 40:1, 33-42, DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2010.537303
by Jim Bigmore managing director of hygiene specialists, Hysolv
Let’s face it, if there was a magic cure for red mite, they would be a thing of the past. All modern products work to a greater or lesser extent, the trick is to have a red mite strategy, rather than just reacting to circumstances. Here are some ideas about how to approach the red mite issue.
The first step to building a strategy, is to understand the possible intervention points for red mite control:
Avoiding problems into your farm buildings.
The construction of poultry housing will determine whether prevention and/or treatment of red mite is easier, or more difficult. A few hours invested at the construction stage, could save hundreds of hours treating red mite and a great deal of money.
Discuss this with your buildings supplier before placing your order!
Treating the empty “still-warm” poultry house.
There is a short time window when the birds have been removed, but the mite are still present. This is an opportunity to reduce the red mite population.
Benefits: relatively inexpensive and simple to apply.
Problems: the uncleaned house reduces the effectiveness of treatment.
Treating the empty house.
The empty house presents an ideal opportunity to remove red mite and red mite eggs, providing they can be treated and are not hidden.
Heating the buildings
Benefits: No chemicals used. Effective. No resistance build-up. Kills red mites and their eggs.
Problems: Relatively high cost.
Terminal disinfection with suitable chlorocresol-based products
Benefits: Effective. Kills red mites and eggs. No resistance build-up.
Low cost as it is a by-product of a standard disinfection programme.
Problems: Mites and mite eggs must come into contact with the disinfectant, effective spraying is critical to success.
Long-acting acaricide in the empty house, prior to restocking
Benefits: Simple to apply, relatively low cost.
Problems: Effective for three months.
Treating the house in the production period
This is the treatment of last resort as it means that the house still has a red mite problem despite the preceding treatment opportunities.
Desiccating the mite using silicates/silicate solutions
Benefit: Chemical-free. No resistance build-up. Suitable for organic farms. Lower priced.
Problems: Messy to use. Must be applied regularly throughout the production period.
Chemical treatment of birds to kill mite
Benefit: Simple to use. Effective.
Problems: High cost. Mites have to feed on birds to be killed.
Use of glue to restrict movement of mites
Benefits: Relatively low cost. Can be used on organic farms. No resistance build-up.
Problems: Should be applied to dust-free surfaces.
Your red mite control strategy lies in the best use of the treatments listed above. In my experience the use of disinfection, coupled with a long-acting acaricide has yielded impressive results. Once red mites have re-infested the house, then the choice of product will be decided by the time the bird will remain in production.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” That famous quote from George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm, is very analogous to the efficacy of disinfectants, says Jim Bigmore, managing director of hygiene company Hysolv.
ONE
Similar active ingredients make products behave the same.
This may seem a reasonable statement, but it is simply wrong. Some companies may sell their disinfectants by claiming that theirs contains the same active ingredient and it is therefore equivalent to the market leader. The truth is that the subtle differences in formulation can make a profound difference in efficacy. This was borne out independently when, in 2017, the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) tested different three disinfectants containing chlorocresol against biofilm. The test examined whether the disinfectants could break though biofilm as it built up over a period of 25 days. (Data source: Efficacy of disinfectants and detergents intended for a pig farm environment where Salmonella is present: Rebecca J. Gosling, et al.[i])
Product “K” (Interkokask) was still breaking through biofilm and killing monophasic Salmonella typhimurium after 25 days of biofilm build-up. Products “I” and “J” were ineffective after eight days.
This not nly applies to chlorocresol, but to all other active ingredients as well. Farmers, if you are serious about disinfection and want to compare disinfectants before you buy them, look at an independent source of information. DEFRA and APHA have published some very useful comparisons of disinfectants.
Ask Google about “Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination[ii]”. You may be surprised!
TWO
It’s necessary to change disinfectants regularly to prevent resistance build-up.
According to a personal communication from an expert at APHA the usual reason that disinfectants stop working is due to under-dosing, not resistance. The livestock industry has been exposed to some unscrupulous advertising, of disinfectants – promoting products at concentrations that simply aren’t effective in a real-farm setting. The reason for doing this is to reduce the cost of using the product and make it more competitive. A case in point is a product that is promoted for use at 0.25 per cent, whereas in the Defra approvals list it is recorded for General Orders at over three per cent – a 12 times higher concentration! If this product is used on a farm at 0.25 per cent and it doesn’t work, will the disinfectant manufacturer say the farmer was misled, or simply that it could be resistance build-up and sell them another product from their range?
In one Middle Eastern breeder farm the author conducted a biosecurity audit where the farm manager was having the houses disinfected three times, each time with an ineffective concentration of a disinfectants from a different chemical product group. When asked why three times with different types of disinfectant, he quoted resistance build-up as the reason. We finally compromised on using two disinfectants at the correct dose rate.
_______________________________________________________________
There are several other misconceptions, one of which being “It smells strong, so it must be good!” or “I like the colour!”. You can’t beat logic like that!
________________________________________________________________
THREE
The DEFRA approved disinfectants list will always indicate the best disinfectant.
The DEFRA approval list is a good guide but contains a flaw! The tests are mostly conducted at 4°C for 30 minutes. This type of test favours oxidising and organic acid types of disinfectants, rather than glutaraldehydes and chlorocresols which tend to react more slowly at low temperatures.
In other test methods used by European (EN), and German (DVG) tests, there are varying temperatures and varying lengths of time. This is a better representation of the temperatures that a farmer is likely to see on the farm.
Most UK farmers will rely upon the information shown in the approved DEFRA disinfectants list.
For example: From the DEFRA test results above, the clear product of choice would be the peracetic/peroxy type of disinfectant. However, in DEFRA/APHA disinfectants comparison tests mentioned earlier, the glutaral/formaldehyde-based product was a top performer, while peracetic/peroxy based products used at General Orders, failed the “wet” test simulating a footbath, failed the “dry” test simulating use of surfaces in a poultry house and was the only product group to completely fail Campylobacter footbath tests conducted by the APHA[iii]. So, which one would you chose?
FOUR
Only oxidising disinfectants work at low temperatures.
It is true to say that oxidising disinfectants are relatively unaffected by low temperatures, but this doesn’t mean that other product groups, such as glutaraldehydes stop working. The DEFRA tests are conducted at 4°C. This is already a low temperature and, looking at average temperatures for the UK from 2015 to 2019, only February 2018 had an average temperature lower than 4°C when it sunk to 3.1°C. On occasions where there is a risk of even lower, sub-zero temperatures, anti-freeze can be added to many glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants and they will continue to work. It will be only be necessary to allow a longer exposure time.
FIVE
Always trust product approvals!
Disinfectants companies rightly lay great store about EN or DVG test approvals – after all, these tests are very difficult to pass. Unfortunately, in reality, sometimes companies don’t actually have a DVG/EN approval and have just “tested according to the DVG/EN test method”. This normally means that the test varies in some way from the approved method.
An example would be the EN14349:2012 a test “..for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in the veterinary area..”. The method stipulates using E. hirae, P. vulgaris, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus as mandatory test organisms. One well-known company claims only a P. vulgaris test result for a EN14349 claim. Does this mean that the other bacteria weren’t tested? If so, then it certainly can’t claim an EN14349 approval.
The point is that all the bacteria are important in poultry. Just testing one doesn’t prove anything other than the disinfectant kills that one bacterium. If this is made clear in the company’s advertising then, all is well and good.
Summary: Each of the examples cited have been given to the author as a reason for a farm using a certain disinfectant. It is always difficult to convince a farmer/manager/ stockperson that something is not true, or they have been misled if they have believed it for years. As the disinfectants industry becomes better controlled and policed, we should see some of these pieces of misinformation disappear. Let’s hope so!
References:
[i] Efficacy of disinfectants and detergents intended for a pig farm environment where Salmonella is present
Rebecca J. Goslinga,⁎ , Ian Mawhinneyb , Kelly Vaughana , Robert H. Daviesa , Richard P. Smithc
a Department of Bacteriology, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, UK
b Surveillance and Laboratory Services, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Bury, St. Edmunds, UK
c Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, Surrey, UK
[ii] Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination
Ian McLaren, Andrew Wales, Mark Breslin & Robert Davies
To cite this article: Ian McLaren, Andrew Wales, Mark Breslin & Robert Davies (2011) Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination, Avian Pathology, 40:1, 33-42, DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2010.537303
[iii] The efficacy of broiler farm boot-dip disinfectants against Campylobacter jejuni J.D. Rodgers, N.H. Kell, R.H. Davies, A.B. Vidal. Dept of Bacteriology, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UK. Contact: john.rodgers@apha.gsi.gov.uk