Effect of sodium bisulfate amendments on bacterial populations in broiler litter.

The accumulation of ammonia in poultry houses is of concern to bird and human health. Acidification of the litter by application of acidifying amendments such as sodium bisulfate (SBS) retains ammonia generated by microbial degradation of uric acid as harmless ammonium in the litter. Although some studies on the effects of litter amendments on specific bacteria and groups of bacteria have been carried out previously, wide gaps in knowledge remain. In the present study, 2 types of samples were prepared and either left unamended or amended with 2.5 or 10% SBS. One set of samples consisted of a 1:1 mixture of built-up litter and fresh poultry manure (L/M); the other of fresh wood shavings and fresh poultry manure (S/M). The samples were kept in the laboratory at room temperature for 35 d. The pH of unamended mixtures increased to 7.3 and 6.9 for L/M and S/M, respectively. A pH of 6.7 and 3.9 on day 35 was observed for L/M and SM with 2.5% SBS, respectively. The corresponding values for LM and SM amended with 10% SBS were 3.5 and 2.5, respectively. Plating data indicated that coliforms became less numerous in the unamended samples than the SBS-amended samples. This difference was also seen in data obtained by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rDNA. The sequencing data also indicated that sequences from the genus Oceanisphaera accounted for as much as 80% of the sequences from L/M and about 40% of those from S/M samples early on. Sequences from members of the order Clostridiales were enriched in L/M and S/M amended with 10% SBS as were sequences from the genus Turicibacter. Weisella species sequences were more prevalent in SBS-amended samples than in unamended ones. Sequences from the genus Corynebacterium, Brachybacterium, and Arthrobacter were more common in L/M samples than in S/M samples regardless of the SBS content. The data indicate that litter amendments affect some bacteria populations and not others. Further studies are required to determine if the observed population changes such as increased survival of coliforms warrant actions to improve the microbial quality of litter to be reused.

Sugar sulfates are not hydrolyzed by the acid-inducible sulfatase AslA from Salmonella enterica Enteritidis NalR and Kentucky 3795 at pH 5.5.

The open reading frames SEN0085 and SeKA_A4361, from Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis NalR and serovar Kentucky 3795, respectively, corresponding to the acid-inducible sulfatase gene aslA from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, were previously suggested by microarray analysis to be differentially expressed under acid conditions. However, growth and enzyme activity tests in the present study demonstrated that both wild-type strains exhibited sulfatase activity with 4-nitrophenyl sulfate and 5-bromo-4-chloro-3 indolyl sulfate at pH 5.5. The acid sulfatase does not appear to be involved in sugar sulfate, tyrosine sulfate, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, heparin sulfate, or chondroitin sulfate hydrolysis at pH 5.5. Adhesion and invasion assays did not reveal differences between the serotypes and their corresponding aslA deletion mutants. Thus, the role and substrate(s) of AslA, a protein unique to salmonella and encoded in all sequenced Salmonella strains, remain elusive.

Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products.

The selection of microorganisms that act as probiotics and feed additives that act as prebiotics is an ongoing research effort, but a sizable range of commercial pro-, pre- and synbiotic (combining pro- and prebiotics) products are already available and being used on farms. A survey of the composition of commercial products available in the United States revealed that Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, and Bacillus subtilis were the three most common species in probiotic products. Of the nearly 130 probiotic products (also called direct-fed microbials) for which information was available, about 50 also contained yeasts or molds. The focus on these particular bacteria and eukaryotes is due to long-standing ideas about the benefits of such strains, research data on effectiveness primarily in laboratory or research farm settings, and regulations that dictate which microorganisms or feed additives can be administered to farm animals. Of the direct-fed microbials, only six made a claim relating to food safety or competitive exclusion of pathogens. None of the approximately 50 prebiotic products mentioned food safety in their descriptions. The remainder emphasized enhancement of animal performance such as weight gain or overall animal health. The reason why so few products carry food safety-related claims is the difficulties in establishing unambiguous cause and effect relationships between the application of such products in varied and constantly changing farm environments and improved food safety of the end product.