by A.G. Hanckock, evaluated several products to better understand their
effectiveness as water sanitisers in water that had an abundance of algae growth.
watering
Evaluating products for cleaning watering systems Efficient poultry production requires good quality feed and water. To get these essential nutrients to the birds, feed and watering systems have to assure a hygienic transfer. US research has shown that not every water sanitizer is as good as they are supposed to be. By Wiebe van der Sluis
C
lean water systems are essential in providing good quality water for poultry. Various companies offer products that can sanitise water systems, but it is often questioned how effective they really are. Researchers from the University of Arkansas, lead by A.G. Hanckock, evaluated several products to better understand their effectiveness as water sanitisers in water that had an abundance of algae growth. It is their opinion that an ideal cleaning product should reduce microbial growth, remove biofilm, dissolve scale, and cause no damage to the equipment. Experience has established that biofilms are 10 - 1000 times more resistant to cleaning. The objective of their research was to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning products in watering systems by reducing aerobic bacteria, yeast and mould counts in the presence of a heavy bacterial load, using water that simulates a worse case scenario. The products that Hanckock and her researcher partners, S.E. Watkins and J.E. Hughes, evaluated were ProxyClean™ (PXC), CID 2000®, Pro-Clean (PRC) (all concentrated stabilised hydrogen peroxide), 35% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), citric acid, 6% sodium hypochlorite (or household bleach), and Poultry PronTech™ (Pron), which is a cationic salt. Each product was added Chickens can only perform if their feed and water are hygienic and of the highest quality.
Table 1 - Aerobic plate count (APC) results in watering systems treated with different cleaning products (Log 10) Treatment Pre Post 4 Post 24 hours * hours * Control 7.01 7.10a 7 7.38s Bleach 12 6.88 5.05bc 5.90u Bleach .78 % 6.98 5.03bc 5.14vx Citric Acid 7.56 7.52a 7.33s CID 2000 6.90 2.00d >1z H2O2 3% 6.74 5.45b 1.97y PRC 3% 6.88 4.91c >1z PRC .78 % 7.38 5.69b 4.62x PXC 3% 6.32 5.15bc >1z Pron 100 7.11 6.67b 6.72t Pron 400 6.81 5.75b 5.41uv * Within columns, values having different subscripts are significantly different
Table 2 - Yeast counts in watering systems treated with different cleaning products (Log 10)
Table 3 - Mould counts in watering systems treated with different cleaning products (Log 10)
Treatment Pre Control 3.45 Bleach 12 2.60 Bleach .78 % 2.60 Citric Acid 4.17 CID 2000 2.60 H2O2 3% 2.84 PRC 3% 2.77 PRC .78% 3.19 PXC 3% 3.40 Pron 100 3.04 Pron 400 2.13
Treatment Pre Control 2.05 Bleach 12 2.30 Bleach .78 % 2.48 Citric Acid 2.32 CID 2000 2.30 H2O2 3% 2.60 PRC 3% 2.69 PRC .78% 2.00 PXC 3% 2.60 Pron 100 2.95 Pron 400 2.05
WORLD POULTRY - Vol. 23 No 5. 2007
Post 4 hours * 2.29a 1.78b 1.84b 2.66a >1c >1c >1c 2.47a >1c 2.19ab 2.13ab
Post 24 hours * 2.15x 1.85x 2.07x 2.51x >1y >1y >1y >1y >1y 2.20x 1.97x
www.WorldPoultry.net 18
Post 4 hours * 2.05ab >1b 1.23b 2.76a >1b >1b >1b >1b >1b 1.48ab 1.48ab
Post 24 hours * 2.02v 1.0y 1.15y 2.19v >1z >1z >1z >1z >1z 1.38x 1.30x
Water sanitizers have to be effective even in water that has an abundance of algae growth.
to 2 - 50 ml of water. Untreated water served as the control. The Proxy-Clean™ and 35% hydrogen peroxide were added at a rate of 3%. The CID 2000® was added at a rate of 2%. The citric acid was prepared in a stock solution of two packets (820 grammes) per one gallon (3.785 litres) of water, and the stock solution was then used at a rate of 1:128. The household bleach was added at a rate of one ounce per gallon of water (28 ml per 4 litres), or 0.78% concentration. Also, a stock solution was prepared using 12 ounces (355 ml) of bleach per gallon (4 litres) of water; the stock was then metered at 1:128. The product Pro-Clean was added at the standard medicator rate of one ounce per gallon (28 ml per 4 litres), and also at a rate of 3%. Poultry PronTech™ was added at a rate of 1 gramme per litre or 400 ppm, and also at a rate of 1 gramme per 4 litres, or a rate of 100 ppm. The aerobic bacteria loads along with yeast
Table 4 - Changes in water pH following a treatment with different cleaning products Treatment Pre Control 7.91 Bleach 12 7.92 Bleach .78 % 7.85 Citric Acid 7.81 CID 2000 7.88 H2O2 3% 7.79 PRC 3% 7.83 PRC .78% 7.98 PXC 3% 7.74 Pron 100 7.86 Pron 400 7.70
Post 4 hours * 8.04cd 8.23b 8.19bc 7.49f 5.86g 7.94cde 7.85e 8.08cd 7.86e 8.62a 8.74a
Post 24 hours * 8.01d 8.36b 8.39b 8.08d 6.11e 8.16cd 8.07d 8.27bc 7.99d 8.25bc 8.82a
Established biofilms are 10-1000 times more resistant to cleaning.
and mould counts were tested initially at 4 hours and 24 hours after treatment. The oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and pH for each sample was tested. Results from the trials (Tables 1-4) showed no significant differences in initial microbial counts for all untreated samples; however, there were significant differences in aerobic plate count (APC), yeast and mould counts at 4 and 24 hours. Products also have a different effect on pH, but not on ORP. Four hours after treatment, CID 2000® had the greatest reduction in microbial presence. The tests using the household bleach at 0.78%, ProxyClean™ and Pro-Clean products at the 3% rate had the next lowest levels of microbial presence. At 24 hours, CID 2000, H2O2 (3%), PRC (3%) and PXC (3%) showed a further reduction in APC counts, while yeast and mould counts were lower than the APC counts. ■ WORLD POULTRY - Vol. 23 No 5. 2007
www.WorldPoultry.net 19
