Engormix
Home
Search
Explore
Publish
Explore
Communities in English
AquacultureMycotoxinsPoultry IndustryPig IndustryDairy CattleAnimal Feed
AgriculturaBalanceados - PiensosAviculturaGanaderíaLecheríaMicotoxinasPorciculturaMascotas
MicotoxinasAviculturaSuinoculturaPecuária de cortePecuária de leite
Advertise on Engormix
Home
Publish
Search
Engormix.com / Poultry Industry / Poultry egg quality

Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool

Published: August 29, 2022
By: Shreeya Sharma 1; Kavya Dhital 1,2; Dhiraj Puri 1; Saman Pradhan 1,2; Udaya Rajbhandari 1; Amit Basnet 1; Sajani Ghaju 1; Prajwol Manandhar 2; Nabin U Ghimire 3; Manoj K Shahi 4; Ajit Poudel 1,2; Rajindra Napit 1,2; Dibesh Karmacharya 1,2,5.
Summary

Author details:

1 Poultry Diagnostic Division, BIOVAC Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nala, Banepa, Nepal; 2 One Health Division, Center for Molecular Dynamics Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal; 3 Veterinary Standards and Drug Regulatory Laboratory, Department of Livestock Services, Nepal; 4 Nepal Veterinary Council, Kathmandu, Nepal; 5 School of Biological Sciences, the University of Queensland, Australia.
Introduction
Globally, the poultry sector is a sizeable industry with a current market value of $ 310.7 billion and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.8%1. Poultry is a rapidly growing agricultural sub-sector in developing countries2, however, product quality, safety, and avian diseases continue to be a major challenge to this industry3.
Hatcheries occupy a focal position in the poultry production chain, connecting with multiple flocks4, thereby acting as a reservoir, linkage and source of pathogenic microorganisms5. Nepal’s $240-million poultry industry6 is buttressed by 21,956 poultry farms present in sixty four out of seventy five districts, where 325 total commercial hatcheries represent this burgeoning industry7.
Animal trade related movement of poultry and poultry products from production sites, such as hatcheries, can influence disease transmission dynamics into uncontaminated flocks8. For example, transmission of a recent subtype of Avian Influenza virus in Bangladesh was associated with poultry movement9.
Several pathogens (both mono and multi-causal) have been implicated as probable causes of avian diseases. Poultry can be infected or colonized with other potential organism via eggs3. Contaminated eggs can be a source of infection and a vehicle for transmission of pathogens10, 11.Contamination can occur horizontally through egg shells12 or vertically before oviposition stemming from infection of reproductive organs13. In vertical/ trans-ovarian route, the disease is ascendingly transmitted from laying hen to its progenies-where the yolk, albumen and membranes are contaminated via the reproductive organs14 before the eggs are covered by shell in the uterus. Handling fecal material, dust, and dirt can contaminate eggs in hatcheries through horizontal route. Extrinsic factors such as temperature, moisture, shell characteristics and membrane properties are attributable to pathogen transmission15.
Eggs form as great a proportion of the animal protein diet for Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), overlooking a projected 76.6%16 growth in egg production. Egg production is imperative to the growing population for providing an inexpensive source of protein17, thereby contributing to food security. Global egg production continues to see substantial growth from 61.7 tons to 76.7 tons18, a 24% increase in the past decade. Asia is the largest egg producing region, contributing to 60% of the total production volume16.
Avian pathogens can cause huge economic loss (> 20%) in the overall poultry production, and three times due to loss from mortality19, 20. Egg and egg based product surveillance programs are highly effective in controlling foodborne disease outbreaks-often providing information for timely intervention, control and mitigation measures21, 22, 23. Egg-based surveillance helped identify more than 895 foodborne disease outbreaks in Spain (2000-2002), majority (85%) caused by Salmonella24.
Most studies have focused on detecting of foodborne pathogens like Salmonella spp., Camphylobacter spp. and Escherichia coli in eggshells26,27,28, we posit that albumin-based screening is also a convenient tool and useful in detecting other important avian pathogens such as-Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG), Mycoplasma synoviae (MS), Infectious Bronchitis Virus (IBV), Influenza A Virus (IAV), Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) and Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) in hatcheries to minimize contamination through horizontal and vertical transmission modes. Avian pathogens have been isolated from oral swabs, cloacal swabs, serum samples, egg yolk, egg shells, and environmental swabs but albumin-based molecular detection has not been intensively used till date. Due to the dearth of literature available on albumin screening, we used Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) based tests to screen for six major avian pathogens (IBD, IBDV, MS, MG, IAV and NDV) in egg albumin from eggs collected from eleven hatcheries, hence devising cost-effective poultry pathogen surveillance tool in hatcheries.
Selected Avian Diseases
Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum
Mycoplasma is a vertically transmitted disease29 with pronounced effects in eggshell-altered surface, thinning, translucency, consequently leading to a greater incidence of eggshell cracks and breaks30. Though it is a non-fatal disease31, it can significantly affect weight gain, feed conversion ratio, fertility, chronic respiratory disease and hatchability32, 33 in birds. MG and MS are bacterial OIE-listed respiratory pathogens34 which often persist in sub-clinical level35 and are a key cause for economic loss in the poultry industry34. Mycoplasma infections, especially in farms with weak biosecurity, are often the cause of eggshell abnormalities and decrease in egg production36.
Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV)
Newcastle disease (ND), an OIE-notifiable List A disease, is caused by avian paramyxovirus serotype 1 (APMV-1) virus38 of Avulavirus genus. It is one of the highly pathogenic viral diseases of avian species, and a major cause of morbidity and mortality in flocks39. Affected birds develop respiratory, digestive and neurologic symptoms with profound immunosuppression40. In many countries throughout Asia and Africa, ND remains endemic in commercial poultry despite intensive vaccination program that have been applied for decades41. NDV can replicate in the reproductive tract of hens and contaminate internal components of eggs and eggshell surface42.
Infectious Bronchitis Virus (IBV)
Infectious bronchitis in poultry is caused by IBV-an Avian Coronavirus (ACoV) of genus Gammacoronavirus43. IBV causes a fast-spreading respiratory disease in young chicks, with laying hens experiencing reduced production, egg shell abnormalities, and decreased internal egg quality44. Along with commercial poultry, backyard poultry and free-ranging birds may serve as ‘reservoir’ for ACoV transmission, and migratory birds often acting as an intermediary host spreading to wide and distant areas45.
Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV)
Infectious Bursal Disease, commonly known as Gumboro, is an immunosuppressive disease transmitted mainly horizontally through the feco-oral route46. It is caused by a double stranded RNA virus-IBDV (genus Avibirnavirus of family Birnaviridae)47. There are two distinct serotypes of the virus, but only serotype 1 viruses cause disease in poultry48. Viruses belonging to one of these antigenic subtypes are commonly known as variants, causing up to 60 to 100 percent mortality rates in chickens49.
Influenza A virus (IAV)
Avian Influenza (AI), caused by IAV, is a highly contagious viral infection which may cause up to 100% mortality in domestic chickens or turkeys50. The disease is caused by a highly mutable RNA virus that belongs to the family Orthomyxoviridae51. Influenza viruses have two surface proteins, hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA)52 that determine their subtype and the animal species they infect; there are 16 HA and nine NA types53. When AI viruses of two HA types, H5 and H7, infect domestic poultry (chickens and turkeys) they often mutate and virulent disease arises in these birds which is called highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI)54. The initial infection that causes subclinical or mild disease is called low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI)55. Wild water birds act as reservoir hosts of IAV, however these viruses generally do not cause disease in these birds56.
Methodology
We retrospectively looked at the data on the presence of 6 major avian pathogens on eggs received periodically every month (August 20-August 2021, except October 2020) from the eleven major hatcheries in and around Kathmandu valley. These hatcheries participated in preventive pathogen screening services provided by the BIOVAC Nepal’s Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory (BNPDL). The sampling was performed by trained personnel. No live animals were harmed and the study does not include handling of animal. No embryonated eggs were killed during sampling process-qualifying this study to be exempted from any ethical approval. To maintain anonymity of the hatcheries, they were coded with numeric digits on the basis of time the samples were received. A total of 4343 eggs from eleven major hatcheries located in the five surrounding districts (Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, Kavrepalanchowk and Ramechhap) of Kathmandu, Nepal were received and tested (Figure 1).
Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool - Image 1
Figure 1:
Participating eleven major hatcheries located in Kathmandu and surrounding five districts
(Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, Kavrepalanchowk and Ramechhap). As part of preventive disease screening, eggs are routinely received by BIOVAC Nepal’s Poultry diagnostic laboratory located in Banepa (Nala), Nepal.
These eggs were brought to the BNPDL every month (except October 2020) in batches (133±60 eggs per batch) packaged in crates (30 eggs per crate). Albumin extracted from 10% random eggs from each batch (3 eggs from each crate) were tested for six selected Avian pathogens (NDV, IAV, IBV, IBDV, MS and MG) using PCR (Figure 2)
Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool - Image 2
Figure 2:
Laboratory testing for the detection of six avian pathogens:
BIOVAC Nepal’s Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory (BNPDL) received samples from eleven participating hatcheries for preventive diagnostic screening of avian pathogens.
Molecular Detection of Six Avian Pathogens
Nucleic Acid Extraction and cDNA synthesis
The nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) from pooled egg albumin samples were extracted using automated nucleic acid extractor (abGenix™ AITbiotech, Singapore) following manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA for the extracted nucleic acids were synthesized using iScript™ cDNA Synthesis Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA). For a single sample, 4 μL of 5X iScript reaction mix, 1 μL of iScript reverse transcriptase, 6 μL of nuclease free water and 9 μL of the extracted nucleic acid was used to prepare 20 μL of cDNA. The cDNA was synthesized in thermal cycler by incubating the mix at 25°C for 5 minutes followed by reverse transcription at 46°C for 20 minutes and RT inactivation at 95°C for 1 minute. PCR for IBV, IBD, MG and MS were performed using QIAGEN Multiplex PCR Kit (Qiagen, Catalog No. 206145). Multiplex PCR was used to detect IAV and NDV simultaneously in the samples using QIAGEN Multiplex PCR kit.
Multiplex PCR for IAV and NDV
We have developed and optimized a multiplex PCR that detects both IAV and NDV simultaneously in one single test. A 291 bp fragment of Matrix protein gene of NDV and 156 bp fragment of Matrix protein gene of IAV was amplified in 25 μL of the reaction mixture containing: 3 μL of cDNA, 5 μL QIAGEN® nuclease-free water, 2.5 μL of 5X Q Solution, 0.5 μL NDV primer (forward), 0.5 μL NDV primer (reverse), 0.5 μL IAV primer (forward), 0.5 μL IAV primer (reverse) and 12.5 μL of 2X of QIAGEN® Multiplex PCR Master Mix (HotStarTaq DNA Polymerase, MgCl2, dNTPs and PCR buffer). PCR condition: 1 cycle of initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, 45 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 20 seconds, annealing at 60°C for 20 second and extension at 72°C for 30 second. The PCR ended with a final elongation at 72°C for 5 minutes. PCR products were visualized in Gel electrophoresis (1.5%) (Figure 3).
Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool - Image 3
Figure 3:
Detection of Influenza A (IAV) and Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) using Multiplex PCR:
Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) is detected as 300bp PCR amplicon, and Influenza A Virus (IAV) as 150bp. Lane 1: DNA ladder; Lanes 2-5: pooled albumin samples, Lane 6: negative control. Visualized under 1.5% gel electrophoresis.
PCR Primers-multiplex IAV and NDV
For NDV, 10 pico-molar concentration each of forward primer (5’-GCTCAATGTCACTATTGATGTGG-3’) and reverse primer (5’-TAGCAGGCTGTCCCACTGC-3’) were used and for IAV, 10 pico-molar concentration each of forward (5’-CTTCTAACCGAGGTCGAAACG-3’) and reverse (5’GGTGACAGGATTGGTCTTGTC-3’) were designed using NCBI PrimerBlast®.
PCR detection of IBV
A 433 bp fragment of 3’ UTR of IBV was amplified in 25 μL of the reaction mixture containing: 2 μL of template cDNA, 8.5 μL QIAGEN® nuclease-free water, 1 μL All 1-F primer (forward), 1 μL Del1-R primer (reverse) and 12.5 μL of 2X of QIAGEN® PCR Master Mix. PCR condition: 1 cycle of initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 57°C for 30 second and extension at 72°C for 40 second. The PCR ended with a final elongation at 72°C for 5 minutes.
PCR Primers-IBV
10 pico-molar concentration of each All 1-F forward primer (5’-CAGCGCCAAAACAACAGCG-3) and Del1-R reverse primer (5’-CATTTCCCTGGCGATAGAC-3’) were used for detection of IBV as per Saba et al. (2014)57.
PCR detection of IBDV
A 643 bp fragment of complete hyper variable region of VP2 gene of IBDV was amplified in 25 μL of the reaction mixture containing 2 μL of template cDNA, 8.5 μL QIAGEN® nuclease-free water, 1 μL Infectious Bursal Disease Forward Primer, 1μL Infectious Bursal Disease Forward Primer and 12.5 μL of 2X of QIAGEN® PCR Master Mix. PCR conditions: 1 cycle of initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 53°C for 20 second and extension at 72°C for 45 second. The PCR ended with a final elongation at 72°C for 5 minutes.
PCR Primers-IBDV
10 pico-molar concentration of each forward primer (5’-TCACCGTCCTCAGCTTAC-3’) and reverse primer (5’-TCAGGATTTGGGATCAGC-3’) were used for the detection of IBD as per Kataria et al. (2007)58.
PCR detection of MS
A 207 bp fragment of 16s rRNA gene of MS was amplified in 25 μL of the reaction mixture containing 2 μL of template cDNA, 8.5 μL QIAGEN® nuclease-free water, 1 μL Mycoplasma synoviae forward primer, 1 μL Mycoplasma synoviae reverse primer, and 12.5 μL of 2X of QIAGEN® PCR Master Mix. PCR conditions: 1 cycle of initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 53°C for 20 second and extension at 72°C for 15 second. The PCR ended with a final elongation at 72°C for 5 minutes.
PCR Primers-MS
10 pico-molar concentration of each forward primer (5’-GAGAAGCAAAATAGTGATATC-3’) and reverse primer (5’-TCGTCTCCGAAGTTAACAA-3’) were used for detection of MS as per Kahya et al. (2015)59.
PCR detection of MG
A 185 bp fragment of 16s rRNA gene of MG was amplified in 25 μL of the reaction mixture containing 2 μL of template cDNA, 8.5 μL QIAGEN® nuclease-free water, 1 μL Mycoplasma gallisepticum forward primer, 1 μL Mycoplasma gallisepticum reverse primer and 12.5 μL of 2X of QIAGEN® PCR Master Mix. PCR conditions: 1 cycle of initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 53°C for 20 second and extension at 72°C for 15 second. The PCR ended with a final elongation at 72°C for 5 minutes.
PCR Primers-MG
10 pico-molar concentration each of forward primer (5’-GAGCTAATCTGTAAAGTTGGTC-3’) and reverse primer (5’-GCTTCCTTGCGGTTAGCAAC-3’) were used for detection of MG as per Kahya et. al. (2015).
All PCR amplified products were visualized under 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis.
Results
We retrospectively looked at the data on the presence of 6 major avian pathogens on eggs received periodically every month (August 20-August 2021, except October 2020) from the eleven major hatcheries in and around Kathmandu valley. These hatcheries participated in preventive pathogen screening services provided by BNPDL. The hatcheries had experienced high morbidity and mortality in their birds; and had seen decreased and defective egg production.
In an average we received 430 eggs every month from one or more of the eleven hatcheries, majority (7/11, 64%) had at least one of the six pathogens present. We detected at least one avian pathogen in nine out of eleven months (82%) of screening. Except for IBDV, we found one or multiple occurrence of other major avian pathogens-Influenza A (IAV) (n=4 times) and Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) (n=4 times) were detected the most, followed by Newcastle Virus (NDV) (n=3 times). Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) were detected twice, and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) was detected once (Table 1).
Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool - Image 4
In hatchery 4, we detected IAV in samples received in two separate months (September and December 2020). Meanwhile, we received most consecutive samples from hatchery 9, where we detected MG 3 months in a row (April, May and June 2021), with multiple pathogens (MG, IAV and NDV) present in June 2021.
In the winter season (January-April 2021), four batches had four detectable pathogens (NDV, IBV, MS and MG). In rainy or wet season (May-August 2021), three different pathogens (IAV, MG and NDV) were found in the 9 batches; during this period MG was detected in three consecutive batches. During the fall season (September-December), we detected only three pathogen (NDV, IBV and IAV) in four batches. We detected more pathogens during rainy or wet season than in winter or fall season (Figure 4).
Screening Avian Pathogens in Eggs from Commercial Hatcheries in Nepal- an Effective Poultry Disease Surveillance Tool - Image 5
Figure 4:
Detected avian pathogens in received batches from the eleven different hatcheries:
In the winter season (January-April 2021), four batches had four detectable pathogens (NDV, IBV, MS and MG). In rainy or wet season (May- August 2021), three different pathogens (IAV, MG and NDV) were found in the 9 batches; during this period MG was detected in three consecutive batches. During the fall season (September-December), we detected only three pathogen (NDV, IBV and IAV) in four batches. We detected more pathogens during rainy or wet season than in winter or fall season (Figure 3).
Discussion
There is no active surveillance of most of the avian pathogens in Nepal, only outbreak related Avian Influenza (Bird flu) is investigated60, 61 primarily due to human health concerns. Meanwhile, disease outbreaks in poultry farms are often reported based on clinical symptoms and mortality. Lack of comprehensive animal diagnostic facilities also limits the farmers’ ability to have disease outbreaks properly investigated. Preventive disease screening is still a novel concept in Nepal’s poultry industry. Against that backdrop, we have set up a poultry disease diagnostic laboratory (BNPDL) based in Kathmandu and Nala, Nepal. We routinely receive requests to screen for avian pathogens from poultry farmers, including hatcheries. Hatcheries can be a source of disease spread through contaminated eggs and day old chicks. We have detected presence of avian pathogens in egg albumin using molecular (PCR) detection. In a resource strapped country like Nepal, where disease surveillance is not well developed, a routine egg screening based on accurate and relatively fast PCR screening, can offer an important insight into floating avian pathogens in poultry population at any given time. This kind of information can be helpful for poultry producers, including hatcheries, to prevent and mitigate their losses by adopting appropriate interventions.
Egg-shell based pathogen detection
There are some egg-shell based poultry disease surveillance program being used in some countries, however, they have only focused on food borne pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter and Escherichia coli62,63,64,65. Majority (41%) of all foodborne disease outbreaks in Spain were associated with consumption of eggs and egg products66, which explains a high level of contamination associated with eggs. Similarly, quarterly surveillance measures have also been carried out under the Egg Product Inspection Act (EPIA) as part of USDA’s Shell Egg Surveillance (SES)67. While successful in detecting these important food safety related pathogens, such surveillance completely overlooks the poultry health related pathogens-especially avian viral pathogens. We have demonstrated that egg (albumin) based screening and disease surveillance can be pretty effective in picking floating pathogens, and help us understand the disease burden, patterns and trends in general.
Limitation of our study
This study was based on and relied upon the eggs being provided by the participating hatcheries. Most of these hatcheries only requested to have their eggs screened based on suspected clinical signs (and often after some mortality). Hence, they did not provide eggs routinely and regularly. Because of this, we were not able to establish the real disease occurrence trend across each hatchery nor were we able to tell whether the de-contamination efforts they made actually worked. Furthermore, randomly selecting 10% of the eggs might not have the sensitivity needed to pick all the pathogens in a given farm; we only screened a fraction of eggs in each batch due to cost consideration. We could have integrated an environmental screening and bio-security assessment as a part of a thorough disease surveillance system in poultry industry/farms, however, we were not able to do that in this study. Interestingly, we did observe some seasonal variability of disease occurrences-wet or rainy season harboring more pathogens than dry season. However, we need more data points to look into this further.
Implications and Utility of Egg based Pathogen screening
Molecular detection of pathogens in egg albumin can provide important information to put together an early containment strategy for poultry farmers in particular and animal health efforts in general. It can be especially beneficial to hatcheries as they are often the contamination source-spreading disease from egg to day-old chicks, and eventually to the whole poultry production value chain. Egg-based disease screening can be an effective One Health surveillance tool as well, as it can pick up important Zoonotic pathogens such as Influenza A, and help stem pathogen spill-overs, thereby safeguarding human health. Albumin screening, as an early detection tool, can also assess biosecurity effectiveness in hatcheries and help curb horizontal and vertical transmission of avian diseases. In a developing country like Nepal, where resources are limited, easy to access pathogen screening samples like eggs and highly sensitive and accurate molecular (PCR) tools can help in building important avian disease surveillance tool. With the advent of next generation DNA sequencing and Genomics technology, we can even screen for a broader viral, bacterial and other pathogens using same (single) sample source. High throughput in data acquisition made possible by such new technologies certainly can make disease surveillance fast, easy and affordable. Our study is an initial step towards that direction.
        
This article was originally published in bioRxiv, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.11.503567. This is an Open Access article available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

1.↵Yildiz D. Global Poultry Industry and Trends. 2021 Mar 11 [cited 12 Jul 2022]. In: Feed and Additive Magazine [Internet]. Available from: https://www.feedandadditive.com/global-poultry-industry-and-trends/#:~:text=The%20poultry%20sector%2C%20which%20has%20a%20market%20value%20of%20%24%20310.7,with%20a%20CAGR%20of%207%25.Google Scholar

2.↵Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2017; 73(2):1–12.Google Scholar

3.↵Hafez HM, Attia YA. Challenges to the Poultry Industry: Current Perspectives and Strategic Future After the COVID-19 Outbreak. Front Vet Sci. 2020 Aug 26;7:516.Google Scholar

4.↵Elhadidy M. Poultry hatcheries as potential reservoirs for antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli : A risk to public health and food safety. Scientific Reports 2018; 8(1)Google Scholar

5.↵Wales A, Davies R. Review of hatchery transmission of bacteria with focus on Salmonella, chick pathogens and antimicrobial resistance. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2020; 76 (3).Google Scholar

6.↵Strengthening Critical Segments of the Poultry Supply Chain. International Finance Corporation. [Cited 2022 July 12]. Available from: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/b226e65c-79a9-42b2-b666-2327437c3edb/NepalPoultry.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=kqMoqDKGoogle Scholar

7.↵Nepal commercial poultry survey 2071/72. Central Bureau of Statistics 2016. Available from: https://cbs.gov.np/nepalcommercial-poultry-survey-2071-072/Google Scholar

8.↵Yoo DS, Chun BC, Kim Y, Lee KN, Moon OK. Dynamics of inter-farm transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N6 integrating vehicle movements and phylogenetic information. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):24163.Google Scholar

9.↵Parvin R, Nooruzzaman M, Kabiraj CK, Begum JA, Chowdhury EH, Islam MR, Harder T. Controlling Avian Influenza Virus in Bangladesh: Challenges and Recommendations. Viruses. 2020 Jul 12;12(7):751.Google Scholar

10.↵Board, RG, Fuller R.Humphrey TJ. Contamination of eggs with potential human pathogens. In: Board, RG, Fuller R. Microbiology of the Avian Egg 2004. Springer, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

11.↵Gantois I, Ducatelle R, Pasmans F, Haesebrouck F, Gast R, Humphrey TJ, Immerseel FV, Mechanisms of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 2009; 33(4): 718–738.CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

12.↵Pande VV, Devon RL, Sharma P, McWhorter AR, Chousalkar KK. Study of Salmonella Typhimurium Infection in Laying Hens. Front Microbiol. 2016 Feb 25;7:203.PubMedGoogle Scholar

13.↵De Reu K, Rodenburg TB, Grijspeerdt K, Messens W, Heyndrickx M, Tuyttens FA, Sonck B, Zoons J, & Herman L. Bacteriological contamination, dirt, and cracks of eggshells in furnished cages and noncage systems for laying hens: an international on-farm comparison. Poultry science 2009; 88(11), 2442–2448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

14.↵Roberts JR, Souillard R, Bertin J. Avian diseases which affect egg production and quality, Food Science, Technology and Nutrition 2005; 376–393.Google Scholar

15.↵Messens W, Grijspeerdt K, Herman L. Eggshell penetration by Salmonella: a review, World’s Poultry Science Journal 2005, 61:1, 71–86Google Scholar

16.↵Windhorst HW A projection of egg production until 2030. 2022 Mar 8 [cited 12 Jul 2022]. In: Zootenica International [Internet]. Available from: https://zootecnicainternational.com/focus-on/a-projection-of-egg-production-until-2030/Google Scholar

17.↵Walker S, Baum JI. Eggs as an affordable source of nutrients for adults and children living in food-insecure environments. Nutr Rev. 2022; 80(2):178–186.Google Scholar

18.↵Statistical Yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization 2020. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/cb1329en/CB1329EN.pdfGoogle Scholar

19.↵Zhuang QY, Wang SC, Li JP, Liu D, Liu S, Jiang WM, Chen, JM. A clinical survey of common avian infectious diseases in China. Avian diseases 2014; 58(2), 297–302.Google Scholar

20.↵Biggs PM (1982). The world of poultry disease. Avian pathology : Journal of the WVPA; 11(2), 281–300.Google Scholar

21.↵Klinkenberg D, Thomas E, Artavia FF, Bouma A. Salmonella enteritidis surveillance by egg immunology: impact of the sampling scheme on the release of contaminated table eggs. Risk Anal. 2011;31(8):1260–1270.PubMedGoogle Scholar

22.↵Crespo PS, Hernandez G, Echeita A, Torres T et al. Surveillance of foodborne disease outbreaks associated with consumption of eggs and egg products: Spain, 2002 – 2003. Eurosurveillance 2005. Available from: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/esw.10.24.02726-enGoogle Scholar

23.↵Using indicator-and event-based surveillance to detect foodborne events. World Health Organization 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/publications/using-indicator-and-event-base-surveillance-to-detect-foodborne-events-9789241513241-eng.pdf?sfvrsn=8e8fe021_2Google Scholar

24.↵Whiley H, Ross K. Salmonella and eggs: from production to plate. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Feb 26;12(3):2543–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

25.Ayala AJ, Yabsley MJ & Hernandez SM. A Review of Pathogen Transmission at the Backyard Chicken-Wild Bird Interface. Frontiers in veterinary science 2020, 7, 539925.Google Scholar

26.↵Lee M, Seo DJ, Jeon SB, Ok HE, Jung H, Choi C, Chun HS. Detection of Foodborne Pathogens and Mycotoxins in Eggs and Chicken Feeds from Farms to Retail Markets. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2016;36(4):463–8.Google Scholar

27.↵Parveen A, Rahman MM, Fakhruzzaman M et al.,. Asian J. Med. Biol. Res. June 2017, 3(2): 168–174Google Scholar

28.↵Lin Q, Chousalkar KK, McWhorter AR, Khan S. Salmonella Hessarek: An emerging food borne pathogen and its role in egg safety. Food Control 2021; 125.Google Scholar

29.↵Ter Veen C, de Wit JJ, Feberwee A. Relative contribution of vertical, within-farm and between-farm transmission of Mycoplasma synoviae in layer pullet flocks. Avian Pathol. 2020;49(1):56–61.Google Scholar

30.↵Kursa, O., Pakuła, A., Tomczyk, G. et al. Eggshell apex abnormalities caused by two different Mycoplasma synoviae genotypes and evaluation of eggshell anomalies by full-field optical coherence tomography. BMC Vet Res 15, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1758-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31.↵Norouzian, H., Farjanikish, G., & Hosseini, H. (2019). Molecular characterisation of Mycoplasma gallisepticum isolates from Iran in the period 2012-2017. Acta veterinaria Hungarica, 67(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1556/004.2019.036Google Scholar

32.↵Landman WJ. Is Mycoplasma synoviae outrunning Mycoplasma gallisepticum? A viewpoint from the Netherlands. Avian pathology : journal of the W.V.P.A 2014; 43(1), 2–8.Google Scholar

33.↵Yadav, J. P., Tomar, P., Singh, Y., & Khurana, S. K. (2021). Insights on Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae infection in poultry: a systematic review. Animal biotechnology, 1–10. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2021.1908316Google Scholar

34.↵Galluzzo P., Migliore, S., Galuppo, L., Condorelli, L., Hussein, H. A., Licitra, F., Coltraro, M., Sallemi, S., Antoci, F., Cascone, G., Puleio, R., & Loria, G. R. (2022). First Molecular Survey to Detect Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae in Poultry Farms in a Strategic Production District of Sicily (South-Italy). Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 12(8), 962.Google Scholar

35.↵Nascimento ER, Pereira VLA, Barreto ML. Avian mycoplasmosis update. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2005; 7(1).Google Scholar

36.↵Feberwee JJ, Landman WJM. Induction of eggshell apex abnormalities by Mycoplasma synoviae: field and experimental studies, Avian Pathology 2009; 38:1, 77–85Google Scholar

37.Kammon A, Mulatti P, Lorenzetto M, Ferre N, Sharif M, Eldaghayes I, Dayhum A. Biosecurity and geospatial analysis of mycoplasma infections in poultry farms at Al-Jabal Al-Gharbi region of Libya. Open veterinary journal 2017, 7(2), 81–85.Google Scholar

38.↵Rabalski L, Smietanka K, Minta Z, Szewczyk B. Detection of Newcastle disease virus minor genetic variants by modified single-stranded conformational polymorphism analysis. BioMed research international 2014, 632347.Google Scholar

39.↵Lamb R, Parks G. Paramyxoviridae: the viruses and their replication. Fields Virology. 5th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2007; Philadelphia, 1449–1496Google Scholar

40.↵Ul-Rahman A, Ishaq HM, Raza MA, Shabbir MZ. Zoonotic potential of Newcastle disease virus: Old and novel perspectives related to public health. Reviews in medical Virology 2022; 32(1)Google Scholar

41.↵Alexander DJ, Aldous EW, Fuller CM. The long view: a selective review of 40 years of Newcastle disease research, Avian Pathology 2012, 41:4, 329–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

42.↵Silva SM, Susta L, Moresco K, Swayne DE. Vaccination of chickens decreased Newcastle disease virus contamination in eggs. Avian pathology: journal of the W.V.P.A 2006; 45(1), 38–45Google Scholar

43.↵Franzo G, Legnardi M, Tucciarone CM et al. Evolution of infectious bronchitis virus in the field after homologous vaccination introduction. Vet Res. 2019; 50, 92.Google Scholar

44.↵Wakenell P. Management and medicine of backyard poultry. Current therapy in avian medicine and surgery 2016, 550–565Google Scholar

45.↵Promkuntod N. Dynamics of avian coronavirus circulation in commercial and non-commercial birds in Asia--a review. The veterinary quarterly 2016; 36(1), 30–44.Google Scholar

46.↵Orakpoghenora O, Oladele SB, Abdu PA. Infectious Bursal Disease: Transmission, Pathogenesis, Pathology and Control - An Overview. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2020; 76(2)Google Scholar

47.↵Delmas B, Attoui H, Ghosh S, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Birnaviridae. J Gen Virol. 2019;100(1):5–6. doi:10.1099/jgv.0.001185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48.↵Dey S, Pathak DC, Ramamurthy N, Maity HK, Chellappa MM. Infectious bursal disease virus in chickens: prevalence, impact, and management strategies. Vet Med (Auckl). 2019 Aug 5;10:85–97. doi: 10.2147/VMRR.S185159. PMID: 31497527; PMCID: PMC6689097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

49.↵Mohamed MA, Elzanaty KE, Bakhit BM, Safwat MM. Genetic characterization of infectious bursal disease viruses associated with gumboro outbreaks in commercial broilers from asyut province, egypt. ISRN Vet Sci. 2014 Feb 9;2014:916412. doi: 10.1155/2014/916412. PMID: 24977049; PMCID: PMC4060563.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

50.↵Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/avian-in-birds.htmGoogle Scholar

51.↵Nomaguchi M and Adachi A (2017) Editorial: Highly Mutable Animal RNA Viruses: Adaptation and Evolution. Front. Microbiol. 8:1785. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01785CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52.↵Kosik I, Yewdell JW. Influenza Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase: Yin−Yang Proteins Coevolving to Thwart Immunity. Viruses. 2019 Apr 16;11(4):346. doi: 10.3390/v11040346. PMID: 31014029; PMCID: PMC6520700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

53.↵Shi W, Lei F, Zhu C, Sievers F, Higgins DG. A complete analysis of HA and NA genes of influenza A viruses. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 29;5(12):e14454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014454. PMID: 21209922; PMCID: PMC3012125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

54.↵Capua I, Alexander DJ. Avian influenza infections in birds--a moving target. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2007 Jan;1(1):11–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2006.00004.x. PMID: 19459279; PMCID: PMC4634665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

55.↵Bergervoet SA, Pritz-Verschuren SBE, Gonzales JL, Bossers A, Poen MJ, Dutta J, Khan Z, Kriti D, van Bakel H, Bouwstra R, Fouchier RAM, Beerens N. Circulation of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses in wild birds and poultry in the Netherlands, 2006-2016. Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 23;9(1):13681. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50170-8. PMID: 31548582; PMCID: PMC6757041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

56.↵Shriner SA, Root JJ. A Review of Avian Influenza A Virus Associations in Synanthropic Birds. Viruses. 2020 Oct 23;12(11):1209. doi: 10.3390/v12111209. PMID: 33114239; PMCID: PMC7690888.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

57.↵Saba Shirvan A, Mardani K. Mol ecular detection of infectious bronchitis and Newcastle disease viruses in broiler chickens with respiratory signs using Duplex RT-PCR. Vet Res Forum. 2014 Fall;5(4):319–23. PMID: 25610585; PMCID: PMC4299999.PubMedGoogle Scholar

58.↵Kataria RS, Tiwari AK, Butchaiah G, Rai A. Sequence Analysis of VP2 Gene Hyper Variable Region of a Cell-culture Adapted Indian Classical Infectious Bursal Disease Virus of Chicken. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2007; 32:1, pages 49–54.Google Scholar

59.↵Kahya S, Ardicli O, Eyigor A et. al Detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae by Real-Time PCRs and Mycoplasma gallisepticum-antibody Detection by an ELISA in Chicken Breeder Flocks. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 2015; 21(3):361–366Google Scholar

60.↵Pant GR, & Selleck PW. Surveillance for Avian Influenza in Nepal 2004-2005 (Vigilancia epidemiológica para influenza aviar en Nepal durante los años 2004 y 2005). Avian Diseases. 2007; 51(1), 352–354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493224PubMedGoogle Scholar

61.↵National Contingency Plan for Prevention and Control of Avian Influenza in Nepal. In: World Organization for Animal Health [Internet]. Available from: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/AvianInfluenza-Nepal.pdfGoogle Scholar

62.↵Moosavy MH, Esmaeili S, Bagheri Amiri F, Mostafavi E, Zahraei Salehi T. Detection of Salmonella spp in commercial eggs in Iran. Iran J Microbiol. 2015 Feb;7(1):50–4. PMID: 26644874; PMCID: PMC4670468.PubMedGoogle Scholar

63.↵Humphrey TJ. Contamination of egg shell and contents with Salmonella enteritidis: a review. Int J Food Microbiol. 1994;21(1-2):31–40. doi:10.1016/0168-1605(94)90197-xCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

64.↵Chousalkar KK, Flynn P, Sutherland M, Roberts JR, Cheetham BF. Recovery of Salmonella and Escherichia coli from commercial egg shells and effect of translucency on bacterial penetration in eggs. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;142(1-2):207–213. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.029CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

65.↵Sahin O, Kobalka P, Zhang Q. Detection and survival of Campylobacter in chicken eggs. J Appl Microbiol. 2003;95(5):1070–1079. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02083.xCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

66.↵Soler P, Hernández Pezzi G, Echeíta A, Torres A, Ordóñez Banegas Pilar, Aladueña A. Surveillance of foodborne disease outbreaks associated with consumption of eggs and egg products: Spain, 2002 - 2003. Euro Surveill. 2005;10(24):pii=2726. https://doi.org/10.2807/esw.10.24.02726-enGoogle Scholar

67.↵Egg-shell surveillance. In: USDA [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/eggs#:~:text=The%20Egg%20Products%20Inspection%20Act,of%20consumers%20of%20these%20products.Google Scholar

  1. 1.↵
  2. 2.↵
  3. 3.↵
  4. 4.↵
  5. 5.↵
  6. 6.↵
  7. 7.↵
  8. 8.↵
  9. 9.↵
  10. 10.↵
  11. 11.↵
  12. 12.↵
  13. 13.↵
  14. 14.↵
  15. 15.↵
  16. 16.↵
  17. 17.↵
  18. 18.↵
  19. 19.↵
  20. 20.↵
  21. 21.↵
  22. 22.↵
  23. 23.↵
  24. 24.↵
  25. 25.
  26. 26.↵
  27. 27.↵
  28. 28.↵
  29. 29.↵
  30. 30.↵
  31. 31.↵
  32. 32.↵
  33. 33.↵
  34. 34.↵
  35. 35.↵
  36. 36.↵
  37. 37.
  38. 38.↵
  39. 39.↵
  40. 40.↵
  41. 41.↵
  42. 42.↵
  43. 43.↵
  44. 44.↵
  45. 45.↵
  46. 46.↵
  47. 47.↵
  48. 48.↵
  49. 49.↵
  50. 50.↵
  51. 51.↵
  52. 52.↵
  53. 53.↵
  54. 54.↵
  55. 55.↵
  56. 56.↵
  57. 57.↵
  58. 58.↵
  59. 59.↵
  60. 60.↵
  61. 61.↵
  62. 62.↵
  63. 63.↵
  64. 64.↵
  65. 65.↵
  66. 66.↵
  67. 67.↵
Related topics:
#Poultry diseases
#Poultry egg quality
#Poultry management
Authors:
Dr Nabin Ghimire
Dr Nabin Ghimire
Dibesh karmacharya
Dibesh karmacharya
University of Queensland
0Recommendations
0Comments
·
148Views
Recommend
Comment
Share
Profile picture
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
Join Engormix and be part of the largest agribusiness social network in the world.