Longitudinal study on background lesions in broiler breeder flocks and their progeny, and genomic characterisation of Escherichia coli

Le résumé fourni par la source

In broiler breeders, background mortality is rarely addressed, however, it represents the death of a vast number of birds, a constant productivity loss, welfare concerns and it might affect chick quality. The study aimed to unveil lesions leading to mortality in a study population perceived as healthy, combined with whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of Escherichia coli, a well-known contributor to disease problems in poultry. Broiler breeders (n = 340) originating from three distinct, putative healthy flocks and their progeny (n = 154) were subjected to a comprehensive post-mortem examination, bacteriological sampling, and sequencing of 77 E. coli isolates. Productivity data confirmed an exemplary health status of the enrolled flocks, and post-mortem examination further verified the absence of general disease problems. Among the submitted broiler breeders, exudative peritonitis (31.2%) was the most frequent lesion linked to infectious disease, whereas airsacculitis, pericarditis, perihepatitis, and salpingitis occurred in 18.5%, 3.5%, 3.8% and 17%, respectively. Yolksacculitis occurred in 15.6% of the broilers, whilst pericarditis, perihepatitis and peritonitis were diagnosed in 9.7%, 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively. WGS revealed a diverse population where ST95 dominated the population retrieved from broiler breeders, whereas ST10 was highly prevalent among broilers. Both lineages could be isolated from extraintestinal sites of birds without lesions indicative of infection. In general, the genetic diversity within flocks was comparable to the diversity between farms, and the overall occurrence of resistance markers was low. In conclusion, a comprehensive insight into lesions associated with background mortality is presented, together with a vast diversity of E. coli isolated from extraintestinal sites during a non-outbreak situation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.