Circulation of Major Respiratory Pathogens in Backyard Poultry and their Association with Clinical Disease and Biosecurity

SUMMARY

Raising backyard birds is a common practice in Brazil, mainly in the countryside or suburban areas. However, the level of respiratory pathogens in these animals is unknown. We sampled two hundred chickens from 19 backyard flocks near commercial poultry farms and performed ELISA to Infectious Bronchitis Virus, avian Metapneumovirus, Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum. We evaluated the association between the predictive ability of ELISA and Hemagglutination-inhibition (HI)by comparing results from eight flocks positive to Mycoplasma gallisepticum on ELISA. Besides, we assessed essential biosecurity measures in the properties (multiple species birds, rodent control, hygienic conditions, and water quality for the bird`s consumption). We could access the vaccination program only on four properties; in three of them, the birds were supposedly vaccinated for IBV. Overall the properties had a poor score for the biosecurity measures, and the seroprevalence in backyard poultry flocks for IBV, a MPV, MS, and MG were respectively 87.5% (14/16), 89.5% (17/19), 100 (19/19) and MG 84.21% (16/19). We found low specificity and predictive value between ELISA and HI in MG analysis and a positive correlation between the presence of clinical symptoms and mean MG titers. Backyard chicken are pathogens’ reservoirs and pose a risk for the commercial poultry farms in the region, and further efforts of the governmental entities and private sector of poultry production should consider these information to avoid future economic losses.

Keywords:
Avian Metapneumovirus; ELISA; Hemagglutination-inhibition; Infectious Bronchitis Virus; Mycoplasma

INTRODUCTION

Brazil plays a significant role in world poultry production, being the second biggest producer and the first exporter ABPA (2019). In the protein-producing business, the sanitary conditions of the herds are essential for long-term success. Respiratory diseases are an issue for poultry companies worldwide; yearly, companies expend millions of dollars in vaccines, diagnosis, and treatment. Economic losses are caused mainly due to a drop in egg production, increase of feed conversion, downgrading, and mortality, Buchala et al. (2006); Kleven (2008); de Wit et al. (2011).

Several people that live in the suburban area of Uberlandia, Brazil and its surroundings rear chickens in their backyard as a shared cultural trait; in some cases, chickens are slaughtered and sold to neighbors or acquaintances. Although several biosecurity measures are taken on commercial flocks, backyard or free-range production lack any veterinary protocol for disease prevention. In many cases backyard properties are located near commercial properties and may act as reservoirs for respiratory diseases to the commercial flocks, Derksen et al. (2018).

Among the avian mycoplasmas, Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG)causes the most critical loss in poultry production. The outcomes of the infection are mainly respiratory diseases and drop in egg production in chickens, turkeys, and other avian species. Broilers and turkeys infected with MG show severe airsacculitis, coughing, rales, and impaired growth. Both MS and MG infections can cause massive condemnations caused by air airsacculitis at processing. Moreover, in chickens, MS infections cause synovitis Kleven (2008).

The Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), a member of the family Coronaviridae, causes a highly contagious acute disease of the respiratory and urogenital tract of chickens leading to a decrease in egg production and quality. Besides, young chicks display acute respiratory disease, lesions in the trachea, and morbidity can easily reach 100% mortality, on the other hand, it is generally below 5%. Nevertheless, if concurrent infections and secondary pathogens are present, the mortality increases. Nephropathogenic strains cause enlarged kidneys with distended tubules and ureters that contain uric acid crystals, Buchala et al. (2006); de Wit et al. (2011).

Avian metapneumovirus (aMPV), previously referred to as avian pneumovirus (APV) and avian rhinotracheitis virus (ART) is an acute, highly contagious upper respiratory infection in turkeys and chickens. In chickens’ laying flocks, particularly in broiler breeders, there is a marked drop in egg production, often preceded by respiratory signs. Severe respiratory distress is only observed in broilers when Metapneumovirus infection is associated with secondary pathogens such as IBV, mycoplasma, and E. coli. In such cases, birds may have swollen head syndrome, torticollis, incoordination, and depression (Gough & Pedersen, 2016).

Serology is broadly used to identify mycoplasma and virus infection in poultry flocks. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), recommends both HI and ELISA to evaluate serum titers for MG, and PCR to confirm the infection (OIE, 2019).Nonetheless, a previous study has found several false positives results caused by ELISA`s low specificity to identifying antibodies against MS and MG Feberwee et al.(2005). Therefore, continuing to evaluate the feasibility of replacing HI tests by ELISA is essential.

This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of serological titers of MG, MS, IBV, and aMPV in backyard chickens, to relate clinical symptoms to diseases, to verify simple biosecurity management, and to associate HI and ELISA results with flocks positive for MG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We randomly evaluated for biosecurity criteria and collected blood samples from birds in 19 rural poultry-producing properties in Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from March to October 2018 (Supplementary Table 1). This area is characterized by a semi-humid tropical climate with dry winter and rainy summer. The owners of the properties evaluated and registered in this study volunteered to be part of an extension and search project for sanitary assistance to small properties. We divulged the project on the radio, TV, and social media.

Supplemental table 1
Number of total poultry and number of backyard chickens with blood sampled between the ages of 12 to 54 weeks.

Farm	Total of poultry	number of birds sampled
P1	45	5
P2	50	6
P3	38	6
P4	30	10
P5	200	12
P6	30	12
P7	40	12
P8	56	11
P9	120	12
P10	300	12
P11	80	12
P12	50	12
P13	50	12
P14	110	11
P15	200	10
P16	29	11
P17	200	12
P18	30	10
P19	110	12

We collected blood samples from 200 birds (Gallus gallus) aged between 12 and 54 weeks in clot activator (silica) vacuum collection tubes by puncturing the ulnar vein, using sterile and disposable needles and syringes. We stored the samples in isothermal boxes until the arrival at the Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine from the Federal University of Uberlandia.

We collected blood serum by using automatic pipettes with unique tips and then sent them to the Animal Health Laboratory for serological analysis via indirect ELISA methodology IDEXX (2013). We performed ELISA according to the manufacturer`s instructions, adding the samples in the plaque for sensitization, washing with a buffer and incubating at 18-26°C for 30 minutes. After that, we washed and added an enzyme-substrate, washed again, added the enzyme-substrate, and incubated at 18-26°C for 15 minutes. Then we added the Interruption Solution to stop the reaction IDEXX (2013).

We measured the serum samples` antibody absorbance values using an optical density spectrophotometer, and the software provided by IDEXX displayed the absorbance estimation for each sample. According to the manufacturer`s guidelines, for IBV and aMPV analysis, antibody titers for these viruses higher than 397 are considered positive exposure, indicating either vaccination or natural exposure. Likewise, for MG and MS, antibody titers higher than 1077 are considered positive IDEXX (2013). We did not include vaccinated poultry in the disease`s analysis.

We performed HI (Hemagglutination Inhibition test) for MG in bird’s serum samples from eight properties (P) (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19), as follows: using 96-well microplates, we diluted 25µl of the serum samples in PBS (pH 7.2 ) from 1: 2 to 1: 4096, then we added 25 µl of MG antigen 4 UHA (Hemagglutinating Units) in each well and incubated at room temperature (25°C) during 15 minutes. After that, we deposited 25 ul of 1% chick erythrocyte suspension (pH 7.2, optical density 0.33-0.35), incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes, and evaluated until which dilution the MG antibody in the sera was able to inhibit the hemagglutination caused by the antigen.

We assessed the farm properties regarding their biosecurity (supplementary Table 2) and the clinical aspects of respiratory diseases we considered that farms, where more than 25% of the birds showed clinical respiratory signs as positive. Besides, we georeferenced properties using google maps.

Table supplementary 2A
Questionnaire about some aspects of biosecurity evaluated in the studied properties.

Question	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9
Breeding of different species? Which are?	yes (peacock, duck, broiler, hens, roseter, quail, turkey and goose)	yes (duck, broiler, hens, rooster )	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster)	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster)	Yes (duck, broiler, hens, rooster, call duck and goose )	no	no	yes (duck, broiler, hens, rooster)	no
Water source	artesian well (no treatment)	artesian well (no treatment)	urbanwater (treated)	artesian well (no treatment)	artesian well (no treatment)	artesian well (no treatment)	urban water (treated)	urbanwater (treated)	urban water (treated)
carcass disposal	near the dam	bury	common waste	common waste	burn	bury	common waste	in the woods without treatment	common waste or bury
veterinary monitoring if there are sick poultry	yes (owner is veterinary)	yes (project with university)	no	no	no	no	no	no	no
Source of technical information	owner is veterinary	project with university	don’t look for information	don’t look for information	internet and courses	talking with friends	don’t look for information	don’t look for information	internet
property cleaning	bad	reasonable	reasonable	bad	bad	bad	bad	bad	bad
perform vector control	no	no	controll of rats	no	controll of rats	not	controll of rats	no	controll of rats

Table supplementary 2B
Questionnaire about some aspects of biosecurity evaluated in the studied properties.

Question	P10	P11	P12	P13	P14	P15	P16	P17	P18	P19
Breeding of different species? Which are?	yes (duck, broiler, hens, rooster)	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster and Wood-Rail)	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster and quail)	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster)	no	yes (duck, broiler, hens, rooster, canary and goose)	no	Yes (guinea fowl, broiler, hens, rooster and turkey)	no	no
Water source	urban water (treated)	urban water (treated)	head waters	headwaters	urban water (treated)	artesian well (no treatment)	urban water (treated)	artesian well (no treatment)	urban water (treated)	urban water (treated)
carcass disposal	common waste or bury	bury	burn	bury	bury	bury	bury	common waste	common waste	common waste
veterinary monitoring if there are sick poultry	no	yes (owner is veterinary)	no	yes veterinary hospital	no	no	no	no	no	no
Source of technical information	internet or veterinary store attendant	owner is veterinary or veterinary store attendant	internet	veterinary hospital	veterinary store attendant	don’t look for information	veterinary store attendant	internet and friends	internet	internet and courses
property cleaning	bad	reasonable	bad	bad	bad	reasonable	reasonable	reasonable	reasonable	reasonable
perform vector control	no	no	no	no	no	controll of rats and insects	controll of rats	controll of rats	no	controll of rats and insects

We have performed descriptive statistics using mean and standard deviation for the serological titers’ analysis. To evaluate the correlation, we applied the Spearman test (p<0.05). For the diagnostic test, we used the chi-square followed by the tests of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. We used the Graph Pad Prism 7.0 program and a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Serological titers evaluated by ELISA for IBV, aMPV, MS, and MG

From the 19 farms studied, only in four properties the birds were vaccinated from 6 to 12 months before the sample’s collections. The vaccines used were as following: P5 (Avian Pox, IBV, Newcastle and Infectious Bursal Disease), P9 (Avian Pox and Newcastle), P17 (Newcastle, Avian Pox, Marek, Coryza, IBV, and Infectious Bursal Disease) and P19 (NewCastle, Avian Pox, Marek, Coryza, and IBV). In properties P5, P17, P19 the birds were supposedly vaccinated for IBV. In the properties where the owner declared that the poultry was vaccinated, there was no precise register when it occurred. Therefore, it is uncertain if the sampled birds were indeed vaccinated for IBV, thus these birds were left out of the disease’s analysis.

We describe the mean antibody titers for the four diseases surveyed in Figure 1. According to the manufacturer, flocks that show ELISA`s mean antibody titers above 397 are considered seropositive for IBV and aMPV and above 1077 seropositive for MG and MS. Therefore, excluding the three properties vaccinated for IBV, 82.3% of the birds and 87.5% of the flocks were seropositive for IBV (14/16), 77% of the birds and 89.5% of the flocks were seropositive for aMPV (17/19), P10 and P15 were seronegative for AMPV and P3 and P16 for IBV. We found the highest mean titers for aMPV in P3, P11, and P12, whereas P6, P11, P14, and P17 showed the highest mean antibody titers for IBV. All properties were seropositive for MS and 84.21% (16/19) to MG, respectively 87% and 73% of the birds were seropositive to MS and MG. Properties 2, 10, and 16 were seronegative. We observed the highest mean titers for MS in P3, P12, and P15 and MG on P17, P18, and P19.

Figure 1
ELISA antibody mean titers for IBV, AMPV, MS and MG. Serum samples collected from poultry between 12 and 54 weeks old.

Excluding the properties with vaccinated birds for IBV (P5, P17, and P19), 68.75% (11/16) of the properties were positive for all the diseases surveyed and 6.25% (1/16) for aMPV/MS/MG; (1/16) for IBV/MS/MG; (1/16) for IBV/aMPV/MS; (1/16) for aMPV/MS and (1/16) for IBV/MS.

Using scatterplot, we checked the distribution of the values for each analyzed property (supplementary Figure 1A-D). We found a high variation coefficient for the antibody titers for IBV (Supplementary Figure 1A), aMPV (Supplementary Figure 1B), and MG (Supplementary Figure 1D). The variation coefficient for IBV ranged from 46.29% to 147.89%; for AMPV, from 47.53% to 340%, and for MG, it ranged from 23.34% to 110.35%. Less variation was found for MS (Supplementary Figure 1C) from 19.51% to 26.66%.

Supplementary Figure 1
Dispersion of IBV, aMPV, MS and MG antibody titers in the evaluated properties

To better understand the serological reaction for the surveyed diseases, we generated histograms, and the antibody titers were divided into groups as recommended by the manufacturer. Histograms for IBV, AMPV, MS, and MG are in Figures 2 A, B, C, and D, respectively.

Figure 2
Histogram of the distribution frequency of backyard chickens’ antibody titers on ELISAfor IBV (A), aMPV (B), MS (C), and MG (D).

Correlation between serological titers evaluated by IBV, AMPV, MS and MG ELISA

We found a moderate correlation between seropositivity to aMPV and IBV, a weak correlation between aMPV and MG and MG and IBV; MS and IBV and MS and MG showed a very week correlation (Table 1).

Table 1
Correlation between the mean serological titers for IBV, aMPV, MS, and MG.

	AMPV		MS		MG
	P	r	P	r	p	r
IBV	<0.0001	0.452	0.747	0.023	<0.0001	0.337
AMPV			0.013	0.175	<0.0001	0.2746
MS					0.336	0.06

• Value classification of r: 0.00 < r > 0,19: very weak; 0.20 < r > 0.39: poor; 0.40 < r > 0.69: moderate; 0.70 < r > 0.89: strong.

HI results for MG

According to the Agriculture Ministry of Brazil, as well as for OIE, MG is a notifiable disease, and OIE (2000) considers HI the golden standard test to MG. We analyzed properties P11 to P19 for HI due to its proximity between commercial farms (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Serological levels for the HI test for MG of the evaluated properties 11 to 19. Titers 1:20 are considered negative, 1:40 suspect and 1:80 or higher positive.

We found an association between HI and ELISA for MG disease in the diagnostic test (Table 2); the values for sensitivity and specificity were respectively 1, and 0.25, the positive and negative predictive values were 0.857 and 1, respectively.

Table 2
Diagnostic test using HI for MG in the evaluated properties.

	P HI	N HI
P ELISA	72	12
N ELISA	0	4

• P: positive; N: negative; p = 0.0008; sensitivity = 1; specificity = 0.25; positive predictive value = 0.857; negative predictive value: 1.

Correlation between the serological titers of the evaluated diseases and respiratory signs

We observed nasal secretion, sneezing and snoring symptoms in 13 from the 19 properties at the visit and sample collection (P1, P2, P4, P5, P8, P9, P12, P13, P14, P15, P17, P18, P19). We found a positive correlation between the presence of clinical symptoms and mean MG titers. For other diseases, there was no association (Table 3).

Table 3
Correlation between respiratory symptoms and serological titers.

	IBV % (a/b)	AMPV	MS	MG
Respiratory symptoms and positive serum for the agent	71,4% (10/14)*	70,6% (12/17)	68,42% (13/19)	75% (12/16)
(p value)	0,230	0,923	0,724	0,039
Correlation (r)	0,288	-0,023	0,086	0,476

• Respiratory symptoms: Snoring, sneezing and nasal secretion; a / b: seropositive birds with respiratory symptoms / total seropositive birds; * Flocks were not considered when birds were previously vaccinated for IBV (P5, P17and P19).

Biosecurity

In all properties visited, there were multi-age poultry, chickens were the unique species on seven, 12 properties reared chickens and other birds such as ducks in 50% of the properties (6/12); guinea fowl in 50% (6/12); geese in 25% (3/12);turkeys in 16.66% (2/12); quails in 16.66% (2/12) and canary or call duck or peacock or wood-rail in 8.33%(1/12). The methods for disposal of the carcasses of dead birds were inadequate when compared with commercial chicken rearing;36.84% of the properties (7/19) buried the dead birds, 31.57% (6/19) discarded on common waste, 10.52% (2/19) burned, 10.52 (2/19) buried or discarded on common waste, 5.26% (1/19) discarded on vacant areas, and 5.26% (1/19) discarded near a dam. Most of the properties (84.21%), were not accompanied by a veterinarian when sick birds were spotted. In two properties (P1 and P11), the owners were veterinarians; one (P13) would often take the sick birds to the veterinary hospital, however, without professional sanitary and nutritional management advice and one other (P2), participates in a project with the university. The properties’ owners, when asked about the source of information to choose vaccination programs, diagnosis of diseases, and antimicrobial election, had often reported the use of websites, friends, family members, veterinary store attendants, and no information search. In table supplementary 2, it is possible to verify the biosecurity assessment. Besides, we analyzed essential BM, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Biosecurity criteria and correlation between mean antibody titers and disease occurrence.

	Birds are perceived as sick often	Lackof rodent control	Facilities showed poor hygienic condition	Non-treated water	Multiple species of birds
% (a/b)	73.68% (14/19)	57.89% (11/19)	57.89% (11/19)	47.36% (9/19)	63.19 (12/19)
Correlation with serological titers (p<0,05)	No	No	No	No	No
Correlation with frequent disease (p<0,05)	No	No	No	No	No

• Rating calculation was a/b: number of properties sorted according to variable/total number of properties.* No property was in a good state of cleanliness.

Location of evaluated properties

The localization of all studied properties was within a radius of 500 to 6 km from establishments of industrial poultry activities such as breeders, broilers, laying hen farms, and hatchery (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Map of the evaluated properties and commercial farms. The graph shows the antibody titers per bird sampled on each property. A. IBV, B. AMPV, C. MS, D. MG. Pos: Titervalue considered positive. Mean: Mean of antibody titers found per property.

DISCUSSION

The serological analysis showed that 68.75% of the non-vaccinated flocks were positive for all the pathogens surveyed and 18.75% for three out of four. Therefore the results show a high seroprevalence of the surveyed pathogens in the area studied. Nevertheless, we found a moderate correlation between aMPV and IBV and weak or very weak for other diseases, which may imply that the pathogens circulation is heterogenic between the properties.

The IBV seroprevalence (87.5%) could be either the result of the natural or live vaccine spread infection. The live vaccine virus could quickly spread into the air and reach the backyard birds since this type of vaccine is frequently applied in commercial poultry farms that are near the studied properties. Due to the lack of information and uncertainty about vaccination, it is problematic to compare the vaccinated and non-vaccinated birds. The serum samples of supposedly vaccinated birds (P5, P17, and P19), showed lower seroconversion results when compared with others without vaccination history; however, the variability of titers showed that some birds in these flocks could be unprotected and having an active infection. A similar study performed in the Rio Grande do Sul State in southern Brazil has found 100% of properties with backyard chickens seropositive to IBV, reinforcing the spread of the virus in this type of property Santos et al. (2008). Reports have shown high seroprevalence for IBV in backyard chickens in Belgium, the USA and Mexico, Gutierrez-Ruiz et al. (2000); Haesendonck et al. (2014); Derksen et al. (2018).

Veterinaries and poultry producers may underestimate the seropositivity to aMPV since it is not usually accessed in commercial chickens’ flocks. It may be because the disease mostly leads to slight respiratory clinical signs that are exacerbated by bacterial infections such as E. coli or pathogens such as IBV and mycoplasmas, Gough & Pedersen (2016). The high seroprevalence found in this study, 77% of the birds and 89.5% of properties, shows the virus spread in the region and corroborates with other studies. In a study performed in a poultry hearing area in Bahia, Brazil, 77.1% of commercial flocks and 94.12% of backyard flocks surveyed were seropositive for aMPV, Sales et al. (2010). We found that the variation coefficient for aMPV within properties ranged from 47.53% to 340%; a high variation coefficient within the same farm could be explained by the diversity of the age of the poultry reared in the same place.

In this study, the totality of properties was seropositive for MS and 84% for MG; these data confirm the relevance of backyard chicken properties to the epidemiology of economically significant diseases such as MS and MG. A serological survey performed in Pernambuco, Brazil found that 53.33% of the studied backyard birds were seropositive for MG with 100% positive properties, Sá et al. (2015). Studies also reported high seroprevalence for MS and MG in backyard flocks in Belgium, the USA and Argentina, Xavier et al. (2011); Haesendonck et al. (2014); Derksen et al. (2018).

We considered that the correlation between the seroprevalence of MG and respiratory signs (nasal secretion, sneezing, and snoring) was moderate. When the r values are between 0.5 and 0.7, it represents moderate correlation, Mukaka (2012), we found r=0.476. We performed a transversal study between serological titers and birds clinical disease on the day of the visit. Admittedly, our analysis may contain bias as birds may have fallen ill at a very different time from the presence of serological titers, especially in the case of IBV and aMPV. Nevertheless, MG is a chronic and slow-spreading disease OIE (2018), hence we consider that in these free-range birds, there is a correlation between the clinical symptoms caused by MG and the increased serological titers. Moreover, we hypothesize that we could have found a correlation with the other studied diseases in a prior moment of the birds’ lives.

It is crucial to consider that in MG infections, non-symptomatic birds are common and represent a threat to poultry production since the infection remains silent and can spread without being noticed Kleven (2003). In our study, we had considered a respiratory disease only when the number of birds with such clinical signs exceeded 25% on the day of the visit. This criterion can also cause bias because only one sick bird can already be indicative of clinical disease when considering a slow spread disease as MG.

The ELISA results for MS showed the highest number of positive samples on higher groups and the lowest variation coefficient when compared to the other diseases surveyed. It means that active infection is occurring in the surveyed flocks. Lack of correlation between seroprevalence of MG and MS (p=0.336; r=0.06) shows a possible diverse source of contamination for these diseases.

The OIE terrestrial animal health code published in 2000, OIE (2000), stated that HI was the prescribed test to address MG in serum samples due to the high specificity of the test and thus a low number of false-positive results. However, in the current version of the document OIE (2019), HI is considered interchangeable with ELISA to diagnose MG. In this study, we suggest that ELISA should not replace HI tests. As shown in Table 2, ELISA showed low specificity and predictive value for MG analysis. Otherwise, HI is considered highly specific even for the differentiation between Mycoplasma spp. strains, Kleven et al. (1988). Feberwee (2005), and collaborators, also reported a high number of false-positive caused by the low specificity of ELISA tests for MS and MG diagnosis. Therefore, we suggest that ELISA for MG should be a screening test to diagnose and HI a confirmatory test along with the PCR analysis.

Biosecurity is the employment of procedures to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of pathogens FAO (2008). Hence, they act as bioexclusion and biocontainment measures to prevent infectious agents from entering and exiting the farm, Charisis (2008). In the properties visited, there was a high variability in the management and biosecurity measures. The multi-age and mixed-species farms are problematic because the all-in, all-out management cannot be performed. Thus, no effective sanitary cleaning and disinfection were made, probably causing the permanence of pathogens in the environment contaminating new birds that are eventually introduced in the property. The extensive production also allows contact with migratory birds that are often carriers of several pathogens such as avian influenza virus, Newcastle virus, Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Mycoplasmaspp, and coronaviruses, Muradrasoli et al. (2010); Lister (2008). Studies have reported before the susceptibility of backyard chickens, due to its close contact with wild birds and their role as reservoirs of pathogens, Reed et al. (2003); Karabozhilova et al. (2012); Smith et al. (2012); Pohjola et al. (2015); Pohjola et al. (2016).

Rodents can serve as vectors and reservoirs of several poultry diseases; it is estimated that rodents can transmit about 35 different diseases affecting man and domestic animals. These diseases include mycoplasmosis, salmonellosis, colibacillosis, coryza, pasteurellosis, fowl cholera, erysipelas, leptospirosis, trichinosis, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, among others. The rodents mainly contaminate the feed at poultry farms, Donald et al. (2015); Castillo et al. (2013). The lack of rodent control in the properties studied pose a risk either to the poultry flocks in the surroundings but also to people involved in the farm’s activities.

Although, in our study, we did not detect the correlation between the biosecurity aspects evaluated and the increase in serological titers, it is well-known that biosecurity measures should be implemented in the properties to prevent diseases and thus guarantee better weight gain and feed conversion. Therefore, we believe that other types of evaluation in prospective longitudinal epidemiological studies, along with agent isolation evaluation, would be a more appropriate analysis. In the properties studied, birds were perceived by the owner as sick often in the majority of the farms surveyed (73.68%), this undoubtedly reflects the low hygienic conditions and the water quality, and these situations may lead to diseases caused by bacteria, coccidia or other parasites that were not evaluated in this study.

The impact of management and bird’s origin can also be observed on P10, even though being reactive for IBV and also for MS, P10 had the lowest serological titers values. We justify that by the fact that the owner bought the birds from a specialized company in the production of selected backyard hens, they were at the same age (about six months old) and were also the first individuals to be allocated in the property.

The various species mixed in the same flock are certainly another vital risk to disease spread in the region, MS has been isolated from guinea-fowl, this species may also carry Coronavirus, Pascucci et al. (1976); Bouwman et al. (2019); Ducatez & Guerin (2015). In the past, MS and MG were isolated from geese, Benöina et al. (1988), and MG from quails, Murakami et al. (2002). Studies have already identified MS, MG, IBV and aMPV in ducks, Wu X et al. (2016); Bencina et al. (1988); Sun et al. (2014).Therefore, these birds could act as a reservoir of such diseases and corroborate to the perpetuation of these pathogens in the backyard flocks, Henning et al.(2011); Gowthaman et al. (2012).

Regarding the mortality disposal, the majority of the properties buried the carcasses. Although the burial of livestock mortality may raise worry that infectious agents may enter both human food and animal feed chain and contaminate the environment, these concerns are more applicable when mass mortality happens. The burial of a typical farm carcass disposal may not raise such concern, especially when few birds are buried, Gwyther et al. (2011). To reduce the chance of soil and water contamination possibility, the use of hydrated lime (Ca (OH)2) on the basis of the burial pits is advisable because it effectively reduces the survival of pathogens, Sanchez et al. (2008). On-farm burning of carcass disposals is frequent in many countries and there is no critical inconvenience to the environment, Gwyther et al. (2011). The disposal of bird’s carcasses in open-air represents a significant risk to the pathogens spread in the property, and the region due to the ability of insects such as flies and dark beetles and rodents to carry and spread diseases within the farm and in commercial farms.

We emphasize that the high seroprevalence in the backyard flocks to MS and MG, the most economically significant diseases surveyed in this study, and the possibility to mycoplasma to be spread by air, Bradburry et al. (2008), cause concern due to the proximity to the commercial poultry farms that varied from 500m to 6Km. Therefore, we strongly suggest that commercial poultry farms employees must be oriented to avoid contact with backyard birds. Besides, other BM as to restrict as much as possible the visitors in the facilities, keep a register of visitors, and reinforce the rodent control in the area surrounding poultry houses should be adopted.

CONCLUSION

The high seroprevalence found for IBV, aMPV, MS, and MG in the backyard poultry surveyed in this study demonstrate the importance of such birds as pathogen`s reservoirs. The high seroprevalence to MS and MG, along with the flaws in BM in the backyard properties, pose a risk of outbreaks in commercial poultry farms in the region, which could lead to significant economic losses. Although we found high serological titers for the diseases surveyed, only MG correlated with clinical signs. ELISA and HI tests showed a low concordance index caused mainly due to false-positive results in ELISA; because of that, we recommend that ELISA and HI should be used respectively as screening and confirmatory tests rather than interchangeable tests.

REFERENCES

• ABPA - Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal. Annual Report. São Paulo;2019.
• Bencina D, Tadina T, Dorrer D. Natural infection of ducks with Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma egg transmission. Avian Pathology 1988;17(2):441-9.
• Benöina D, Tadina T, Dorrer D. Natural infection of geese with mycoplasma gallisepticum and mycoplasma Synoviae and egg transmission of the mycoplasmas. Avian Pathology 1988;17(4):925-928.
• Bouwman KM, Delpont M, Broszeit F, Berger R, Weerts EAWS, Lucas MN, et al. Guinea fowl coronavirus diversity has phenotypic consequences for glycan and tissue binding. Journal of Virology 2019;93(10).
• Bradburry JM, Morrow C. Avian Mycoplasmas. In: Patisson M, McMullin PF, Bradburry JM, Alexander DJ, editors. Poultry diseases. 6th ed. Beijing: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.
• Buchala FG, Ishizuka MM, Mathias LA, Berchieri Júnior A, Castro AGM, Cardoso ALSP, et al. Detecção de resposta sorológica contra Mycoplasma em aves de criatórios de "fundo de quintal" próximos a explorações comerciais do estado de São Paulo. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico 2006;73:143-148.
• Castillo E, Priotto J , Ambrosio AM , Provensal MC , Pini N , et al. Commensal and wild rodents in an urban area of Argentina. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 2003;52:135-141.
• Charisis N. Avian influenza biosecurity:a key for animal and human protection. Veterinaria Italiana 2008;44(4):657-669.
• Derksen T, Lampron R, Hauck R, Pitesky M, Gallardo RA. Biosecurity assessment and seroprevalence of respiratory diseases in backyard poultry flocks located close to and far from commercial premises. Avian Diseases 2018;62:1-5.
• Donald JM, Eckman, Simpson G. How to control rats, mice, and darkling beetles. Poultry Engineering, Economics, and Management Newsletter 2002;20:1-4.
• Ducatez M, Guerin JL. Identification of a novel Coronavirus from guinea fowl using metagenomics. Methods in Molecular Biology 2015;1282:27-31.
• Feberwee A, Mekkes D, Wit J, Hartman E, Pijpers A. Comparison of culture, PCR, and different serologic tests for detection of Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae infections. Avian Diseases 2005;49:260-268.
• FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization. Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian influenza: issues and options. Rome: FAO; 2008.
• Gough RE, Pedersen JC. Avian metapneumovirus. In: Dufour-Zavala L, Swayne DE, Glisson JR, Pearson JE, Reed WM, Mark J.W, et al, editors. A laboratory manual for the isolation, identification, and characterization of avian pathogens. 5th ed. Jacksonville: American Association of Avian Pathologists; 2016. p.142-145.
• Gowthaman V, Singh SD, Barathidasan R, Ayanur A, Dhama K. Natural outbreak of newcastle disease in turkeys and japanese quails housed along with chicken in a multi-species poultry farm in northern India. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 2013;1:17-20.
• Gutierrez-Ruiz EJ, Ramirez-Cruz GT, Camara Gamboa EI, Alexander DJ, Gough RE. A serological survey for avian infectious bronchitis virus and Newcastle disease virus antibodies in backyard (Free-range) village chickens in Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2000;32:381-390.
• Gwyther CL, Williams AP, Golyshin PN, Edwards-Jones G, Jones DL. The environmental and biosecurity characteristics of livestock carcass disposal methods:A review. Waste Management 2011;31(4):767-778.
• Haesendonck R, Verlinden M, Devos G, Michiels T, Butaye P, Haesebrouck F, et al. High seroprevalence of respiratory pathogens in hobby Poultry. Avian Diseases 2014;58:623-627.
• Henning J, Henning KA, Morton JM, Long NT, Ha NT, Vu le T, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) in ducks and in-contact chickens in backyard and smallholder commercial duck farms in Viet Nam. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2011;101(3-4):229-40.
• IDEXX. Elisa Technical Guide. Maine: Idexx Laboratories; 2013.
• Karabozhilova I, Wieland B, Alonso S, Salonen L, Häsler B. Backyard chicken keeping in the Greater London Urban Area:welfare status, biosecurity and disease control issues. British Poultry Science 2012;53:421-430.
• Kleven SH, Morrow CJ, Whithear KG. Comparison of Mycoplasma gallisepticum strains by hemagglutination-inhibition and restriction endonuclease analysis. Avian Diseases 1988;32:731-741.
• Kleven SH. Mycoplasmosis. In:Dufour-Zavala L, Swayne DE, Glisson JR, Pearson JE, Reed WM, Mark JW, Woolcock PR, editors. A laboratory manual for the isolation, identification, and characterization of avian pathogens. 5th ed. Jacksonville: American Association of Avian Pathologists; 2008.
• Kleven SH. No title pages. In: Saif W, Barnes H, Fadly A, Glisson J, McDougald L, Swayne D, editors. Diseases of poultry. 11th ed. Ames: Iowa University Press; 2003.
• Lister SA. Biosecurity in poultry management. In: Patisson M, McMullin PF, Bradburry JM, Alexander DJ, editors. Poultry diseases. 6th ed. Beijing: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.
• Maturana VG, de Pace F, Carlos C, Mistretta Pires M, Amabile de Campos T, Nakazato G, et al. Subpathotypes of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) exist as defined by their syndromes and virulence traits. The Open Microbiology Journal 2011;5:55-64.
• Mukaka M. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. The Journal of Medical Association of Malawi 2012;24 3:69-71.
• Muradrasoli S, Bálint A, Wahlgren J, Waldenström J, Belák S, Blomberg J, Olsen B. Prevalence and phylogeny of coronaviruses in wild birds from the Bering Strait area (Beringia). PLoS One 2010;29:5(10):13640.
• Murakami S, Miyama M, Ogawa A, Shimada J, Nakane T. Occurrence of conjunctivitis, sinusitis and upper region tracheitis in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica), possibly caused by Mycoplasma gallisepticum accompanied by Cryptosporidium sp. infection. Avian Pathology: Journal of the WVPA 2002;31:363-70.
• OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health. Avian micoplasmosis. In: OIE. Terrestrial manual. Paris; 2019.
• OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial animal health code. 9th ed. Paris; 2000.
• OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 28 th ed. Paris; 2019.
• OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Paris; 2018.
• Pascucci S, Maestrini N, Govoni S, Prati A. Mycoplasma synoviaein the guinea-fowl. Avian Pathology 1976;5:291-297.
• Pohjola L, Rossow L, Huovilainen A, Soveri T, Hänninen ML, Fredriksson-Ahomaa M. Questionnaire study and postmortem findings in backyard chicken flocks in Finland. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2015;57:3.
• Pohjola L, Tammiranta N, Ek-Kommonen, C, Soveri T, Hänninen M, Fredriksson Ahomaa M, et al. A survey for selected avian viral pathogens in backyard chicken farms in Finland. Avian Pathology 2016;46:166-172.
• Reed KD, Meece JK, Henkel JS, Shukla SK. Birds, migration and emerging zoonoses:West Nile virus, Lyme disease, influenza A and enteropathogens. Clinical Medicine Research 2003;1:5-12.
• Sá SG, Pinheiro Júnior JW, Oliveira Vilela SM, Moraes EPBX, Albuquerque PPF, Ferreira DRA, et al. Occurrence and risk factors assessment associated with Mycoplasma Gallisepticum (MG) infection in chickens in the semiarid region of Pernambuco, Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 2015;35:531-535.
• Sales TS, Herval EFG, da Silva PS, de Lima JM, Ramos I, Fernandes LMB. Frequência de anticorpos contra metapneumovírus aviário em criações industriais e de galinhas de quintal no pólo avícola da Bahia. Ciência Animal Brasileira 2010;11:718-723.
• Sanchez M, Gonzalez JL, Gutierrez MAD, Guimaraes AC, Gracia LMN. Treatment of animal carcasses in poultry farms using sealed ditches. Bioresource Technology 2008;99:7369-7376.
• Santos HF, Lovato LT, Flôres ML, Trevisol IM, Mazzutti KC, Pan KA. Anticorpos contra vírus em galinhas de terreiro do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Ciência Rural 2008;38:1932-1937.
• Smith EI, Reif JS, Hill AE, Slota KE, Miller RS, Bjork KE, et al. Epidemiologic characterization of Colorado backyard bird flocks. Avian Diseases 2012;56:263-271.
• Sun S, Chen F, Cao S, Liu J, Lei W, Li G, et al. Isolation and characterization of a subtype C avian metapneumovirus circulating in Muscovy ducks in China.Veterinary Research 2014;45(1):74.
• Wit JJS, Cook JKA, van der Heijden HMJF. Infectious bronchitis virus variants: a review of the history, current situation and control measures. Avian Pathology 2011;40:223-235.
• Wu X, Pan S, Zhou W, Wu Y, Huang Y, Wu B. The isolation and identification of infectious bronchitis virus PTFY strain in muscovy ducks. Chinese Journal of Virology 2016;32:203-209.
• Xavier JC, Pascal D, Crespo E, Schell H, Trinidad JA, Bueno DJ. Seroprevalence of salmonella and mycoplasma infection in backyard chickens in the state of Entre Rios in Argentina. Poultry Science 2011;90(4):746-51.

• FUNDING

  Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for their financial support.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 June 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  20 Nov 2019
• Accepted
  17 Feb 2020