الفهرس Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 174 |  |  |
| | | from | 174 | | |
Abstract
SUMMARY
A total of 180 samples from air, water and soil from inside and outside the animal houses were collected from four dairy cattle farms; Faculty of Agriculture dairy farm, Beni-morr dairy farm, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine dairy farm and El-Hawatka buffalo farm and from 14 cattle byres associated within the owner houses in seven villages in Assiut Governorate.
The collected samples from farms (96 samples) were; 16 air samples from air inside farms and 16 samples from outside the farms; 16 water samples collected from water troughs inside the farms and 16 samples from tap water in these farms (the tap water originated from ground water); 16 samples from earthy soil or floor swab and 16 samples from earthy soil of the yards of the farms.
Moreover, a total of 84 samples were taken from 14 cattle byres in the owner houses in seven villages. These samples were; 14 air samples from 14 cattle byres in the owner houses and 14 samples from outside the owner houses; 14 water samples from troughs used for drinking of the diary animals in the owner houses and 14 from the tap water; 14 soil samples from the byres in the owner houses and 14 from outside the owner houses.
All collected samples were examined bacteriologically using the total viable count and isolation of pathogenic and potentially pathogenic bacteria in air, water and soil both inside and outside the animal houses.
Correlation between the detected microorganisms from air, water and soil both in farms and byres and those isolated from outside them was clarified. Moreover, the effectiveness of the microclimatic conditions on the bacterial flora was shown.
It was found that the mean value of the total viable count inside and outside the farms in air, water and soil were; (388.66 ± 169.61) x 102, (169.33 ± 97.77) x 102, (2012.19 ± 1480.06) x 102, (10.75 ± 8.97) x 102, (6.99 ± 5.35) x 1013 and (5.91 ± 5.42) x 1013 respectively, while the values of byres were; (644.02 ± 267.23) x 102, (80.43 ± 47.22) x 102, (581.92 ± 361.44) x 102, (50.45 ± 33.92) x 102, (10.46 ± 10.01) x 1013, and (1.21 ± 0.84) x 1013 respectively.
Bacteriological examination of the samples inside and outside the farm’s air, water and soil were; Staphylococcus aureus 0%, 0%, 12.5%, 0%, 62.5% and 12.5% respectively, Staphylococcus epidermidis 43.75%, 37.5%, 62.5%, 31.25%, 62.5% and 62.5% respectively, Streptococcus fecalis var fecalis 12.5%, 12.5%, 12.5%, 0%, 25% and 0% respectively, Streptococcus durans 18.75%, 12.5%, 18.75%, 0%, 25% and 31.25% respectively, E.coli 26.25%, 25%, 56.25%, 6.25%, 75% and 81.25% respectively, Citrobacter diversus 37.5%, 37.5%, 43.75%, 25%, 50% and 31.75% respectively, Citrobacter freundii 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, 6.25%, 18.75% and 12.5% respectively, Enterobacter cloacae 25%, 0%, 43.75%, 12.5%, 18.75 % and 25% respectively, Enterobacter aerogenes 12.5%, 18.75%, 6.25%, 0%, 18.75% and 25% respectively, Klebsiella species 12.5%, 6.25%, 43.75%, 0%, 18.75% and 18.75% respectively, Serratia macescens 6.25%, 6.25%, 6.25%, 6.25%, 0% and 6.25% respectively, Serratia liquefaciens 0%, 6.25%, 6.25%, 0%, 6.25% and 0% respectively, Serratia rubidae 0%, 6.25%, 6.25%, 0%, 12.5% and 0% respectively, Proteus vulgaris 6.25%, 6.25%, 12.5%, 0%, 12.5% and 0% respectively, Proteus mirabilis 0%, 0%, 6.25%, 0%, 6.25% and 0% respectively, Edwardsiella tarda 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 6.25% respectively, Providencia species 0%, 0%, 12.5%, 0%, 6.25% and 0% respectively, Hafnia alvei 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 12.5% and 0% respectively, Arizona species 0%, 0%, 6.25%, 0%, 0% and 0% respectively, Pseudomonas aeruginosa 6.25%, 0%, 12.5%, 0%, 12.5% and 0% respectively, Pseudomonas species 0%, 6.25%, 6.25%, 0%, 0% and 0% respectively, Clostridium perfringens12.5%, 25%, 12.5%, 0%, 25% and 50% respectively.
Bacteriological examination of the samples inside and outside the cattle byres associated within the owner houses from air, water and soil were; Staphylococcus aureus 0%, 7.14%, 7.14%, 0%, 0% and 7.14% respectively, Staphylococcus epidermidis 100%, 92.86%, 85.71%, 42.86%, 100% and 78.57% respectively, Streptococcus fecalis var fecalis 7.14%, 35.71%, 28.57%, 7.14%, 14.29% and 14.29% respectively, Streptococcus fecalis var zymogenes 7.14%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 7.14% and 14.29% respectively, Streptococcus durans 28.57%, 21.43%, 28.57%, 21.43%, 28.57% and 21.43% respectively, E.coli 78.57%, 35.71%, 50%, 0%, 85.71% and 42.86% respectively, Citrobacter diversus 7.14%, 42.86%, 35.71%, 14.29%, 21.43% and 35.71% respectively, Citrobacter freundii 7.14%, 28.57%, 21.43%, 0%, 14.29% and 14.29% respectively, Enterobacter cloacae 14.29%, 7.14%, 0%, 7.14%, 7.14% and 14.29% respectively, Klebsiella species 21.43%, 7.14%, 7.14%, 7.14%, 0% and 0% respectively, Klebsiella pneumoniae 21.43%, 14.29%, 21.43%, 0%, 0% and 14.29% respectively, Serratia macescens 7.14%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 7.14% respectively, Serratia liquefaciens 7.14%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 7.14% respectively, Serratia rubidae 0%, 7.14%, 14.29%, 0%, 7.14% and 0% respectively, Proteus vulgaris 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 7.14% and 0% respectively, Shiegella species 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 7.14% and 0% respectively, Alcaligenes species 0%, 7.14%, 0%, 0%, 7.14% and 0% respectively, Pseudomonas species 7.14%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 0% respectively, Clostridium perfringens 7.14%, 0%, 14.29 %, 0%, 28.57% and 21.43% respectively.
from this study, it was found that, there were no significant differences between numbers of microorganisms present in air inside the animal houses in farms and those found outside the houses, but significant differences were found between numbers of microorganisms present in air inside the byres within the owner houses and those found outside it.
Concerning the water, very significant differences were found between numbers of microorganisms present in water in troughs used for drinking of animals and those found in water came from outside the animal houses (tap water) either in farms or byres.
On the other hand, in soil, significant differences between numbers of microorganisms present in farms soil and those found in soil outside the animal houses in farms were found and highly significant differences between numbers of microorganisms present in byres soil and those found in soil outside the byres were found.
Studying the effectiveness of microclimatic conditions on total colony count of air, water and soil revealed that there was no significant relationship was found between the total colony count in or out all farms as a whole either for air or water or soil and the corresponding THI. But in byres, there was a negative significant correlation between total colony count of air inside byres and the THI inside these byres.
When concerning the relative humidities, a negative significant correlation between the recorded relative humidity inside farms and the total bacterial count of air inside these farms was found and a positive significant correlation between total colony count of air out byres and the existed RH out byres was found also.
But about the effect of the ambient temperature on the total viable count in air, water and soil, no significant correlation between total colony count of either of air, water or soil and the prevailing ambient temperature in all farms as collectively was found. But in byres, there was a negative significant correlation between total colony count of air inside byres and the existed ambient temperature inside these byres.