Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:10:44.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of an adult bird

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

C. S. Impey ,
G. C. Mead  and
Susan M. George
C. S. Impey
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Food Research Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
G. C. Mead
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Food Research Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
Susan M. George
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Food Research Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Colonization of the caeca of newly hatched chicks by Salmonella typhimurium was prevented by oral administration of a mixture of cultures comprising 48 different bacterial strains originating from an adult bird known to be free from salmonellas. The treatment conferred protection to the same degree as that obtained previously with a suspension of adult caecal contents or an undefined anaerobic culture from the same source and was demonstrated in four separate laboratory trials.

Examination of the caecal microflora of chicks one day after being given the protective treatment showed that the presence of high levels of lactobacilli and Bacteroides spp. which are not found usually at two days of age in chicks produced under commercial conditions was indicative of the successful establishment of an adult-type microflora.

Although the usual method of administering the protective organisms was to dose the chicks directly into the crop, it was also found possible to incorporate the organisms in the drinking water given to the birds at dilutions up to one in five, the maximum tested.

When chicks were given the bacterial mixture via the crop and fed on a diet containing 10 mg kg−1 nitrovin and 100 mg kg−1 monensin, the bacteroides failed to establish in the caeca and the birds were not protected against salmonella colonization. However, when the bacterial cultures were incorporated in the drinking water and the chicks given the same feed, normal protection was obtained; possible reasons for these observations are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 479 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

References

REFERENCES

Barnes, E. M. & Goldberg, H. (1962). The isolation of anaerobic Gram-negative bacteria from poultry reared with and without antibiotic supplements. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 25, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, E. M. & Impey, C. S. (1968). Anaerobic Gram negative non-sporing bacteria from the caeca of poultry. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 31, 530–541.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M. & Impey, C. S. (1970). The isolation and properties of the predominant anaerobic bacteria in the caeca of chickens and turkeys. British Poultry Science 11, 467–481.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M. & Impey, C. S. (1974). The occurrence and properties of uric acid decomposing anaerobic bacteria in the avian caecum. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 37, 393–409.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S. & Cooper, D. M. (1980 a). Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the newly hatched chick. Veterinary Record 106, 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S. & Cooper, D. M. (1980 b). Manipulation of the crop and intestinal flora of the newly hatched chick. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 33, 2426–2433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S. & Stevens, B. J. H. (1979). Factors affecting the incidence and anti-salmonella activity of the anaerobic caecal flora of the young chick. Journal of Hygiene 82, 263–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S., Stevens, B. J. H. & Peel, J. L. (1977). Streptococcus pleomorphus sp. nov. An anaerobic streptococcus isolated mainly from the caeca of birds. Journal of General Microbiology 102, 45–53.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M., Mead, G. C., Impey, C. S. & Adams, B. W. (1978). The effect of dietary bacitracin on the incidence of Streptococcus faecalis sub-species liquefaciens and related streptococci in the intestines of young chicks. British Poultry Science 19, 713–723.Google Scholar
Cato, E. P. & Barnes, E. M. (1976). Designation of the neotype stain of Bacteroides hypermegas Harrison and Hansen. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 26, 494–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cato, E. P. & Johnson, J. L. (1976). Reinstatement of species rank for Bacteroides fragilis, B. ovatus, B. distasonis, B. thetaiotamicron and B. vulgatus. Designation of neotype strains for Bacteroides fragilis (Veillon and Zuber) Castellani and Chalmers and Bacteroides thetaiotamicron (Distaso) Castellani and Chalmers. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 26, 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, S. T. (1974). Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 2nd ed.London and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Man, J. C., Rogosa, M. & Sharpe, M. E. (1960). A medium for the cultivation of lactobacilli. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 23, 130–135.Google Scholar
Dorn, P. & Krabisch, P. (1981). Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Salmonellen – Bekamfung beim Mastkuken durch Substitution der Darmflora. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 88, 54–59.Google Scholar
Edel, W. & Kampelmacher, E. H. (1969). Salmonella isolation in nine European laboratories using a standardized technique. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 41, 297–306.Google Scholar
Finegold, S. M., Miller, A. B. & Posnick, D. J. (1965). Further studies on selective media for Bacteroides and other anaerobes. Ernahrungsforschung 10, 517–528.Google Scholar
Idziak, E. S. & Caldwell, M. (1977). The influence of normal intestinal flora of chicks on S. infantis and S. typhimurium. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Salmonella and Prospects for Control (ed. Barnum, D. A.), pp. 267–268. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. B., Cumming, R. B. & Kent, R. D. (1977). Prevention of Salmonella typhimurium infection in poultry by pretreatment of chickens and poults with intestinal extracts. Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 82–87.Google Scholar
Mead, G. C. & Adams, B. W. (1975). Some observations on the caecal microflora of the chick during the first two weeks of life. British Poultry Science 16, 169–176.Google Scholar
Mead, G. C., Adams, B. W., Hilton, M. G. & Lord, P. G. (1979). Isolation and characterization of uracil-degrading clostridia from soil. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 46, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milner, K. C. & Shaffer, M. F. (1952). Bacteriologic studies of experimental salmonella infections in chicks. Journal of Infectious Diseases 90, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitsuoka, T. (1969). Vergleichende Untersuchungen uber die Laktobazillen aus den Faeces von Menschen, Schweinen und Huhnern. Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektions-krankheiten und Hygiene (I. Orig.) 210, 32–51.Google Scholar
Nurmi, E. & Rantala, M. (1973). New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature 241, 210–211.Google Scholar
Rantala, M. (1974 a). Nitrovin and tetracyline: a comparison of their effect on salmonellosis in chicks. British Poultry Science 15, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantala, M. (1974 b). Cultivation of a bacterial flora able to prevent the colonization of Salmonella infantis in the intestines of broiler chickens, and its use. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica B 82, 75–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Rantala, M. & Nurmi, E. (1973). Prevention of the growth of Salmonella infantis in chicks by the flora of the alimentary tract of chickens. British Poultry Science 14, 627–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rigby, C. E. & Pettit, J. R. (1980). Observations on competitive exclusion for preventing Salmonella typhimurium infection of broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 24, 604–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rigby, C., Pettit, J. & Robertson, A. (1977). The effect of normal intestinal flora on the Salmonella carrier state in poultry with special reference to S thompson and S. typhimurium. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Salmonella and Prospects for Control (ed. Barnum, D. A.), p. 263. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.Google Scholar
Smith, L. D. S. (1970). Clostridia. In Manual of Clinical Microbiology (ed. Blair, J. E., Lennette, E. H. and Truant, J. P.), pp. 280–283. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
Snoeyenbos, G. H., Weinack, O. M. & Smyser, C. F. (1978). Protecting chicks and poults from salmonellae by oral administration of ‘normal’ gut microflora. Avian Diseases 22, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snoeyenbos, G. H., Weinack, O. M. & Smyser, C. F. (1979). Further studies on competitive exclusion for controlling salmonellae in chickens. Avian Diseases 24, 904–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soerjadi, A. S., Lloyd, A. B. & Cumming, R. B. (1978). Streptococcus faecalis, a bacterial isolate which protects young chickens from enteric invasion by salmonellae. Australian Veterinary Journal 54, 549–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed