Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:35:05.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of the normal gastrointestinal microflora of specific pathogen-free chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

P. J. Coloe ,
T. J. Bagust  and
L. Ireland
P. J. Coloe
Affiliation:
Victorian Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
T. J. Bagust
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, CSIRO Division of Animal Health, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
L. Ireland
Affiliation:
Victorian Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
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.

The development of the normal intestinal microflora of the small intestine, caecum and large intestine of specific pathogen-free (SPF) chickens, was studied in the period from hatching to 84 days of age.

No bacteria were detected in any of the sites at hatchery (day 1), but by day 3 significant levels of faecal streptococci and coliforms were isolated from all sites. The flora of the small intestine was limited to faecal streptococci and coliforms for the first 40 days and then lactobacilli became established and dominated the flora.

A large variety of facultative and strictly anaerobic organisms colonized the caecum. Many of these species were transient and were only present for a limited period; after 40 days the flora stabilized to consist predominantly of faecal streptococci, Escherichia coli, Bacteroides spp. and Lactobacillus sp.

The flora of the large intestine was composed of organisms also present in the small intestine or the caecum.

These findings differ from previously published studies on conventionally reared chickens in that the number of species isolated and the population levels of organisms are much lower. This probably reflects the absence of continuous environmental challenge to the chickens because of the housing and feeding facilities in which the chickens were maintained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 79 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

REFERENCES

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, 407–481.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, 203–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. M., Mead, G. C., Barnum, D. A. & Harry, E. G. (1972). The intestinal flora of the chicken in the period 2–0 weeks of age, with particular reference to the anaerobic bacteria. British Poultry Science 13, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. M. & Timms, J. R. (1972). The rearing and maintenance of breeder chickens in isolators: 1. Glassfibre isolators. Avian Pathology 1, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, S. T. & Steel, K. J. (1975). Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 2nd ed. Revised by Cowan, S. T., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Draser, B. (1907). Cultivation of intestinal anaerobes. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 94, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdeman, L. V. & Moore, W. E. C. (1972). Anaerobe Laboratory Manual, ed. Virginia Polytechnic. Institute and State University Anaerobe Laboratory, Blacksburg Va.Google Scholar
Oohi, Y., Mitsuoka, T. & Sega, T. (1964). Untersuchungen über die Darmflora des Huhnes. III. Die Entwicklung der Darmflora von Kuken bis znm Huhn. Zenlralblatt fur Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene (1. Orig.) 193 (5), 80–85.Google Scholar
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
Rizzo, A. (1980). Rapid gas chromatographic method for identification of metabolic products of anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 11, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohneitz, C., Senna, E. & Rizzo, A. (1981). The anaerobically cultured caecnl flora of adult fowls that protects chickens from salmonella infections. Ada path, microbiol. Scand. S B 89, 109–116.Google Scholar
Smith, H. W. (1965). The development of the flora of the alimentary tract in young animals. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 90, 495–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sneoyenbos, G. H., Weinaok, O. M. & Smyser, C. F. (1978). Protecting chicks and poults from Salmonella by oral administration of ‘normal’ gut microflora. Avian Diseases 22 (2), 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soerjadi, A. S., Sneoyeniios, G. H. & Weinack, O. M. (1982). Intestinal colonisation and competitive exclusion of Campylobacter fetus ssp. jejuni in young chicks. Avian Diseases 26 (3), 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinack, O. H., Sneoyenbos, G. H., Smyser, C. F. & Soerjadi, A. S. (1981). Competitive exclusion of intestinal colonization of Escherichia coli in chicks. Avian Diseases 25 (3), 696–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed