Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:57:58.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing salmonella shedding in broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. H. Gustafson  and
J. D. Kobland
R. H. Gustafson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Division, American Cyanamid Company, Princeton, NJ08540
J. D. Kobland
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Division, American Cyanamid Company, Princeton, NJ08540
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.

Three variables were included in a study to determine their effect on the incidence of Salmonella typhimurium in broilers challenged at four days of age. Variables included the presence or absence of a feed additive, avoparcin; the use of new or used litter and the initiating dose of salmonella. Cloacal swabs were taken from approximately 600 chicks at weekly intervals for 45 days. At 104, 106 and 108 c.f.u./chick there was a direct association of challenge dose and the incidence of positive chicks for the first several weeks. Chicks raised on used litter showed an appreciable reduction in susceptibility to salmonella when compared to control animals on fresh litter. As the birds approached slaughter age, the influence of litter hygiene and challenge dose diminished under the conditions of this study. Avoparcin in the diet at 10 p.p.m. had no enhancing effect on salmonella shedding at any time during the 45-day sampling period. The implications of competitive exclusion are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 385 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

Abou-Youssef, M. H. & Di, Cuollo C. J. (1982). Einfluss von Virginiamycin auf die Salmonella-Ausscheidung bei Masthahnchen. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 89, 475–477.Google Scholar
Baba, E., Fukata, T. & Abakawa, A. (1982). Establishment and persistence of Salmonella typhimurium infection stimulated by Eimeria tenella in chickens. Research in Veterinary Science 33, 95–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. M. & Iaipey, C. S. (1980). Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the newly hatched chick. The Veterinary Record 106, 61.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S. & Cooper, D. M. (1980). Manipulation of the crop and intestinal flora of the newly hatched chick. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 33, 2426–2433.Google Scholar
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
Benazet, F. & Cartier, J. R. (1980). Effect of nosiheptide as a feed additive in chicks on the quantity, duration, prevalence of excretion and resistance to antibacterial agents of Salmonella typhimurium; on the proportion of Eschericia coli and other coliforms resistant to antibacterial agents; and their degree and spectrum of resistance. Poultry Science 59, 1405–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorn, P. & Krabisch, P. (1981). Experimented Untersuchungen zur Salmonellen-Bekampfung beim Mastkuken durch Substitution der Darmflora. Deutsche Tierartzliche Wochenschrift 88, 54–59.Google Scholar
Evanoelisti, D. G., English, A. R., Girard, A. E., Lynch, J. E. & Solomons, I. A. (1975). Influence of subtherapeutic levels of oxytetracycline on Salmonella typhimurium in swine, calves and chickens. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 8, 664–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, R. H., Beck, J. R. & Kobland, J. D. (1982). The influence of avoparcin on the establishment of salmonella in chickens. Zentralblatt für Veterinarimedizin (Reihe B) 29, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Impey, C. S., Mead, G. C. & George, S. M. (1982). Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of an adult bird. Journal of Hygiene 89, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarolmen, H., Shirk, R. J. & Langworth, B. F. (1976). Effect of chlortetracycline feeding on the salmonella reservoir in chickens. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 40, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthes, S., Leuchtenberger, W.-G. & Loliger, H. Ch. (1981). The effect of antimicrobial feed additives on the gut flora and the persistence of salmonellae in experimentally infected chickens. VII Congress of the WVPA, Oslo, 07 1–3.Google Scholar
Matthes, S., Leuchtenberger, W.-G. & Loliger, H. Ch. (1982). Einfluss antibiotischer Futterzusatze auf die Persistenz von Salmonellen bei Huhnerkuken. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 89, 19–22.Google Scholar
Nurmi, E. & Rantalla, M. (1973). New aspects of salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature 241, 210–211.Google Scholar
Olesiuk, O. M., Snoeyenbos, G. H. & Smyser, C. F. (1971). Inhibitory effect of used litter on Salmonella typhimurium transmission in the chicken. Avian Diseases 15, 118–124.Google Scholar
Rantala, M. (1974). Nitrovin and tetracycline: a comparison of their effect on salmonellosis in chicks. British Poultry Science 15, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redin, G. S. & Dornbush, A. C. (1968). LL-AV 290, a new antibiotic. II. Antibacterial efficacy in mice and in vitro. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy – 1968, American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
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
Smith, H. & Green, S. I. (1980). Effect of feed additives on the incidence of naturally acquired salmonella in turkeys. The Veterinary Record 107, 289.Google Scholar
Smith, H. Willams & Tucker, J. F. (1975 a). The effect of antibiotic therapy on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by infected chickens. Journal of Hygiene 75, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. Williams & Tucker, J. F. (1975 b). The effect of feeding diets containing permitted antibiotics on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by experimentally infected chickens. Journal of Hygiene 75, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. Williams & Tucker, J. F. (1978). The effect of anitimicrobial feed additives on the colonization of the alimentary tract of chickens by Salmonella typhimurium. Journal of Hygiene 80, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. Williams & Tucker, J. F. (1980). Further observations on the effect of feeding diets containing avoparcin, bacitracin and sodium arsenilate on the colonization of the alimentary tract of poultry by salmonella organisms. Journal of Hygiene 84, 137–150.Google Scholar
Snoeyenbos, G. H., Carlson, V. L., McKie, B. A. & Smyser, C. F. (1967). An epidemiological study of salmonellosis of chickens. Avian Diseases 11, 653–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, P. C. B. & Snoeyenbos, G. H. (1973). The role of ammonia, water activity and pH in the salmonellacidal effect of long-used poultry litter. Avian Diseases 17, 72–86.Google Scholar