Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:39:56.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of age on the response of SPF hens to infection with Salmonella enteritidis PT4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

T. J. Humphrey ,
H. Chart ,
A. Baskerville  and
B. Rowe
T. J. Humphrey
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Church Lane, Heavitree, Exeter, Devon EX2 5AD, U.K.
H. Chart
Affiliation:
Division of Enteric Pathogens, PHLS Central Public Health Laboratory, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HT, U.K.
A. Baskerville
Affiliation:
Division of Pathology, PHLS Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR), Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 0JG, U.K.
B. Rowe
Affiliation:
Division of Enteric Pathogens, PHLS Central Public Health Laboratory, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HT, U.K.
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.

When Specific Pathogen–Free hens were infected with Salmonella enteritidis PT4 by direct administration into the crop, the age of the bird at infection was found to have an effect on both pathogenesis and antibody response. Birds at 20 weeks of age showed no adverse signs and developed high titres of antibodies of the IgM class, while those which were 1 year old at infection developed relatively little antibody arid had acute septicaemia, with 6 of 10 birds either dying or having to be humanely destroyed. The implication of these results for the control of salmonella infections in poultry is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 33 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

1.Hinton, M, Pearson, GR, Threlfall, EJ et al. , Experimental Salmonella enteritidis infection in chicks. Vet Rec 1989; 124: 223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Anonymous. Poultry producers fall foul of Salmonella enteritidis. Vet Rec 1988; 124: 500.Google Scholar
3.Nurmi, E, Rantala, M. New aspects of salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature 1973; 241: 210–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Humphrey, TJ, Baskerville, A, Chart, H, Rowe, B. Infection of egg–laying hens with Salmonella enteritidis PT4 by oral challenge. Vet Rec 1989; 125: 531–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Humphrey, TJ, Baskerville, A, Mawer, SL, Rowe, B, Hopper, SA. Salmonella enteritidis PT4 from the contents of intact eggs: a study involving naturally infected hens. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 415–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Chart, H, Rowe, B, Baskerville, A, Humphrey, TJ. Serological response of chickens to Salmonella enteritidis infection. Epidemiol Infect 1990; 104: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Fowler, NG, Mead, GC. Competitive exclusion and Salmonella enteritidis. Vet Rec 1990; 126: 489.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Hopper, SA, Mawer, SL. Salmonella enteritidis in a commercial layer flock. Vet Rec 1988; 123: 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Mcilroy, SG, McCracken, RM, Neill, SD, O'Brien, JJ. Control, prevention and eradication of Salmonella enteritidis infection in broiler and broiler breeder flocks. Vet Rec 1989; 125: 545–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Buxton, A, Gordon, RF. The epidemiology and control of Salmonella thompson infection of fowls. J Hyg 1947; 45: 265–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed