Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:21:16.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Avian coccidiosis: the administration of encapsulated oocysts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. C. Norton  and
L. P. Joyner
C. C. Norton
Affiliation:
MAFF, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, Surrey KT15 3NB
L. P. Joyner
Affiliation:
MAFF, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, Surrey KT15 3NB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Oocysts of fowl coccidia, suspended in a 12% aqueous solution of alginic acid, were dropped into 5% calcium chloride solution to form beads. Following ingestion by chicks, excystation of sporozoites was not affected. Oocyst viability was best when beads were air-dried to 33% of their original weight and stored in airtight containers at 4°C. Infectivity was fully maintained for 8 weeks. Trickle infection, using beads administered orally to 2- or 3-week-old chickens, or mixed daily in food of chicks from 1-day-old, established a high level of immunity. This method of oocyst administration offers some practical advantages for the conduct of immunity and chemotherapy experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 499 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blazkovec, A. A. & Wolfe, H. R. (1965). Factors affecting the primary and secondary responses to bovine serum albumin in chickens. International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 26, 80–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. (1978). The effect of monensin on the immunity arising from repeated low-level infections with Eimeria maxima, E. brunetti and E. tenella. Avian Pathology 7, 269–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. (1979). Studies on the sensitivity of recent field isolates of E. maxima to monensin. Avian Pathology 8, 181–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, P. J. & Harris, P. (1985). Vaccine against parasitic protozoa. GB Patent Specification 2144331A 6 March 1985.Google Scholar
Jeffers, T. K. (1974). Eimeria acervulina and E. maxima: incidence and anticoccidial drug resistance of isolants in major broiler-producing areas. Avian Diseases 18, 331–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1973). The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 67, 333–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1976). The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria maxima and Eimeria acervulina. Parasitology 72, 115–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1983). Eimeria mitis in mixed infections with E. acervulina and E. brunetti in the fowl. Parasitology 86, 381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgore, R. L., Bramel, R. G., Brokken, E. S. & Miller, R. A. (1979). A comparison of methods for exposing chickens to coccidiosis in floor-pen trials. Poultry Science 58, 67–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Joyner, L. P., Millard, B. J. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Millard, B. J. (1978). Coccidiosis in broilers: the effect of monensin and other anticoccidial drug treatments on oocyst output. Avian Pathology 7, 373–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maff, (1977). Technical Bulletin No. 18. Manual of Veterinary Parasitological Techniques. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1977. 129 pp.Google Scholar
Reid, W. M., Brewer, R. N., Johnson, J., Taylor, E. M., Hedge, K. S. & Kowalski, L. M. (1969). Evaluation of techniques used in studies on efficacy of anticoccidial drugs in chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 30, 447–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. (1967). The influence of age of host on infection with Eimeria tenella. Journal of Parasitology 53, 924–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Lawn, A. M. & Millard, B. J. (1984). The effect of immunity on the early events in the life-cycle of Eimeria tenella in the caecal mucosa of the chicken. Parasitology 88, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruff, M. D., Doran, D. J. & Wilkins, G. C. (1981). Effect of ageing on survival and pathogenicity of Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria tenella. Avian Diseases 25, 595–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F. & Betts, M. J. (1973). Chemotherapy of chicken coccidiosis. In Advances in Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, vol. 9, pp. 221–93. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ryley, J. F., Millard, B. J. & Long, P. L. (1972). Further studies on the life cycle of Eimeria brunetti Levine 1964. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 40, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetterling, J. M. & Doran, D. J. (1966). Schizogony and gametogony in the life cycle of the poultry coccidium Eimeria acervulina Tyzzer, 1929. Journal of Parasitology 52, 1150–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yvoré, P., Raynaud, J. P., Conan, L., Naciri, M. & Virat, M. (1980). Methods of evaluating the efficiency of anticoccidial drugs in floor-pen trials with multiple in-feed infection versus ‘seeding’ model. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 11, 99–108.Google ScholarPubMed