Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:52:09.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Studies in histomoniasis

I. The infection of chickens (Gallus gallus) with histomonad suspensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. Horton-Smith
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Station, Animal Health Trust, Houghton, Huntingdon
P. L. Long
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Station, Animal Health Trust, Houghton, Huntingdon

Extract

1. Suspensions made from infected caecal material, derived from chickens which had been artificially infected with Histomonas meleagridis by the administration of embryonated Heterakis ova, can be used to transmit the organisms to other chickens when administered per os.

2. Infections with histomonad suspensions can only be obtained in chickens that have been starved, or in chickens that are feeding but have received an alkali mixture immediately before the suspension is administered. The highest incidence of infections is obtained by administering suspensions to starved chickens that have received 1 g. alkali mixture beforehand.

3. Successful infection appears to depend upon the pH of the gizzard and, possibly, of the upper intestine. The incidence of lesions produced by feeding suspension is increased as the contents of the gizzard become alkaline. It is also suggested that the consistency of the food may play a part, as coarse food, along with the infective material, is retained in the gizzard until it is completely ground up and mixed with the gastric juice.

4. In one series of passages the suspension became attenuated after fourteen passages through chickens. In other cases suspensions became attenuated after only six passages through chickens.

5. The courses of infections produced by histomonad suspensions and Heterakis ova are compared.

6. The advantages of the method of using histomonad suspensions are discussed in their relation to the screening of chemotherapeutical agents.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Bishop, A. (1938). Parasitology, 30, 2.Google Scholar
Delaplane, J. P. (1932). Bull. R.I. Agric. Exp. Sta., no. 233.Google Scholar
De Volt, H. M. & Davis, C. R. (1936). Bull. Md Agric. Exp. St. no. 392, 493.Google Scholar
Farmer, R. K. & Stephenson, J. (1949). J. comp. Path. 59, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farner, D. S. (1942). Poult. Sci. 21, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farner, D. S. (1943). Poult. Sci. 22, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. Williams (1954). Brit. J. exp. Path. 35, 447.Google Scholar
Tyzzer, E. E. (1934). Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 69, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyzzer, E. E. & Collier, J. (1925). J. infect. Dis. 37, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar