Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:31:14.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of amprolium and dinitolmide on sporulation of oocysts of field isolates of Eimeria acervulina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2011

G. F. Mathis  and
L. R. McDougald
G. F. Mathis
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A laboratory strain of Eimeria acervulina and 9 field isolates consisting principally of E. acervulina were tested for sensitivity to amprolium (125 p.p.m.) or dinitolmide (125 p.p.m.) in the food and for effects of the drugs on sporulation of oocysts. Judged by weight gains and lesion scores, medicaments were only partially effective against the 9 field isolates, but were highly effective against the laboratory strain. Oocysts were produced in all the infections but the percentage sporulation of oocysts from field isolates was much higher than sporulation of oocysts of the ‘drug sensitive’ laboratory strain. These results show that coccidia that are resistant to either amprolium or dinitolmide are able to cause lesions in the presence of the drugs and the oocysts that are produced will sporulate normally.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , October 1981 , pp. 281 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Ajayi, J. A. (1976). Effects of Aureo-S-700® on sporulation, viability and infectivity of ovine coccidial oocysts. Parasitology 72, 335–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackett, S. & Bliznick, A. (1949). The effect of small doses of drugs on oocyst production of infections with Eimeria temila. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 52, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1980). Studies on the sensitivity of field isolates of Eimeria maxima to combinations of anticoccidial drugs. Avian Pathology 9, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. W., Ball, S. J., Ryan, K. C. & Warren, E. W. (1969). The incidence of drug resistant strains of Eimeria in chickens in Great Britain, 1966. British Veterinary Journal 125, 31–5.Google Scholar
Jeffers, T. C. (1974). Eimeria tenella: Incidence, distribution and anticoccidial drug resistance of isolants in major broiler producing areas. Avian Diseases 18, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. & Reid, W. M. (1970). The anticoccidial drugs: Lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor-pen experiments with chickens. Experimental Parasitology 28, 30–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1971). The recording and analysis of coccidiostatic activity; quinolone and pyridone compounds. Research in Veterinary Science 12, 80–8.Google Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1977). The anticoccidial effects of amprolium, dinitolmide and monensin against Eimeria maxima, E. brunetti and E. acervulina with particular reference to oocyst sporulation. Parasitology 75, 155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamas, T., Olson, G., Smith, D. A. & Miller, B. M. (1978). Effect of 6-amino-9-(substituted benzyl) purines on oocyst sporulation. Poultry Science 57, 381–5.Google Scholar