Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T09:57:37.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of sulphaquinoxaline and amprolium on the life cycle of Eimeria adenoeides Moore and Brown, 1951, in turkey poults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

E. W. Warren  and
S. J. Ball
E. W. Warren
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Station, May and Baker, Ltd., Ongar, Essex
S. J. Ball
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Station, May and Baker, Ltd., Ongar, Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sulphaquinoxaline fed at 0·0125%, w/w, in the food principally affects the development of the second generation schizonts of Eimeria adenoeides in turkey poults. Amprolium, at the same concentration, acts on the first generation. Both drugs appear to exert some effect on gametogony. The activity of sulphaquinoxaline against this species is inhibited by p-aminobenzoic acid, and the activity of amprolium by thiamine.

We are grateful to Mrs B. M. Mitchell and Miss C. Hitchcock for technical assistance and to Mr A. D. Speed for the histological preparations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 53 , Issue 3-4 , November 1963 , pp. 653 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Ball, S. J. & Warren, E. W. (1963). The effect of sulphaquinoxaline and amprolium against Eimeria adenoeides and E. meleagrimitis in turkeys. Res. Vet. Sci. 4, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M. J. (1958). Life history and pathogenicity of Eimeria adenoeides Moore and Brown, 1951, in the turkey poult. Parasitology, 48, 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuckler, A. C., Garzillo, M., Malanga, C. & McManus, E. C. (1960). Amprolium. 1. Efficacy for coccidia in chickens. Poult. Sci. 39, 1241.Google Scholar
Gardiner, J. L. & Wehr, E. E. (1950). Selecting experimental groups of chicks by weight. Proc. Helm. Soc. Wash. 17, 25–6.Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. (1948). The effects of sulphonamides on coccidiosis of poultry caused by Eimeria tenella. Proc. 8th World's Poult. Congr., Copenhagen, pp. 732–40.Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Boyland, E. (1946). Sulphonamides in the treatment of caecal coccidiosis of chickens. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 1, 139–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1961). Effect of sulfonamide medication on the life cycle of Eimeria meleagrimitis in turkeys. Exp. Parasit. 11, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C., Long, P. L. & Collier, H. O. J. (1960). Potentiation of sulphadimidine by 2,4-diamino-6,7-di-isopropylpteridine and other 6,7-disubstituted 2,4-diaminopteridines against Eimeria infections of chicks. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 15, 298–303.Google Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Kendall, S. B. (1956). The mode of action of a mixture of pyrimethamine and sulphadimidine on Eimeria tenella. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 11, 454–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, L. P. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Lab. Pract. 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
McFarlane, D. (1944). Picro-Mallory. An easily controlled regressive trichromic staining method. Stain Tech. 19, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. F., Clark, R. L., Pessolano, A. A., Becker, H. J., Leanza, W. J., Sarett, L. H., Cuckler, A. C., McManus, E., Garzillo, M., Malanga, C., Ott, W. H., Dickinson, A. M. & van Iderstine, A. (1960). Antiparasitic drugs. III. Thiamine-reversible coccidiostats. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 82, 2974–5.Google Scholar
Waletzky, E. & Hughes, C. O. (1946). The relative activity of sulfanilamides and other compounds in avian coccidiosis (Eimeria tenella). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 7, 365–73.Google ScholarPubMed