Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:24:03.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of different infection rates on the oocyst production of Eimeria acervulina or Eimeria tenella in the chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. B. Williams
R. B. Williams
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Division, May and. Baker Ltd., Ongar, Essex, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments using chicks of specified strain, age and sex raised under identical conditions on the same diet and infected with known strains of coccidia are described. The relationships between the infection rates and resulting oocyst productions of Eimeria acervulina and E. tenella are presented graphically and are used to demonstrate a crowding effect. Possible contributory factors to the crowding effect and possible reasons for the differences between the E. acervulina oocyst production of unmedicated birds or birds medicated with decoquinate are discussed. It is suggested that standard curves for normal infection rate — reproductive potential relationships under strictly specified conditions may be of value in choosing appropriate infection rates for critical experimental work to assess the effects of anticoccidial compounds on oocyst production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , December 1973 , pp. 279 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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. (1966). The responses of different strains of Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria tenella to medication. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 312–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, S. J. & Warren, E. W. (1965). Treatment of experimental avian coccidiosis with a soluble combination of sulphaquinoxaline and diaveridine. The Veterinary Record 77, 1252–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barwick, M. W. & Casorso, D. R. (1970). Coccidiostat activity. Down to Earth 26, 17–20.Google Scholar
Brackett, S. & Bliznick, A. (1952). The reproductive potential of five species of coccidia of the chicken as demonstrated by oocyst production. Journal of Parasitology 38, 133–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Britton, W. M., Hill, C. H. & Barber, C. W. (1964). A mechanism of interaction between dietary protein levels and coccidiosis in chicks. Journal of Nutrition 82, 306–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuckler, A. C. & Malanga, C. (1955). Studies on drug-resistance in coccidia. Journal of Parasitology 41, 302–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edgar, S. A. (1954). Effect of temperature on the sporulation of oocysts of the protozoan Eimeria tenella. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 73, 237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, S. A. (1955). Sporulation of oocysts at specific temperatures and notes on the prepatent period of several species of avian coccidia. Journal of Parasitology 41, 214–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hein, H. (1968). The pathogenic effects of Eimeria acervulina in young chicks. Experimental Parasitology 22, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. (1969). Immunological variation between two strains of Eimeria acervulina. Parasitology 59, 725–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1969). A comparison of two laboratory strains of Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 59, 907–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, S. B. & McCullough, F. S. (1952). Relationships between sulphamezathine therapy and the acquisition of immunity to Eimeria tenella. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 62, 116–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klimes, B., Rootes, D. G. & Tanielian, Z. (1972). Sexual differentiation of merozoites of Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 65, 131–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krassner, S. M. (1963). Factors in host susceptibility and oocyst infectivity in Eimeria acervulina infections. Journal of Protozoology 10, 327–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leathem, W. D. & Burns, W. C. (1967). Effects of the immune chicken on the endogenous stages of Eimeria tenella. Journal of Parasitology 53, 180–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1968). The effect of breed of chickens on resistance to Eimeria infections. British Poultry Science 9, 71–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Laboratory Practice 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
Millard, B. J., Bradley, J. W. A. & Long, P. L. (1972). The schizogony of Eimeria maxima in the chicken. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 38, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, C. C. (1967). Eimeria duodenalis sp.nov. from English covert pheasants (Phasianus sp.). Parasitology 57, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pout, D. D., Hebert, C. N. & Payne, R. (1971). The possible use of simple biometrics of fowl intestine. Research in Veterinary Science 12, 101–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, W. M. (1968). A diagnostic chart for nine species of fowl coccidia. University of Georgia College of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin, N.S. 39.Google Scholar
Rose, E. M. (1967). The influence of age of host on infection with Eimeria tenella. Journal of Parasitology 53, 924–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyzzer, E. E. (1929). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. American Journal of Hygiene 10, 1–116.Google Scholar
Tyzzer, E. E., Theiler, H. & Jones, E. E. (1932). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. II. A comparative study of species of Eimeria of the chicken. American Journal of Hygiene 15, 319–93.Google Scholar
Warren, E. W. (1968). Vitamin requirements of the coccidia of the chicken. Parasitology 58, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, E. W. & Ball, S. J. (1967). Schizogonous stages of Eimeria acervulina Tyzzer, 1929. Nature, London 214, 829–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, R. B. (1973). The effect of Eimeria acervulina on the reproductive potentials of four other species of chicken coccidia during concurrent infections. British Veterinary Journal 129, xxix–xxxi.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed