Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:07:33.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epidemiology and control of Salmonella thompson infection of fowls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Buxton  and
R. F. Gordon
A. Buxton
Affiliation:
Weybridge
R. F. Gordon
Affiliation:
Weybridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The details are given of the epidemiology of S. thompson infection in a flock of pullets which survived an outbreak of this disease when chicks, and also of a flock of adult birds suspected of being carriers of the organism. The results of blood testing and bacteriological examinations of cloacal swabs, random faecal samples and eggs from both flocks indicated that:

(1) Many chicks which survived an outbreak of S. thompson continued to carry the organism for some months without showing any symptoms. In most cases the organism was harboured in the intestines and was excreted intermittently in the faeces. On one occasion S. thompson infected the gall bladder, and the bacilli were excreted in the faeces for at least 18 months after the outbreak had occurred.

(2) The common method of egg infection was by the contamination of the shell with infected faeces. Under conditions of incubation the bacilli penetrated the egg shell and infected the yolk. Although there was little penetration of the organism under storage conditions, the bacilli on infected shells remained viable for at least 21 days.

(3) The common methods of spreading infection in a hatchery were from:

(a) The contact of infected and non-infected egg shells.

(b) The handling of eggs before and during incubation.

(c) The contact of egg shells with infected incubators.

(d) The ingestion and inhalation of infected fluff and incubator debris at hatching time.

(e) The ingestion of food and water contaminated with infected faeces from survivor chicks.

For the control of S. thompson infection in poultry, the following procedures have been recommended:

(1) The production of agglutinins by carrier birds was not a reliable indication of infection. In known infected flocks, however, the detection of carriers by blood testing and by the examination of cloacal swabs is of value. For such a test an alcoholized antigen is preferable to a heat-treated broth antigen, and a titre of 1/20 or more should be regarded as an indication that a bird is infected.

(2) Only clean eggs should be used for hatching. Dirty egg shells should be cleaned by scraping or brushing and not by wiping with a damp cloth.

(3) Fertile eggs should be stored in a cool, dry atmosphere for as short a period as possible before incubation.

(4) Eggs should be fumigated in the incubator with formaldehyde vapour, not later than 24 hr. after they have been set.

We wish to record our appreciation of the assistance received from Mrs E. Sidery in the bacteriological examination of eggs and the preparation of agglutination tests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , August 1947 , pp. 265 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

REFERENCES

Bjørneboe, M. (1939). J. Immunol. 37, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørneboe, M. (1941). Z. Immunitäts. 99, 245.Google Scholar
Boecker, E. (1935). Z. Hyg. InfectKr. 117, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, W.C. & Bernard, H. (1937). J.Immunol. 33, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushnell, L. D. & Payne, L. F. (1931). Tech. Bull. Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 29.Google Scholar
Card, L. E. & Roberts, E. (1931). Rep. Proc. 4th World's Poultry Cong. London.Google Scholar
Conradi, H. & Bieling, R. (1916). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 42, 1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Koning, K. (1936). Antonie van Leeuwenholk med. Tijdschr. Hyg. Microbiol. 3, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. R. & Bruner, D. W. (1939). Rep. Proc. 3rd Int. Cong. Microbiol. p. 629.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. R. & Bruner, D. W. (1943). J. Infect. Dis. 72, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. (1932). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 26, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. & Allison, (1922). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 3, 252.Google Scholar
Frank, N. A. & Edgington, B. H. (1937). Poultry Sci. 16, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedberger, E. & Dorner, (1905). Zbl. Bakt. 38, 544.Google Scholar
Gillespie, E. H. (1946). Bull. Minist. Hlth, E.P.H.L.S., 5, 157.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. F. & Buxton, A. (1945 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. F. & Buxton, A. (1945 b). Bull. Minist. Hlth, E.P.H.L.S., 4, 46.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. F. & Buxton, A. (1946). Vet. J. 102, 187.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. F. & Garside, J. S. (1944). J. Comp. Path. 54, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, R. & Michael, V. M. (1932). Poultry Sci. 9, 110, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, M., Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1931). J. Hyg., Camb., 31, 484.Google Scholar
Haines, R. B. & Moran, T. (1940). J. Hyg., Camb., 40, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, H. (1941). Skand. Vet. Tidskr. 31, 98.Google Scholar
Hektoen, L. & Carlson, A. J. (1910). J. Infect. Dis. 7, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinshaw, W. R. & McNeil, E. (1940). Proc. 44th Ann. Meet. U.S. Live Stock. San. Ass., Illinois.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, W. R., McNeil, E. & Taylor, T. J. (1944). Amer. J. Hyg. 40, 264.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. (1937). Bull. Hyg., Lond., 12, 139.Google Scholar
Jukes, T. H. & Kay, H. D. (1932). J. Exp. Med. 56, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathé, & Lerche, (1936). Zbl. Bakt. 136, 320.Google Scholar
Khalil, A. M. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, M. (1931). Arch. Hyg., Berl., 105, 237.Google Scholar
Lerche, M. (1936). Tierärztl. Rdsch. 42, 809.Google Scholar
Muller, A. H. (1941). Münch. med. Wschr. 125 (Abstr. Zbl. Bakt. i, 140, 67).Google Scholar
Mulsow, F. W. (1919 a). Amer. J. Publ. 9, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulsow, F. W. (1919 b). J. Infect. Dis. 25, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, J. (1931). Chemical Embriology. Camb. Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, H. J. (1916). J. Exp. Med. 24, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijper, A. & Dau, H. (1930). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 11, 112.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. H. (1901). Amer. J. Med. Sci. 122, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramon, G. (1928). C. R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 99, 1473.Google Scholar
Rettger, L. F. & Plaistridge, W. N. (1932). Bull. Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 178.Google Scholar
Rules Accredited Poultry Breeding Scheme (1946). Minist. Agric. H.M. Stat. Off., London.Google Scholar
Scott, W. M. (1915). Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. 9, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. M. (1926). J. Hyg., Camb., 25, 398.Google Scholar
Scott, W. M. (1930). Brit. Med. J. 2, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. M. (1933). Bull. Off. Int. Hyg. Publ. 25, 828.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1946). Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity. London: Arnold and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, A. (1937). Z. InfectKr. Haust., 3rd ed. 52, 128.Google Scholar
Warrack, M. & Dalling, T. (1932). J. Path. Bact. 35, 655.Google Scholar
Weber, (1937). Berl. Tier. Wschr. p. 348 (Abstr. Vet. Bull. 8, 11, 692).Google Scholar
Wilson, J. E. (1945). Vet. Rec. 57, 411.Google Scholar
Winters, (1929). Bull. N. Carolina Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 36.Google Scholar