Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-5rlvm Total loading time: 0.62 Render date: 2021-10-18T21:37:22.547Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Control of food-poisoning salmonella in poultry – biological options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

P. A. Barrow*
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire RG20 7NN
G. C. Mead
Pine one, Aviary Road, Pyrford, Woking GU22 8TH
C. Wary
17 Harbutts, Bathampton, Bath BA2 6TA, United Kingdom
M. Duchet-Suchaux
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Recherche de Tours, Nouzilly, Monnaie 37380, France
*Corresponding author: e-mail: paul.barrow
Get access


The high cost of rearing pathogen-free poultry, coupled with increases in importation from non-European countries where hygienic measures may be less stringent indicates that biological approaches to control of infection with food-borne pathogens will continue to be important. The major measures are dealt with in this review, together with the positive and negative aspects of each of these approaches. They include antibiotic therapy and prophylaxis, competitive exclusion using intestinal flora preparations, live and killed vaccines and the increasing interest in exploiting natural genetic resistance to infection and disease.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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.)


Anon (1969) Report of the Joint Committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine. Cmnd 4190. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Barrow, P.A., Lovell, M.A., Szmolleny, G. and Murphy, C.K. (1998) Effect of enrofloxacin administration on excretion of Salmonella enteritidis by experimentally infected chickens and on quinolone resistance of their Escherichia coli flora. Avian Pathology 27: 586590.Google Scholar
Barrow, P.A., Page, K. and Lovell, M.A. (2001) The virulence for gnotobiotic pigs of live attenuated vaccine strains of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Enteritidis. Vaccine 19: 34323436.Google Scholar
Bercheri, A. Jr (1999) Intestinal colonization of a human subject by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 5: 97100.Google Scholar
Berthelot, F., Beaumony, C., Mompart, F., Girard-Santosuosso, O., Pardon, P. and Duchet-Suchaux, M. (1998) Estimated heritability of the resistance to cecal carrier state of Salmonella enteritidis in chickens. Poultry Science 77: 797801.Google Scholar
Bumstead, N. and Barrow, P.A. (1988) Genetics of resistance to Salmonella typhimurium in newly hatched chicks. British Poultry Science 29: 521529.Google Scholar
Bumstead, N. and Barrow, P. (1993) Resistance to Salmonella gallinarum. S. Pullorum and S. enteritidis in inbred lines of chickens. Avian Diseases 37: 189193.Google Scholar
Cooper, G.L., Venables, L.M., Woodward, M.J. and Hormaeche, C.E. (1994) Vaccination of chickens with strain CVL30, a genetically defined Salmonella enteritidis aroA live oral vaccine candidate. Infection and Immunity 62: 4747–54.Google Scholar
Cotter, P.F., Taylor, R.L. Jr and Abplanalp, H. (1998) B-complex associated immunity to Salmonella enreritidis challenge in congenic chickens. Poultry Science 77: 18461851.Google Scholar
Curtiss, R., Porter, S.B., Munson, M., Tinge, S.A., Hassan, J.O., Gentry-Weeks, C. and Kelly, S.M. (1991) Non-recombinant and recombinant avirulent Salmonella live vaccines for poultry. In: Colonization control of human hacterial enteropnrhogens in Poultry. Ed. Leroy, S. Blankenship. Academic Press, San Diego.pp 169198.Google Scholar
Deruyttere, L., Klaasen, J., Froyman, R. and Day, C.A. (1997) Field study to demonstrate the efficacy of Aviguard against intestinal Salmonella colonization in broilers. In: Proceedings. Salmonella and Salmonellosis, Ploufragan, France, pp 523525.Google Scholar
Duchet-Suchaux, M., Mompart, F., Berthelot, F., Beaumont, C., Lechopier, P. and Pardon, P. (1997) Differences in frequency, level, and duration of cecal carriage between four outbred chicken lines infected orally with Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Diseases 41: 559567.Google Scholar
Elwinger, K., Schneitz, C., Berndtson, E., Fossum, O., Teglof, B. and Engstron, B. (1992) Factors affecting the incidence of necrotic enteritis, caecal carriage of Clostridium perfringens and bird performance in broiler chicks. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 33: 369378.Google Scholar
Feberwee, A., De Vries, T.S., Elbers, A.R. and De Jong, W.A. (2000) Results of a Salmonella enteritidis vaccination field trial in broiler-breeder flocks in The Netherlands. Avian Diseases 44: 249–55.Google Scholar
Feberwee, A., De Vries, T.S., Hartman, E.G., De Wit, J.J., Elbers, A.R. and De Jong, W.A. (2001) Vaccination against Salmonella enteritidis in Dutch commercial layer flocks with a vaccine based on a live Salmonella gallinarum 9R strain: evaluation of efficacy, safety, and performance of serologic Salmonelia tests. Avian Diseases 45: 8391.Google Scholar
Gast, R.K. and Benson, S.T. (1995) The comparative virulence for chicks of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 isolates and isolates of phage types commonly found in poultry in the United States. Avian Diseases 39: 567574.Google Scholar
Guillot, J.F., Beaumont, C., Bellatif, F., Mouline, C., Lantier, F., Colin, P. and Protais, J. (1995) Comparison of resistance of various poultry lines to infection by Salmonalla enteritidis. Veterinary Research 26: 8186.Google Scholar
Hakkinen, M. and Schneitz, C. (1996) Efficacy of a commercial competitive exclusion product against chicken pathogenic Escherichia coli and E. coli 0157:H7. Veterinay Record 139: 139141.Google Scholar
Hassan, J.O. and Curtiss, R. III (1996). Effect of vaccination of hens with an avirulent strain of Salmonella typhirnurium on immunity of progeny challenged with wild-Type Salmonella strains. Infection and Imnmnity 64: 938944.Google Scholar
Hu, J., Bumstead, N., Barrow, P., Sebastiani, G., Olien, L., Morgan, K. and Malo, D. (1997) Resistance to salmonellosis in the chicken is linked to NRAMPL and TNC. Genome Research 7: 693704.Google Scholar
Impey, C.S. and Mead, G.C. (1989) Fate of salmonellas in the alimentary tract of chicks pretreated with a mature caecal microflora to increase colonization resistance. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66: 469475.Google Scholar
Impey, C.S., Mead, G.C. and George, S.M. (1982) Competitive exclusion of salmonellae from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of an adult bird. J. Hygiene 89: 479490.Google Scholar
Janss, L.L. and Bllder, N.M. (2000) Heritabilities of and genetic relationships between salmonella resistance traits in broilers. Journal of Animal Science 78: 22872291.Google Scholar
Kramer, J., Jeurissen, S.H.M., Wagenaar, J.A. and Visscher, A.H. (1999) Differences in macrophages functions between broiler chicken lines against Salmonella enteritidis. Archiv für Tierzucht. Dunmerstorf 42: 112115.Google Scholar
Mariani, P., Barrow, P.A., Cheng, H.H., Groenen, M.M., Negrini, R. and Bumstead, N. (2001) Localization to chicken Chromosome 5 of a novel locus determining salmonellosis resistance. Immunogenetics 53: 786–91.Google Scholar
Martin, G., Barrow, P.A., Berchieri, A. Jr, Methner, U. and Meyer, H. (1996) Hemmphänomene zwischen Salmonella-Stämmen- ein ncuer Aspekt der Bekämpfung der Salmonellose beim Geflügel. Deutscher Tierärztlicher Wochenschrift 103: 468472.Google Scholar
Mead, G.C. (1989) Hygiene problems and control of process contamination. In: Mead, G. C. (Ed) Processing of poultry. Elsevier, London. pp. 183220.Google Scholar
Mead, G.C. (2000) Prospects for ‘competitive exclusion’ treatment to control salmonellas and other food-borne pathogens in poultry. Veterinary Journal 159: 111–23.Google Scholar
Noble, W.C., Virani, Z. and Crec, R.G.A. (1992) Co-transfer of vancomycin and other resistance genes from Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 12201 to Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 93: 195198.Google Scholar
Nurmi, E. and Rantala, M. (1973) New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature 241: 210–1.Google Scholar
O'Brien, A.D., Rosentreich, D.L., Scher, I., Campbell, G.H., Macdermott, R.P. and Formal, S.B. (1980) Genetic control of susceptibility to Salmonella typhimurium infection in mice: Role of the LPS gene. Journal of Immunology 124: 2024.Google Scholar
Palmu, L. and Camelin, I. (1997) The use of competitive exclusion in broilers to reduce the level of Salmonella contamination on the farm and at the processing plant. Poult. Sci. 76: 15011505.Google Scholar
Barbour, E.K., Jurdi, L.H., Talhouk, R., Qatanani, M., Eid, A., Sakr, W., Bouljihad, M. and Spasojevic, R. (1999) Emergence of Salmonella enteritidis outbreaks in broiler chickens in the Lebanon: epidemiological markers and competitive exclusion control. Rev. Sci. Tech. 18: 710718.Google Scholar
Piddock, L.V.J., Wray, C., Mclaren, I. and Wise, R. (1990) Quinolone resistance in Salmonella: veterinary pointers. Lancet 336: 125.Google Scholar
Pivnick, H. and NurmiI, E. (1982) The Nurmi Concept and its role in the control of salmonellae in poultry. In: Developments in Food Microbiology —I (Davies, R, Ed.) Applied Science Publishers, London pp 4170.Google Scholar
Rabsch, W., Hargis, B.M., Tsolis, R.M., Kingsley, R.A., Hinz, K.H., Tschape, H. and Baumler, A.J. (2000) Competitive exclusion of Salmonella enteritidis by Salmonella gallinarum in poultry. Emerging Infect Dis 6: 443–8.Google Scholar
Schneitz, C. (1992) Research note: automated droplet application of a competitive exclusion preparation. Poultry Science 71: 2125–8.Google Scholar
Smith, H.W., Barrow, P.A. and Tucker, J.F. (1985). The effect of oral antibiotic administration on the excretion of Salmonellas by chickens. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Salmonella, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 07, 19–20. pp. 8890.Google Scholar
Smith, H.W. and Tucker, J.F. (1975) The effect of antibiotic therapy on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by experimentally infected chickens. Journal of Hygiene, Cambridge 75: 293301.Google Scholar
Smith, H.W. and Tucker, J.F. (1980) Further observations on the effect of feeding diets containing avoparcin, bacitracin and sodium arsenilate on the colonisation of the alimentary tract of poultry by Salmonella organisms. Journal of Hygiene, Camb. 84: 137150.Google Scholar
Snoeyenbos, G.H., Weinack, O.M. and Soerjadi, A.S. (1983) Our current understanding of the role of native microflora in limiting some bacterial pathogens of chickens and turkeys. Australian Veterinary Poultry Association and International Union of Immunological Societies, Proceedings No 66: Disease Prevention and Control in Poultry Production, Sydney, Australia, pp 4551.Google Scholar
Stavric, S., Buchanan, B. and Gleeson, T.M. (1992) Competitive exclusion of Escherichia coli 0157: H7 from chicks with anaerobic culture of faecal microflora. Letters in Applied Microbiology 14: 191193.Google Scholar
Stavric, S. and D'aoust, J-Y. (1993) Undefined and defined bacterial preparations for the competitive exclusion of Salmonella in poultry – a review. Journal of Food Protection 56: 173180Google Scholar
Symposium (1991) Proceedings of the Symposium on the diagnosis and control of Salmonella, San Diego,USA. United States Animal Health Association.Google Scholar
Vidal, S.M., Malo, D., Vogan, K., Skamene, E. and Gros, P. (1993) Natural resistance to infection with intracellular parasites: isolation of a candidate gene for Bcg. Cell 73: 469485.Google Scholar
Vielitz, E., Voss, M. and Hahn, I. (1996) Vaccines help to control salmonella problems. World Poultry: Salmonella, 05 pp 2638.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.C., Aarestrup, F.M., Jensen, L.B., Hammerum, A.M. and Bager, F. (1999) Use of antimicrobial growth promoters in food animals and Enterococcus, faecium resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials in Europe. Emerging Infection Diseases 5: 329335.Google Scholar
Weinack, O.M., Snoeyyenbos, G.H., Smyser, C.F. and Soerjadi, A. S. (1981) Competitive exclusion of intestinal colonization of Escherichia coli in chicks. Avian Diseases, 25: 696705.Google Scholar
Wierup, M., Wahlstrom, H. and Engstrom, B. (1992) Experience of a 10-year use of competitive exclusion treatment as part of the Salmonella control programme in Sweden. International Journal of Food Microbiology 15, 287–91.Google Scholar
Wigley, P., Hulme, S.D., Bumstead, N. and Barrow, P.A. (2002) In vivo and in vitro studies of genetic resistance to systemic salmonellosis in the chicken encoded by the SALI locus. Microbes and Infection 4: 11111120.Google Scholar
Witvliet, M., Vorstemans, T., Scharr, H., Van Empel, P. and Van Den Bosch, H. (1997). The Salmonella gallinarum 9R vaccine: homologous protection and cross protection against Salmonella enteritidis. Proceedings of the second International symposium on Salmonella and salmonellosis. Ploufragan, France. 503505.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (1980) Unpublished report of the WHO/:WAVFH Round Table Conference on the present status of the Salmonella problem (prevention and control). WHO/VPH/81.27 (Geneva, WHO).Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (1990) Unpublished report of WHO Consultation on Salmonellosis Control in Agriculture. WHO/CDS/VPH/90.94 (Geneva, WHO).Google Scholar
Wray, C., Mclaren, I., Wise, R. and Piddiock, L.J.V. (1990) Nalidixic acid resistant salmonellae. Veterinary Record 126: 489.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Control of food-poisoning salmonella in poultry – biological options
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Control of food-poisoning salmonella in poultry – biological options
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Control of food-poisoning salmonella in poultry – biological options
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *