Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T07:35:19.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction between nutrition and Eimeria acervulina infection in broiler chickens: development of an experimental infection model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. Adams ,
H. A. Vahl  and
A. Veldman
C. Adams
Affiliation:
CLO-Institute for Animal Nutrition ‘De Schothorst’, PO Box 533, 8200 AM Lelystad, The Netherlands
H. A. Vahl
Affiliation:
CLO-Institute for Animal Nutrition ‘De Schothorst’, PO Box 533, 8200 AM Lelystad, The Netherlands
A. Veldman
Affiliation:
CLO-Institute for Animal Nutrition ‘De Schothorst’, PO Box 533, 8200 AM Lelystad, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

In three experiments broiler chickens were inoculated with sporulated Eimeria acervulina oocysts at 18 d of age. Feed intake, body-weight gain, brush-border enzyme activities, fat digestion, protein digestion and protein retention were measured. Body-weight gain was reduced during the acute phase of the infection and increased during the recovery phase of the infection. Feed intake was decreased on day 4 and day 5 postinfection (PI) and increased from day 7 to day 11 PI. Maltase (EC 3.2.1.20) and sucrase (ECEC 3.2.1.48) activities were decreased on day 5 PI in all intestinal segments. In Expts 2 and 3, however, maltase activity was increased in the ileum. Fat digestion was decreased from day 2 to day 11 PI. N digestion and retention were decreased from day 2 to day 11 PI.

Keywords

PoultryCoccidiosisInfection made1
Type
Poultry nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 75 , Issue 6 , June 1996 , pp. 867 - 873
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1996

References

REFERENCES

Allen, P. C. (1987). Physiological responses of chicken gut tissue to coccidial infection: comparative effects of Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria mitis on mucosal mass, carotenoid content and brush border enzyme activity. Poultry Science 66, 1306–1315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beisel, W. R. (1985). Nutrition and infection. In Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism with Clinical Applications, pp. 369–394 [Lindner, M. C., editor]. New York: Elsevier Applied science Publishers.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilising the principle of protein–dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72, 248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, D. W. T. (1976). Malfunction of the gut: parasitism. In Digestion in the Fowl, pp. 193–345 [Boorman, K. N. and Freeman, B. M., editors]. Edinburgh: British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Dahlqvist, A. (1964). Method for assay of intestinal disaccharidases. Analytical Biochembtry 7,18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernando, M. A. & McCraw, B. M. (1973). Mucosal morphology and cellular renewal of chickens following a single infection of Eimeria acervulina. Journal of Parasitology 59, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. & Reid, W. M. (1970). Anticoccidial drugs: lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor-pen experiments with chickens. Experimental Parasitology 28, 30–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P., Patterson, D. S. P., Berrett, S., Boarer, C. D. H., Cheong, F. H. & Norton, C. C. (1975). Aminoacid malabsorption and intestinal leakage of plasma-proteins in young chicks infected with Eimeria acervulina. Avian Pathology 4, 17–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Major, J. R. & Ruff, M. D. (1978 a). Disaccharidase activity in the intestinal tissue of broilers infected with coccidia. Journal of Parasitology 64, 706–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Major, J. R. & Ruff, M. D. (1978 b). Eimeria spp.: influence of coccidia on digestion (amylolytic activity) in broiler chickens. Experimental Parasitology 45, 234–240.Google ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (1984). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 8th ed. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ruff, M. D. & Wilkins, G. C. (1980). Total intestinal absorption of glucose and L-methionine in broilers infected with Eimeria acervulina. E. mivati, E. maxima or E. brunetti. Parasitology 80, 551–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, V. D. & Fernando, M. A. (1975). Effect of Eimeria acervulina infection on nutrient retention with special reference to fat malabsorption in chickens. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 39, 146–154.Google ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Terpstra, K. & De Hart, N. (1974). The estimation of urinary nitrogen and faecal nitrogen in poultry excreta. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 32, 306–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turk, D. E. (1972). Protozoan parasitic infections of the chick intestine and protein digestion and absorption. Journal of Nutrition 102, 1217–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turk, D. E. (1978). The effect of coccidiosis on intestinal function and gut microflora. In Avian Coccidiosis, pp. 227–267 [Long, P. L., Boorman, K. N. and Freeman, B. M., editors]. Edinburgh: British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar