Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:36:08.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inhibition of colonization of the chicken alimentary tract with Salmonella typhimurium gram-negative facultatively anaerobic bacteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

P. A. Barrow ,
J. F. Tucker  and
J. M. Simpson
P. A. Barrow
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA, UK
J. F. Tucker
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA, UK
J. M. Simpson
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Oral administration of strains of food poisoning salmonellas to day-old chickens produced a profound inhibition in the subsequent colonization of the caeca by a strain of Salmonella typhimurium given one day later. Closely related genera were unable to produce a similar inhibition. The inhibition was not the result of bacteriophages produced by the first strain. Neither was it the result of an immunological response by the host induced by the first strain. In additional experiments in day-old chickens, inhibition of an Escherichia coli Nalr strain and of a Citrobacter sp. Nalr strain was produced by the antibiotic-sensitive forms of the homologous strains while strains from other genera did not produce any inhibition. When an avirulent mutant of S. typhimurium was used for pre-treatment a statistically significant reduction in the excretion of the super-infecting S. typhimurium Nalr strain over several weeks was produced. A genus specific inhibition was reproduced in vitro by mixed culture experiments. Live cultures were necessary for in vitro inhibition. Killed cells or a culture supernatant produced no inhibition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 311 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Barnes, E. M., Impey, C. S. & Cooper, D. M. (1980). Manipulation of the crop and intestinal flora of the newly hatched chick. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 33, 2426–2433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrow, P. A. & Tucker, J. F. (1986). Inhibition of colonization of the chicken alimentry tract with Salmonella typhimurium by pretreatment with strains of Escherichia coli. Journal of Hygiene 96, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coloe, P. J., Bagust, T. J. & Ireland, L. (1984). Development of the normal gastrointestinal microflora of specific pathogen-free chickens. Journal of Hygiene 92, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorn, P. & Krabisch, P. (1981). Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Salmonella-Bekamp-fung beim Mastkuken durch Substitution der Darmflora. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 88, 54–59.Google Scholar
Goren, E. (1982). Unpublished data cited by Pivnick, H. & Nurmi, E. (1982). The Nurmi concept and its role in the control of Salmonella in poultry. Developments in Food Microbiology. 1, 41–70. London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Graham Smith, G. S. (1920). The behaviour of bacteria in fluid cultures as indicated by daily estimates of the numbers of living organisms. Journal of Hygiene 19, 132–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Impey, C. S., Mead, G. C. & George, S. M. (1982). Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of the adult bird. Journal of Hygiene 89, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linton, A. H., Howe, K., Richmond, M. H., Clements, H. M., Osborne, A. D. & Handley, B. (1978). Attempts to displace the indigenous antibiotic resistant gut flora of chicken by feeding sensitive strains of Escherichia coli prior to slaughter. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 45, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, A. B., Cumming, R. B. & Kent, R. D. (1977). Prevention of Salmonella typhimurium infection in poultry by pre-treatment of chickens and poults with intestinal extracts. Australian Veterinary Journal 53, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). The estimation of the bactericidal power of blood. Journal of Hygiene 38, 732–749.Google Scholar
Nurmi, E.& Rantala, M. (1973). New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature, London 241, 210–211.Google Scholar
Pivnick, H. & Blanchfield, B. (1982). Unpublished data cited by Pivnick, H. & Nurmi, E. (1982). The Nurmi concept and its role in the control of Salmonella in poultry. Developments in Food Microbiology 1, 41–70. London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Rantala, M. (1974). Cultivation of a bacterial flora able to prevent the colonization of Salmonella infantis in the intestines of broiler chickens, and its use. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica Section B, 82, 75–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Rantala, M. & Nurmi, E. (1973). Prevention of the growth of Salmonella infantis in chicks by the flora of the alimentary tract of chickens. British Poultry Science 14, 627–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rigby, C., Pettit, J. & Robertson, A. (1977). The effect of normal intestinal flora on the Salmonella carrier state. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Salmonella and Prospects for Control (ed. Barnum, D. A.), p. 263. Guelph, Ontario, University of Guelph.Google Scholar
Smith, H. W. (1965). The development of the flora of the alimentary tract in young animals. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 90, 495–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. W. & Tucker, J. F. (1975). The effect of antibiotic therapy on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by experimentally infected chickens. Journal of Hygiene 75, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. W. & Tucker, J. F. (1980). The virulence of Salmonella strains for chickens; their excretion by infected chickens. Journal of Hygiene 84, 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snoeyenbos, G. H., Weinack, O. M. & Smyser, C. F. (1978). Protecting chicks and poults from Salmonellae by oral administration of normal gut microflora. Avian Diseases 22, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soerjadi, A. S., Lloyd, A. B. & Cumming, R. B. (1978). Streptococcus faecalis, a bacterial isolate which protect young chickens from enteric invasion by salmonellae. Australian Veterinary Journal 54, 549–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, G. S., Miles, A. A. & Parker, M. T. (1983). Topley & Wilson's Principles of Bacteriology, Virology and Immunity. 7th edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar