Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:21:50.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Flock management and histomoniasis in free-range turkeys in France: description and search for potential risk factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2009

M. P. CALLAIT-CARDINAL*
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France; Université Lyon 1; CNRS UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69922, Villeurbanne, France
E. GILOT-FROMONT
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France; Université Lyon 1; CNRS UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69922, Villeurbanne, France
L. CHOSSAT
Affiliation:
Cabinet Vétérinaire de Redon, F-35600, Redon
A. GONTHIER
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France
C. CHAUVE
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France
L. ZENNER
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, F-69280, Marcy l'Etoile, France; Université Lyon 1; CNRS UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69922, Villeurbanne, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Dr M. P. Callait-Cardinal, École Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon 1, avenue Bourgelat, 69280Marcy l'Etoile, France. (Email: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The relationship between flock management and histomoniasis, a re-emergent infection in poultry, was investigated by statistical techniques used in veterinary epidemiology to deal with various problems including: multicollinearity, confounding, interaction or sample size. Associations between the variables describing flock management were examined by multivariate descriptive analysis to reduce the number of independent variables, prior to investigating associations with the disease. No homogenous groups of farms were found in the 44 free-range turkey flocks sampled in France. Histomonas meleagridis was identified in 26/38 flocks and histomoniasis was confirmed in 19 flocks. Cleanliness of the building, wet litter and diarrhoea were linked with H. meleagridis and severity of histomoniasis. Sharing outdoor fields simultaneously with chickens was related to serious macroscopic lesions determined by post-mortem examinations. Contrary to general belief, acidification of drinking water with organic acid had consistent association with the presence of H. meleagridis in turkey caeca. These results confirm previous findings and provide several new hypotheses on the effects of hygiene and water management on H. meleagridis and histomoniasis.

Type
Original Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

INTRODUCTION

Histomoniasis or blackhead disease, caused by Histomonas meleagridis, a flagellated protozoon, is re-emerging in poultry after effective chemotherapeutics were banned in the USA and Europe [Reference McDougald1, Reference Callait-Cardinal2]. Parallel to recent research carried out on alternative drugs [Reference Callait3Reference Zenner7], it is necessary to develop or to validate non-drug methods in order to control this disease based on an improved knowledge of its epidemiology in the field.

Some outbreaks have been described in standard turkey production [Reference Callait-Cardinal2, Reference Norton8Reference Zenner10], but in free-range farms very little precise information is available although birds are highly exposed to H. meleagridis by field contamination [Reference McDougald1]. Here, we investigated traditional turkey production in the Bresse region with specific conditions under the framework of a European Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), where histomoniasis is commonly identified.

This study was designed to investigate the possible associations between management methods and the presence of histomoniasis at flock level, and as a first step towards the identification of risk factors. Data analysis was performed in three steps to deal with multicollinearity, confounding, interaction and small sample size usually reported in health and production studies in livestock: (i) describing the farming system in the Bresse region and searching if flocks could be classified in typology according to their common traits, with the view that histomoniasis could be associated with a particular farming system, (ii) describing the presence of H. meleagridis and the severity of histomoniasis, and (iii) searching for associations between histomoniasis and flock management practices that may represent potential risk factors.

METHODS

Study area and specific rearing conditions

We recorded information concerning flock management and the presence/absence of H. meleagridis and histomoniasis from farmers on a voluntary basis in September 2002 and 2003 on free-range turkey farms in the Bresse area benefiting from a PDO. Data consisted of completing a questionnaire and performing field investigations (e.g. pH measures in drinking troughs, capture of three turkeys for necropsy at the laboratory) for each flock. The French area of Bresse consists of a limited surface area of 3500 km2 to the north of Lyon. Only 30 000 turkeys are reared each year by about 40 producers (43 producers in 2002 and 36 in 2003). The turkey strain is the Betina strain GB 191, a lightweight black strain. In accordance with the PDO guarantee, birds are reared in one flock per year, over a period of 7 months. The growth period usually starts at the end of June or the beginning of July on grassy pasture and lasts for at least 15 weeks. The feed consists only of cereals (maize and wheat) and milk products. Birds find complementary food in pastures. Drugs and feed additives are forbidden, except for herbal products and nifursol that was allowed up to April 2003.

Collection of management data

In order to describe and classify the farms into types according to their common characteristics, we used 44 qualitative variables (2–4 modalities) elicited from the questionnaires from all the investigated farms. We distinguished three sets of variables that characterized different levels of the farming system (Table 1). Each set was used to (i) search for a typology based on homogenous groups of farms, and (ii) to explore some hypotheses concerning H. meleagridis and histomoniasis.

Table 1. Variables and modalities describing flock management in free-range turkeys in France, divided in three sets: (a) Farming, (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation (n is the number of flocks for each modality)

n.a., Not available.

The first set of variables, ‘Farming’, included the general husbandry methods (housing, feeding, etc.). We expected that large and small flocks would be reared in different conditions and that the disease could be associated with one of the farm types.

In the second set, ‘Preventive measures’, we considered variables describing the measures that are used in farms to prevent histomoniasis (disinfection, sanitary vacuum, etc.). This set included a general note on hygiene, estimated by the same external observer, based on litter aspect, odour and general cleanliness of the building. We expected that a high level of prevention would be associated with a low presence of histomoniasis.

In the third set, ‘Sanitary situation’, we included variables related to the current presence of pathogens or diseases. The variable ‘stress’ described all events that could disturb birds during the rearing period, e.g. unusually heavy rainfall or coolness in summer. The hypotheses were that (i) the presence of diseases or pathogens could be a marker of the presence of H. meleagridis, and (ii) some pathogens (e.g. Heterakis or Eimeria) could favour the presence of H. meleagridis or increase the severity of the lesions related to histomoniasis.

We included a variable ‘year’ in each dataset, after observing some differences between 2002 and 2003 for several variables. We thus aimed to distinguish the effect of other variables from the year-to-year variability.

Detection of H. meleagridis and histomoniasis

Four variables quantified the presence of H. meleagridis and the severity of histomoniasis. Two of them were recorded at the laboratory from the three turkeys provided at the end of the rearing period: Direct Examination (DE) and Lesion Index (LI). The two other variables were provided by the farmers and concerned the whole rearing period, i.e. ‘Morbidity’ and ‘Mortality’ that were believed to be due to histomoniasis.

Direct Examination

This measured the prevalence of H. meleagridis detected through microscopic examination in aliquots of caecal content from the necropsied 1–3 individuals (number of animals that carried H. meleagridis/number examined).

Lesion Index

This was an average indicator of the intensity of gross lesions in necropsied turkeys for one farm. The lesions consistent with histomoniasis recorded on the same necropsied individuals were scored macroscopically [from 0 (no lesion) to 4 (severe lesions)] separately for the two caeca and for liver [Reference Huber11, Reference Hu12]. LI was calculated as the mean score for the three organs for each turkey:

where C1 is the first caecum lesion score (0–4), C2 is the second caecum lesion score (0–4), L is the liver lesion score (0–4) and n is the number of turkeys autopsied from the farm. LI indicated the Histomonas dissemination and pathogenicity within birds. We confirmed the diagnosis of blackhead disease only in flocks where the presence of H. meleagridis was detected by DE and typical gross lesions were observed on caeca or/and liver with LI>1.

Morbidity

This is the frequency of sick birds that the farmer suspects of being related to histomoniasis during the entire rearing period (number of sick birds/total flock size at the beginning).

Mortality

This measures the frequency of dead birds in similar conditions (number of dead birds/total flock size). Mortality and Morbidity were thus considered as a sign of Histomonas pathogenicity at flock level. By comparison, the death losses during the rearing period without any specific diseases are estimated on average at 10% in standard turkey production (between 3·5% and 12%) [Reference Pattison13]. Therefore, we regarded as small an outbreak with Mortality <10%, moderate for between 10% and 20% and severe at >20%.

In the questionnaire, farmers were asked to give their own estimate of mortality related to histomoniasis, considered as the leading factor of morbidity and mortality. We acknowledged that the observed values may include other factors of mortality; however, it is a good representation of the mortality that farmers believed was due to histomoniasis, which is an important criterion for their farm management. We hypothesized that the declared losses were generally related to histomoniasis but we tested their relationship with the true presence of H. meleagridis by our analyses.

Statistical analysis

Flock management associations

We first described flock management in order to (i) explore the relationship between variables describing flock management and (ii) reduce the number of independent variables to be tested for association with histomoniasis.

We used multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), which is a form of multivariate descriptive analysis that has been developed for qualitative variables [Reference Lebart14]. Here, the analysis was used to reveal several possible types in farms based on common traits. MCA also keeps track of the associations between factorial axes and original variables in the form of correlation ratios that can be used to graphically represent these associations [Reference Dohoo15]. The first factorial axes may be considered as the most important independent variables that can be extracted from the dataset.

We treated missing observations in the following way: when a variable was missing for only one farm (surface, topography), we replaced the variable by the modality observed most frequently. When a variable was often missing (hygiene, pH, Eimeria, Capillaria, Heterakis) we created a modality ‘not available’.

We performed respectively three MCAs for Farming, Preventive measures and Sanitary situation datasets. We hypothesized that farming, preventive measures and sanitary situation, although potentially correlated, had separate effects on the risk of histomoniasis. Finally, separating the three sets of variables allowed us to explore only the relationships of interest; it avoided highlighting meaningless correlations that would necessarily emerge from the multivariate dataset. For each MCA, we arbitrarily considered as many factorial axes as necessary to explain at least two thirds of the original variability. To interpret factorial axes, we considered variables whose correlation ratios with factorial axes were the highest, i.e. we retained variables whose correlation ratio was at least twice the mean correlation ratio with this axis, or at least the two most important variables when less than two variables respected this criterion.

Relationship between the detection of H. meleagridis and histomoniasis

We tested for the correlations between the four variables describing H. meleagridis and histomoniasis using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Relationship between flock management and histomoniasis

We first selected factorial axes of the MCAs most correlated to each variable describing histomoniasis, using Pearson correlation coefficients. We considered all axes with significant correlation at the P=0·2 level. Then, in order to assess the direct relationship between the original variables and disease, we tested for the relationship between the variables defining selected factorial axes and variables describing histomoniasis using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). With this procedure, only variables that explained important factorial axes were tested, which avoided performing large numbers of tests.

RESULTS

The survey was performed on 14 farms in 2002 and on 30 farms in 2003. Ten farms were sampled twice, which we considered as two distinct farms because many factors varied between the two years, including flock management practices. All 44 farms were used to establish the typology, to maximize the representativeness of the sample (the sample included 32% in 2002 and 83% in 2003). Only the 38 farms that provided birds for post-mortem examinations were used to study histomoniasis and the relationship with flock management.

Flock typology

For each of the three MCAs, Table 2 shows the retained factorial axes with their proportion of explained variance and gives the variables most correlated with each factorial axis. Table 2 also gives the modalities which were typically associated.

Table 2. Results from the multiple correspondence analyses performed on the three sets: (a) Farming, (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation. The table gives the proportion and cumulative proportion of variance of the original dataset explained by each factorial axis, the variables most correlated to the axis (see text for definition) and the modalities associated on the axis

n.a., Not available.

Regarding Farming, 10 factorial axes were necessary to describe more than two thirds of the original variability, whereas six axes described Preventive measures and six axes described Sanitary situation. These large numbers meant that there were no homogenous groups in the studied farms.

Detection of H. meleagridis and histomoniasis

Of the 44 farms, 15 provided three individuals, 11 gave two, 12 gave one and six gave none. We considered whether this variability influenced the estimation of disease status in the farms: farmers that were more concerned by histomoniasis may have provided more information. However, when two or three individuals from the same farm were examined, their DE results were more similar than expected by chance. Moreover, the mean LI and the mean DE scores were similar whatever the number of turkeys provided, showing that no bias existed towards more infected farms providing more information. Of the 38 farms that provided animals for post-mortem examination, DE revealed the presence of H. meleagridis from 26 flocks (68·4%). Gross lesions were observed in animals from 20 farms. The mean LI of the 20 non-negative farms was 4·90±2·5.

Farmers declared a non-null Morbidity in 38/44 cases (86·4%). In these flocks, mean Morbidity was 11·17% (from 0·4% to 47·1%) and mean Mortality was 8·74% (from 0·12% to 47·1%).

Table 3. Modalities of the three sets of variables (a) Farming (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation positively associated to the four variables used to quantify the presence of H. meleagridis recorded at the laboratory (Direct Examination and Lesion Index) and the severity of histomoniasis provided by the farmers (Morbidity and Mortality) and P value of the corresponding ANOVA tests. We reported significant relationships when P value <0·05 (in bold type) and relevant trends when P value between 0·05 and 0·2 (in normal type)

In the 38 farms that provided complete information, two correlations in the four variables were significant between Morbidity and Mortality and between DE and LI (Fig. 1). There was no significant relationship between Morbidity or Mortality and LI or DE (all r<0·366); for example high LI were sometimes observed in farms with low Mortality. Therefore, four groups of flocks can be separated on the basis of their mortality, and LI values, illustrating the different possible combinations between these variables (Fig. 2):

  • group A: 16 flocks with low mortality (mean 1·70%) and low LI (equals 0),

  • group B: 13 flocks with low mortality (mean 2·37%) and high LI (mean 4·94),

  • group C: three flocks with high mortality (mean 20·67%) and low LI (mean 0·11),

  • group D: six flocks with high mortality (mean 22·41%) and high LI (mean 5·44).

Fig. 1. Relations between the four variables describing the presence of H. meleagridis and severity of histomoniasis visualized in a scatterplot matrix. Two significant correlations are revealed [highlighted by an asterisk (*)]: between Morbidity and Mortality (r=0·942, P<0·001), and between Lesion Index and Direct Examination (r=0·554, P<0·001).

Fig. 2. Boxplot representations of Mortality, Lesion Index and Direct Examination for the 38 flocks rearranged in four groups according to the diagnosis of histomoniasis and the severity of the disease: group A without histomoniasis and rare presence of H. meleagridis; group B with small histomoniasis outbreaks; group C without confirmed histomoniasis but with other causes of death; group D with moderate and severe histomoniasis outbreaks. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and extreme values are shown.

Relationship between flock management and histomoniasis

Presence of H. meleagridis at DE

The presence of parasites at DE was related to both Farming and Preventive measures (Table 3): DE was correlated at the P=0·20 level (Pearson's r>0·213) to factorial axes involved in Farming (axes F2, F6, F9), and Preventive measures (axes P1, P4). When tested separately, DE was highest in 2002 (P=0·016), when field surface was <20 m2 per individual (P=0·012) and when the field was covered by trees (P=0·015). DE frequency also tended to be high when turkeys had perches (P=0·123). Regarding Preventive measures, the relationship with pH was significant (P=0·006), but the presence of parasites was lower with neutral than with acidic pH. Finally, DE frequency was high when general hygiene was poor (P=0·043). Because of the effect of the year on DE, there might be a confounding between the effect of year and the effects of other variables. We thus performed a number of two-way ANOVAs to test for the effects of field surface, tree cover, pH and hygiene after taking into account the year effect, and to test for interactions between year and other variables (Table 4). After taking into account the effect of year, only surface remained a significant effect (P=0·018). Other variables and interactions were no longer significant (all P>0·05).

Table 4. Two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of surface, cover, pH and hygiene on the presence of H. meleagridis by Direct Examination, after taking into account the effect of year

d.f., Degrees of freedom; SS, sum of squares.

Lesion Index

Although DE frequency and LI were correlated, LI was related to other factors than DE frequency: it was correlated with factorial axes F1, F9, P3, S2 and S5. LI was highest on farms where the field surface was intermediate (P=0·046) and tended to be high when simultaneous sharing occurred (P=0·076) (Table 3). Regarding Sanitary situation, LI was related to the presence and date of diarrhoea and was high when diarrhoea was reported (P=0·031). LI also tended to be high when diarrhoea occurred from August to October (P=0·125).

Morbidity

Morbidity was related to factorial axes: F7, F8, S2 and S3. Only origin of water had a relationship close to significance with Morbidity, with high morbidity when water only originated from the municipal network (P=0·106) (Table 3). Morbidity tended to be low when the litter was changed at least once per week (P=0·152). Finally, Morbidity was related to diarrhoea (P=0·040) and date of diarrhoea (P=0·046): the highest morbidity occurred when diarrhoea was observed in June or July.

Mortality

Mortality was related to similar factorial axes as Morbidity (F7, F8, S2, S3) but was also correlated to axes F6 and F9. Origin of the building was the variable closest to significance (P=0·128), with lowest mortality when buildings had previously been used for species other than poultry, and highest mortality when buildings had always been used for turkeys (Table 3). Like Morbidity, Mortality was related to axis S2, i.e. diarrhoea (P=0·054) and date of diarrhoea (P=0·041), high mortality being observed when diarrhoea was observed at the beginning of the season.

DISCUSSION

This work represents a first step for identification of risk factors of histomoniasis in free-range turkey production.

Flock management

We detected a high diversity of management practices and no particular typology with homogenous groups of farms according to their practices in PDO Bresse turkey production. In particular, no common traits were shared by large flocks (>1000 birds) compared to small flocks (<500 birds). This may be due to the fact that, within the constraints imposed by the PDO guarantee, farmers are free to follow their own usual practices.

Presence of H. meleagridis and severity of histomoniasis

The relationship between Morbidity and Mortality was strong because, in several farms, only mortality was detected by farmers. This relationship also means that morbidity was rarely observed alone. The specific indicators of blackhead disease, LI and DE, were not correlated to the levels of morbidity and mortality reported by farmers during rearing. In three flocks, high death losses were reported without confirmed histomoniasis diagnosis but with high coproscopic excretion of Eimeria oocysts. These cases may be due to misdiagnosis by farmers, based mainly on presence of diarrhoea. Typical sulphur-coloured droppings are early clinical signs of histomoniasis [Reference BonDurant, Wakenell and Kreier9], although watery or dark-coloured diarrhoea is also observed in coccidiosis and in necrotic enteritis [Reference Chapman16, Reference Porter17]. Moreover, caecal and liver lesions can be confused with other diseases [Reference McDougald1]. The presence of H. meleagridis at DE in 7/16 flocks without clinical signs and death losses supports the hypothesis of frequent asymptomatic circulation of the parasite, previously proposed by Zenner et al. [Reference Zenner10]. Finally, in the 19 flocks with clinically confirmed histomoniasis, only six exhibited the moderate or severe outbreaks commonly described in the literature; the others suggested that H. meleagridis may be present and may cause important lesions with death losses <10%. A similar variability of mortality was reported in 113 standard turkey flocks with histomoniasis in France [Reference Callait-Cardinal2]. Our observations cannot be compared with those reported previously [Reference McDougald1, Reference BonDurant, Wakenell and Kreier9, Reference Lund, Hofstad, Calnek, Helmboldt, Reid and Yoder18, Reference Popp, Hafez and Hafez19], because these authors had only reported the maximal mortality observed in severe outbreaks, or the total mortality attributed to blackhead in a country. When an infectious disease is present, the observed mortality rate in a population is determined by the equilibrium between host resistance, parasite virulence and/or environmental factors. Host resistance and parasite virulence were not investigated during this survey, but they obviously play an important part in differences of pathogenicity of isolates. The study of genotype variability of H. meleagridis has only recently started [Reference van der Heijden20, Reference Bilic21].

Relationship between flock management and histomoniasis

We found statistically significant relationships, but also several non-significant trends that could be biologically relevant. Because of the small size of our dataset, we advocate that both results deserve consideration. DE frequency was significantly highest during 2002 and when small field surface per turkey was used, and tended to be high when low hygiene and acidic pH were observed; LI was high when field surface was intermediate and tended to be high when the field was shared simultaneously with other poultry species and when diarrhoea was reported at the end of the growth period. Morbidity was mostly related to the presence of diarrhoea at the beginning of the growth period, tended to decrease when litter was changed frequently and varied with origin of drinking water. Finally, Mortality was related to diarrhoea at the beginning of the season and tended to be high when buildings were always used for turkeys.

Between years variability

This was observed through high presence of H. meleagridis during 2002, without relation to losses at flock level. Many aspects of flock management differed between the two years of study (e.g. flock size, field surface or diagnosis of other disease). The use of nifursol in 2002, before its ban in April 2003, should have contributed to decreased parasite prevalence but it probably did not affect sufficient flocks (5/14 in 2002) to have any detectable effect. Alternatively, a true year-to-year variability effect may exist, for example due to meteorological conditions. This is plausible since the summer of 2003 was particularly hot and dry throughout the whole Europe.

Hygiene in buildings

As previously described, hygiene in buildings estimated by general cleanliness and litter quality is related to the presence of H. meleagridis and in the severity of histomoniasis. Poor hygiene in the building, wet litter and infrequent litter change probably increased the contact between birds and their droppings. Moreover, direct transmission from turkey-to-turkey was experimentally demonstrated [Reference McDougald and Fuller22] by cloacal drinking phenomenon [Reference Sorvari23]. Several factors have been identified in poultry for the occurrence of wet litter, including feed components, drinker design, depth of litter, temperature and relative humidity of the building, and clinical diseases in which diarrhoea is an important sign, in particular coccidiosis [Reference Hermans24]. Presence of diarrhoea, often highlighted in our study, was associated on the one hand with blackhead disease diagnosis and lesions while on the other, diarrhoea observed at the beginning of the growth period (June or July), may cause rapid deterioration of litter quality. Therefore, all parameters that produce moisture in buildings, particularly general hygiene, wet litter and diarrhoea, contribute to increase the direct transmission to H. meleagridis and severity of histomoniasis.

Sharing a field simultaneously with other poultry species, especially chickens

Sharing a field is related to more serious caecal and liver lesions. This may be clinical reflection of cross-transmission of H. meleagridis between chickens and turkeys. Chickens are the major host for Heterakis gallinarum, the caecal worm used by Histomonas to survive from one flock to the next [Reference McDougald1] and the best reservoir of infection [Reference Lund and Chute25, Reference Lund and Chute26]. They probably contaminate fields with many worm eggs carrying histomonads. Therefore, severity of turkey lesions may be due to heaviest contamination and/or high pathogenicity of Heterakis-transmitted Histomonas. Our finding confirms previous results that sharing a field area is a risk factor for turkeys [Reference McDougald1].

Acidic drinking water

Contrary to previous thinking, acidic drinking water has consistent association with the presence of H. meleagridis in turkey caeca. Drinking water is a prominent vehicle for pathogens in poultry flocks [Reference Barton27Reference Chaveerach29]. Physical and chemical water characteristics affect its bacteriological quality. Therefore, administration of organic acids via the drinking water to adjust the pH between 4 and 6 is considered an easy decontamination method, without creating residue problem [Reference Chaveerach29]. Moreover, this practice is widespread in the poultry industry as a tool for improving bird performance [Reference Watkins30], although the optimal pH range recommended for poultry is 6·8–7·5 [Reference Carter and Sneed31]. In free-range turkey production, water acidification with acetic acid or vinegar is widely used to prevent histomoniasis, without scientific assessment. However, if the level of hygiene is low, drinking water may be intensively contaminated with dirty organic matter such as feed, faeces, soil or unchanged litter. For a long time, H. meleagridis was considered to have low environmental resistance, to be unable to form cysts or resistant forms [Reference McDougald1], but cyst-like stages have recently been described from cultures [Reference Munsch32]. Therefore, they should be involved in further studies on histomonad transmission, in particular by water-distribution systems.

This investigation of potential risk factors related to histomoniasis on free-range turkey farms is a first step to a good understanding of the epidemiology of this disease. The lack of treatment legally available in Europe for this type of study could lead to new ways and practices to improve the environment and management to decrease the occurrence of the disease. A point to be specifically investigated is the possible adverse effect of the acidification of drinking water in poultry productions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the contribution of the Bresse Turkey Union (Syndicat de la Dinde de Bresse), and the owners and staff of the participating farms for their collaboration, as well as Gillian Martin for help with the English-language editing.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

References

REFERENCES

1.McDougald, LR. Blackhead disease (histomoniasis) in poultry: a critical review. Avian Diseases 2005; 49: 462476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Callait-Cardinal, MP, et al. Incidence of histomonosis in turkeys in France since the bans of dimetridazole and nifursol. Veterinary Record 2007; 161: 581585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Callait, MP, et al. In vitro activity of therapeutic drugs against Histomonas meleagridis (Smith, 1895). Poultry Science 2002; 81: 11221127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Grabensteiner, E, et al. Antiprotozoal activities determined in vitro and in vivo of certain plant extracts against Histomonas meleagridis. Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Blastocystis sp. Parasitology Research 2008; 103: 12571264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hafez, HM, Hauck, R. Efficacy of a herbal product against Histomonas meleagridis after experimental infection of turkey poults. Archives of Animal Nutrition 2006; 60: 436442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Hu, J, McDougald, LR. The efficacy of some drugs with known antiprotozoal activity against Histomonas meleagridis in chickens. Veterinary Parasitology 2004; 121: 233238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Zenner, L, et al. In vitro effect of essential oils from Cinnamomum aromaticum. Citrus limon and Allium sativum on two intestinal flagellates of poultry, Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Histomonas meleagridis. Parasite 2003; 10: 153157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Norton, RA, et al. An outbreak of histomoniasis in turkeys infected with a moderate level of Ascaridia dissimilis but no Heterakis gallinarum. Avian Diseases 1999; 43: 342348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.BonDurant, RH, Wakenell, PS. Histomonas meleagridis and relatives. In: Kreier, J, ed. Parasitic Protozoa, 2nd edn.San Diego: Academic Press, 1994, pp. 189206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Zenner, L, et al. Histomoniasis in turkey production, a topical disease [in French]. Bulletin des GTV 2002; 15: 155158.Google Scholar
11.Huber, K, et al. Histomonas meleagridis in turkeys: dissemination kinetics in host tissues after cloacal infection. Poultry Science 2006; 85: 10081014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Hu, J, et al. Infection of turkeys with Histomonas meleagridis by the cloacal drop method. Avian Diseases 2004; 48: 746750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Pattison, M. The Health of Poultry. Singapore: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1993, pp. 277.Google Scholar
14.Lebart, L, et al. Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis: Correspondence Analysis and Related Techniques for Large Matrices. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1984, pp. 231.Google Scholar
15.Dohoo, IR, et al. An overview of techniques for dealing with large numbers of independent variables in epidemiologic studies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 1997; 29: 221239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Chapman, HD. Coccidiosis in the turkey. Avian Pathology 2008; 37: 205223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Porter, RE Jr.. Bacterial enteritides of poultry. Poultry Science 1998; 77: 11591165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Lund, EE. Histomonosis. In: Hofstad, MS, Calnek, BW, Helmboldt, CF, Reid, WM, Yoder, HW, eds. Disease of Poultry, 6th edn.Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1976, pp. 990–1005.Google Scholar
19.Popp, C, Hafez, HM. Recent Histomonas meleagridis outbreak in commercial turkey flock: a case report. In: Hafez, DHM, ed. Turkey Production: Current Challenges – Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Turkey Production. Berlin, Germany: Mensch-Buch-Verlag, 2007, pp. 233239.Google Scholar
20.van der Heijden, HM, et al. Genotyping of Histomonas meleagridis isolates based on Internal Transcribed Spacer-1 sequences. Avian Pathology 2006; 35: 330334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Bilic, I, et al. Identification and molecular characterization of numerous Histomonas meleagridis proteins using a cDNA library. Parasitology 2009; 136: 379391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.McDougald, LR, Fuller, L. Blackhead disease in turkeys: direct transmission of Histomonas meleagridis from bird to bird in a laboratory model. Avian Diseases 2005; 49: 328331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Sorvari, R, et al. Anal sucking-like movements in the chicken and chick embryo followed by the transportation of environmental material to the bursa of Fabricius, caeca and caecal tonsils. Poultry Science 1977; 56: 14261429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Hermans, PG, et al. Prevalence of wet litter and the associated risk factors in broiler flocks in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Record 2006; 158: 615622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Lund, EE, Chute, AM. Relative importance of young and mature turkeys and chickens in contaminating soil with histomonas-bearing Heterakis eggs. Avian Diseases 1970; 14: 342348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Lund, EE, Chute, AM. The reproductive potential of Heterakis gallinarum in various species of galliform birds: implications for survival of H. gallinarum and Histomonas meleagridis to recent times. International Journal for Parasitology 1974; 4: 455461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Barton, TL. Relevance of water quality to broiler and turkey performance. Poultry Science 1996; 75: 854856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Savage, CE, Jones, RC. The survival of avian reoviruses on materials associated with the poultry house environment. Avian Pathology 2003; 32: 419425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Chaveerach, P, et al. Effect of organic acids in drinking water for young broilers on Campylobacter infection, volatile fatty acid production, gut microflora and histological cell changes. Poutry Science 2004; 83: 330334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Watkins, S, et al. Effects of water acidification on broiler performance. Avian Advice 2004; 6: 46.Google Scholar
31.Carter, TA, Sneed, RE. Drinking water quality for poultry. In: Poultry Science and Technology Guide No. 42. North Carolina State University, 1996.Google Scholar
32.Munsch, M, et al. Light and transmission electron microscopic studies on trophozoites and cyst-like stages of Histomonas meleagridis from cultures. Parasitology Research 2009; 104: 683689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Variables and modalities describing flock management in free-range turkeys in France, divided in three sets: (a) Farming, (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation (n is the number of flocks for each modality)

Figure 1

Table 2. Results from the multiple correspondence analyses performed on the three sets: (a) Farming, (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation. The table gives the proportion and cumulative proportion of variance of the original dataset explained by each factorial axis, the variables most correlated to the axis (see text for definition) and the modalities associated on the axis

Figure 2

Table 3. Modalities of the three sets of variables (a) Farming (b) Preventive measures and (c) Sanitary situation positively associated to the four variables used to quantify the presence of H. meleagridis recorded at the laboratory (Direct Examination and Lesion Index) and the severity of histomoniasis provided by the farmers (Morbidity and Mortality) and P value of the corresponding ANOVA tests. We reported significant relationships when P value <0·05 (in bold type) and relevant trends when P value between 0·05 and 0·2 (in normal type)

Figure 3

Fig. 1. Relations between the four variables describing the presence of H. meleagridis and severity of histomoniasis visualized in a scatterplot matrix. Two significant correlations are revealed [highlighted by an asterisk (*)]: between Morbidity and Mortality (r=0·942, P<0·001), and between Lesion Index and Direct Examination (r=0·554, P<0·001).

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Boxplot representations of Mortality, Lesion Index and Direct Examination for the 38 flocks rearranged in four groups according to the diagnosis of histomoniasis and the severity of the disease: group A without histomoniasis and rare presence of H. meleagridis; group B with small histomoniasis outbreaks; group C without confirmed histomoniasis but with other causes of death; group D with moderate and severe histomoniasis outbreaks. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and extreme values are shown.

Figure 5

Table 4. Two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of surface, cover, pH and hygiene on the presence of H. meleagridis by Direct Examination, after taking into account the effect of year