Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:05:28.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Interaction between Heterakis gallinarum, Ascaridia galli, “Blackhead” and the Chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Holger Madsen
Holger Madsen
Affiliation:
Jaglfondens Vildtbiologiske Undersogelser, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, O. Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Measured dosages of larvated eggs of the caecal nematode, Heterakis gallinarum and the small intestinal nematode, Ascaridia galli were fed to domestic chickens, in order to study the distribution of the numbers of worms developing and the influence on the worms and the chicks of the treatments in the experiments. These treatments are summarised in Table 1, p. 110.

Chronic respiratory disease, accidentally acquired by the groups of chicks in varying degrees appeared to have no influence on the course of the worm infections and the ensuing blackhead (Table 2, p. 112).

Following ingestion of eggs of Heterakis, blackhead occurred in three of four groups of chicks, apparently in varying degrees, possibly related to the size of the egg dosage and to differences in susceptibility to Heterakis (Table 1, p. 110). The chicks inthe group which did not contract blackhead were considerably older than those of the other groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 36 , Issue 1-2 , March 1962 , pp. 107 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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.)

References

Ackert, J. E., 1917.—“A means of transmitting the fowl nematode, Heterakis papillosa, Bloch.” Science, 46, 394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ackert, J. E., Cooper, Rh. M.Dewiiurst, L. W., 1947.—“Viability of Ascaridia eggs under varying conditions of ago and administration.” Trans. Amer. micr. Soc., 66, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackert, J. E., Eisenbrandt, L. S., Wilmoth, J. H., Glading, B. and Pratt, J., 1935.—“Comparative resistance of five breeds of chickens to the nema-tode, Ascaridia lineata”. J. agric. Res., 50, 607–624.Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E., Porter, D. A. and Beach, T. D., 1935.—“Age resistance of chickens to the nematode, Ascaridia lineata”. J. Parasit., 21, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. M. and Geiser, F. W., 1933.—“Helminth parasites of the chicken, Gallus domesticus in Dallas county. Tex.” Amer. Midi. Nat., 14, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. D., 1931.—“Some pathological conditions found in the caeca of fowls.” Poultry Sci., 10, 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. D., 1933.—“Some observations on the development of the caecal worm, Heterakis gallinae (Gmelin, 1790) Freeborn, 1923, in the domestic fowl.” Sci. Agric., 13, 356–363.Google Scholar
Baker, A. D., Conklin, R. L., Maw, W. A. and Fogerty, C. O., 1929.—“Preliminary report on poultry parasite investigation at MacDonald College.” Poultry Sci., 8, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanc, O. R., 1914.—“Heterakis parisi et son rôle pathogène chez le nandou.” Bull. Soc. zool. Fr., 39, 78–82.Google Scholar
Bovard, E. W., 1954.—“A theory to account for the effects of early handling on viability of the albino rat.” Science, 120, No. 3109, 187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clapham, P. A., 1933a.—“On the prophylactic action of Vitamin A in helmin-thiasis.” J. Helminth., 11, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, P. A., 1933b.—“On the life-history of Heterakis gallinae.” J. Helminth., 11, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, P. A., 1934a.—“Some observations on the response of chickens to infestation with Heterakis gallinae.” J. Helminth., 12, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, P. A., 1934b.—“Some observations on the effect of dietary deficiency on infestation of chickens with the nematode Heterakis gallinae.” J. Helminth., 12, 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, P. A., 1938.—“The relation of helminthiasis to leukemia in domestic fowls.” J. Helminth., 16, 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, H. W., 1952.—“The effect of concurrent infection with the dog hookworm, Ancylostoma caninum, on the natural and acquired resistance of mice to Trichinella spiralis”. J. Elisha Mitchell sci. Soc., 68, 222–235.Google Scholar
Curtice, C, 1907.—“Notes on experiments with blackhead in turkeys.” Circ. U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind., 119, 10 pp.Google Scholar
Davis, D. E. and Read, C. P., 1958.—“Effect of behaviour on development of resistance in trichinosis.” Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N.Y., 99, 269–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denenberg, V. A. and Karas, G. G., 1959.—“Effects of differential infantile handling upon weight gain and mortality in the rat and mouse.” Science, 130, No. 3376, 629–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desowitz, R. S., 1951.—“Age as a factor influencing fatal infections of histo-moniasis in chickens.” J. comp. Path., 61, 231–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorman, H. P., 1928.—“Studies on the life cycle of Heterakis papulosa (Bloch).” Trans. Amer. micr. Soc., 47, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunsmore, J. D., 1960.—“Retarded development of Ostertagia species in sheep.” Nature, 186, No. 4729, 986–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egerton, J. R. and Hansen, M. F., 1955.—“Immunity and tolerance of chickens to the roundworm, Ascaridia galli (Schrank).” Exp. Parasitol., 4, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, G. L., Ackert, J. E. and Jones, R. W., 1932.—“Studies on an acquired resistance of chickens to the nematode Ascaridia lineata.” Amer. J. Hyg., 15, 726–740.Google Scholar
Graydill, H. W., 1921.—“Data on the development of Heterakis papulosa in the fowl.” J. exp. Med., 34, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. F., Olson, L. J. and Ackert, J. E., 1954.—“Improved techniques for culturing and administering ascarid eggs to experimental chicks.” Exp. Parasitol., 3, 464–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, M. F., Terhaar, C. J. and Turner, D. S., 1956.—“Importance of the egg-shell of Ascaridia galli to the infectivity of its larvae.” J. Parasit., 42, 122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. C. and Quenouille, M. H., 1952.—“A statistical examination of the worm egg count sampling technique for sheep.” J. Helminth., 26, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, S. B., 1957.—“Some factors influencing resistance to histomoniasis in turkeys.” Brit. vet. J., 113, 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. Y. and Hsü, H. F., 1951.—“On the frequency distribution of parasitic helminths in their naturally infected hosts.” J. Parasit., 37, 32–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, E. E., 1958.—“Growth and development of Heterakis gallinae in turkeys and chickens infected with Histomonas meleagridis”. J. Parasit., 44, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, E. E., 1959.—“Factors influencing the distribution of Heterakis in the caeca of chickens and turkeys”. J. Parasit., 45, (suppl.), 43.Google Scholar
Lund, E. E., AND Burtner, R. H. jr, 1958.—“Effect of four embryonation media on the embryonation and infectivity to chickens of Histomonas-bearing eggs of Heterakis”. J. Parasit., 44, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Holger, 1949.—“Heterakis gallinarum (Schrank, 1788), nec Heterakis gallinae (Gmelin, 1790)”. J. Parasit., 35, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, Holger, 1952.—“A study on the nematodes of Danish gallinaceous game birds”. Danish Rev. Game Biol., 2, 1–126.Google Scholar
Madsen, Holger, AND Whitlock, J. H, 1958.—“The inheritance of resistance to tricho-strongylidosis in sheep. III. Preliminary studies using a gastric pouch”. Cornell Vet., 48, 145–167.Google Scholar
Madsen, Holger, 1962a.—“The so called tissue phase in nematodes”. J. Helminth., 36, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, Holger, 1962b.—“A new theory on the transmission of blackhead”. (In press.)Google Scholar
Malewitz, Th. D., 1958.—“The pathology of experimentally produced histo-moniasis in turkeys”. Amer. J. vet. Res., 19, 181–185.Google ScholarPubMed
Morgan, D. O. and Wilson, J. E., 1938.—“Observations on the helminth parasites of poultry in Scotland“. J. Helminth., 16, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., Wilson, J. E., 1939.—“The occurrence of Heterakis gallinae in poultry and its relation to other helminths”. J. Helminth., 17, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mykytowycz, R., 1959.—“Effect of infection with myxomatosis virus on the endoparasites of rabbits”. Nature, 183, No. 4660, 555–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Northam, J. I. and Rocha, U. F., 1958.—“On the statistical analysis of worm counts in chickens”. Exp. Parasit., 7, 428–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, W. A. and James, L. G., 1921.—“Studies on the chicken nematode, Heterakis papulosa (Bloch)”. J. Amer. vet. med. Ass., 22, 208–217.Google Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S., 1937.—“Studies on the life history and economic importance of Heterakis gallinae (Gmelin, 1790) Freeborn, 1923, the caecum worm of fowls”. Aust. J. exp. Biol. vied. Sci., 15, 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. G., Lee, R. P. and Armour, J., 1959.—“Haemonchosis in Nigerian zebu cattle: the influence of genetical factors in resistance”. Vet. Rec., 71, 27–31.Google Scholar
Ruegamer, W. R., Bernstein, L. and Benjamin, J. D., 1954.—“Growth, food utilization, and thyroid activity in the albino rat as a function of extra handling”. Science, 120, 184–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadun, E. H., 1948.—“Resistance induced in chickens by infections with the nematode Ascaridia galli”. Amer. J. Hyg., 47, 282–289.Google ScholarPubMed
Sadun, E. H., 1949.—“The effect of single infections of variable size on the resistance of chickens to the nematode, Ascaridia galli”. Amer. J. Hyg., 49, 117–126.Google Scholar
Sadun, E. H., Keith, C. K., Pankey, M. J. and Totter, J. R., 1950.—“The influence of dietary pteroylglutamic acid and A.P.A. liver extract on survival and growth of the nematode Ascaridia galli in chickens fed purified and natural diets”. Amer. J. Hyg., 51, 274–291.Google Scholar
Smith, Ph. E., 1953.—“Life history and host-parasite relations of Heterakis spumosa, a nematode parasite in the colon of the rat”. Amer. J. Hyg., 57, 194–221.Google ScholarPubMed
Sommerville, R. E., 1960.—“The growth of Coopera curticei (Giles, 1892) a nematode parasite of sheep.” Parasitology, 50, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, HannahWATSON, R. H., 1960.—“Failure of growth in disturbed laboratory rats”. Nature, Lond., 185, No. 4713, 615–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symons, L. E. A., 1957.—“Pathology and infestation of the rat with Nippostrongylus muris (Yokogawa). 1. Changes in the water content, dry weight, and tissues of the small intestine”. Aust. J. biol. Sci., 10, 374–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, A. C., 1949.—“Thyroid condition of chickens and development of parasitic nematodes”. J. Parasit., 35, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, A. C., AND Hansen, M. F., 1951.—“The economic import of host resistance to helminth infection”. Amer. J. vet. Res., 12, 58–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Twohy, D. W., 1956.—“The early migration and growth of Nippostrongylus muris in the rat”. Amer. J. Hyg., 63, 165–185.Google ScholarPubMed
Tyzzer, E. E., Fabian, M. and Foot, N. C., 1921.—“Further observations on blackhead in turkeys.” J. infect. Dis., 29, 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uribe, C., 1922.—“Observations on the development of Helerakis papulosa Bloch in the chicken.” J. Parasit., 8, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weininger, O., 1954.—“Physiological damage under emotional stress as a function of early experience.” Science, 119, 285–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitlock, J. H., 1958.—“The inheritance of resistance to trichostrongylidosis in sheep. I. Demonstration of the validity of the phenomena.” Cornell. Vet., 48, 127–133.Google ScholarPubMed
Whitlock, J. H., and Madsen, Holger, 1958.—“The inheritance of resistance to trichostrongylidosis in sheep. II. Observations on the genetic mechanism in trichostrongylidosis.” Cornell Vet., 48, 134–145.Google ScholarPubMed
Winfield, C. F., 1933.—“Quantitative experimental studies on the rat nematode, Heterahis spumosa Schneider, 1806.” Amer. J. Hyg., 17, 168–228.Google Scholar