Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T04:39:02.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The pathogenic effects of Eimeria praecox and E. acervulina in the chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

P. L. Long
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, England


Eimeria praecox produced less effect on body-weight gain and food consumption than E. acervulina. No deaths occurred and no weight loss followed infection with doses of oocysts up to 10. However, there was a depression of body-weight gain in birds infected with both species and changes in the permeability of the intestine were noted from as early as 3½ h after infection. This suggests that increased intestinal permeability is not the major factor in the greater pathogenicity of E. acervulina compared with E. praecox. Eimeria acervulina produced considerably greater effects on the host as evidenced by mortality, body weight gain and food consumption.

I wish to thank Mr B. J. Millard and Mr M. Shirley for technical assistance and Dr B. M. Freeman for help with the statistics in Table 2.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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.)



Dickinson, E. M. (1941). The effects of variable dosages of sporulated Eimeria acervulina oocysts on chickens. Poult. Sci. 20, 413–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, B. M. (1963). The gaseous metabolism of the domestic chicken. III. The oxygen requirement of the chicken during the period of rapid growth. Br. Poult. Sci. 4, 169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. T. (1930). Coccidiosis of the chicken with special reference to species. Stn Bull. Ore. agric. Exp. Stn 358, 333.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. (1967 a). Studies on Eimeria praecox Johnson, 1930, in the chicken. Parasitology 57, 351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1967 b). Studies on Eimeria mivati in chickens and a comparison with Eimeria acervulina. J. comp. Path. Ther. 77, 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1968). The effect of breed of chickens on resistance to Eimeria infections. Br. Poult. Sci. 9, 71–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Lab. Pract. 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
Morehouse, N. F. & McGuire, W. C. (1958). The pathogenicity of Eimeria acervulina. Poult. Sci. 37, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston-Mafham, R. A. & Sykes, A. H. (1967). Changes in the permeability of the mucosa during intestinal coccidiosis infections of the fowl. Experientia 23, 972–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyzzer, E. E., Theiler, H. & Jones, E. E. (1932). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. II. A comparative study of Eimeria in the chicken. Am. J. Hyg. 15, 319–93.Google Scholar