Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:33:17.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infections with Heterakis gallinarum in chickens following recovery from histomoniasis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

L. P. Joyner
L. P. Joyner
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chickens which have recovered from an initial Histomonas infection are better hosts for Heterakis gallinarum than chickens which are fully susceptible to Histomonas. Not only do they support more nematodes but the immature worms, measured 12 and 14 days after infection, are larger.

Acknowledgements are due to Miss C. N. Hebert who carried out the statistical analysis and to Mr C. C. Norton for technical assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 171 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

REFERENCES

Baker, A. D. (1933). Some observations on the development of the caecal worm, Heterakis gallinae (Gmelin, 1790) Freeborn 1923, in the domestic fowl. Scient. Agric. 13, 356–63.Google Scholar
Clapham, P. A. (1934). Some observations on the response of chickens to infestation with Heterakis gallinae. J. Helminth. 12, 71–8.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. J. (1963). Immunological responses to Histomonas meleagridis in the turkey and fowl. Immunology, 5, 156–68.Google Scholar
Lund, E. E. (1958). Growth and development of Heterakis gallinae in turkeys and chickens infected with Histomonas meleagridis. J. Parasit. 44, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H. (1962 a). On the interaction between Heterakis gallinarum, Ascaridia galli, ‘Blackhead’ and the chicken. J. Helminth. 36, 107–42.Google Scholar
Madsen, H. (1962 b). Problems of blackhead transmission. Parasitology, 52, 7P.Google Scholar
Norton, C. C. & Joyner, L. P. (1965). The experimental chemotherapy of Capillaria obsignata. J. comp. Path. 75, 137–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. med. Sci. 15, 429–39.Google Scholar
Tyzzer, E. E. (1934). Studies on histomoniasis or ‘blackhead’ infection in the chicken and the turkey. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 69, 189–264.Google Scholar
Venkataratnam, A. & Clarkson, M. J. (1963). The effect of histomoniasis on the blood cells of the fowl. Res. vet. Sci. 4, 603–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar