Veterinary Research Communications

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 437–447

The ratio of the water and food consumption of chickens and its significance in the chemotherapy of coccidiosis

  • R. B. Williams
Parasitology
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

An investigation was made of the relationship between the water and food consumption of healthy and sick chickens. Using coccidiosis as a disease model, and uninfected chickens as healthy controls, male birds of an egg-production breed and males and females of a meat-production breed were found to have simultaneously reduced water and food intakes 4 days after infection with Eimeria acervulina or E. maxima, and from 4 to 6 days after infection with E. tenella. This phenomenon was associated with reduction of weight gains and poor food conversion ratios. Whether birds were healthy or sick, and regardless of the degree of reduction of dietary intake, there was a more or less constant relationship between their food and water consumption. The ratio of the weights of water and food consumed had a value of about 1.9, with a range of 1.1–2.4. It is concluded that neither water nor food has an advantage over the other as a vehicle for chemotherapy. However, other factors, such as ease and speed of administration, and avoidance of adsorption onto food particles, favour the drinking-water route.

Keywords

chemotherapy chickens coccidiosis Eimeria food consumption water consumption 

Abbreviations

FCR

food conversion ratio

WFR

water-food intake ratio

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barott H.G. and Pringle E.M., 1947. Effect of environment on growth and feed and water consumption of chickens. I. The effect of temperature of environment during the first nine days after hatch. Journal of Nutrition, 34, 53–67Google Scholar
  2. Barott H.G. and Pringle E.M., 1949. Effect of environment on growth and feed and water consumption of chickens. II. The effect of temperature and humidity of environment during the first eighteen days after hatch. Journal of Nutrition, 37, 153–161Google Scholar
  3. Barott H.G. and Pringle E.M., 1950. Effect of environment on growth and feed and water consumption of chickens. III. The effect of temperature of environment during the period from 18 to 32 days of age. Journal of Nutrition, 41, 25–30Google Scholar
  4. Fussell M.H., 1990. Antimicrobial medication. In: F.T.W. Jordan (ed.), Poultry Diseases, 3rd edn, (Baillière Tindall, London), 430–450Google Scholar
  5. Hilbrich P., 1963. Krankheiten des Geflügels unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Haltung und Fütterung, (Verlag Hermann Kuhn, Schwenningen am Neckar)Google Scholar
  6. Jones L.M., 1957. Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2nd edn, (Iowa State University Press, Ames), 598Google Scholar
  7. Long P.L., 1968. The pathogenic effects of Eimeria praecox and E. acervulina in the chicken. Parasitology, 58, 691–700Google Scholar
  8. Medway W. and Kare M.R., 1959. Water metabolism of the growing domestic fowl with special reference to water balance. Poultry Science, 38, 631–637Google Scholar
  9. Michael E. and Hodges R.D., 1972. The pathogenic effects of Eimeria necatrix: a comparison of single and repeated infections. Veterinary Record, 91, 258–262Google Scholar
  10. North M.O., 1984. Commercial Chicken Production Manual, 3rd edn, (AVI, Westport, CT), 662Google Scholar
  11. Reid W.M. and Pitois M., 1965. The influence of coccidiosis on feed and water intake of chickens. Avian Diseases, 9, 343–348Google Scholar
  12. Romijn C. and Lokhorst W., 1966. Heat regulation and energy metabolism in the domestic fowl. In: C. Horton-Smith and E.C. Amoroso (eds), Physiology of the Domestic Fowl, (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London), 211–227Google Scholar
  13. Savory C.J., 1978. The relationship between food and water intake and the effects of water restriction on laying Brown Leghorn hens. British Poultry Science, 19, 631–641Google Scholar
  14. Siegmann O., 1960. Die Beeinflussung des Futter- und Trinkwasserverbrauches wachsender Küken durch Coccidieninfektionen. Archiv für Geflügelkunde, 24, 442–450Google Scholar
  15. White G. and Williams R.B., 1983. Evaluation of a mixture of trimethoprim and sulphaquinoxaline for the treatment of bacterial and coccidial diseases of poultry. Veterinary Record, 113, 608–612Google Scholar
  16. Williams R.B., 1994. Safety of the attenuated anticoccidial vaccine ‘Paracox’ in broiler chickens isolated from extraneous coccidial infection. Veterinary Research Communications, 18, 189–198Google Scholar
  17. Williams R.B., 1995. Epidemiological studies of coccidiosis in the domesticated fowl (Gallus gallus): III. The influence of the fowl's defaecation pattern on the excretion patterns of Eimeria tenella and E. acervulina oocysts. Applied Parasitology, 36, 279–289Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers bv 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Wellcome Research LaboratoriesBerkhamstedUK
  2. 2.Mallinckrodt Veterinary LimitedHarefieldUK

Personalised recommendations