Advertisement

The effect of heated floor on the outcome coccidiosis in broilers

  • Ekaterina Olegovna KachanovaEmail author
  • Rinat Tuktarovich Safiullin
Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Coccidiosis is the most common protozoan disease in poultry farms around the world and causes serious economic losses. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect floor heating on the outcome Eimeria maxima infection in broilers. A total 80 broilers were grown for 4 weeks. All birds were fed with identical granular food without anticoccidial drugs and antibiotics. Broilers were divided into 2 equal groups of 40 heads each. The first group (experimental) was placed on heated plates with a small wood shavings layer; the second group (control) was placed on wood shavings without floor heating. All 7-day old broilers were experimentally infected with E. maxima 300 oocyst/bird culture orally. The extensity and intensity of infection in the feces was determined every 3 days, after infection. Than 10 broilers at the age of 38 days were spontaneously selected from each group for blood sampling and for clinical and biochemical blood analysis. These broilers were sacrificed to detect pathological changes in the intestine. The extensity and intensity of coccidiosis was high in broilers, grown on a heated floor. Extensity was 100%, intensity—52,500 oocysts/g at the age of 26-days-broilers. Broilers became more resistant to E. maxima infection on the heated floor. Despite the high intensity of infection, acute coccidiosis and death were not detected. In addition, lesions in the intestine and changes in blood of broilers from experimental group differed slightly from the control group. The results showed that heated floor had a positive effect on the organism of broilers infected with E. maxima.

Keywords

Broilers Coccidiosis Eimeria maxima Extensity Intensity Heated floor 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the staff of Department of the Technology of Poultry Production Federal Scientific Center “All-Russian Research and Technological Poultry Institute”, Sergiev Posad for their help in organizing and conducting the experiment.

Author’s Contributions

EOK made a significant contribution to the concept and development, conducted data collection, statistical analysis and manuscript preparation. RTS read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Fundamental and Applied Parasitology of Animals and Plants named after K.I. Skryabin. And research was conducted within the State Assignment to ARSRIP (Project 0578-2019-0009).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The experiment was carried out according the rules adopted by European Convention far the Protection at Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes (ETS 123). Strasburg, 1986.

Informed consent

All the authors gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

References

  1. Abd El-Wahab A, Visscher CF, Wolken S, Reperant LM, Beineke A, Beyerbach M, Kamphues J (2013) Outcome of an artificial coccidial infection in poults under the influence of floor heating. Poul Sci 92(3):629–637.  https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bondarenko LA, Murzakov RR, Safiullin RT (2013) Contamination of environmental objects by Eimeria oocysts in poultry farms. Russ Parasitol J 4:46–53Google Scholar
  3. Buyarov VS, Saleeva IP, Buyarova EA (2009) Resource-saving methods and techniques for increasing the efficiency of broiler meat production. Bull Oryol State Agrarian Univ 17(2):54–60Google Scholar
  4. Dalloul RA, Lillehoj HS (2006) Poultry coccidiosis: recent advancements in control measures and vaccine development. Expert Rev Vaccines 5(1):143–163.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.5.1.143 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisinin VI, Surai P (2013) Intestinal immunity in birds: facts and thoughts (review). Agric Biol 4:3–25Google Scholar
  6. Idris AB, Bounous DI, Goodwin MA, Brown J, Krushinskie E (1997) Quantitative pathology of small intestinal coccidiosis caused by Eimeria maxima in young broilers. Avian Pathol 26(4):731–747.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03079459708419249 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson J, Reid WM (1970) Anticoccidial drugs: lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor-pen experiments with broilers. Exp Parasitol 28(1):30–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4894(70)90063-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Krylov MV, Zayonts VI, Ilyushechkin YuP (1977) Coccidioses of domestic animals. In: Proceedings of the all-union academy of agricultural sciences named after lenin, pp 171–181Google Scholar
  9. Kuznetsov VV (2006) The effect of some eimeriostatics and Eimeriosis prophylaxis schemes on the clinical status and enterobiocenosis of broiler broilers. Dissertation, All-Russian Research Institute of Veterinary Entomology and Arachnology of Russian Agricultural AcademyGoogle Scholar
  10. Meshcheryakov VA, Epimakhova EE, Yaschenko EA (2015) Problems of diagnosis and prevention of Eimeriosis (coccidiosis) of broilers in the Stavropol Territory. Vestnik APK Stavropol 1:116–119Google Scholar
  11. Morris GM, Woods WG, Richards DG, Gasser RB (2007) Investigating a persistent coccidiosis problem on a commercial broiler-breeder farm utilising PCR-coupled capillary electrophoresis. Parasitol Res 101(3):583–589.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-007-0516-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pangasa A, Singla LD (2007) Effect of coccidiostats and immunomodulators on haematology of Eimeria tenella infected broilers. Indian Vet J 84:1131–1134Google Scholar
  13. Pangasa A, Singla LD, Sood N, Singh A, Juyal PD (2007) Histopathological evaluation of anticoccidial activity of an ayurvedic coccidiostat, in induced Eimeria tenella infection in chicken. Indian J Anim Sci 77(3):214–216Google Scholar
  14. Pangasa A, Singla LD, Bansal N, Juyal PD (2012) Enzyme histochemistry of Eimeria tenella infected caeca of chicks: a preliminary study. J Vet Parasitol 26(1):77–79Google Scholar
  15. Safiullin RT, Titova TG, Nurtdinova TA (2017) A comprehensive program against bird coccidiosis to reduce the circulation of resistant forms of Eimeria on a poultry farm. Russ Parasitol J 3(41):288–298Google Scholar
  16. Saleeva IP (2007) Growing broilers on heated floors. Poultry 12:19–20Google Scholar
  17. Smolensky VI, Kiselev AL, Titova TG (2018) Scientific approach to the prevention of coccidiosis of birds. Poultry 1:50–52Google Scholar
  18. Williams RB (1999) A compartmentalised model for the estimation of the cost of coccidiosis to the world’s chicken production industry. Int J Parasitol 29(8):1209–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zajíček D (1978) Srovnání efektivnosti dvou kvantitativních ovoskopických metod. Comparision of the efficiency of two quantitative ovoskopic methods. Veterinární medicína 23:275–280PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society for Parasitology 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Fundamental and Applied Parasitology of Animals and Plants named after K.I. Skryabin, Branch of the Federal State Budget Scientific Institution, Federal Scientific Center (ARSRIP)All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine K.I. Skryabin and Y.R. Kovalenko the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations