Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:14:34.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative studies on Heterakis gallinarum infections in the common fowl, Gallus gallus L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

Paul E. M. Fine
Paul E. M. Fine
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Protozoology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WCIE 7HT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fertility, mortality, and migration patterns of Heterakis gallinarum were studied in chickens with concomitant Parahistomonas wenrichi infections. H. gallinarum females were found to produce approximately 936 ova per day, when 50 days of age, and a total of 34,000 to 86,000 ova in a lifetime. There was no evidence of differential mortality between the sexes, nor of a preference for either the left or the right caecal organ of chickens. Both male and female worms are capable of migrating between caeca, and are especially prone to do so when in the absence of individuals of the opposite sex.

Type
Research papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1975 , pp. 229 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Armitage, P. (1971) Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Blackwell Scientific Publ.: Oxford and Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Clapham, P.A. (1933) On the life history of Heterakis gallinae. Journal of Helminthology, 11, 67–86.Google Scholar
Dorman, H.P. (1928) Studies of the life cycle of Heterakis papillosa Bloch. Transactions of the Americal Microscopical Society, 47, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, P.E.M. (1974a) In vitro maintenance of Parahistomonas sp. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 68, 2–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, P.E.M. (1974b) The Epidemiological Implications of Vertical Transmission, with an Appendix on: Assessment of Transovarial Transmission of a Protozoon, Parahistomonas wenrichi, by the nematode Heterakis gallinarum. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, Faculty of Medicine, Volume 2.Google Scholar
Fine, P.E.M. (1975a) Quantitative studies on the transmission of Paraliistomonas wenrichi by ova of Heterakis gallinarum. Parasitology, 70, 407–417.Google Scholar
Fine, P.E.M. (1975b) Vectors and vertical transmission—an epidemiological perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 266, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graybill, H.W. (1921) The incidence of blackhead and occurrence of Heterakis papillosa in a flock of artificially reared turkeys. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 33, 667–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graybill, H.W. and Smith, T. (1920) Production of fatal blackhead in turkeys by feeding embryonated eggs of Heterakis papillosa. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 31, 647–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, E.A. (1930) An account of a survey of the parasitic helminths of some domestic animals in Mid-West Wales. Journal of Helminthology, 8, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, E.E. (1967) Response of four breeds of chickens and one breed of turkeys to experimental Heterakis and Histomonas infections. Avian Diseases, 11, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, E.E. (1969) Histomoniasis. Advances in Veterinary Science, 13, 355–390.Google Scholar
Lund, E.E. and Chute, A.M. (1972) The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus torquatus) as a host for Heterakis gallinarum and Histomonas meleagridis. American Midland Naturalist, 87, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H. (1962) Problems of blackhead transmission. Parasitology, 52, (Suppl.), 7.Google Scholar
Martin, L.K. and Beaver, P.C. (1968). Evaluation of Kato thick smear technique for quantitative diagnosis of helminth infections. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 17, 382–391.Google Scholar
Norton, C.C. (1964) A survey of nematodes from the lower digestive tract of domestic fowls. Journal of Helminthology, 38, 269–282.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. Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science, 15, 429–439.Google Scholar
Roveda, R.J. (1943). Helmintos de nuestros Gallus gallus Linne. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia, Universitad de Buenos Aires, 10, 290–293. Also: Veterinary Bulletin, Weybridge, 1944, 340.Google Scholar
Swales, W.E. (1950) Enterohepatitis (blackhead) in turkeys. VII. Experiments of transmission of the disease. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine, 14, 298–303.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, L.R. (1961) Aggregation, variance, and the mean. Nature, 189, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyzzer, E.E. and Collier, J. (1925) Induced and natural transmission of blackhead in the absence of Heterakis. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 37, 265–276.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. (1964) A survey of the intestinal helminths parasitic in British domestic fowl. Journal of Helminthology, 38, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wehr, E. (1954). Blackhead of turkeys primarily transmitted through cecal worm eggs. Journal of Parasitology, 40 (Suppl.), 26.Google Scholar