Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:46:34.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory studies with some recent anticoccidials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

John F. Ryley  and
Robert G. Wilson
John F. Ryley
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Pharmaceuticals Division, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, England
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Pharmaceuticals Division, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The activities of monensin, lasalocid and halofuginone against Eimeria tenella, E. brunetti and E. necatrix have been studied under laboratory conditions. Complete control of experimental infections in the chick, separable from toxicity, was not obtained with monensin, but was achieved with the other two compounds at levels of 150 and 6 ppm in the food respectively. All three compounds appear to inhibit coccidial development very early in the life-cycle, and to have a fairly rapid lethal effect, monensin and lasalocid more so than the febrifugine derivative. In vivo observations have been supplemented with in vitro studies. Some discussion of the difficulties of relating laboratory experiments to field performance is given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 203 - 222
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

Jeffers, T. K., (1974). Eimeria tenella: Incidence, distribution, and anticoccidial drug resistance of isolants in major broiler-producing areas. Avian Diseases 18, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitrovic, M., & Schildknecht, E. G., (1973). Anticoccidial activity of antibiotic X-537A in chickens. Poultry Science 52, 2065.Google Scholar
Mitrovic, M., & Schildknecht, E. G., (1974). Anticoccidial activity of Lasolocid (X-537A) in chicks. Poultry Science 53, 1448–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. M., Kowalski, L., & Rice, J., (1972). Anticoccidial activity of monensin in floorpen experiments. Poultry Science 51, 139–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F., (1967). Studies on the mode of action of quinolone and pyridone coccidiostats. Journal of Parasitology 53, 1151–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F., & Betts, M. J., (1973). Chemotherapy of chicken coccidiosis. In Advances in Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, vol. 11 (ed. Garattini, S., Goldin, A., Hawking, P. and Kopin, I. J.), pp. 221–93. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ryley, J. F., & Wilson, R. G., (1971). Studies on the mode of action of the coccidiostat robenidene. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 37, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F., & Wilson, R. G., (1972). Comparative studies with anticoccidials and three species of chicken coccidia in vivo and in vitro. Journal of Parasitology 58, 664–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yvoré, P., Foure, N., Aycardi, J., & Bennejean, G. (1974). Efficacité du Sténorol (RU 19110) dans la chimioprophylaxie des coccidioses aviaires. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 150, 495–503.Google Scholar