Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 41 issue 1 (march 2007) : 43 - 46

EFFECT OF IONOPHORES ON IMMUNITY TO EIMERIA TENELLA FIELD ISOLATES*

Anish Yadav1, S.K. Gupta2
1Department of Veterinary Parasitology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar - 125 004, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Yadav1 Anish, Gupta2 S.K. (2024). EFFECT OF IONOPHORES ON IMMUNITY TO EIMERIA TENELLA FIELD ISOLATES*. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 41(1): 43 - 46. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Three Eimeria tenella field isolates from Gurgaon district of Haryana (North India) were
studied in a battery test for evaluating the effect of currently used ionophores, maduramicin
(5 ppm) and salinomycin (60 ppm) on development of immunity. Broiler birds (Ross Strain)
were infected with 105 sporulated oocysts each at the age of 2 weeks (day 0) and prophylactic
medication commenced 2 days prior to infection. The birds were challenged with 2 x 105
sporulated oocysts each at the age of 4 weeks i.e. after a withdrawal period of 7 days. The
effect of medication on development of immunity was assessed by calculating the per cent
interference in the development of immunity for individual ionophore compound based on weight
gain, lesion score and mortality (per cent survival). Present study revealed negligible immunity
interference with Gurgaon isolate-I and III by both the ionophores whereas, slight interference in
immunity development was observed with isolate-II

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Bajwa, R.S. and Gill, B.S. (1977). Indian J. Anim. Sci., 47: 126-130.
    2. Ball, S.J. (1966). Res. Vet. Sci., 7: 312-325.
    3. Chapman, H.D. (1992). Poult. Sci., 71: 577-580.
    4. Chapman, H.D. (1996). In: Proc. 45th Western Poult. Disease Conf., Mexico, pp. 115-117.
    5. Chapman, H.D. (1999). Avian Pathol., 28: 155-162.
    6. Davies, S.F.M. et al. (1963). Coccidiosis. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, pp. 1-264.
    7. Dickinson, E.M. (1941). Poult. Sci., 20: 413-424.
    8. Johnson, J. and Reid, W.M. (1970). Exp. Parasitol., 28: 30-36.
    9. Johnson, W.T. (1927). Oregon Agri. College Experimental Station Bulletin 230.
    10. Joyner, L.P. et al. (1963). In: Experimental Chemotherapy, Vol. 1 (Schnitzer, R.J. and Hawking, F. eds.). University of Georgia Press, USA, pp. 253-262.
    11. Karlson, T. and Reid, W.M. (1978). Avian Diseases, 22: 487-495.
    12. Mathis, G.F. et al. (1997). In: Proceedings VII International Coccidiosis Conference, Oxford, U.K., pp. 44.
    13. McDougald, L.R. and Reid, W.M. (1971). Poult. Sci., 50: 1164-1170.
    14. McDougald, L.R. and Roberson, E.L. (1988). In: Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 6th ed. (Booth, N.H.
    15. and McDougald, L.E. eds.). Parima Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, pp. 950-968.
    16. Rose, M.E. (1982). In: The Biology of Coccidia. (Long, P. ed.). Edward Arnold Publishers, London, pp. 330-371.
    17. Singh, J. and Hussain, Q. (1977). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparee, 52(4): 397-402, (Abst. Vet. Bull., 48: 2287).
    18. Stevens, D.A. (1998). In: Encyclopaedia of Immunology, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 (Delves, P.J. and Roitt, I.M. eds.). Academic Press Ltd., London, pp. 591-593.
    19. Tyzzer, E.E. et al. (1932). Am. J. Hyg., 15: 319-393
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)