4.7 Article

Competitive exclusion by Bacillus subtilis spores of Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and Clostridium perfringens in young chickens

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 3, Pages 245-256

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1135(03)00077-4

Keywords

chicken; Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis; Clostridium perfringens; competitive exclusion; Bacillus subtilis spores; bacterial pathogens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cost effective control of avian diseases and food borne pathogens remains a high priority for all sectors of the poultry industry with cleansing and disinfection, vaccination and competitive exclusion approaches being used widely. Previous studies showed that Bacillus subtilis PY79(hr) was an effective competitive exclusion agent for use in poultry to control avian pathogenic Escherichia coli serotype O78:K80. Here we report experiments that were undertaken to test the efficacy of B. subtilis PY79(hr) in the control of Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and Clostridium perfringens in young chickens. To do this, 1-day-old and 20-day-old specific pathogen free (SPF) chicks were dosed with a suspension of B. subtilis spores prior to challenge with S. Enteritidis (S1400) and C. perfringens, respectively. For both challenge models, a single oral inoculum of 1 x 10(9) spores given 24 h prior to challenge was sufficient to suppress colonisation and persistence of both S. Enteritidis and C perfringens. In particular, the faecal shedding of S. Enteritidis, as measured by a semi-quantitative cloacal swabbing technique, was reduced significantly for the 36 days duration of the experiment. B. subtilis persisted in the intestine although with decreasing numbers over the same period. These data add further evidence that B. subtilis spores may be effective agents in the control of avian diseases and food borne pathogens. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available