4.5 Review

Poultry management: a useful tool for the control of necrotic enteritis in poultry

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 323-325

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2016.1154502

关键词

C. perfringens; necrotic enteritis; management; poultry; control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intestinal ecosystem of poultry has been inevitably changed as a result of the ban of antimicrobial growth promoters. The re-emergence of necrotic enteritis has been the most significant threat for the poultry industry, which, in clinical form, causes high mortality and in subclinical forms, affects growth and feed conversion. It is one of the most common and economically devastating bacterial diseases in modern broiler flocks in terms of performance, welfare and mortality. Necrotic enteritis is a multi-factorial disease process, in which a number of co-factors are usually required to precipitate an outbreak of the disease. Although, Clostridium perfringens has been identified as the aetiological agent of the disease, the predisposing factors that lead to over-proliferation of C. perfringens and the subsequent progression to disease are poorly understood. Any factor that causes stress in broiler chicks could suppress the immune system and disturb the balance of the intestinal ecosystem, in such a way that the risk of a necrotic enteritis (NE) outbreak increases. Poultry management could significantly affect the pathogenesis of NE. In particular, feed restriction and coccidiosis vaccination can protect against NE, while extreme house temperature, feed mycotoxins and high stocking density predispose to NE. It becomes really important to understand the pathogenesis of the disease, as well as to clarify the interactions between husbandry, nutritional and infectious factors and the outbreak of necrotic enteritis. This is necessary and extremely important in order to develop managerial strategies at the farm level to control the incidence and severity of the disease in the post-antibiotic era.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据