4.5 Article

Efficacy of several vaccination programmes in commercial layer and broiler breeder hens against experimental challenge with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 367-375

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079450903183645

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were performed to evaluate the protective effect of various vaccination combinations given at 5 and 9 weeks of age against experimental challenge with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis ( SE) phage type 4 at 12 weeks of age. In Experiment 1, groups of commercial layers were vaccinated by one of the following programmes: Group 1, two doses of a SE bacterin (Layermune SE); Group 2, one dose of a live Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum vaccine (Cevac SG9R) followed by one dose of the SE bacterin; Group 3, one dose of each of two different multivalent inactivated vaccines containing SE cells (Corymune 4K and Corymune 7K; and Group 4, unvaccinated, challenged controls. In Experiment 2, groups of broiler breeders were vaccinated by the same programmes as Groups 1 and 2 above while Group 3 was an unvaccinated, challenged control group. All vaccination programmes and the challenge induced significant (P<0.05) seroconversion as measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Overall, in both experiments, all vaccination schemes were significantly effective in reducing organ (spleen, liver and caeca) colonization by the challenge strain as well as reducing faecal excretion for at least 3 weeks. Vaccinated layers in Groups 1 and 2 and broiler breeders in Group 2 showed the greatest reduction in organ colonization and the least faecal excretion. In Experiment 1, layers vaccinated with multivalent inactivated vaccines containing a SE component (Group 3) were only moderately protected, indicating that such a vaccination programme may be useful in farms with good husbandry and housing conditions and low environmental infectious pressure by Salmonella.

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