- Email: [email protected]
Prophylactic and Therapeutic Use of Sulfaquinoxaline* Against Coccidia of Chickens (Eimeria Tenella and Eimeria Necatrix) Under Field Conditions
Prophylactic and Therapeutic Use of Sulfaquinoxaline* Against Coccidia of Chickens {Eimeria Tenella and Eimeria Necatrix) Under Field Conditions Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station, Kingston, Rhode Island (Received for publication, November 24,1947)
T
HE work of Horton-Smith (194243), Swales (1944-46), Hawkins (1943), Levine (1939-41), Farr and Allen (1942), Ripsom and Herrick (1945), Thorp (1947) and Seegar (1946) has shown the value of the sulfonamides in the control of cecal coccidiosis. Delaplane (1945) first reported the use of sulfaquinoxaline as a preventive against enzootic Pasteurella avicida infection in chickens. Delaplane, Batchelder and Higgins (1947) reported that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the mash, when given four days out of eight, 50 percent of the time, was effective in preventing Eimeria tenella infection in chickens during the summer months. They also reported that 0.033 percent given continuously in the mash gave good protection against cecal coccidiosis. Further studies of the prophylactic use of sulfaquinoxaline were continued on a commercial poultry farm where 33,126 broilers were given 0.05 percent of the drug with various feeding schedules. The
* These studies were made possible by a grant from Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N. J. Contribution #712 of the Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station, Kingston, R. I.
work was carried on for a period of nine months so as to include the climatic conditions of winter, spring and summer. MATERIAL AND METHODS The commercial broiler producer who cooperated in this experiment used a three-story building containing nine 30'X30' pens. One end of the house was used for feed storage. The entrance to the pens on each floor was from the feed storage room, and in order to reach the end pens it was necessary to pass through the first two. Under these conditions there was opportunity for considerable coccidial contamination. At the time a new group of chicks was added there were eight pens of older birds in the building. The owner had reported severe losses from coccidiosis in the past. The chicks were battery reared for three weeks before being placed on the floor of the main broiler building. It was a practice to place from 1,000 to 1,500 birds in a pen each week, and in some instances the number was between 1,500 and 2,000. Each group was started on clean peanuthull litter which was not changed, nor was more litter added until after the birds were marketed.
411
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE, AND T. C. HIGGINS
412
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
When the chicks were eight weeks old, 3. "1-4"—one day on medicated mash 300 to 600 were removed from each pen out of each five days, or 20 percent of the and placed in individual, colony-type time. houses, approximately 300 birds in each 4. "2-4"—two days on medicated mash house. In some cases the birds were out of each six days, or 33.3 percent of the placed on clean litter in the colony houses time. while in others the litter had been used 5. "4-4"—four days on medicated for the preceding group. mash out of each eight days, or 50 percent Observations on this farm indicated of the time. that during the winter and early spring When pellets or grain were used they symptoms of cecal coccidiosis were seldom were given only on the days when the observed until after the birds had been on birds were fed the regular mash. the floor for at least two weeks. The proEach day the birds were observed and phylactic use of sulfaquinoxaline was the dead ones autopsied. The diagnosis started at the beginning of the third of coccidiosis was based on gross lesions. week from the time the birds were placed Those showing only cecal lesions, namely on the floor. During late spring and sum- cecal hemorrhage or cores, were classified mer it was necessary to start using the as E. tenella mortality. E. necatrix conmedicated feed one week sooner. In most stituted the predominant type of ininstances the medicated feed was started testinal coccidia and all of the dead birds before symptoms of coccidiosis were ob- showing only whitish or reddish pin-point served, but sometimes cecal coccidiosis lesions along the wall of the intestine were occurred before the medicated feed was classified as having died of this type. used. Birds which showed both cecal and inSince the immunity studies, Grumbles testinal lesions of coccidiosis were classiet al. (1947), had indicated that the birds fied as "both." Some birds died from other on this farm became highly resistant to primary causes such as ulcerated gizzards, cecal coccidiosis after being on the floor cannibalism, injuries, drowning and five or six weeks, the use of the medicated smothering, but if any lesions of cocfeed beyond this time was to control in- cidiosis were observed in the birds they testinal coccidiosis, due principally to were classified as having died of coccidioEimeria necatrix. The studies had also sis. shown that sulfaquinoxaline did not interThe chicks of various pens were of fere with the development of resistance to mixed sex and breed, including New cecal coccidiosis, and the time required Hampshires, Barred Rocks, White Legdid not differ materially from that neces- horns and New Hampshire and Barred sary in the untreated control pens. Rock crosses. Weights were obtained at Mash containing 0.05 percent sulfa- 11§ weeks by weighing 100 birds taken at quinoxaline was used with the following random from each pen and using the five intermittent feeding schedules: average as a representative figure (Table 1. "2-3"—two days on medicated mash 2). These data, while valuable, are unout of each five days, or 40 percent of the satisfactory for any direct comparisons time. because from time to time the feed and 2. "1-3"—one day on medicated mash feeding practices and the proportions of out of each four days, or 25 percent of the the different breeds of birds in the pens time. on the farm varied.
12- 9-46 5-31-45
12- 2-46 1- 6-47 12-23-46 1-20-47 2-27-47 2-19-47 2-14-47 3-20-47 3-13-47 3- 6-47 4-18-47 4-10-47 3-23-47
10-15-46 10- 7-46 11-11-46 12-30-46 1-27-47 1-13-47
11- 4-46 10-21-46 12-16-46 11-25-46 11-18-46
1,250 1,835
1,107 1,349 1,178 1,332 1,314 1,500 1,238 1,601 1,247 1,276 1,407 1,431 1,719
1,083 1,306 1,288 1,053 1,351 1,267
1,250 761 1,129 1,194 1,125
1,043
1,575
#1 #2
B-3 B-7 B-9 C-5° C-l C-2" C-3° C-7 C-8 C-9 D-2 D-3« D-5
A-l A-2 . B-6 B-8 C-4° C-6°
A-7 A-9 B-l B-4 B-5
A-8
D-l»
C N B
_ _ _ _
_
_
_
— —
—
1 — —
-
— _
3
__
___
C N B
5
N
B
_
_ _ 3 — — 1 — —
_ _ — i _ _ _ _ _ "2-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ "4-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ i _ 4 _ _ i _ 8 3
_
1 _ _ 2 — —
_ _ . — _ .._.._ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ 15 _ _ 4 i _ "1-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash)
1
_ _ 1 — 3 — 1 — in mash) — —
___
C
Weeks on Floor® 4
_ _ 1 — — 5 — — _ _ _ l _ _ 14 1 — 1 _ _ 21 15 15 14 8 1 6 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 i _ 10 "1-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline — _ — — _ — 2 — — 5
___
_ — — —
_ _ — — — — _ —
C N B
3
Control Pens (non-medicated) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 91 _ _ 6 — — — 40 — — 76 2 15 52 14 58 "2-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 — — i _ _ 14 4— 66— 11 — — _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1— _ 2 — — _ _ _ !
2
___
_ _ _ — — — — — — _ _ _
— — — — — —
C N B
1
C
6
B
.
— — — — 1 — _ _
i _ _
2 — —
101 — — — — 1 14 1 1 4 2 — —
12 _ _ 6 — — io _ —
, _
_
_
_
2 — —
43 — _ _— 1 4 _ — _ _ _
7 — — 5 — — _ 4 _
.
2 — 1
_ _ _ — 1 — — 2 — 1 — —
___
11 4 6 _
11 4 19 1 34 1
„
— — — — 1 — 15 5
— — — _ —
7
C N B
9 — —
1 2 2 4
— — 3 _ 1
12—
11 1 2 _ 3
2 5 — 3 5 34 25
N
_ _ 3 2 1 _
_ _ — _
_
_
_1 2 2
_
_
_
_
_— _ — _ — _ —
1 — — 5 5 5 3 3 _
„
2 — —
_ _ _ _ _ _ — 1 — _ _ _
___
_ _
1 5 — — 16 —
.
C N B
8
of the use of sulfaquinoxaline in the prevention and treatment of coccidiosis in 32 treated and two untreated pens of broilers on a commercial poultry farm
Key: @—Chicks reared in batteries for the first three weeks. C—Cecal coccidiosis. N—Intestinal coccidiosis (E. necatrix principally). B—Cecal and intestinal coccidiosis simultaneously. *—Medication was not started in these groups until after mortality from cecal coccidiosis had occurred. 0 —Medication discontinued at the end of the sixth week.
4-25-47
10-28-46
Started
Birds
Pen
TABLE 1..^-Results
om http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015 i8
9
20 5C 40 5
20 26 40
„
12
7 21 89 42
6
24 47 18 4 5
165 373
Total
l _
H g & f) *• O-« X O
2 H
H W H > g S
g
t** N > Q S ^ X > tl
,-.
c/1
414
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS TABLE 2.—Classified losses due to coccidiosis on a commercial broiler farm together with average weights of a sample of birds Coccidiosis Mortality Total %
Weight in lbs. at 11J weeks
13.20 20.32
2.00 1.59
Pen % Cecal #1 #2
% Necatrix
%Both
Control Pens (non -medicated) .72 1.76 5.48 5.39
10.72 9.48
"2-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 2.16 2.16 2.74 .74 0 3.48 .84 0 .93 .08 .9 0 1.35 .45 .30 0 0 .30 .26 .066 0 .33 .32 0 .48 .16 .43 .37 0 .80 .48 0 1.60 1.12 .54 0 0 .54 1.28 .21 0 1.49 3.14 2.09 1.11 6.1 .34 2.44 1.10 1.10
A-l A-2 B-6 B-8 C-4 C-6
"1-3" 1.84 2.38 .93 1.89 1.18 2.52
A-7 A-9 B-l B-4 B-5
"1-4" ' Feeding 1.60 .65 1.86 .41 2.48
A-8
1
mash) 1.85 2.38 .93 1.89 1.92 3.15
—
2.27
—
2.06 2.17 2.48 1.87 2.13
—
1.81 1.82 2.12
—
•
2.18 2.24
— —
Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 0 1.60 0 0 .65 0 1.24 3.18 .08 0 0 .41 0 2.48 0
2.08 2.19 2.25 2.86 2.10
"2-4" 1 Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) .86 .86 0 0
2.34
1
D-l
Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxalinein 0 .018 0 0 0 0 0 0 .37 .37 .63 0
2.21
1.00
Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 1.13 .13 0
Although it is recognized that more control birds would have been desirable, one pen of 1,250 chicks was available during the winter, and another of 1,835 was used during the summer, so it is believed that they indicate the anticipated mortality if no control measures had been used on the farm. RESULTS The data in Table 1 show the results of the unmedicated controls, and those receiving sulfaquinoxaline in the mash at
2.00
the rate of 0.05 percent intermittently on various schedules. The mortality from coccidiosis is shown by the week and by source, i.e., cecal (E. tenella), intestinal (E. necatrix), or a combination of the types. The first group of unmedicated controls (Pen 1) consisted of 1,250 birds which were representative of 1947 winter brooding conditions. There were 134 deaths from E. tenella, nine from E. necatrix, and 22 from a combination of both infections. This represented a loss of 13.2 percent
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
B-3 B-7 B-9 C-5 C-l C-2 C-3 C-7 C-8 C-9 D-2 D-3 D-S
SULFAQUINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR COCCIDIOSIS
was considered coccidiosis since it was difficult to state definitely which was responsible for death. The situation in pen D-5 was similar to that in D-3 and it is quite possible that the staphylococcus infection influenced the mortality attributed to coccidiosis as there was a mortality of 2.4 percent of the chicks in the group. In pen B-7 losses from coccidiosis started to occur the day following the use of the medicated feed. One chick died from coccidiosis during the second week but before the medicated feed was used. During the third week 18, the fourth week 12, fifth week 11, sixth week one, and seventh week four chickens died from coccidiosis. This sequence more nearly represents what would be expected when medication is delayed until the disease outbreak occurs. The only other pen in which the losses exceeded two percent was pen B-3, where it was greater than in other pens, but no obvious factor was observed as a complication. The loss from coccidiosis among 17,699 chickens given the medicated feed on the " 2 - 3 " feeding schedule was 1.73 percent. Pens A-l, A-2, B-6, B-8, C-4 and C-6 were given 0.05 percent sulf aquinoxaline one day out of four ("1-3" feeding schedule). The mortality from coccidiosis varied from 0.93 to 3.15 percent. In pen C-6, with a coccidiosis mortality of 3.15 percent, ten chickens died after the sixth week because the medicated feed had been discontinued. Seven of the ten chicks died from E. necatrix infection and three from E. tenella, indicating that resistance was not complete against these infections. The situation in pen C-4 was similar to that of C-6, for the medicated feed was discontinued after the sixth week and subsequently 20 deaths from coccidiosis occurred. There were 7,348 birds on this
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
(Table 2) from all forms of coccidiosis. The chicks in this pen comprised New Hampshires and Barred Rock-New Hampshire crosses. The average weight of 100 representative birds was approximately one-fourth pound less than those receiving treatment at a corresponding time. The second control group (Pen 2) consisted of 1,835 New Hampshires which reflected summer climatic conditions. There were 174 deaths from E. tenella, 100 from E. necatrix, and 99 from a combination of these infections. This represented a loss of 20.32 percent (Table 2) from all forms of coccidiosis. The average weight of 100 representative birds was approximately 0.2 pounds less per bird than those receiving treatment at a corresponding time. The two control groups comprised 3,085 birds with an average mortality of 17.43 percent from coccidiosis. In Tables 1 and 2 the results from 13 pens of birds treated with sulf aquinoxaline two days out of each five ("2-3" feeding schedule) are shown and designated as pens B-3, B-7, B-9, C-5, C-l, C-2, C-3, C-7, C-8, C-9, D-2, D-3 and D-5. These pens were studied under winter, spring and summer climatic conditions. The mortality from coccidiosis varied from 6.1 percent in pen D-3 to 0.30 percent in pen C-l. The high mortality in pen D-3 may be attributed to the appearance of coccidiosis before the medicated feed was used and to the occurrence of both E. tenella and E. necatrix infections simultaneously. Further confusion arose in this pen during the fifth week as a result of a staphlococcus infection which necessitated increasing the amount of sulf aquinoxaline to 0.033 percent given continuously in an effort to overcome the difficulty. After approximately one week the latter trouble declined appreciably. The confusion may have resulted in an exaggeration of what
415
416
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
ences between the various schedules are not very significant. Too much emphasis cannot be given the "2-4" schedule because only one pen was employed and individual pens on other schedules gave similar results. Analysis of the intermittent feeding schedules for 33,124 chickens shows an average mortality of 1.79 percent from coccidiosis as compared to an average of 17.43 percent for the unmedicated controls. On many poultry farms E. necatrix infection is also important to young developing birds. Sulfaquinoxaline given in the mash at 0.05 percent on various intermittent schedules resulted in the following death loss: (Table 2): " 2 - 3 " schedule, 0.51percent; " 1 - 3 " schedule, 0.27 percent; "1-4" schedule, 0.02 per cent; "2-4" schedule, 0 percent and "4-4" schedule, 0.13 percent. Both E. tenella and E. necatrix occurred together as follows: " 2 3" schedule, 0.12 percent; " 1 - 3 " schedule, 0.08 percent; "1-4" schedule, 0.2 percent; "2-4" schedule, 0 percent; and "4-4" schedule, 0 percent. In contrast, 3.53 per cent E. necatrix and 3.92 percent E. necatrix plus E. tenella resulted in the untreated controls. No evidence of toxic symptoms resulting from the drug were manifested in any of the chickens in this study. Furthermore, tissues which had been collected from representative birds fed 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline four days out of each eight were studied histologically and failed to show any microscopic lesions.* DISCUSSION
The data obtained from these studies indicate that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxa* We are indebted to Dr. J. H. Milliff, Dept. of Veterinary Anatomy, Texas A & M College for the examination of the tissues.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
schedule with an average mortality of 2.17 percent from coccidiosis. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, pens A-7, A-9, B-l, B-4 and B-5 were given 0.05 percent of sulfaquinoxaline feed one day out of each five ("1-4" feeding schedule). The mortality from coccidiosis ranged from 0.41 to 3.18 percent. In B-l the heaviest mortality from coccidiosis occurred during the sixth week, when 29 chickens died from E. tenella and E. necatrix. In B-5, 18 of 28 deaths from coccidiosis occurred in the 300 chickens which had been removed to a colony house during the seventh week after four weeks on the floor. The reason for the high mortality in the colony house is unknown. There were 5,459 birds studied on the "1-4" schedule with an average mortality of 1.79 percent from coccidiosis. Since these birds were studied during the fall and winter, the lower average mortality in the pens would not appear significant in comparison to that from the other feeding schedules. Only one pen (A-8) was given 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed two days out of each six ("2-4" feeding schedule). Nine chickens died from coccidiosis or 0.86 percent. One pen, D-l, was given medicated feed four days out of each eight, because of the extent of earlier studies reported by Delaplane, et al. (1947). The pen consisted of 1,575 birds from which 18, or 1.13 percent, died of coccidiosis. This mortality occurred within a day or two following the use of the medicated feed; nine out of the 18 deaths occurred during the first week so that this phase of the study more nearly represents treatment of an outbreak rather than prophylaxis. All the intermittent feeding schedules gave good protection against coccidiosis when compared to the results obtained from the unmedicated controls. The differ-
SULFAQUINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR COCCIDIOSIS
* Pens B-l, B-3, B-4, B-9 and No. 1 controls were used for this study.
more losses from coccidiosis would have resulted following the discontinuation of the medicated feed. The studies do not indicate inferior results from the "1-4" schedule, but it is believed unsafe for routine use in the field because the four days between the use of the medicated feed allows sufficient time for infection to develop under certain combinations of factors. If intermittent use of the medicated feed is to be employed either for prevention or treatment, the " 2 - 3 " schedule is desirable because it gives some leeway for errors. The data on the birds' gain in weight, although of value, is unsatisfactory for any direct comparisons, because from time to time the feed and feeding practices and the proportions of different breeds of birds in the pens varied. No symptoms of toxicity to the drug were noted. This fact was probably best demonstrated by the consistent progress in growth between the groups of birds one week apart in age. Tissues examined from representative birds given the drug on a "4-4" schedule failed to show any microscopic lesions of drug toxicity. Studies (unpublished data) show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline can be given intermittently to laying birds without affecting egg production or hatchability. The prophylactic use of a sulfonamide in the control of coccidiosis would seem to be preferable to treatment after the disease has occurred, because of the effect of the disease on the rate of growth and efficiency of feed utilization. Prophylaxis would tend to reduce the uncertainty of anticipating a disease outbreak and avoid the losses sustained before the infection is brought under control. Laboratory experiments, Delaplane et al. (1947) and Grumbles et al. (1947), show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed has considerable value in over-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
line given in the feed on various intermittent feeding schedules affords good prophylaxis against cecal and intestinal coccidia, under field conditions. The low level of sulfaquinoxaline in the feed did not prevent all losses from coccidiosis because 1.73, 2.17, 1.79, 0.86 and 1.13 percent respectively died on the "2-3", " 1 - 3 " , "1-4", "2-4" and "4-4" feeding schedules, as compared to 17.43 percent in the unmedicated controls. This indicated that a high percentage of the birds so treated were protected from fatal coccidiosis when exposed to severely contaminated surroundings normally found in broiler plants operating on a continuous weekly replacement plan. Individual groups of chickens on some of the intermittent schedules had losses varying from 0.30 to 6.1 percent ("2-3" schedule), 0.93 to 3-.15 percent ("1-3" schedule), and 0.41 to 3.18 percent ("1-4" schedule). In most instances the greatest losses in individual groups can be explained because the medicated feed was not used until after the outbreak of the disease or because both cecal and intestinal coccidiosis occurred together. In some cases losses were observed after the medicated feed had been discontinued at the end of the sixth week, although laboratory studies of representative chickens from various pens had shown well-established immunity against cecal coccidiosis after the birds had been on the floor six weeks, Grumbles et al. (1947).* Under these particular field conditions it appears that a few individuals failed to develop sufficient resistance to withstand the degree of exposure to which they were subjected. The greater number of birds, however, had acquired their resistance; otherwise
417
418
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
SUMMARY
A study of the prophylactic use of 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed given on various intermittent feeding schedules, i.e. "2-3", "1-3", "1-4", "2-4" and "4-4" schedules, gave good protection against cecal and intestinal coccidia since
losses from coccidiosis were 1.73, 2.17, 1.80, 0.86 and 1.13 percent respectively as compared to 17.43 percent in the untreated controls. No evidence of adverse effects on growth were observed with any of the various feeding schedules employing 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed. Studies (unpublished data) show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline can be given intermittently to laying birds without affecting egg production or hatchability; histological studies of the tissues failed to show any microscopic lesions of toxicity. Sulfaquinoxaline used as a prophylactic treatment at the rate of 0.05 percent in the feed, preferably two days out of each five, constitutes an effective means of preventing excessive losses of chickens from cecal and intestinal coccidiosis. REFERENCES
Delaplane, J. P., 1945. Sulfaquinoxaline in preventing upper respiratory infection in chickens inoculated with infective field material containing Pasteurdla avicida. Am. Jour. Vet. Res. 6: 207208. Delaplane, J. P., R. M. Batchelder, and T. C. Higgins, 1947. Sulfaquinoxaline in the prevention of Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. No. Am. Vet. 28: 19-24. Farr, M. M., and R. W. Allen, 1942. Sulfaguanadine feeding as a control measure for cecal coccidiosis of chickens. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 100:47-51. Grumbles, L. C , J. P. Delaplane, and T. C. Higgins, 1948. Immunity studies on Eimeria tenella infection of chickens in relation to sulfaquinoxaline therapy. Poultry Sci. 27: 169-171. Grumbles, L. C , and J. P. Delaplane, 1948. Relative activity of sulfamethazine and sulfaquinoxaline against Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. Amer. Jour. Vet. Res. (In press) Hawkins, P. A., 1943. Sulfamethazine treatment of cecal coccidiosis. Poultry Sci. 12: 459. Horton-Smith, C , and E. L. Taylor, 1942. Sulfamethazine and sulfadiazine treatment m cecal coccidiosis of chickens. Vet. Record, 54:516. , 1943. Saturated solution of sulfamethazine as a substitute for drinking water in the treatment
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
coming losses from coccidiosis as late as 72 hours following exposure. In this respect the drug compares in activity with sulfamerazine and sulfamethazine as reported by Swales (1946) and Hawkins (1943). Intestinal coccidiosis in which E. necatrix was the most prevalent species was also a problem on this broiler farm and it was for this reason that the medicated feed was used until the birds were sold as broilers. Under average farm conditions where birds are moved to clean ranges at eight to ten weeks of age, the medicated feed could be discontinued as the hazards of infection would be overcome in most instances. In some of the experimental pens, outbreaks of cecal and intestinal coccidiosis occurred before prophylactic treatment was under way. The results indicate that sulfaquinoxaline had considerable therapeutic value in reducing death losses. These results are further substantiated by observations of the use of the drug under different field conditions in which disease outbreaks had occurred and were brought under control. Sulfaquinoxaline as used in the studies would appear to have value in preventing other species of coccidia such as Eimeria acervulina, as such species were only observed in individual birds which had died from the control pens. Similar results were obtained in the laboratory in which a culture containing a mixture of species had been used to inoculate the chickens (unpublished data).
SULFAQTJINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR CoCCIDIOSIS
Swales, W. E., 1946. On the chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis {Eimeria tenella) of chickens. II. Further studies on the use of drugs in established infections. Can. Jour. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 10: 3-13. Swales, W. E. and G. H. Benliani, 1946. On the chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis of chickens. IV. Experiments on the use of chemotherapy during the immune exposure of chickens. Jour. Vet. Med. Assoc. 108: 393^00. Thorp, W. T. S., S. Gordeuk, P. J. Glantz, and Marion Learned, 1947. The chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis. Jour. Vet. Res. 8:196-203.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
of cecal coccidiosis in chickens. Vet. Record, 55: 109-110. Levine, P. P., 1939. The effects of sulfanilamide on the course of experimental avian coccidiosis. Cornell Vet. 29:309-320. , 1941. The coccidiostatic effect of sulfaguanidine. Cornell Vet. 3 1 : 107-111. Ripsom, C. A., and C. A. Herrick, 1945. Effects of various sulfa compounds on the protozoan parasite Eimeria tenella. Jour. Parasitology 31: 9 8 108. Seegar, K. C , and A. E. Tomhave, 1946. Effect of sulfaguanidine on cecal coccidiosis. Univ. Delaware Bui. 260: 1-19.
419
T
HE work of Horton-Smith (194243), Swales (1944-46), Hawkins (1943), Levine (1939-41), Farr and Allen (1942), Ripsom and Herrick (1945), Thorp (1947) and Seegar (1946) has shown the value of the sulfonamides in the control of cecal coccidiosis. Delaplane (1945) first reported the use of sulfaquinoxaline as a preventive against enzootic Pasteurella avicida infection in chickens. Delaplane, Batchelder and Higgins (1947) reported that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the mash, when given four days out of eight, 50 percent of the time, was effective in preventing Eimeria tenella infection in chickens during the summer months. They also reported that 0.033 percent given continuously in the mash gave good protection against cecal coccidiosis. Further studies of the prophylactic use of sulfaquinoxaline were continued on a commercial poultry farm where 33,126 broilers were given 0.05 percent of the drug with various feeding schedules. The
* These studies were made possible by a grant from Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N. J. Contribution #712 of the Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station, Kingston, R. I.
work was carried on for a period of nine months so as to include the climatic conditions of winter, spring and summer. MATERIAL AND METHODS The commercial broiler producer who cooperated in this experiment used a three-story building containing nine 30'X30' pens. One end of the house was used for feed storage. The entrance to the pens on each floor was from the feed storage room, and in order to reach the end pens it was necessary to pass through the first two. Under these conditions there was opportunity for considerable coccidial contamination. At the time a new group of chicks was added there were eight pens of older birds in the building. The owner had reported severe losses from coccidiosis in the past. The chicks were battery reared for three weeks before being placed on the floor of the main broiler building. It was a practice to place from 1,000 to 1,500 birds in a pen each week, and in some instances the number was between 1,500 and 2,000. Each group was started on clean peanuthull litter which was not changed, nor was more litter added until after the birds were marketed.
411
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE, AND T. C. HIGGINS
412
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
When the chicks were eight weeks old, 3. "1-4"—one day on medicated mash 300 to 600 were removed from each pen out of each five days, or 20 percent of the and placed in individual, colony-type time. houses, approximately 300 birds in each 4. "2-4"—two days on medicated mash house. In some cases the birds were out of each six days, or 33.3 percent of the placed on clean litter in the colony houses time. while in others the litter had been used 5. "4-4"—four days on medicated for the preceding group. mash out of each eight days, or 50 percent Observations on this farm indicated of the time. that during the winter and early spring When pellets or grain were used they symptoms of cecal coccidiosis were seldom were given only on the days when the observed until after the birds had been on birds were fed the regular mash. the floor for at least two weeks. The proEach day the birds were observed and phylactic use of sulfaquinoxaline was the dead ones autopsied. The diagnosis started at the beginning of the third of coccidiosis was based on gross lesions. week from the time the birds were placed Those showing only cecal lesions, namely on the floor. During late spring and sum- cecal hemorrhage or cores, were classified mer it was necessary to start using the as E. tenella mortality. E. necatrix conmedicated feed one week sooner. In most stituted the predominant type of ininstances the medicated feed was started testinal coccidia and all of the dead birds before symptoms of coccidiosis were ob- showing only whitish or reddish pin-point served, but sometimes cecal coccidiosis lesions along the wall of the intestine were occurred before the medicated feed was classified as having died of this type. used. Birds which showed both cecal and inSince the immunity studies, Grumbles testinal lesions of coccidiosis were classiet al. (1947), had indicated that the birds fied as "both." Some birds died from other on this farm became highly resistant to primary causes such as ulcerated gizzards, cecal coccidiosis after being on the floor cannibalism, injuries, drowning and five or six weeks, the use of the medicated smothering, but if any lesions of cocfeed beyond this time was to control in- cidiosis were observed in the birds they testinal coccidiosis, due principally to were classified as having died of coccidioEimeria necatrix. The studies had also sis. shown that sulfaquinoxaline did not interThe chicks of various pens were of fere with the development of resistance to mixed sex and breed, including New cecal coccidiosis, and the time required Hampshires, Barred Rocks, White Legdid not differ materially from that neces- horns and New Hampshire and Barred sary in the untreated control pens. Rock crosses. Weights were obtained at Mash containing 0.05 percent sulfa- 11§ weeks by weighing 100 birds taken at quinoxaline was used with the following random from each pen and using the five intermittent feeding schedules: average as a representative figure (Table 1. "2-3"—two days on medicated mash 2). These data, while valuable, are unout of each five days, or 40 percent of the satisfactory for any direct comparisons time. because from time to time the feed and 2. "1-3"—one day on medicated mash feeding practices and the proportions of out of each four days, or 25 percent of the the different breeds of birds in the pens time. on the farm varied.
12- 9-46 5-31-45
12- 2-46 1- 6-47 12-23-46 1-20-47 2-27-47 2-19-47 2-14-47 3-20-47 3-13-47 3- 6-47 4-18-47 4-10-47 3-23-47
10-15-46 10- 7-46 11-11-46 12-30-46 1-27-47 1-13-47
11- 4-46 10-21-46 12-16-46 11-25-46 11-18-46
1,250 1,835
1,107 1,349 1,178 1,332 1,314 1,500 1,238 1,601 1,247 1,276 1,407 1,431 1,719
1,083 1,306 1,288 1,053 1,351 1,267
1,250 761 1,129 1,194 1,125
1,043
1,575
#1 #2
B-3 B-7 B-9 C-5° C-l C-2" C-3° C-7 C-8 C-9 D-2 D-3« D-5
A-l A-2 . B-6 B-8 C-4° C-6°
A-7 A-9 B-l B-4 B-5
A-8
D-l»
C N B
_ _ _ _
_
_
_
— —
—
1 — —
-
— _
3
__
___
C N B
5
N
B
_
_ _ 3 — — 1 — —
_ _ — i _ _ _ _ _ "2-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 _ _ "4-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ i _ 4 _ _ i _ 8 3
_
1 _ _ 2 — —
_ _ . — _ .._.._ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ 15 _ _ 4 i _ "1-4" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash)
1
_ _ 1 — 3 — 1 — in mash) — —
___
C
Weeks on Floor® 4
_ _ 1 — — 5 — — _ _ _ l _ _ 14 1 — 1 _ _ 21 15 15 14 8 1 6 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 i _ 10 "1-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline — _ — — _ — 2 — — 5
___
_ — — —
_ _ — — — — _ —
C N B
3
Control Pens (non-medicated) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 91 _ _ 6 — — — 40 — — 76 2 15 52 14 58 "2-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 — — i _ _ 14 4— 66— 11 — — _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1— _ 2 — — _ _ _ !
2
___
_ _ _ — — — — — — _ _ _
— — — — — —
C N B
1
C
6
B
.
— — — — 1 — _ _
i _ _
2 — —
101 — — — — 1 14 1 1 4 2 — —
12 _ _ 6 — — io _ —
, _
_
_
_
2 — —
43 — _ _— 1 4 _ — _ _ _
7 — — 5 — — _ 4 _
.
2 — 1
_ _ _ — 1 — — 2 — 1 — —
___
11 4 6 _
11 4 19 1 34 1
„
— — — — 1 — 15 5
— — — _ —
7
C N B
9 — —
1 2 2 4
— — 3 _ 1
12—
11 1 2 _ 3
2 5 — 3 5 34 25
N
_ _ 3 2 1 _
_ _ — _
_
_
_1 2 2
_
_
_
_
_— _ — _ — _ —
1 — — 5 5 5 3 3 _
„
2 — —
_ _ _ _ _ _ — 1 — _ _ _
___
_ _
1 5 — — 16 —
.
C N B
8
of the use of sulfaquinoxaline in the prevention and treatment of coccidiosis in 32 treated and two untreated pens of broilers on a commercial poultry farm
Key: @—Chicks reared in batteries for the first three weeks. C—Cecal coccidiosis. N—Intestinal coccidiosis (E. necatrix principally). B—Cecal and intestinal coccidiosis simultaneously. *—Medication was not started in these groups until after mortality from cecal coccidiosis had occurred. 0 —Medication discontinued at the end of the sixth week.
4-25-47
10-28-46
Started
Birds
Pen
TABLE 1..^-Results
om http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015 i8
9
20 5C 40 5
20 26 40
„
12
7 21 89 42
6
24 47 18 4 5
165 373
Total
l _
H g & f) *• O-« X O
2 H
H W H > g S
g
t** N > Q S ^ X > tl
,-.
c/1
414
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS TABLE 2.—Classified losses due to coccidiosis on a commercial broiler farm together with average weights of a sample of birds Coccidiosis Mortality Total %
Weight in lbs. at 11J weeks
13.20 20.32
2.00 1.59
Pen % Cecal #1 #2
% Necatrix
%Both
Control Pens (non -medicated) .72 1.76 5.48 5.39
10.72 9.48
"2-3" Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 2.16 2.16 2.74 .74 0 3.48 .84 0 .93 .08 .9 0 1.35 .45 .30 0 0 .30 .26 .066 0 .33 .32 0 .48 .16 .43 .37 0 .80 .48 0 1.60 1.12 .54 0 0 .54 1.28 .21 0 1.49 3.14 2.09 1.11 6.1 .34 2.44 1.10 1.10
A-l A-2 B-6 B-8 C-4 C-6
"1-3" 1.84 2.38 .93 1.89 1.18 2.52
A-7 A-9 B-l B-4 B-5
"1-4" ' Feeding 1.60 .65 1.86 .41 2.48
A-8
1
mash) 1.85 2.38 .93 1.89 1.92 3.15
—
2.27
—
2.06 2.17 2.48 1.87 2.13
—
1.81 1.82 2.12
—
•
2.18 2.24
— —
Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 0 1.60 0 0 .65 0 1.24 3.18 .08 0 0 .41 0 2.48 0
2.08 2.19 2.25 2.86 2.10
"2-4" 1 Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) .86 .86 0 0
2.34
1
D-l
Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxalinein 0 .018 0 0 0 0 0 0 .37 .37 .63 0
2.21
1.00
Feeding Schedule (0.05% sulfaquinoxaline in mash) 1.13 .13 0
Although it is recognized that more control birds would have been desirable, one pen of 1,250 chicks was available during the winter, and another of 1,835 was used during the summer, so it is believed that they indicate the anticipated mortality if no control measures had been used on the farm. RESULTS The data in Table 1 show the results of the unmedicated controls, and those receiving sulfaquinoxaline in the mash at
2.00
the rate of 0.05 percent intermittently on various schedules. The mortality from coccidiosis is shown by the week and by source, i.e., cecal (E. tenella), intestinal (E. necatrix), or a combination of the types. The first group of unmedicated controls (Pen 1) consisted of 1,250 birds which were representative of 1947 winter brooding conditions. There were 134 deaths from E. tenella, nine from E. necatrix, and 22 from a combination of both infections. This represented a loss of 13.2 percent
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
B-3 B-7 B-9 C-5 C-l C-2 C-3 C-7 C-8 C-9 D-2 D-3 D-S
SULFAQUINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR COCCIDIOSIS
was considered coccidiosis since it was difficult to state definitely which was responsible for death. The situation in pen D-5 was similar to that in D-3 and it is quite possible that the staphylococcus infection influenced the mortality attributed to coccidiosis as there was a mortality of 2.4 percent of the chicks in the group. In pen B-7 losses from coccidiosis started to occur the day following the use of the medicated feed. One chick died from coccidiosis during the second week but before the medicated feed was used. During the third week 18, the fourth week 12, fifth week 11, sixth week one, and seventh week four chickens died from coccidiosis. This sequence more nearly represents what would be expected when medication is delayed until the disease outbreak occurs. The only other pen in which the losses exceeded two percent was pen B-3, where it was greater than in other pens, but no obvious factor was observed as a complication. The loss from coccidiosis among 17,699 chickens given the medicated feed on the " 2 - 3 " feeding schedule was 1.73 percent. Pens A-l, A-2, B-6, B-8, C-4 and C-6 were given 0.05 percent sulf aquinoxaline one day out of four ("1-3" feeding schedule). The mortality from coccidiosis varied from 0.93 to 3.15 percent. In pen C-6, with a coccidiosis mortality of 3.15 percent, ten chickens died after the sixth week because the medicated feed had been discontinued. Seven of the ten chicks died from E. necatrix infection and three from E. tenella, indicating that resistance was not complete against these infections. The situation in pen C-4 was similar to that of C-6, for the medicated feed was discontinued after the sixth week and subsequently 20 deaths from coccidiosis occurred. There were 7,348 birds on this
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
(Table 2) from all forms of coccidiosis. The chicks in this pen comprised New Hampshires and Barred Rock-New Hampshire crosses. The average weight of 100 representative birds was approximately one-fourth pound less than those receiving treatment at a corresponding time. The second control group (Pen 2) consisted of 1,835 New Hampshires which reflected summer climatic conditions. There were 174 deaths from E. tenella, 100 from E. necatrix, and 99 from a combination of these infections. This represented a loss of 20.32 percent (Table 2) from all forms of coccidiosis. The average weight of 100 representative birds was approximately 0.2 pounds less per bird than those receiving treatment at a corresponding time. The two control groups comprised 3,085 birds with an average mortality of 17.43 percent from coccidiosis. In Tables 1 and 2 the results from 13 pens of birds treated with sulf aquinoxaline two days out of each five ("2-3" feeding schedule) are shown and designated as pens B-3, B-7, B-9, C-5, C-l, C-2, C-3, C-7, C-8, C-9, D-2, D-3 and D-5. These pens were studied under winter, spring and summer climatic conditions. The mortality from coccidiosis varied from 6.1 percent in pen D-3 to 0.30 percent in pen C-l. The high mortality in pen D-3 may be attributed to the appearance of coccidiosis before the medicated feed was used and to the occurrence of both E. tenella and E. necatrix infections simultaneously. Further confusion arose in this pen during the fifth week as a result of a staphlococcus infection which necessitated increasing the amount of sulf aquinoxaline to 0.033 percent given continuously in an effort to overcome the difficulty. After approximately one week the latter trouble declined appreciably. The confusion may have resulted in an exaggeration of what
415
416
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
ences between the various schedules are not very significant. Too much emphasis cannot be given the "2-4" schedule because only one pen was employed and individual pens on other schedules gave similar results. Analysis of the intermittent feeding schedules for 33,124 chickens shows an average mortality of 1.79 percent from coccidiosis as compared to an average of 17.43 percent for the unmedicated controls. On many poultry farms E. necatrix infection is also important to young developing birds. Sulfaquinoxaline given in the mash at 0.05 percent on various intermittent schedules resulted in the following death loss: (Table 2): " 2 - 3 " schedule, 0.51percent; " 1 - 3 " schedule, 0.27 percent; "1-4" schedule, 0.02 per cent; "2-4" schedule, 0 percent and "4-4" schedule, 0.13 percent. Both E. tenella and E. necatrix occurred together as follows: " 2 3" schedule, 0.12 percent; " 1 - 3 " schedule, 0.08 percent; "1-4" schedule, 0.2 percent; "2-4" schedule, 0 percent; and "4-4" schedule, 0 percent. In contrast, 3.53 per cent E. necatrix and 3.92 percent E. necatrix plus E. tenella resulted in the untreated controls. No evidence of toxic symptoms resulting from the drug were manifested in any of the chickens in this study. Furthermore, tissues which had been collected from representative birds fed 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline four days out of each eight were studied histologically and failed to show any microscopic lesions.* DISCUSSION
The data obtained from these studies indicate that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxa* We are indebted to Dr. J. H. Milliff, Dept. of Veterinary Anatomy, Texas A & M College for the examination of the tissues.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
schedule with an average mortality of 2.17 percent from coccidiosis. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, pens A-7, A-9, B-l, B-4 and B-5 were given 0.05 percent of sulfaquinoxaline feed one day out of each five ("1-4" feeding schedule). The mortality from coccidiosis ranged from 0.41 to 3.18 percent. In B-l the heaviest mortality from coccidiosis occurred during the sixth week, when 29 chickens died from E. tenella and E. necatrix. In B-5, 18 of 28 deaths from coccidiosis occurred in the 300 chickens which had been removed to a colony house during the seventh week after four weeks on the floor. The reason for the high mortality in the colony house is unknown. There were 5,459 birds studied on the "1-4" schedule with an average mortality of 1.79 percent from coccidiosis. Since these birds were studied during the fall and winter, the lower average mortality in the pens would not appear significant in comparison to that from the other feeding schedules. Only one pen (A-8) was given 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed two days out of each six ("2-4" feeding schedule). Nine chickens died from coccidiosis or 0.86 percent. One pen, D-l, was given medicated feed four days out of each eight, because of the extent of earlier studies reported by Delaplane, et al. (1947). The pen consisted of 1,575 birds from which 18, or 1.13 percent, died of coccidiosis. This mortality occurred within a day or two following the use of the medicated feed; nine out of the 18 deaths occurred during the first week so that this phase of the study more nearly represents treatment of an outbreak rather than prophylaxis. All the intermittent feeding schedules gave good protection against coccidiosis when compared to the results obtained from the unmedicated controls. The differ-
SULFAQUINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR COCCIDIOSIS
* Pens B-l, B-3, B-4, B-9 and No. 1 controls were used for this study.
more losses from coccidiosis would have resulted following the discontinuation of the medicated feed. The studies do not indicate inferior results from the "1-4" schedule, but it is believed unsafe for routine use in the field because the four days between the use of the medicated feed allows sufficient time for infection to develop under certain combinations of factors. If intermittent use of the medicated feed is to be employed either for prevention or treatment, the " 2 - 3 " schedule is desirable because it gives some leeway for errors. The data on the birds' gain in weight, although of value, is unsatisfactory for any direct comparisons, because from time to time the feed and feeding practices and the proportions of different breeds of birds in the pens varied. No symptoms of toxicity to the drug were noted. This fact was probably best demonstrated by the consistent progress in growth between the groups of birds one week apart in age. Tissues examined from representative birds given the drug on a "4-4" schedule failed to show any microscopic lesions of drug toxicity. Studies (unpublished data) show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline can be given intermittently to laying birds without affecting egg production or hatchability. The prophylactic use of a sulfonamide in the control of coccidiosis would seem to be preferable to treatment after the disease has occurred, because of the effect of the disease on the rate of growth and efficiency of feed utilization. Prophylaxis would tend to reduce the uncertainty of anticipating a disease outbreak and avoid the losses sustained before the infection is brought under control. Laboratory experiments, Delaplane et al. (1947) and Grumbles et al. (1947), show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed has considerable value in over-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
line given in the feed on various intermittent feeding schedules affords good prophylaxis against cecal and intestinal coccidia, under field conditions. The low level of sulfaquinoxaline in the feed did not prevent all losses from coccidiosis because 1.73, 2.17, 1.79, 0.86 and 1.13 percent respectively died on the "2-3", " 1 - 3 " , "1-4", "2-4" and "4-4" feeding schedules, as compared to 17.43 percent in the unmedicated controls. This indicated that a high percentage of the birds so treated were protected from fatal coccidiosis when exposed to severely contaminated surroundings normally found in broiler plants operating on a continuous weekly replacement plan. Individual groups of chickens on some of the intermittent schedules had losses varying from 0.30 to 6.1 percent ("2-3" schedule), 0.93 to 3-.15 percent ("1-3" schedule), and 0.41 to 3.18 percent ("1-4" schedule). In most instances the greatest losses in individual groups can be explained because the medicated feed was not used until after the outbreak of the disease or because both cecal and intestinal coccidiosis occurred together. In some cases losses were observed after the medicated feed had been discontinued at the end of the sixth week, although laboratory studies of representative chickens from various pens had shown well-established immunity against cecal coccidiosis after the birds had been on the floor six weeks, Grumbles et al. (1947).* Under these particular field conditions it appears that a few individuals failed to develop sufficient resistance to withstand the degree of exposure to which they were subjected. The greater number of birds, however, had acquired their resistance; otherwise
417
418
L. C. GRUMBLES, J. P. DELAPLANE AND T. C. HIGGINS
SUMMARY
A study of the prophylactic use of 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed given on various intermittent feeding schedules, i.e. "2-3", "1-3", "1-4", "2-4" and "4-4" schedules, gave good protection against cecal and intestinal coccidia since
losses from coccidiosis were 1.73, 2.17, 1.80, 0.86 and 1.13 percent respectively as compared to 17.43 percent in the untreated controls. No evidence of adverse effects on growth were observed with any of the various feeding schedules employing 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline in the feed. Studies (unpublished data) show that 0.05 percent sulfaquinoxaline can be given intermittently to laying birds without affecting egg production or hatchability; histological studies of the tissues failed to show any microscopic lesions of toxicity. Sulfaquinoxaline used as a prophylactic treatment at the rate of 0.05 percent in the feed, preferably two days out of each five, constitutes an effective means of preventing excessive losses of chickens from cecal and intestinal coccidiosis. REFERENCES
Delaplane, J. P., 1945. Sulfaquinoxaline in preventing upper respiratory infection in chickens inoculated with infective field material containing Pasteurdla avicida. Am. Jour. Vet. Res. 6: 207208. Delaplane, J. P., R. M. Batchelder, and T. C. Higgins, 1947. Sulfaquinoxaline in the prevention of Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. No. Am. Vet. 28: 19-24. Farr, M. M., and R. W. Allen, 1942. Sulfaguanadine feeding as a control measure for cecal coccidiosis of chickens. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 100:47-51. Grumbles, L. C , J. P. Delaplane, and T. C. Higgins, 1948. Immunity studies on Eimeria tenella infection of chickens in relation to sulfaquinoxaline therapy. Poultry Sci. 27: 169-171. Grumbles, L. C , and J. P. Delaplane, 1948. Relative activity of sulfamethazine and sulfaquinoxaline against Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. Amer. Jour. Vet. Res. (In press) Hawkins, P. A., 1943. Sulfamethazine treatment of cecal coccidiosis. Poultry Sci. 12: 459. Horton-Smith, C , and E. L. Taylor, 1942. Sulfamethazine and sulfadiazine treatment m cecal coccidiosis of chickens. Vet. Record, 54:516. , 1943. Saturated solution of sulfamethazine as a substitute for drinking water in the treatment
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
coming losses from coccidiosis as late as 72 hours following exposure. In this respect the drug compares in activity with sulfamerazine and sulfamethazine as reported by Swales (1946) and Hawkins (1943). Intestinal coccidiosis in which E. necatrix was the most prevalent species was also a problem on this broiler farm and it was for this reason that the medicated feed was used until the birds were sold as broilers. Under average farm conditions where birds are moved to clean ranges at eight to ten weeks of age, the medicated feed could be discontinued as the hazards of infection would be overcome in most instances. In some of the experimental pens, outbreaks of cecal and intestinal coccidiosis occurred before prophylactic treatment was under way. The results indicate that sulfaquinoxaline had considerable therapeutic value in reducing death losses. These results are further substantiated by observations of the use of the drug under different field conditions in which disease outbreaks had occurred and were brought under control. Sulfaquinoxaline as used in the studies would appear to have value in preventing other species of coccidia such as Eimeria acervulina, as such species were only observed in individual birds which had died from the control pens. Similar results were obtained in the laboratory in which a culture containing a mixture of species had been used to inoculate the chickens (unpublished data).
SULFAQTJINOXALINE TREATMENT FOR CoCCIDIOSIS
Swales, W. E., 1946. On the chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis {Eimeria tenella) of chickens. II. Further studies on the use of drugs in established infections. Can. Jour. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 10: 3-13. Swales, W. E. and G. H. Benliani, 1946. On the chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis of chickens. IV. Experiments on the use of chemotherapy during the immune exposure of chickens. Jour. Vet. Med. Assoc. 108: 393^00. Thorp, W. T. S., S. Gordeuk, P. J. Glantz, and Marion Learned, 1947. The chemotherapy of cecal coccidiosis. Jour. Vet. Res. 8:196-203.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 27, 2015
of cecal coccidiosis in chickens. Vet. Record, 55: 109-110. Levine, P. P., 1939. The effects of sulfanilamide on the course of experimental avian coccidiosis. Cornell Vet. 29:309-320. , 1941. The coccidiostatic effect of sulfaguanidine. Cornell Vet. 3 1 : 107-111. Ripsom, C. A., and C. A. Herrick, 1945. Effects of various sulfa compounds on the protozoan parasite Eimeria tenella. Jour. Parasitology 31: 9 8 108. Seegar, K. C , and A. E. Tomhave, 1946. Effect of sulfaguanidine on cecal coccidiosis. Univ. Delaware Bui. 260: 1-19.
419