不同接种途径对人工诱发鸡大肠杆菌病的影响  

Factors about Avian Colibacilloisis Artificial Infection in Chickens

作　　者：周秀红[1] 祁克宗[2] 张丽霞[2] 潘玲[2] 

机构地区：[1]安徽农业大学生物技术中心,合肥230036 [2]安徽农业大学动物科技学院,合肥230036

出　　处：《安徽农业大学学报》2005年第4期463-466,共4页Journal of Anhui Agricultural University

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(39970554);安徽省优秀青年基金(04041042);安徽农业大学校长青年基金资助

摘　　要：选择适宜的攻毒剂量和攻毒途径,诱发淮南麻黄鸡大肠杆菌病。将4周龄淮南麻黄鸡80羽随机平均分成4组,分别经滴口滴鼻、皮下注射、肌肉注射接种,用不同稀释度的大肠杆菌O1、O2、O78混合菌悬液攻毒,观察攻毒结果并统计死亡情况,同时设定空白对照组。结果表明,不同攻毒途径对致病性有明显影响,肌肉注射致病性最强,皮下注射次之,滴鼻滴口最弱。不同攻毒途径所需的攻毒剂量各不相同,肌肉注射所需的剂量较小,皮下注射所需的剂量较大,而滴鼻滴口所需的剂量更大且不易成功。还对不同攻毒途径致病性差异的原因进行了探讨。Proper infection dosage and routes were selected to make the chickens artificially infect avian colibacilloisis successfully. Four-week-old Huainan spotted-brown chickens were randomly divided into four groups with the same number （20/group）： oral/nasal dropping （ON group）; subcutaneous injection （SC group）; intramuscular injection （IM group）, another 20 chickens were blank control （C group）. Each chicken was challenged with the same volume of different dilutions of Escherichia coli （E. coli） O1, O2, O78 mixture. The results show that the pathogenic of E.coli on the chicken was differed by different infection routes. It＇s the strongest by IM group, middle by SC group and the weakest by ON group. So that different E.coli dosages were needed with different infection routes. Small amount of E.coli was needed by IM group, more amount by SC group and much more amount by ON group. The test shows that injection is more proper than oral/nasal dropping in making the chickens artificially infect avian Colibacilloisis successfully. In addition, the possible reasons that caused the different pathogenic of E.coli by different infection routes were discussed in this paper.

关 键 词：淮南麻黄鸡 大肠杆菌病 人工发病 攻毒剂量 攻毒途径 

分 类 号：S858.31[农业科学—临床兽医学]