DOCSLIB.ORG

PROCEEDINGS of the SIXTY-FOURTH WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE March 22-25, 2015 Sacramento, CA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PROCEEDINGS of the SIXTY-FOURTH WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE March 22-25, 2015 Sacramento, CA PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTY-FOURTH WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE March 22-25, 2015 Sacramento, CA PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTY-FOURTH WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE March 22-25, 2015 Sacramento, CA ©2015 Western Poultry Disease Conference 64TH WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE DEDICATION BRUCE R. CHARLTON (1952 – 2014) Bruce was born and raised in Loup City, NE. He joined the US Army soon after high school. Following his honorable service, he received a BS from the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, followed by a MS from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, both in microbiology. Subsequently, Bruce received his DVM from Colorado State University in 1984. After a year in private practice in Nebraska, he headed west and accepted a position as a Veterinary Medical Officer in the Sacramento lab of the Veterinary Laboratory Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture. When the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis, assumed responsibility for the State’s laboratory system, Bruce transferred to the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System (CAHFS) Turlock lab. At the time of his death, Bruce was a Professor of Clinical Diagnostic Microbiology and Branch Laboratory Chief at the CAHFS-Turlock lab. He was a diplomate of both the American College of Poultry Veterinarians and the American College of Veterinary Microbiologists. He served on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP). Bruce was one of the first persons to characterize Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. In addition, he developed molecular tests for the diagnosis of mycoplasma and salmonella. For these and other numerous accomplishments, Bruce was presented with the Poultry Scientist of the Year award by the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association in 2007. He is an author on more than 50 publications in refereed journals, 4 book chapters and more than 80 abstracts. Notably, he was the editor-in-charge of the 4th, 5th and 6th editions of AAAP’s best-selling publication, the Avian Disease Manual. Bruce died on May 26, 2014, following complications from surgery. He is survived by his wife of nearly 40 years, two sons, and three grandchildren. He will surely be missed for his never-ending smile, his jovial spirit and his “giggling” laugh. We proudly dedicate the 64th Western Poultry Disease Conference to Bruce R. Charlton. iii 64th WPDC SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARD DAVID WILLOUGHBY The Western Poultry Disease Conference (WPDC) is honored to present the 64th WPDC Special Recognition award to Dr. David Willoughby. Dave was born and raised in Grundy Center, IA. He received his BS in mathematics from Stanford University in 1966. In possession of such a high-powered degree, Dave decided to join the US Marine Crop as an infantry officer. Following his honorable service, Dave and his beautiful bride, Laurie, headed back to Iowa where he obtain his DVM from Iowa State University in 1976. He spent 10 years in a food animal private practice in Minnesota. In 1986, Dave and Laurie decided it was time to move back to sunny California, where he went to work with the California Department of Food and Agriculture as a Veterinary Medical Officer. He retired from the CDFA in 2011. In 1993, Dave enrolled in the Avian Medicine Residency program at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System, Turlock branch lab, while still working for CDFA. Under the tutelage of Drs. Art Bickford, Bruce Charlton and George Cooper, Dave developed into a top-notch avian diagnostician. Upon completion of the 2-year residency, Dave continued working for CDFA, but now was the “go-to” person for all statewide issues pertaining to diseases of poultry. He worked closely with the California Poultry Federation and the California Poultry Health Board in guiding the industry on avian health concerns and regulatory issues, such as the National Poultry Improvement Plan. Dave now spends his time with his family, fishing (but rarely catching), golfing (though some call it hacking), hiking, goose hunting (i.e., avian influenza surveillance), and whatever the boss wants. The 64th WPDC is honored to recognize Dr. Willoughby at this year’s meeting. iv th 64 WPDC CONTRIBUTORS LIST SUPER SPONSORS CEVA Animal Health Libourne, France BENEFACTORS American Association of Avian Pathologists Jacksonville, FL PATRONS Alltech Huvepharma, Inc. Lexington, KY New Oxford, PA Asociación Nacional de Especialistas Hygieia Biological Laboratories en Ciencias Avícolas Woodland, CA México, D. F. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Bayer Healthcare LLC Westbrook, ME Shawnee Mission, KS Merial Select Inc. Cobb-Vantress Gainesville, GA Siloam Springs, AR Zoetis Foster Poultry Farms, LLC Madison, NJ Livingston, CA v DONORS American College of Poultry Veterinarians G. Yan Ghazikhanian, DVM, PhD, DACPV Jacksonville, FL Sonoma, CA Aviagen North America, Inc. Hy-Line International Huntsville, AL Dallas Center, IA California Poultry Federation, Inc. Laboratorio Avi-Mex SA de CV Modesto, CA México City DF, México Charles River Merck Animal Health Storrs, CT Millsboro, DE Chr. Hansen, Inc. Novus, International Milwaukee, WI St. Charles, MO Cutler Associates International Poultry Health Services, Ltd. Moorpark, CA Airdrie, AB, Canada DuPont Sunrise Farms St Louis, MO Catskill, NY Elanco Vega Farms Winslow, ME Davis, CA Veterinary Service, Inc. Salida, CA vi SUSTAINING MEMBERS Animal Health International Ceres, CA Arthur A. Bickford, VMD, PhD Turlock, CA BioChek USA Corporation Scarborough, ME Masakazu Matsumoto, DVM, PhD Corvallis, OR Pacific Egg and Poultry Association Sacramento, CA Phibro Animal Health Ridgefield Park, NJ Winkler Enterprises State College, PA FRIENDS OF THE CONFERENCE Richard Yamamoto, PhD Davis, CA vii SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 64th Western Poultry Disease Conference (WPDC) is honored to acknowledge the many contributions and support to the Conference. The financial contributions provide support for outstanding presentations and to help pay for some of the costs of the Conference, thus helping us to maintain a relatively low registration fee for an international conference. More than 30 organizations, companies and individuals have once again given substantial financial support. Many companies and organizations, including some that also contribute financially, send speakers at no expense to the Conference. We thank all these people, and acknowledge their support and contribution. Once again, the WPDC is forever grateful to our distinguished contributors and supports of the conference who are vital in making the conference a success. All our contributors and supporters are listed on the following pages. We greatly appreciate their generosity and sincerely thank them and their representatives for supporting this year’s meeting of WPDC. Dr. Shahbaz Haq, Program Chair of the 64th WPDC would like to thank all the contributing presenters, and a special thank you to Dr. Richard Chin, and Dr. David Frame for their guidance and assistance with the organization of the scientific program. Warmest thanks to Tammy Simons for her outstanding work with the conference. Many have provided special services that contribute to the continued success of this conference. For this year’s meeting, the WPDC has contracted Conference and Events Services, of the University of California, Davis, for providing budgetary and registration support for the conference. We would like to thank Ms. Teresa Brown for her exceptional work with our conference. We thank Dr. David Frame for editing and producing another outstanding Proceedings of this meeting. Dr. Frame is indebted to Mr. Dana Frame for his meticulous proofreading and formatting the Proceedings for publication. We express our gratitude to all authors who submitted manuscripts, and are especially appreciative of those who submitted their manuscripts on-time. Once again, we acknowledge Bruce Patrick (Graphic Communications, Brigham Young University) for the front page cover design of the electronic proceedings. viii th 64 WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE OFFICERS PRESIDENT MEETING SUPPORT CHAIR Dr. Ernesto Soto-Priante Dr. Yan Ghazikhanian Laboratorio Avi-Mex, SA de CV Durango 136 Int. 301-B PROCEEDINGS EDITOR Colonia Roma Dr. David Frame Mexico, D.F. 06700, Mexico Utah State University Central Utah Veterinary PROGRAM CHAIR Diagnostic Laboratory Dr. Shahbaz Haq 1451 South Main Lakeside Poultry Veterinary Services Inc Nephi, UT 84648 Unit-A, 240 Graff Avenue Stratford, ON N5A 6Y2 Canada SECRETARY-TREASURER Dr. Richard P. Chin PROGRAM CHAIR-ELECT California Animal Health & Food Safety Dr. Susantha Gomis Laboratory System - Tulare Department of Veterinary Pathology 18830 Road 112 Western College of Vet Medicine Tulare, CA 93274-9042 University of Saskatchewan [email protected] 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Canada 64th WPDC PROCEEDINGS The Proceedings of the 64th Western Poultry Disease Conference are not refereed, but are presented as a service and a source of information to those attending the conference and to others who wish to gain some insight as to the information presented. Copies of the 64th WPDC Proceedings are available in electronic format only. Copies of these Proceedings are available from: Dr. R. P. Chin CAHFS-Tulare University of California, Davis 18830 Road 112 Tulare, CA 93274-9042 [email protected] Price per copy (includes shipping & handling): Electronic format only US$25.00 for USA shipment. US$22.00 for AAAP members and orders of 5 or more for USA US$28.00 for Canada and Mexico US$30.00 for all other countries ix WESTERN POULTRY DISEASE CONFERENCE (WPDC) HISTORY YEAR PRESIDENT PROGRAM CHAIR DEDICATION RECOGNITION st 1 WPDC – 1952 A. S. Rosenwald nd 2 WPDC – 1953 P. D. DeLay A. S. Rosenwald rd 3 WPDC – 1954 C. M. Hamilton Kermit Schaaf th 4 WPDC – 1955 E. M. Dickinson W. H. Armstrong th 5 WPDC – 1956 D. E. Stover E. E. Jones th 6 WPDC – 1957 D. V. Zander H. E. Adler th 7 WPDC – 1958 H. E. Adler E. E. Jones th 8 WPDC – 1959 R. D. Conrad L. G. Raggi th 9 WPDC – 1960 L. G. Raggi A. S. Rosenwald th 10 WPDC – 1961 A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common Poultry Diseases 1 G
    PS47 Common Poultry Diseases 1 G. D. Butcher, J. P. Jacob, and F. B. Mather2 Respiratory Diseases respiratory distress by obstructing the upper air passages. Chickens may be affected with either or both forms of fowl There are many common and important diseases which can pox at one time. affect the respiratory system (air passages, lungs, air sacs) of poultry (see Table 1). Poultry refers to birds that people Transmission: Fowl pox is transmitted by direct contact keep for their use and generally includes the chicken, between infected and susceptible birds or by mosquitos. turkey, duck, goose, quail, pheasant, pigeon, guinea fowl, Virus-containing scabs also can be sloughed from affected pea fowl, ostrich, emu, and rhea. Due to modern systems birds and serve as a source of infection. The virus can of management, usually with high poultry densities, these enter the blood stream through the eye, skin wounds, or diseases are able to readily spread. respiratory tract. Mosquitos become infected from feeding on birds with fowl pox in their blood stream. There is Fowl Pox some evidence that the mosquito remains infective for life. Synonyms: chicken pox (not to be confused with chicken Mosquitos are the primary reservoir and spreaders of fowl pox in humans; the human disease does not affect poultry pox on poultry ranges. Several species of mosquito can and vice versa), sore head, avian diphtheria, bird pox transmit fowl pox. Often mosquitos winter-over in poultry houses so, outbreaks can occur during winter and early Species affected: Most poultry—chickens, turkeys, pheas- spring. ants, quail, ducks, psittacine, and ratites—of all ages are susceptible.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Effects of Furnished Cages and Battery Cages on Behavioral Exhibitions in White Leghorn Chickens
    Research Note Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens K. Mile* and H.-W. Chengf' *Depai.tirient of Animal $renc:es. Purdue University. Wet Lafayette, IN 7907: (lad TLicstocJi Behacior Research Unit. USDA -Aqricuitwr'al Research Service. West Lafayette. IN 47907 ABSTRACT The battery cage system is being banned birds were housed per cage, providing a stocking den- ill European Union before or by 2012, and the fur- sity of 610 (-Ili 2 of floor space per bird. Behavioral ob- nished cage system will be the only cage system allowed servations were conducted using the Xoldus Observer after 2012. This stud y was conducted to exanune the software package. The birds were observed at 5-mm different effects of caging s ystems, furnished ('ages vs. intervals for the entire light period. The birds housed in battery cages, oil behaviors. One hundred ninety- battery cages had higher posture and behavioral transi- two 1 -d-old non-beak-trinuned I-Tv-Line \V-36 White tions and increased time spent walking and perform- chicks were reared using standard nianageinent ing exploratory behavior (P < 0.05. 0.01. respective- practices in raised wire cages. At 19 wk of age, the birds ly) which may indicate they were stressed. resulting were randomly assigned into battery cages or furnished iii restlessness. whereas the birds housed in furnished cages. The battery cages were commercial wire cages ('ages had higher levels of preening ( P < 0.05). Preen- containing 6 birds per cage.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Biosecurity and Management Practices on the Prevalence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Clostridium Perfringens in a Poultry Production System
    Effect of biosecurity and management practices on the prevalence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Clostridium perfringens in a poultry production system by Katrina Grace English A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 12, 2015 Keywords: Biosecurity, management, poultry, survey, bacterial sampling Copyright 2015 by Katrina Grace English Approved by Kenneth S. Macklin, Chair, Extension Specialist and Professor, Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University Manpreet Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Food Sciences, Purdue University Joseph B. Hess, Extension Specialist Professor, Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University Abstract Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, and Campylobacter are responsible for 30% of all foodborne illness cases and 50% of foodborne illness hospitalizations in the United States. Many of these cases and outbreaks have been linked to poultry products as the source of contamination. Because of the significant impact these pathogens have on human health, they are direct targets for pathogen reduction programs at various points during poultry production. Pre-harvest control points are the most recent targets for pathogen control due to increasing costs, regulations and the presence of diseases such as Avian Influenza (AI) and Necrotic Enteritis (NE) caused by C. perfringens. Of particular interest are the specific biosecurity and management practices that influence the transmission of pathogens in the poultry production environment. This study aimed to determine which practices influenced the transmission of Salmonella, C. perfringens, and Campylobacter on commercial poultry farms. In addition, this study collected data on the presence of two novel C. perfringens genes (netB and tpeL) that produce toxins and are associated with the disease NE in poultry.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 38Th International Congress of the Isae
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 38TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE ISAE Laura Hänninen & Anna Valros (editors) Helsinki, Finland 2004 274p. Published by ISAE 2004 Printed in Finland Copyright © ISAE 2004 Reprinted from Hänninen, L & Valros, A.(eds), Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of the ISAE (2004). Col.University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio and MTT Agri-Food Research Finland, Finland. Reprinted from Hänninen, L & Valros, A.(eds), Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of the ISAE (2004). Col.University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio and MTT Agri-Food Research Finland, Finland. CONTENTS CREDITS 4 CONGRESS SPONSORS 7 LOCAL MAP 8 INFORMATION ABOUT POSTER SESSIONS 10 SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM 11 ABSTRACTS OF WOOD-GUSH MEMORIAL 28 AND PLENARIES ABSTRACTS OF ORAL PRESENTATIONS 38 ABSTRACTS OF POSTERS 145 INDEX 257 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 265 3 Reprinted from Hänninen, L & Valros, A.(eds), Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of the ISAE (2004). Col.University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio and MTT Agri-Food Research Finland, Finland. CREDITS ORGANIZING INSTITUTES University of Helsinki University of Kuopio MTT, Agrifood Research Finland PROCEEDINGS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON Jaakko Mononen SECRETARY Anna Valros MEMBERS Hannu Saloniemi, Timo Nevalainen, Asko Mäki-Tanila, Teppo Rekilä, Hannu Korhonen, Risto Kauppinen, Eila Kaliste, Leena Ahola EDITORS Laura Hänninen & Anna Valros LAYOUT Liana Simonen LOGO AND COVER DESIGN Pate Pesonius 4 Reprinted from Hänninen, L & Valros, A.(eds), Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of the ISAE (2004). Col.University of Helsinki, University of Kuopio and MTT Agri-Food Research Finland, Finland. IN ADDITION TO THE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE SEVERAL PERSONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWING ABTSRACTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Egg Tip
    The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences / Athens, Georgia 30602-4356 NOVEMBER 2010 COMMERCIAL EGG TIP . A BRIEF LOOK AT DIFFERENT HOUSING SYSTEMS FOR COMMERCIAL LAYERS Concerns for laying hens’ welfare began in the 1960’s and led to an aversion to eggs produced by hens housed in conventional battery cages. As a result the European Union (EU) has banned the use of battery cages beginning in January 2012. This move has resulted in the development of alternative housing systems for laying hens. While the EU ban does not currently apply to the commercial egg producers in the United States, some states have made moves towards banning the use of battery cages for laying hens, the most recent being California. With the passing of Proposition 2 in California there has been a renewed effort to develop alternative housing systems to meet all the requirements of good hen welfare. A number of different systems are currently being used to house laying hens, but the majority of laying hens in the US are still housed in conventional cages. Each of the systems used have advantages and disadvantages that vary based on location, management, and genetic strain of the hens. Conventional Cage Housing System Conventional battery cages for laying hens were first developed in the US during the 1920s to 1930s. The system was developed to reduce the incidence of disease and parasites and also to reduce cannibalistic pecking. Cages makes management of the birds easier and requires less space than the other systems. No bedding material is used in this system as the cages are suspended above the floor allowing the bird droppings to fall through the mesh floors and collect below the cages.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to the Barren Battery Cage for the Housing of Laying Hens in the European Union
    ALTERNATIVES TO THE BARREN BATTERY CAGE FOR THE HOUSING OF LAYING HENS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A report by Compassion in World Farming 3 2007 © Dale Arey (CIWF) ALTERNATIVES TO THE BARREN BATTERY CAGE FOR THE HOUSING OF LAYING HENS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A report by Compassion in World Farming Written by Heather Pickett BSc (Hons) MSc 2007 © Compassion in World Farming, 007 ISBN 900 56 407 Compassion in World Farming nd Floor, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey GU7 EZ, UK Tel: +44(0)483 5950 Fax: +44(0)483 86639 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ciwf.org.uk Registered Charity Number 095050; a Company limited by Guarantee, registered number 4590804. 3 Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 2. Alternatives to the barren battery cage for the housing of laying hens in the European Union 8 2. ‘Enriched’ cages 8 2. Non-cage systems 9 3. The ability of ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems to meet the behavioural needs of hens 10 3. The natural behaviour and cognitive abilities of hens 10 3. Nesting 10 3.3 Foraging and dustbathing 13 3.4 Perching 15 3.5 Space requirements and social group size 16 4. Addressing key welfare concerns in ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems 19 4. Feather pecking and cannibalism 19 4. Bone strength and fractures 23 4.3 Mortality 24 5. Overall comparison of welfare in ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems 25 6. Economics of changing to non-cage systems 27 6. Production costs in non-cage systems 27 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Sciences 52.Indb
    Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Animal Science No 52 Warsaw 2013 Contents BRZOZOWSKI M., STRZEMECKI P. GŁOGOWSKI R., DZIERŻANOWSKA- Estimation the effectiveness of probiot- -GÓRYŃ D., RAK K. The effect of di- ics as a factor infl uencing the results of etary fat source on feed digestibility in fattening rabbits 7 chinchillas (Chinchilla lanigera) 23 DAMAZIAK K., RIEDEL J., MICHAL- GRODZIK M. Changes in glioblastoma CZUK M., KUREK A. Comparison of multiforme ultrastructure after diamond the laying and egg weight of laying hens nanoparticles treatment. Experimental in two types of cages 13 model in ovo 29 JARMUŁ-PIETRASZCZYK J., GÓR- ŁOJEK J., ŁOJEK A., SOBORSKA J. SKA K., KAMIONEK M., ZAWIT- Effect of classic massage therapy on the KOWSKI J. The occurrence of ento- heart rate of horses working in hippo- mopathogenic fungi in the Chojnowski therapy. Case study 105 Landscape Park in Poland 37 ŁUKASIEWICZ M., MROCZEK- KAMASZEWSKI M., OSTASZEW- -SOSNOWSKA N., WNUK A., KAMA- SKA T. The effect of feeding on ami- SZEWSKI M., ADAMEK D., TARASE- nopeptidase and non-specifi c esterase WICZ L., ŽUFFA P., NIEMIEC J. Histo- activity in the digestive system of pike- logical profi le of breast and leg muscles -perch (Sander lucioperca L.) 49 of Silkies chickens and of slow-growing KNIŻEWSKA W., REKIEL A. Changes Hubbard JA 957 broilers 113 in the size of population of the European MADRAS-MAJEWSKA B., OCHNIO L., wild boar Sus scrofa L. in the selected OCHNIO M., ŚCIEGOSZ J. Comparison voivodeships in Poland during the years of components and number of Nosema sp.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Review on Avian Encephalomyelitis
    Review on avian encephalomyelitis Tsehaye Neges1 and Haftey Sahle2 1DVM, Area Sales Manager (ASM) at Ethiochicken, Tigray, Ethiopia 2DVM, field Practitioner at Tanqua abergele, Tigray, Ethiopia [email protected] Abstract: Summary: This paper is mainly aimed to review the avian encephalomyelitis. Avian Encephalomyelitis (AE) is an economic concern to poultry industry as it causes economic loss by declining egg production in laying hens as well as egg hatchability . This disease is very common in commercial aviculture which is caused by genus Tremovirus, family of Picornavirridae. It is essentially an enteric infection which can be acquired horizontally between birds by oral ingestion and vertically from infected breeding females through the egg to progeny. It affects mainly young chicken and it is characterized by neurological signs like ataxia and rapid tremors of the head and neck giving rise to the former name of ‘‘Epidemic Tremor ” but no gross lesions are seen in the brain of birds. Both morbidity and mortality can be 50% sometimes reach up to 60% and Its Vertical infection followed by horizontal infection causes a characteristic biphasic mortality pattern. Protection against this virus can be successfully achieved by using the appropriate vaccine strains. Vaccinated birds are life time immune and recovered do not spread the virus. Wild birds are not considered as reservoir of the virus which poses no threat to the human and this disease is not considered as zoonotic disease. Therefore it can be concluded that AE is economically important viral disease which can hinders the poultry production, so it is recommended to control the disease by proper vaccination of parent stock.
    [Show full text]
  • Poultry Industry Manual
    POULTRY INDUSTRY MANUAL FAD PReP Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness & Response Plan National Animal Health Emergency Management System United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Veterinary Services MARCH 2013 Poultry Industry Manual The Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP)/National Animal Health Emergency Management System (NAHEMS) Guidelines provide a framework for use in dealing with an animal health emergency in the United States. This FAD PReP Industry Manual was produced by the Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, College of Veterinary Medicine, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service through a cooperative agreement. The FAD PReP Poultry Industry Manual was last updated in March 2013. Please send questions or comments to: Center for Food Security and Public Health National Center for Animal Health 2160 Veterinary Medicine Emergency Management Iowa State University of Science and Technology US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Ames, IA 50011 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Telephone: 515-294-1492 U.S. Department of Agriculture Fax: 515-294-8259 4700 River Road, Unit 41 Email: [email protected] Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1231 subject line FAD PReP Poultry Industry Manual Telephone: (301) 851-3595 Fax: (301) 734-7817 E-mail: [email protected] While best efforts have been used in developing and preparing the FAD PReP/NAHEMS Guidelines, the US Government, US Department of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and other parties, such as employees and contractors contributing to this document, neither warrant nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information or procedure disclosed.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification and Genome Characterization of the First Sicinivirus Isolate from Chickens in Mainland China by Using Viral Metagenomics
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Identification and Genome Characterization of the First Sicinivirus Isolate from Chickens in Mainland China by Using Viral Metagenomics Hongzhuan Zhou1, Shanshan Zhu1, Rong Quan1, Jing Wang1, Li Wei1, Bing Yang1, Fuzhou Xu1, Jinluo Wang1, Fuyong Chen2, Jue Liu1* 1 Beijing Key Laboratory for Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Livestock and Poultry, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, No. 9 Shuguang Garden Middle Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100097, People’s Republic of China, 2 College of a11111 Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, No. 2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100197, People’s Republic of China * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Unlike traditional virus isolation and sequencing approaches, sequence-independent ampli- Citation: Zhou H, Zhu S, Quan R, Wang J, Wei L, Yang B, et al. (2015) Identification and Genome fication based viral metagenomics technique allows one to discover unexpected or novel Characterization of the First Sicinivirus Isolate from viruses efficiently while bypassing culturing step. Here we report the discovery of the first Chickens in Mainland China by Using Viral Sicinivirus isolate (designated as strain JSY) of picornaviruses from commercial layer chick- Metagenomics. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139668. ens in mainland China by using a viral metagenomics technique. This Sicinivirus isolate, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139668 which contains a whole genome of 9,797 nucleotides (nt) excluding the poly(A) tail, pos- Editor: Luis Menéndez-Arias, Centro de Biología sesses one of the largest picornavirus genome so far reported, but only shares 88.83% and Molecular Severo Ochoa (CSIC-UAM), SPAIN 82.78% of amino acid sequence identity to that of ChPV1 100C (KF979332) and Sicinivirus Received: March 26, 2015 1 strain UCC001 (NC_023861), respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4
    93 April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4 S R Y C T I E L N U C O E P A 11908908 S N S O O C I AT I ISSN 0032-5791 Official Journal of the Poultry Science Association Inc. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ® T. E. Porter (2016) POULTRY SCIENCE SECTION EDITORS ASSOCIATE EDITORS (2013–2014) Environment, Well-Being, ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ I. Hanning (2016) M. Pines (2014) Ȳȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱ ěȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ T. Poole (2016) I. Estevez (2014) H. Ahmadi (2013) R. M. Hulet (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ M. M. Beck (2016) W. Alali (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Pradhan (2014) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Jackson-Davis (2016) ǯȬ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ Genetics C. Ashwell (2016) D. Jackwood (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ J. Dodgson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ P. A. Johnson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ¢ǰȱ ǰ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŜǼ C. Jones (2016) K. Reed (2016) Ȳȱ M. R. Bakst (2014) P. Kaiser (2014) T. B. Rodenburg (2014) R. L. Taylor Jr. (2016) R. Beckstead (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. J. M. Rosa (2016) B. R. Behrends (2016) N. Kansaku (2016) W. B. Roush (2013) ȱȱ L. Berghman (2014) E. Kebreab (2013) I. Rozenboim (2014) G. Cherian (2014) W. Berry (2014) E. J. Kim (2016) C. Ruiz-Feria (2013) M. Rodehutscord (2016) D. Biswas (2014) W. Kim (2016) ǯȱǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ E. Esteve-Garcia (2014) J. Brake (2013) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ K. Bregendahl (2014) K. W. Koelkebeck (2013) C. Schmidt (2016) ǰȱǰ B. Brehm-Stecher (2016) M. H. Kogut (2014) P. Selle (2013) ȱȱȱ¢ J. Buyse (2014) A. Kollanoor-Johny (2016) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. Bedecarrats (2016) D. Caldwell (2014) B.-W. Kong (2013) D. H. Shah (2016) ¢¢ǰȱ¢ǰȱ F.
    [Show full text]
  • Perch Arrangements in Small-Group Furnished Cages for Laying Hens
    ©2007 Poultry Science Association, Inc. Perch Arrangements in Small-Group Furnished Cages for Laying Hens H. Wall1 and R. Tauson Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-753 23 Uppsala, Sweden Primary Audience: Advisors, Researchers, Quality Assurance Personnel, Plant Managers SUMMARY In 2 trials, including 2,768 birds in total, 3 different perch arrangements were evaluated in furnished 8-hen cages for laying hens. The hybrids used were Lohmann Selected Leghorn and Lohmann Brown in trial 1 and Hy-Line White and Hy-Line Brown in trial 2. The furnished cages were identical in all other respects than the arrangement of perches. A perch was either fitted across the cage, providing 12 cm of perch per hen, or 2 perches were installed in a cross, implying 15 cm per hen. Although the perches arranged in a cross provided more perch per hen than the single perch fitted across the cage, perch use at night by the birds was similar or lower as compared with the single perch. Hence, the way perches are arranged in the cage may be as important as perch length itself to achieve a high use at night. Perch arrangement did not affect production, mortality, or egg quality. Compared with a conventional battery cage, also included in the trials, hygiene was inferior in the furnished cages, but there was no difference in proportions of dirty eggs. Differences in proportions of cracked eggs were found between furnished and conventional cages in 1 of the trials. However, on the whole, production, mortality, and egg quality were at similar levels in all cage models.
    [Show full text]