Printer Friendly

IBD VACCINATION SCHEDULE UPSHOTS ON IMMUNITY TEMPTED BY ND VACCINATION IN POULTRY.

Byline: Kashif-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Jamil Ahmad, Muhammad Asif Raza, Saeed Murtaza, Ismail Abbas, Zaka Saeed, Khurram Nawaz Qazi and Imtiaz-ul-Haq

ABSTRACT:: Newcastle disease (ND) and infectious bursal disease (IBD) pose great hazard to poultry industry in many parts of the world. In Pakistan, a lot of vaccines had been introduced to control these diseases. However, failures encountered from time to time. The salient questions addressed in this study are to determine the interaction between commonly used vaccines against these diseases and its role in vaccination failure. A total of 250, day old broiler chicken were purchased and were randomly divided into7groups; 35 birds in each group (A, B, C, D, E, F and G). The leftover 5 birds were used to detect the maternal antibody titer. Group A, B, C, D, E and F were vaccinated against ND and varying schedule of IBD. A total of 10 birds from each group were randomly selected for blood collection. The blood was collected from each bird and serum was prepared. The sera were analyzed by HI (Haemagglutination inhibition) test to detect antibodies against NDV and indirect ELISA for the detection of IBD antibodies. The effects of vaccine schedule on growth performance of broiler as determine by Mean body weight (MBW) and feed consumption of chicken measure at termination of the study period.The results depicted that maternal HI antibody titer against Newcastle disease virus was 256.0 (GMT) at day one. On day 7 the GMT of HI antibody titers against NDV of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were238.9, 238.9, 274.4, 256.0, 222.9, 256.0 and 128.0, respectively. The highest GMT of HI antibody titer was recorded in group C (274.4) and the lowest GMT in group G (128.0). The FCR of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 2.0908, 2.1416, 1.9805, 2.1101, 1.9884, 1.9594 and 1.9386 respectively. The unvaccinatedchicks in control group G had FCR 1.9386. The overall findings of the study indicated that the use of IBDVvaccines has immunosuppressive effects. The vaccinated birds were found less efficient in converting feed than the unvaccinated birds.

1- INTRODUCTIONNewcastle disease (ND) commonly known as Ranikhet ishighly contagious and highly fatal viral infection affecting many domestic and wild bird species globally [1]. It caused huge economic losses and has been engaging the attention of workers for its control. Inspite of good management, timely vaccination programme, ND is still an important problem for the poultry industry. The severity of ND may vary from asymptomatic infection to highly fatal disease, depending upon the strain and tropism of the infecting virus, age of the bird concurrent infections and preexisting immunity against the virus in host bird at risk. The disease is caused by avian paramyxovirus serotype 1 (APMV-1) of the genus Rubulavirus belonging to the subfamily Paramyxovirinae, family Paramyxoviridae, order Mononegavirales [2]. The virus is existing in the environment in three pathotypes i.e. Velogenic, Mesogenic and Lentogentic [3]. The disease is mainly controlled by vaccination.Infectious bursal disease (IBD) is an acute highly contagious immunosuppressive viral infection of young chicks [4]. The incubation period of IBD virus is 2-3 days after exposure.One of the earliest sign is the tendency for some birds topick at their vents. Causative agent of IBD belongs to family Birnaviridae and genus Avibirnavirus [5, 6]. The outbreaks of the disease were reported in many parts of the world [7, 8, 9, 10]. The control of the disease was confirmed to depend on the proper immunization schedules coupled with the maintenance of good hygienic conditions at the farm [10, 11, 12, 13].ND and IBD have remained the two most important infectious diseases that are threatening the commercial poultry production in most parts of the world [14, 15, 16]. Live and inactivated vaccines of IBD from serotype 1 [17] is used commercially due it's induce vigorous antibody responses [18]. Six variants of this serotype 1 were identified by the virus neutralization test and antigenic variation can induce failures on the vaccination processes due to the difference of antigenic structures between vaccinal and wild viruses [17, 19, 20]. Besides the antigenic variation, other factors can interfere on efficacy of a vicinal program, among them, the viral interference. This phenomenon can occur among different serotypes of the same virus, for example IBDV with intermediate and pathogenic strains [21] and it can also occur between different viruses, as between infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV) [22] or avian pneumovirus [23].Therefore, the major purpose of this investigation is to study the immunosuppressive effects of IBD vaccines schedule being used in Pakistan on the ND vaccine.

2- MATERIALS AND METHODS2.1- Experimental Chicks:A total of 250, day old broiler chicken were purchased from the M/S Big Birds poultry breeders, Lahore. The chickenswere###reared###in###thoroughly###cleaned###and###disinfectedexperimental rooms of Microbiology Department, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore. The chickens were offered feed and water ad libitum and were kept.At 1st day, birds were randomly divided into 7groups;35 birds in each group (A, B, C, D, E, F and G). The leftover 5 birds were used to detect the maternal antibody titer. Group A, B, C, D, E and F were vaccinated according to schedule given in table 1 whereas group G was used as control.

Table 1: Vaccination programme of broiler chicken###

###No.###Group###IBDV vaccine###NDV vaccine###

###1###A###9thand 21th day###5thand 24th day###

###th###th

###2###B###9 and 21 day###5thand 24th day###

###th###th

###3###C###9 and 21 day###5thand 21th day###

###4###D###5thand 24th day###5thand 24th day###

###st###th

###5###E###1 and 21 day###5thand 24th day

###6###F###--###5thand 24th day

###7###G###Control (un-vaccinated)

2.2- Sera samplesBlood sample were collected from all the groups on weekly basis up to 42nd day of life in order to determine the pre andpost vaccination titers. A total of 10 birds from each group were randomly selected for blood collection. The blood wascollected from each bird separately in disposable syringeand allowed to clot in slanting position at room temperature for separation of the serum. The sera then collected were stored at -20 0C till use.2.3- Humoral immune responseThe sera were analyzed by HI (Haemagglutination inhibition) test to detect antibodies against NDV andindirect ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) (Kirkegaard and Perry Laboratories - KPL) for the detectionof IBD antibodies.On the days of vaccines the bloodsamples were collected prior to administration of the vaccine.2.4- Feed conversion ratioThe effects of vaccine schedule on growth performance of broiler as determine by Mean body weight (MBW) and feedconsumption of chicken measure at termination of the study period. Feed conversation ratio (feed consume / weight gain)will be calculated by totaling the amount of feed consumeddivided by the body weight gain of the birds [24] for each group separately

3- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION3.1- Humoral immune response to NDV vaccineThe present study was designed and conducted to determinethe effects of Infectious bursal disease vaccines and vaccination schedule on immunity induced by ND vaccine in broiler birds. The antibody titers against ND of the birdsfrom various groups were determined by HI. The antibody titers as detected by HI in all groups of chicks following vaccination with ND and IBD are presented in Table -3.The maternal HI antibody titer against Newcastle disease virus was 256.0 (GMT) at day one. On day 7 the GMT of HI antibody titers against NDV of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 238.9, 238.9, 274.4, 256.0, 222.9, 256.0 and 128.0, respectively. The highest GMT of HI antibody titer was recorded in group C (274.4) and the lowest GMT in group G (128.0).On day 14 the GMT, HI antibody titer of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 48.5, 42.2, 55.7, 68.6, 32.0, 294.1 and 52.0, respectively. Group F shows the highest HI antibody titer (294.1) which was vaccinated with ND only.. The lowest HI antibody titer was recorded in group E (32.0).On day 21 the GMT, HI antibody titer of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 36.8, 36.8, 42.2, 48.5, 22.6, 274.4 and 19.7, respectively. The highest HI antibody titer was recorded in group F (274.4) and the lowest GMT, HI antibody titer was recorded in group G (19.7).3.2- Mean ELISA antibody titers against IBD virusThe mean, maternal ELISA antibody titer against Infectious bursal disease vaccine was 1583.0 at day one. On day 7 themean ELISA antibody titers in groups A, B, C, D, E, F andG were 1355.0, 1330.0, 1625.0, 1625.0, 343.1, 1410.0 and1771.0, respectively. The highest mean ELISA antibody titer recorded was in group G (1771.0) and the lowest in group E (343.1) which was vaccinated with complex IBDvaccine at day one.On day 14 the mean ELISA titers in groups A, B, C, D, E, Fand G were 266.0, 380.0, 488.0, 606.5, 355.0, 974.0 and1326.0, respectively. The highest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded in group G (1326.0) and the lowest meanELISA antibody titer was recorded in group A (266.0).On day 21 the mean ELISA titers against IBDV in groupsA, B, C, D, E, F and G were 464.0, 496.0, 572.0, 572.0,316.2, 537.0 and 828.0, respectively. The highest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded in group C (572.0) and the lowest mean ELISA antibody titers were recorded ingroup F (537.0).On day 28 the mean ELISA antibody titers were 2256.5,1382.5, 2130.0, 1582.5, 2920.5, 120.0 and 40.0 of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The lowest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded was of group G (40.0) than in group F (120.0) whereas the highest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded in group E (2920.5).On day 35 the mean ELISA antibody titers were 4158.5,5643, 4246.0, 5420.0, 4357.0, 0.0, 0.0 of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The lowest mean ELISA antibody titer (zero) was recorded in groups F and G, whereas the highest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded in group B (5643.0).On day 42 the mean ELISA antibody titers were 6069.0,9006.0, 5408.0, 7147.0, 5326.0, 0.0 and 0.0 of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The groups F and G were negative for the presence of ELISA antibodies. However,the highest mean ELISA antibody titer was recorded ingroup B (9006.0).

Table-11: Comparison of mean ELISA antibody Titers of IBD

###Days indicating Mean ELISA Antibody Titers

###Groups

###Day 1###Day 7###Day 14###Day 21###Day 28###Day 35###Day 42

###A###1355.0###266.0###464.0###2256.5###4158.5###6069.0

###B###1330.0###380.0###496.0###1382.5###5643.0###9006.0

###C###1625.0###488.0###572.0###2130.0###4296.0###5408.0

###D###1625.0###606.5###572.0###1582.5###5420.0###7147.0

###E###343.1###355.0###316.2###2920.5###4357.0###5326.0

###F###1583.0###1410.0###974.0###537.0###120.0###0.0###0.0

###G###1532.0###1326.0###828.0###40.0###0.0###0.0

3.3- Effects of vaccine and vaccination schedule feed conversion ratioFeed conversion ratio of (FCR) of different treatment groupsof broiler chickens were determine on 42 day. The FCR of groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 2.0908, 2.1416, 1.9805,2.1101, 1.9884, 1.9594 and 1.9386 respectively. The unvaccinated chicks in control group G had FCR 1.9386.The IBD unvaccinated groups F and G had better FCRvalues (F=1.9594, G=1.9386) than the IBD vaccinated birdsA, B, C, D and E. (A=2.0908, B=2.1416, C=1.9805, D=2.1101and E=1.9884). The hot strain vaccinated chickens groups B and D had poor feed conversion ratio as compared to the intermediate strain and complex IBD vaccinatedchickens groups A, C and E. The study also indicates thatFCR of group C vaccinated with the IBD intermediate strain vaccines had better than the group A and E vaccinated with the intermediate and complex vaccine. The total feed consumed, mean body weight gain and FCR values of chickens in various vaccinated groups are presented in Table-14. This study indicates that IBDV vaccine have detrimental effects, as the FCR value of NDV vaccinated and non-vaccinated control were better (F= 1.9594 and G=1.9386) as compared to the IBDV vaccinated groups.

Table-14: Feed conversion ratio of different groups.###

###Feed###Mean weight###

Groups###FCR

###consumed(grams)###gain(grams)

###A###5110###2444###2.0908###

###B###5021###2344###2.1416###

###C###4575###2310###1.9805###

###D###4695###2225###2.1101###

###E###4490###2258###1.9884###

###F###5110###2444###1.9594

###G###4870###252###1.9386

Newcastle disease (ND) and infectious bursal disease (IBD) pose great hazard to poultry industry in many parts of the world. In Pakistan, a lot of vaccines had been introduced to control these diseases. However, failures encountered from time to time. The salient questions addressed in this study are to determine the interaction between the most commonly used vaccines against these diseases and its role in vaccination failure.In the present study different strains of infectious bursal disease virus (IBD) vaccines were incorporated in vaccination schedule of broilers followed in Punjab,Pakistan. The immune profile of ND and IBD vaccines were studied to evaluate the effect of IBD vaccine strain on ND vaccine immune response. The parameters studied were immune response to NDV vaccine, body weight ratio of lymphoid organ such as bursa, spleen and thymus, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and protection to virulent NDV challenge.It was well established fact that maternally derived antibodies (MDAs) are protective against ND infection [25]. The chicks used in the present study were procured from awell reputed commercial hatchery. The breeder flocks ofthis hatchery were maintained in controlled environmental houses and follow an intensive vaccination programme.FCR values for various treatment groups were also calculated to record the effects on production parameter which were in groups A (2.0908), B (2.1416), C (1.9805), D(2.1101), E (1.9884), F (1.9594) and non-vaccinated groupG (1.9386). The groups F (only NDVvaccinated) and G (non-vaccinated control) were better FCR as compared to the groups A, B, C, D and E which were vaccinated with intermediate strain, hot strain and complex IBDV vaccine. IBDV vaccine have immunosuppressive effects on the immune system of the chickens and also detrimental for feed conversion ratio of broiler birds [26]. The vaccinated birds were found less efficient in converting feed than the unvaccinated birds.

CONCLUSIONThe overall findings of the study indicated that the use ofIBDV vaccines has immunosuppressive effects. The vaccinated birds were found less efficient in converting feed than the unvaccinated birds.

REFERENCE[1] Anonymous, "Office International desEpizootics,"Newcastle Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines,'' 4th disease ed. Paris.Pp 54-57 (2001).[2] Rima, B., Alexander, D.J., Billeter, M.A., Collins, P.L., Kingsbury., Lipkind, M.A., Nagai, Y., Orvell, C., Pringle, C.R., Murphy, M., Fauquet C.M., Bishop, D.H., Ghabrial, A.W., Jarvis, G.P., Martei, M.A. and Summers, M.D., "Virus Taxonomy,'' Sixth report of the international committee in taxonomy of viruses. Springer-Verlag, Wien, Germany.268-274 (1995).[3] Calenk, Coletti, M., Del Rossi E., Frasciosini, Passamonti, M.P. F. and Tacconi, G.C., "Diseases of poultry," Iowa state University Press.Ames USA, 496-513 (1991).[4] Anjum, A.D.,"Infectious bursal disease" Poultry Diseases, 2nd Ed.Vet. Ag. Publications, 6-Moon Plaza, Chiniot Bazar, Faisalabad, Pakistan.24-29 (1997).[5] Saif, Y.M., Glisson, J.R., Barnes, H.J., Fadly, A.M., Mcdougald, L.R. and Swayne, D.E., "Diseases of poultry," Iwa state press.U.S.A..11th Edition, 161-162 (2003).[6] Lukert, P.D. and Saif, Y.M., "Disease of poultry,'' 9th edition. Iowa State University press.Ames. Iowa, USA.648-665 (1991).[7] Chettle, N. J.C., Stauart and Wyet, P.J., "Outbreak of virulent infectious bursal disease in East Anglia," Veterinary Records, 125: 271-272 (1989).[8] Hair-Bejo, M., "An outbreak of infectious bursal disease in broilers," Journal of Veterinary Malaysia.,4: 168. (1992).[9] Nakamura, Lin, T.Z., Tokuda, T., Kato, A., Otaki, Y., Nunoya. T. and Ueda, S., "Japanese IBDVS and diagnosis," Proceeding of second international symposium on infectious bursal disease (IBD) and chicken infectious anemia (CIA). 162-170 (1994) Rauischholzhausen, Germany.[10] Farooq, M., Durrani, F.R., Imran, Durrani, Z. and Chand, N., "Prevalence and economic losses due to infectious bursal disease in broilers in Mirpur and Koltidistricts of Kashmir," International Journal of Poultry. Science, 2: 267-270 (2003).[11] Wyeth, P.J. and Chettl, N.J., "Use of infectious bursal disease vaccines in chicks with maternally derivedantibodies," Veterinary Records, 126: 577-578 (1990).[12] Whitfill, C.E., Haddad, C.A., Ricks J.K., Skeeles, L.A., Newberry, J.N., Beasly, P.D., Andrews, J.A., Thoma and Wakenell, P.S., "Determination of optimum formulation of a novel infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) vaccine constructed by mixing bursal antibody with IBDV," Avian Diseases, 39: 687-699 (1995).[13] Haddad, E.E., Whitfill, A.P., Avakian, C.A., Ricks, P.D., Andrews, J.A.M., Thoma and Wakenell, P.S. "Efficacy of a novel infectious bursal disease virus immunecomplex vaccine in broiler chickens," Avian Disease, 41(2): 882-889 (1997).[14] Agoha, N.J., Akpavie S.0. and Durojaiye, "Pathogenecity of two strains of Newcastle disease virus in the grey breasted helmet guinea fowl,''Veterinary Quarterly, 14: 51-53 (1992).

[15] Sonaiya E. B., Branckaert R., and Gueye E.F., "Commercial Broiler Production," Mississippi State University. Mississippi State. Press. USA. Chap. 2 : 7-13.[16] Permin, A. and Pederson, G., "The need for aholistic view on disease problems in free range Chickens production in Africa," African Journal of Biomedical Research.,6: 1-8 (2002).[17] Jackwood, D.H. and Saif, Y.M., "Antigenic diversity of infectious bursal disease viruses," Avian Diseases, 31:766-770 (1987).[18] Lasher, H.N. and Shane S.M., ''Infectious bursal disease,'' World's Poultry Science Journal, 50: 133-166 (1994).[19] Kibenge, Dhillon A.S. and Russel R.J., "Biochemistry and immunology of infectious bursal disease virus," Journal of General Virology.,69: 1757-1775 (1988).[20] Van den Berg, T.P., "Acute infectious bursal disease in poultry, A review.'' Avian Pathology, 29: 175-194 (2000).[21] Ashraf, S., Abdel-Alim, G., Al-Natour, M.Q. and Saif, "Interference between mild and pathogenic strains of infectious bursal disease virus in chickens, "Avian Diseases, 49:99-103 (2005).[22] Cardoso, W.M., Aguiar F., Romao J.M., Oliveira, Salles, W.F., Teixeira, R.S. and Sobral M., "Effect of associated vaccines on the interference between Newcastle Disease virus and Infectious Bronchitis virus in broilers," Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science,7:181-184 (2005).[23] Cook, H., Orbell, M.B., Mawditt, S.J. K., and Cavanagh, D., "Infectious bronchitis virus vaccine interferes with the replication of avian pneumovirus vaccine in domestic fowl," Avian Pathology, 30: 2 33-242 (2001).[24] Smith, T.W., "Commercial Broiler Production," Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Chap. 2: 7-13 (1999).[25] Allan, W.H, J.A. Lancaster and B. Toth, "Newcastle disease vaccines, their production and use, " FAO Anim. Prod.Ser. No. 10, FAO, Rome (1978).[26] Li, C. S., Wang L. Y. and Chou, C. C., "Field evaluation of flock production performance of in ovo injection of infectious bursal disease virus immune complex vaccine in commercial broiler farms," Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 42(2): 25-31(2002).
COPYRIGHT 2014 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:infectious bursal disease; newcastle disease
Author:Kashif-ur-Rehman; Ahmad, Muhammad Jamil; Raza, Muhammad Asif; Murtaza, Saeed; Abbas, Ismail; Saeed,
Publication:Science International
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Mar 31, 2014
Words:3338
Previous Article:POLITICAL MINER: OPINION EXTRACTION FROM USER GENERATED POLITICAL REVIEWS.
Next Article:SPECTRUM SCHEDULING: THE KEY FACTOR FOR MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT AND OPTIMAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORK.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters