Next Article in Journal
Effects of Equol Supplementation on Growth Performance, Redox Status, Intestinal Health and Skeletal Muscle Development of Weanling Piglets with Intrauterine Growth Retardation
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Increasing the Methionine Level and Reducing the Threonine Level in the Diet of Fast-Growing Rabbits
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/ani13091472
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigations of Histomonosis-Favouring Conditions: A Hypotheses-Generating Case-Series-Study

by
Julia Lüning
1,
Amely Campe
2 and
Silke Rautenschlein
1,*
1
Clinic for Poultry, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Buenteweg 17, 30559 Hannover, Germany
2
Department of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing (IBEI), WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health at the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Buenteweg 2, 30559 Hannover, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(9), 1472; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091472
Submission received: 2 April 2023 / Revised: 20 April 2023 / Accepted: 25 April 2023 / Published: 26 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Poultry)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Histomonosis has become a serious disease not only for turkeys but for the entire poultry sector. Despite a focus on research on histomonosis over recent years, possible disease-favouring conditions are still poorly understood. For this reason, an interview-based case series study was initiated on 31 affected turkey farms in Germany. Despite a generally good risk awareness among participating farmers for disease-favouring conditions, an insufficient attitude towards certain biosecurity aspects was detected. Furthermore, hypotheses concerning various possibilities of pathogen introduction via animate or inanimate vectors could be generated, which need to be tested in follow-up studies. Overall, this study demonstrates that improvements in biosecurity, flock, and health management are necessary to ensure animal welfare in the future.

Abstract

Since the ban of effective feed additives and therapeutics, histomonosis has become an important disease and, subsequently, a welfare issue for turkey production. We conducted an interview-based case series study to generate hypotheses about possible disease-favouring conditions in 31 H. meleagridis-infected flocks. The determined parameters were related to the general farm (flock management, biosecurity measures, etc.) as well as the histomonosis-specific disease management. Some inadequate biosecurity measures were observed. An inappropriate usage of the hygiene lock and cleaning as well as the disinfection frequency of equipment, clothes, and the hygiene lock could possibly be histomonosis-favouring conditions. These factors could increase the risk for the introduction of H. meleagridis and the risk of a pathogen spread on an affected farm. Insects, wild birds, litter materials, and contaminated dung could be potential vectors of H. meleagridis. Predisposing gastrointestinal diseases were observed in 71% of the affected flocks. Additionally, stress events related to higher temperature, movement of birds, and vaccination were documented in association with clinical histomonosis. The results emphasise the need for both good disease control and health management to ensure sustainable animal health and welfare.

1. Introduction

Histomonas meleagridis (H. meleagridis) is the causative agent of histomonosis, also known as blackhead disease. Histomonosis has become an economically important disease throughout the world for poultry, especially for turkeys and chickens, since the ban of effective feed additives and therapeutics in many countries [1,2]. The pathogen may invade the hosts directly or indirectly by oral or cloacal infection [3]. Vectors, such as the caecal worm Heterakis gallinarum and earthworms, but also mechanical or inanimate vectors, play an important role in the epidemiology of histomonosis [3,4,5]. Wild birds and numerous poultry species can constitute a reservoir for the pathogen [3,5]. H. meleagridis causes pathognomonic lesions primarily in the caeca. Inflammatory reactions and the subsequent damage of the intestinal barrier may lead to a spread of the pathogen to the liver and, less frequently, to other organs [3,6]. The clinical signs are primarily non-specific, but a typical sulfur coloured diarrhoea may be observed [7,8]. The clinical symptoms may appear after an incubation period of 6 to 15 days, starting at the third week of life [3,9]. However, outbreaks of older meat turkeys or breeder turkeys have also been reported [10,11]. Morbidity and mortality rates may range from less than 10% up to almost 100% [3,10,11,12,13,14]. Not all factors contributing to the variable clinical course of histomonosis have been elucidated so far. Pathogen-associated variation in virulence as well as host susceptibility may contribute to the pathogenesis [10,14,15,16,17]. We can speculate that additional factors may also favour the disease development. Only a few epidemiological investigations have been carried out to identify histomonosis-favouring conditions. The seasonality, regionality, age of turkeys, pre-existing gastrointestinal diseases, and litter moisture seem to have a favourable influence on the clinical development of histomonosis [10,15,18]. Due to the difficulty of experimental investigations of possible histomonosis-favouring factors in a multifactorial setting, further field investigations are necessary to understand these factors in affected turkey flocks, as the disease currently causes high economic losses as well as an animal welfare problem worldwide. We implemented a case series study on 31 turkey farms with a history of histomonosis outbreaks to generate hypotheses about histomonosis-favouring conditions. The generated hypotheses could serve as starting points for further studies in different research areas on histomonosis. This case series study was a follow up of a case control study, which investigated possible ways that H. meleagridis is introduced on turkey farms with and without cases of histomonosis [19].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

A total of 31 out of 40 participating case farms of a previously conducted case control study also contributed to follow-up case series investigations [19]. A questionnaire was designed for an on-farm interview (Tables S1–S5b). It was aimed to collect all relevant data on an exemplary histomonosis outbreak since January 2018, which the participating farmers were assumed to remember best. After a testing phase of the designed questionnaire on two farms––which are under the veterinary care of the Clinic for Poultry of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, although neither participated in the case control study nor the case series study––the farm visits, including an interview to collect answers for the questionnaire, took place between August 2021 and January 2022. Additionally, a protocol documented all other important information, such as the current conditions in the hygiene lock and the state of health and the management of the housed flock (Tables S1–S5b).

2.2. Data Analysis

The descriptive analysis was performed using SAS Enterprise Guide, version 7.15, and SAS Software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Graphs were created with GraphPad Prism (Version 6.02 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA, www.graphpad.com (accessed on 23 October 2022)). The handwritten answers were transcribed, coded, and tabulated in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA, 2018. Microsoft Excel, version 2303, https://office.microsoft.com/excel (accessed on 1 March 2022)). The coding was performed manually according to an in-house scheme. Missing information was prevented through the direct interview. A total of 164 variables (Tables S1–S5b) were analysed (number (n) and percentage (%) for qualitative variables; median, standard deviation, variance coefficient, minimum, maximum, 25%- and 75%-quantile for quantitative variables). The classification of variables is as follows: description and management of the farm and flock (Table S1); general biosecurity measures (Table S2a,b); health management, incidence and therapy of diseases (Table S3a,b); outbreak management (Table S4); and coincidental findings (Table S5a,b). To reduce social desirability bias, we obtained a personal impression of the conditions on the farm and in the affected houses. In addition, all necessary documents for answering the questionnaire, such as the documentation of production data and veterinary reports, were examined. Subsequently, the correctness of the farmers’ answers to the questionnaire was checked and, in case of discrepancies, the answers were corrected after consultation with the farmers [20,21].

3. Results and Discussion

In order to generate hypotheses about histomonosis-favouring conditions, associated questions were selected and evaluated. The results are presented and discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.1. Description and Management of the Farm and Flock

A total of 30 meat turkey farms participated in our field study. Two of them were rearing farms, 12 were fattening farms, and 16 were combined rearing and fattening farms. In addition, one turkey breeder farm participated (Table S1). Our results confirm previous field studies in which both fattening and breeder flocks were affected by H. meleagridis [10,11,15]. A total of 18 farms had already experienced several outbreaks of histomonosis, which indicates either favouring conditions for a reintroduction of H. meleagridis or a pathogen persistence on the farms, possibly in vectors or due to resistant stages in the environment [14,22,23,24,25,26].
Due to the production structure of meat turkeys in Germany, there are often one or more movements of the birds within a farm or between different farms. A total of 32% of the farms had moved a flock up to ten days before an outbreak of histomonosis was noticed. A movement may not only be associated with an increased risk for a pathogen introduction, but can also be considered as a stress-inducing factor [27]. An upregulation of pro-inflammatory factors and factors associated with immunosuppression can be measured in stressed poultry [28,29]. These changes may favour the development of a more severe clinical disease in turkeys infected with H. meleagridis. Moreover, stress could lead to a resurgence of H. meleagridis in latently affected birds with an increase in pathogen excretion, resulting in a direct lateral pathogen spread with large numbers of affected turkeys [30,31].
Weather conditions, such as a drop in temperature, major precipitation, or wind were either hardly or not observed within the context of a histomonosis outbreak. Most of the analysed outbreaks (24/31) appeared in the warmer season between June and September (Figure 1), confirming previous field studies [4,10,15,32]. The seasonal distribution of outbreaks may suggest an impact of temperature-related stress. As 12 farmers reported extreme drought (Table S1), it can be assumed that high outside temperatures were present, which challenged the climate management within the turkey houses [33]. Temperature-related stress may be associated with changes in the gut microbiome, which can influence the blood flow and may lead to hypoxia [34,35,36]. Hypoxia may lead, in turn, to a higher permeability of the gut barrier due to morphological and functional damage, resulting in a systemic distribution of H. meleagridis and a subsequent severe course of the disease [36]. Temperature-related stress may also influence the composition of the gut microbiome towards microbes that favour H. meleagridis [37].
Most of the affected turkey houses were directly surrounded by green areas as well as trees and bushes, which could provide an ideal environment for vectors and wild birds [25,38]. On the other hand, these surrounding conditions may be suitable for emission control, emphasising the controversial requirements for poultry farms [39].

3.2. General Biosecurity Measures

A total of 45% of the farmers observed insects, mainly beetles and flies, in the outbreak houses (Table 1), which are considered as mechanical vectors for H. meleagridis [4,40,41]. Insect control was reported by 7/31 farmers, leaving 71% of the affected farms with a higher risk of an introduction of H. meleagridis. This risk may even be enhanced by rough concrete floors and floors with cracks, which were reported by 74% of the farmers (Table S2a), allowing possible vectors to survive cleaning and disinfection procedures [42]. These circumstances could possibly have led to a re-occurrence of histomonosis.
A total of 27 farms had at least one hygiene lock, while four farms had two (one at the farm entrance and one in front of each turkey house). The equipment of the hygiene lock and the use of suitable clothes is presented in Figure 2. In most cases, a wash basin with soap was available. Nevertheless, in some cases, we observed that the cleaning and disinfection of hands before entering the turkey house were not performed during our personal visit, suggesting irregular use. In only 42% of the farms, a turkey-house specific overall was worn. In the other cases, the farmers wore clothes that were also worn outside the turkey houses. Furthermore, it was noticeable that one-way products, such as footwear, overalls, gloves, and hairnets, were rarely used. Commendably, footwear only worn in the turkey house was used on 30 farms, for which disinfection basins were available on 26 farms.
In the majority of farms, clothes were cleaned at least weekly (20/31; Table S2a). However, the turkey-house specific footwear was wet-cleaned less frequently than weekly in more than 70% of the farms, and disinfection basins, if present, were also cleaned and refilled less frequently than weekly in 73% of the farms.
A total of 55% of the farms wet-cleaned their hygiene locks at least weekly. However, the hygiene locks were disinfected weekly by only 20% of the farms. On the other hand, regular cleaning (28/31) and disinfection frequency (27/31) of the cadaver storage facilities was observed. This fact is indicative of a good awareness of the participating farmers regarding possible risks associated with cadaver storage, possibly due to advanced education measures in the context of the avian influenza crisis in recent years [27,43].
A total of 30 farms used enrichment materials at the time of an outbreak (Table 2). In addition to materials that are easy to clean (e.g., plastic, metal, rubber), materials that are difficult to clean (e.g., wood, pecking stones) were also used in the majority of cases (approximately 73%). The results of the study indicate that the re-use of materials that are difficult to clean, especially the re-use of pecking stones, on approximately 27% of the farms may represent an avoidable risk for a spread of the pathogen (Table S2a).
The abovementioned analyses of biosecurity measures indicate that there are some deficiencies in the behaviour of farmers with respect to cleaning and disinfection measures that could lead to the introduction of the pathogen H. meleagridis or other disease-favouring pathogens into a flock [18,43]. Inadequate hygiene and biosecurity measures could also favour the spread of the pathogen between several houses on a farm. Our study supports this hypothesis, as there were outbreaks in several turkey houses of a farm with an average of 1.5 days in between (range: 0–28 days; Table S2b).

3.3. Health Management, Incidence and Therapy of Diseases

The investigated flocks were vaccinated against numerous pathogens (Table S3a). More than 60% of the farms did not continue the general vaccination program during a clinical outbreak of histomonosis. The last vaccination was on average 14 days before the beginning of the respective histomonosis outbreaks (range: 0–78 days; Table S3b). Based on this observation that farmers interrupted the vaccination program in case of clinical histomonosis, it can be concluded that farmers are generally well aware of the risk of the additional stress caused by vaccination. A previous study has already demonstrated that vaccination can be a meaningful stress factor [44].
Pre-existing diseases were diagnosed in 23 flocks (Figure 3). It was noticeable that over 70% of the affected flocks were diagnosed before the onset of a histomonosis outbreak with gastrointestinal diseases, associated with the detection of Escherichia coli, Eimeria species (spp.), or Clostridium spp. (Table 3). Accordingly, almost all flocks were pre-treated with antibiotics (24/31; Table S3a). The abovementioned microbes seem to favour H. meleagridis-related clinical symptoms or vice versa [18,45,46,47,48,49]. In addition, the antibiotic treatment could lead to imbalances in the gastrointestinal tract, possibly resulting in an accumulation of microbes that favour H. meleagridis [50].
The mortality caused by H. meleagridis was on median 25% in the analysed flocks (range: 4–100%; Table S3b). Clinical symptoms occurred on median at 46 days of life (Figure 4) and lasted on median for 21 days (range: 0–98 days; Table S3b). After the onset of clinical symptoms, a pathological examination was immediately initiated on all farms (Figure 4). Numerous other diagnostic tests were performed to identify the causative pathogen H. meleagridis and secondary pathogens. It is remarkable that the pathological examinations always led to the diagnosis of histomonosis, possibly due to a good veterinarians’ knowledge about the pathognomonic caecum and liver lesions [7,51]. In addition, the detection of the pathogen DNA was successful in 27/28 cases (Table S3a). Treatment against histomonosis was carried out on 30 farms (Table 4). An antibiotic treatment with Paromomycin (27/31) was used in the majority of cases (Table S3a). Furthermore, herbal products were used in 45% of the farms (14/31). However, only five farmers reported a rapid improvement of flock health, which was combined with a low to medium mortality rate. This corresponds to the results of numerous studies in which both Paromomycin and herbal products had reliable effects in vitro but have not yet shown effectiveness in field outbreaks with severe clinical symptoms [13,52]. In addition, the emergency killing in one third of the cases is also indicative of a low effectiveness of the used prophylactic and therapeutic agents.
Overall, the occurrence of pre-existing diseases and the lack of reliable histomonosis control measures seem to favour the clinical development of histomonosis.

3.4. Outbreak Management

All flocks were inspected at least twice a day. Clinically sick flocks were controlled even more frequently in about 65% of the farms (Table S4). On 29 farms, turkeys with severe clinical symptoms, unable to eat and drink, were killed immediately for animal welfare reasons according to the farmer’s assessment. On almost all farms, the cadavers were removed immediately to cooled and closed containers. Equipment, such as wheelbarrows (12/31) and wheel loaders (5/31), was used in some cases for disposal. The disposal was carried out via different routes, such as through emergency doors (9/31), turkey-house doors (21/31), or the hygiene lock (12/31). Almost all caretakers re-passed the hygiene lock after disposal (28/31). In the event of a histomonosis outbreak, almost all farmers used turkey-house specific clothes for the affected flock. However, this did not include the use of turkey-house specific equipment. Only 61% of the farms used turkey-house specific equipment in the case of a histomonosis outbreak. The use of shared equipment in affected and unaffected houses posed a risk of pathogen transmission [4].
The contaminated dung was spread on surrounding farmland in 6/31 cases. In most cases (23/31), the dung was transported to biogas facilities. Only two farms disinfected the dung before disposal. The presence of multiple bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites in the dung and the possibility of an airborne transmission of pathogens from dung-fertilized soil was described in previous studies [53,54,55]. The reported spread of infected dung, which had not been treated to destroy the pathogen, in the immediate vicinity of a turkey house could favour an accumulation of H. meleagridis in the environment, and it could have led to the reported re-occurrence of histomonosis on affected farms as well as outbreaks that did not occur in the predisposed season. The open storage of infected dung also poses a risk for pathogen spread and dissemination, because wild birds, searching for feed residue, could take up the contaminated dung.
To conclude, an inadequate handling of contaminated materials may favor the spread of the pathogen in the vicinity of turkey farms, increasing the risk of a histomonosis outbreak.

3.5. Coincidental Findings

Although only reported by few farmers, additional coincidental findings should be considered to have contributed the histomonosis outbreaks. Four farmers observed an increased number of earthworms (Table S5a), known to be a vector for H. meleagridis, before an outbreak had appeared [56]. At the same time, these four farmers reported waterlogging in the affected turkey houses. The observed waterlogging could have increased the attractiveness of the inside of the turkey house for vectors, as it provides a cooler and more humid environment [57].
On three other farms, wild birds (crows, birds of prey), which can form a reservoir for H. meleagridis, were observed inside the turkey house immediately before an outbreak had appeared [38,58,59].
A pathogen introduction may also be possible via contaminated dust particles originating from tillage and harvesting activities in the immediate vicinity, as described for other pathogens [60,61,62,63]. Favourable wind conditions combined with the abovementioned activities were described by five of the interviewed farmers. However, this route of introduction requires a pathogen persistence in the environment in vectors or possibly as a small cyst-like stage, which has only been described in vitro so far [22,23,24,25,64]. In this field study, the distance between turkey farms that were affected at the same time was on median 3.5 km, which could be another indication of a possible airborne transmission (range: 2.0–10.0 km; Table S5b).
Another route of introduction was suspected by five farmers, who used freshly harvested straw as litter material (Table S5a). Numerous pathogens have already been detected in litter material [65,66]. Straw harvested from potentially contaminated fields in the vicinity of an affected farm could in turn be highly contaminated with H. meleagridis, whether solitary, adhering to dust particles, or in vectors.
An individual needle vaccination took place on four farms immediately before an outbreak had appeared. The reported vaccination of the flocks may have promoted the clinical onset of histomonosis. Vaccination is always associated with long-term stress, and immunological stress may have led to an imbalance of the microbiome in the caecum and may have disrupted the immune function of the gut, which could favour the clinical disease development of histomonosis [67].
The analyses of coincidental findings demonstrate that further studies are needed to investigate possible modes of pathogen introduction and possible histomonosis-favouring factors in more detail.

4. Conclusions

Outbreaks of histomonosis occurred several times as opposed to once on the respective farms, which emphasises the impact of histomonosis on animal health, animal welfare, and economic aspects. The personal visit and comparison of case farms provided important information to generate hypotheses about possible histomonosis-favouring conditions.
The general hygiene measures evaluated were partially insufficient and for this reason can be speculated to favour histomonosis outbreaks in turkeys. Accordingly, we consider that the impact of the hygiene lock and the associated measures of personal cleaning and disinfection should be investigated further. In addition, the cleaning and disinfection frequency of the equipment, the clothes, and the hygiene lock should be carefully evaluated on each farm, and they should be improved to avoid a possible pathogen introduction, if necessary. Our study further suggests that the pathogen introduction through inanimate vectors should be investigated in more detail in follow-up studies.
Moreover, possible histomonosis-favouring, stress-associated factors have to be further analysed, as our study points out that temperature and activities such as movement of birds or vaccination may pave the way for a clinical histomonosis outbreak.
Additionally, gastrointestinal diseases may have a disease-favouring effect on histomonosis, which needs to be investigated further.
The data on mortality rates, insufficient therapy success, and emergency culling clearly indicate that there is an urgent necessity for the identification of H. meleagridis control and intervention measures to minimise animal welfare problems related to the disease and the dramatic economic consequences. Therefore, the case series study sets the ground for hypotheses-testing studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani13091472/s1, Table S1: Description and management of the farm and flock; Table S2a,b: General biosecurity measures; Table S3a,b: Health management, incidence and therapy of diseases; Table S4: Outbreak management; Table S5a,b: Coincidental findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, J.L., A.C. and S.R.; formal analysis and data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L. and S.R.; writing—review and editing, A.C. and S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the QS-Wissenschaftsfonds and QS-Fachgesellschaft Geflügel GmbH (Bonn, Germany). This Open Access publication was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—491094227 “Open Access Publication Funding” and the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

As the study is non-interventional, no ethical approval was required.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all veterinarians, who contributed to the development of the questionnaire with their expertise. In addition, grateful appreciation is given to all farmers, who supported our study by answering the questionnaire and by giving us the opportunity to visit their farms.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

DNAdeoxyribonucleic acid
e.g.,exempli gratia (for example)
H. meleagridisHistomonas meleagridis
nnumber
spp. species
etc.et cetera

References

  1. Clark, S.; Kimminau, E. Critical Review: Future Control of Blackhead Disease (Histomoniasis) in Poultry. Avian Dis. 2017, 61, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liebhart, D.; Ganas, P.; Sulejmanovic, T.; Hess, M. Histomonosis in poultry: Previous and current strategies for prevention and therapy. Avian Pathol. 2017, 46, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hauck, R.; Hafez, H.M. Experimental infections with the protozoan parasite Histomonas meleagridis: A review. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hauck, R.; Balczulat, S.; Hafez, H.M. Detection of DNA of Histomonas meleagridis and Tetratrichomonas gallinarum in German Poultry Flocks Between 2004 and 2008. Avian Dis. 2010, 54, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McDougald, L.R. Blackhead Disease (Histomoniasis) in Poultry: A Critical Review. Avian Dis. 2005, 49, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Powell, F.L.; Rothwell, L.; Clarkson, M.J.; Kaiser, P. The turkey, compared to the chicken, fails to mount an effective early immune response to Histomonas meleagridis in the gut. Parasite Immunol. 2009, 31, 312–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sentíes-Cué, G.; Chin, R.P.; Shivaprasad, H.L. Systemic Histomoniasis Associated with High Mortality and Unusual Lesions in the Bursa of Fabricius, Kidneys, and Lungs in Commercial Turkeys. Avian Dis. 2009, 53, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Windisch, M.; Hess, M. Experimental infection of chickens with Histomonas meleagridis confirms the presence of antibodies in different parts of the intestine. Parasite Immunol. 2010, 32, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Swayne, D.E.; Boulianne, M.; Logue, C.M.; McDougald, L.R.; Nair, V.; Suarez, D.L.; Wit, S.D.; Grimes, T.; Johnson, D.; Kromm, M.; et al. Diseases of Poultry, 14th ed.; Swayne, D.E., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  10. Callait-Cardinal, M.-P.; Leroux, S.; Venereau, E.; Chauve, C.M.; Le Pottier, G.; Zenner, L. Incidence of histomonosis in turkeys in France since the bans of dimetridazole and nifursol. Vet. Rec. 2007, 161, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aka, J.; Hauck, R.; Blankenstein, P.; Balczulat, S.; Hafez, H.M. [Reoccurrence of histomonosis in turkey breeder farm]. Berl. und Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 2011, 124, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Wahab, A.A.; Visscher, C.; Haider, W.; Dimitri, R. A case study of histomoniasis in fattening turkeys identified in histopathological investigations. Ger. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 1, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lin, G.W. Paromomycin Sulfate Treatment in Histomoniasis Outbreaks in Three Commercial Turkey Flocks in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Avian Dis. 2021, 65, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Popp, C.; Hauck, R.; Balczulat, S.; Hafez, H.M. Recurring Histomonosis on an Organic Farm. Avian Dis. 2011, 55, 328–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hauck, R.; Stoute, S.; Chin, R.P.; Sentíes-Cué, C.G.; Shivaprasad, H.L. Retrospective Study of Histomoniasis (Blackhead) in California Turkey Flocks, 2000–2014. Avian Dis. 2018, 62, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Palmieri, N.; Ramires, M.D.J.; Hess, M.; Bilic, I. Complete genomes of the eukaryotic poultry parasite Histomonas meleagridis: Linking sequence analysis with virulence/attenuation. BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lagler, J.; Schmidt, S.; Mitra, T.; Stadler, M.; Wernsdorf, P.; Grafl, B.; Hatfaludi, T.; Hess, M.; Gerner, W.; Liebhart, D. Comparative investigation of IFN-γ-producing T cells in chickens and turkeys following vaccination and infection with the extracellular parasite Histomonas meleagridis. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2020, 116, 103949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Callait-Cardinal, M.P.; Gilot-Fromont, E.; Chossat, L.; Gonthier, A.; Chauve, C.; Zenner, L. Flock management and histomoniasis in free-range turkeys in France: Description and search for potential risk factors. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010, 138, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lüning, J.; Wunderl, D.; Rautenschlein, S.; Campe, A. Histomonosis in German turkey flocks: Possible ways of pathogen introduction. Avian Pathol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Krumpal, I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 2025–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Houe, H.; Kjaer Ersboll, A.; Toft, N. Introduction to Veterinary Epidemiology; Biofolia: Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2004; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zaragatzki, E.; Mehlhorn, H.; Abdel-Ghaffar, F.; Rasheid, K.A.S.; Grabensteiner, E.; Hess, M. Experiments to produce cysts in cultures of Histomonas meleagridis—The agent of histomonosis in poultry. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 106, 1005–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zaragatzki, E.; Hess, M.; Grabensteiner, E.; Abdel-Ghaffar, F.; Al-Rasheid, K.A.S.; Mehlhorn, H. Light and transmission electron microscopic studies on the encystation of Histomonas meleagridis. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 106, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Munsch, M.; Lotfi, A.; Hafez, H.M.; Al-Quraishy, S.; Mehlhorn, H. Light and transmission electron microscopic studies on trophozoites and cyst-like stages of Histomonas meleagridis from cultures. Parasitol. Res. 2009, 104, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kemp, R.L.; Franson, J.C. Transmission of Histomonas meleagridis to Domestic Fowl by Means of Earthworms Recovered from Pheasant Yard Soil. Avian Dis. 1975, 19, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sulejmanovic, T.; Liebhart, D.; Magdefrau-Pollan, B.; Sanglhuber, E.M.; Wiesinger, E.; Bilic, I.; Hess, M. Emergence of fatal histomonosis in meat turkey flocks in Austria from 2014 to 2016. Wien. Tierarztl. Monatsschr. 2017, 104, 277–287. [Google Scholar]
  27. Huneau-Salaün, A.; Scoizec, A.; Thomas, R.; Martenot, C.; Schmitz, A.; Pierre, I.; Allée, C.; Busson, R.; Massin, P.; Briand, F.-X.; et al. Avian influenza outbreaks: Evaluating the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection of vehicles and transport crates. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wein, Y.; Bar Shira, E.; Friedman, A. Avoiding handling-induced stress in poultry: Use of uniform parameters to accurately determine physiological stress. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shini, S.; Huff, G.R.; Shini, A.; Kaiser, P. Understanding stress-induced immunosuppression: Exploration of cytokine and chemokine gene profiles in chicken peripheral leukocytes. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hughes, C.; Gaskell, R.; Jones, R.; Bradbury, J.; Jordan, F. Effects of certain stress factors on the re-excretion of infectious laryngotracheitis virus from latently infected carrier birds. Res. Vet. Sci. 1989, 46, 274–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hu, J.; McDougald, L.R. Direct Lateral Transmission of Histomonas meleagridis in Turkeys. Avian Dis. 2003, 47, 489–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hess, M.; Liebhart, D.; Bilic, I.; Ganas, P. Histomonas meleagridis—New insights into an old pathogen. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 208, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nawab, A.; Ibtisham, F.; Li, G.; Kieser, B.; Wu, J.; Liu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Nawab, Y.; Li, K.; Xiao, M.; et al. Heat stress in poultry production: Mitigation strategies to overcome the future challenges facing the global poultry industry. J. Therm. Biol. 2018, 78, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhu, L.; Liao, R.; Wu, N.; Zhu, G.; Yang, C. Heat stress mediates changes in fecal microbiome and functional pathways of laying hens. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rostagno, M.H. Effects of heat stress on the gut health of poultry. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vandana, G.D.; Sejian, V.; Lees, A.M.; Pragna, P.; Silpa, M.V.; Maloney, S.K. Heat stress and poultry production: Impact and amelioration. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2021, 65, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Shi, D.; Bai, L.; Qu, Q.; Zhou, S.; Yang, M.; Guo, S.; Li, Q.; Liu, C. Impact of gut microbiota structure in heat-stressed broilers. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2405–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Potts, G.R. Long-term changes in the prevalences of caecal nematodes and histomonosis in gamebirds in the UK and the interaction with poultry. Vet. Rec. 2009, 164, 715–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Adrizal, A.; Patterson, P.H.; Hulet, R.M.; Bates, R.M.; Myers, C.A.; Martin, G.P.; Shockey, R.L.; Van Der Grinten, M.; Anderson, D.A.; Thompson, J.R. Vegetative buffers for fan emissions from poultry farms: 2. ammonia, dust and foliar nitrogen. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2008, 43, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dinev, I. The darkling beetle (Alphitobius diaperinus)—A health hazard for broiler chicken production. Trakia J. Sci. 2013, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Spindler, L.A. Experimental transmission of Histomonas meleagridis and Heterakis gallinarum by the sow-bug, Porcellio scaber, and its implications for further research. Proceeding Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 1967, 34, 26–29. [Google Scholar]
  42. Beckmann, J.F.; Dormitorio, T.; Oladipupo, S.O.; Terra, M.T.B.; Lawrence, K.; Macklin, K.S.; Hauck, R. Heterakis gallinarum and Histomonas meleagridis DNA persists in chicken houses years after depopulation. Vet. Parasitol. 2021, 298, 109536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Delpont, M.; Guinat, C.; Guérin, J.-L.; Le Leu, E.; Vaillancourt, J.-P.; Paul, M.C. Biosecurity measures in French poultry farms are associated with farm type and location. Prev. Veter-Med. 2021, 195, 105466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Li, R.; Liu, S.; Yuan, Z.; Yi, J.; Tian, Y.; Wu, J.; Wen, L. Effects of induced stress from the live LaSota Newcastle disease vaccination on the growth performance and immune function in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1896–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. McDougald, L.R.; Hu, J. Blackhead Disease (Histomonas meleagridis) Aggravated in Broiler Chickens by Concurrent Infection with Cecal Coccidiosis (Eimeria tenella). Avian Dis. 2001, 45, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ganas, P.; Liebhart, D.; Glösmann, M.; Hess, C.; Hess, M. Escherichia coli strongly supports the growth of Histomonas meleagridis, in a monoxenic culture, without influence on its pathogenicity. Int. J. Parasitol. 2012, 42, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Abdelhamid, M.K.; Quijada, N.M.; Dzieciol, M.; Hatfaludi, T.; Bilic, I.; Selberherr, E.; Liebhart, D.; Hess, C.; Hess, M.; Paudel, S. Co-infection of Chicken Layers with Histomonas meleagridis and Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Is Associated With Dysbiosis, Cecal Colonization and Translocation of the Bacteria From the Gut Lumen. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 586437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abdelhamid, M.K.; Rychlik, I.; Hess, C.; Hatfaludi, T.; Crhanova, M.; Karasova, D.; Lagler, J.; Liebhart, D.; Hess, M.; Paudel, S. Typhlitis induced by Histomonas meleagridis affects relative but not the absolute Escherichia coli counts and invasion in the gut in turkeys. Vet. Res. 2021, 52, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bilic, I.; Hess, M. Interplay between Histomonas meleagridis and Bacteria: Mutualistic or Predator–Prey? Trends Parasitol. 2020, 36, 232–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Danzeisen, J.L.; Clayton, J.B.; Huang, H.; Knights, D.; McComb, B.; Hayer, S.S.; Johnson, T.J. Temporal Relationships Exist Between Cecum, Ileum, and Litter Bacterial Microbiomes in a Commercial Turkey Flock, and Subtherapeutic Penicillin Treatment Impacts Ileum Bacterial Community Establishment. Front. Vet. Sci. 2015, 2, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cortes, P.L.; Chin, R.P.; Bland, M.C.; Crespo, R.; Shivaprasad, H.L. Histomoniasis in the Bursa of Fabricius of Chickens. Avian Dis. 2004, 48, 711–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hauck, R.; Hafez, H.M. Effect of Coated Plant Extracts on Histomonas Meleagridis and Growth of Bacteria in Vitro. Avian Dis. 2007, 51, 880–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kyakuwaire, M.; Olupot, G.; Amoding, A.; Nkedi-Kizza, P.; Basamba, T.A. How Safe is Chicken Litter for Land Application as an Organic Fertilizer?: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Thiel, N.; Münch, S.; Behrens, W.; Junker, V.; Faust, M.; Biniasch, O.; Kabelitz, T.; Siller, P.; Boedeker, C.; Schumann, P.; et al. Airborne bacterial emission fluxes from manure-fertilized agricultural soil. Microb. Biotechnol. 2020, 13, 1631–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Frentrup, M.; Thiel, N.; Junker, V.; Behrens, W.; Münch, S.; Siller, P.; Kabelitz, T.; Faust, M.; Indra, A.; Baumgartner, S.; et al. Agricultural fertilization with poultry manure results in persistent environmental contamination with the pathogen Clostridioides Difficile. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 7591–7602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lund, E.E.; Wehr, E.E.; Ellis, D.J. Earthworm Transmission of Heterakis and Histomonas to Turkeys and Chickens. J. Parasitol. 1966, 52, 899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Perreault, J.M.; Whalen, J.K. Earthworm burrowing in laboratory microcosms as influenced by soil temperature and moisture. Pedobiologia 2006, 50, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Noor, R.; Javid, A.; Hussain, A.; Bukhari, S.M.; Suleman, S.; Malik, S.; Amin, F.; Azam, S.M.; Ali, K.; Mustafa, G.; et al. Prevalence of parasites in selected captive bird species. Braz. J. Biol. 2021, 84, e254251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Eslami, A.; Meshgi, B.; Rahbari, S.; Ghaemi, P.; Aghaebrahimi-Samani, R. Biodiversity and Prevalence of Parasites of Rook (Corvus frugilegus) in Iran. Iran. J. Parasitol. 2007, 2, 42–43. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bertran, K.; Balzli, C.; Kwon, Y.-K.; Tumpey, T.M.; Clark, A.; Swayne, D.E. Airborne Transmission of Highly Pathogenic Influenza Virus during Processing of Infected Poultry. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 1806–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumar, G.D.; Williams, R.C.; Al Qublan, H.M.; Sriranganathan, N.; Boyer, R.R.; Eifert, J.D. Airborne soil particulates as vehicles for Salmonella contamination of tomatoes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 243, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, Y.; Richardson, B.; Takle, E.; Chai, L.; Schmitt, D.; Xin, H. Airborne transmission may have played a role in the spread of 2015 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in the United States. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nguyen, X.D.; Zhao, Y.; Evans, J.D.; Lin, J.; Purswell, J.L. Survival of Escherichia coli in Airborne and Settled Poultry Litter Particles. Animals 2022, 12, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Piearce, T.G.; Phillips, M.J. Fate of ciliates in the earthworm gut: An in vitro study. Microb. Ecol. 1980, 5, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fries, R.; Akcan, M.; Bandick, N.; Kobe, A. Microflora of two different types of poultry litter. Br. Poult. Sci. 2005, 46, 668–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ostović, M.; Ravić, I.; Kovačić, M.; Kabalin, A.E.; Matković, K.; Sabolek, I.; Pavičić, Ž.; Menčik, S.; Tomić, D.H. Differences in fungal contamination of broiler litter between summer and winter fattening periods. Arh. Hig. Rada Toksikol. 2021, 72, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Yang, X.J.; Li, W.L.; Feng, Y.; Yao, J.H. Effects of immune stress on growth performance, immunity, and cecal microflora in chickens. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2740–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 13 01472 g001 550
Figure 1. Seasonal distribution of analysed histomonosis outbreaks on 31 farms since January 2018.
Figure 1. Seasonal distribution of analysed histomonosis outbreaks on 31 farms since January 2018.
Animals 13 01472 g001
Animals 13 01472 g002 550
Figure 2. Investigated equipment of the hygiene lock of the analysed farms (n = 31) and their availability, a = one-way gloves and/or -hairnet and/or -footwear and/or -overall.
Figure 2. Investigated equipment of the hygiene lock of the analysed farms (n = 31) and their availability, a = one-way gloves and/or -hairnet and/or -footwear and/or -overall.
Animals 13 01472 g002
Animals 13 01472 g003 550
Figure 3. Pre-burden of the analysed flocks (n = 31) and their distribution.
Figure 3. Pre-burden of the analysed flocks (n = 31) and their distribution.
Animals 13 01472 g003
Animals 13 01472 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of the range of onset of clinical symptoms and the range of the pathological diagnosis of histomonosis, o = mean, ☐ = 25%- to 75%-quantile.
Figure 4. Comparison of the range of onset of clinical symptoms and the range of the pathological diagnosis of histomonosis, o = mean, ☐ = 25%- to 75%-quantile.
Animals 13 01472 g004
Table
Table 1. Observation and control of insects in the affected turkey houses.
Table 1. Observation and control of insects in the affected turkey houses.
Observation of Insects
YesNoΣ
Control of insectsYes437
No101424
Σ141731
Table
Table 2. Expected cleaning success of used enrichment materials and the re-use of such materials, n = 30 (one farm did not use any enrichment material at the time of the analysed outbreak).
Table 2. Expected cleaning success of used enrichment materials and the re-use of such materials, n = 30 (one farm did not use any enrichment material at the time of the analysed outbreak).
Enrichment Material
Easy to Clean aDifficult to Clean bΣ
Re-use of enrichment materialYes3912
No41418
Σ72330
a = plastic, metal, rubber. b = wood, pecking stones.
Table
Table 3. Flocks additionally burdened with gastrointestinal pathogens and resulting treatments (occurrence of co-infections with mentioned pathogens was not documented).
Table 3. Flocks additionally burdened with gastrointestinal pathogens and resulting treatments (occurrence of co-infections with mentioned pathogens was not documented).
Treatment
YesNo
Escherichia coli (n = 19)18 a1
Eimeria spp. (n = 14)14 b0
Clostridium spp. (n = 8)8 a0
a = treatment with antibiotics. b = treatment with antiparasitics.
Table
Table 4. Flock mortality, associated pre-diagnosed gastrointestinal diseases, treatment against H. meleagridis, treatment success and need for emergency culling.
Table 4. Flock mortality, associated pre-diagnosed gastrointestinal diseases, treatment against H. meleagridis, treatment success and need for emergency culling.
Flock Mortality0–10%11–50%51–100%
Number of flocks8/3114/319/31
Pre-existing gastrointestinal diseases6/89/147/9
Treatment against H. meleagridis a8/814/148/9
Treatment success by rapid clinical improvement4/81/140/8
Emergency culling0/85/145/9
a = with Paromomycin and/or herbal products and/or analgetics and/or vitamins and/or electrolytes.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lüning, J.; Campe, A.; Rautenschlein, S. Investigations of Histomonosis-Favouring Conditions: A Hypotheses-Generating Case-Series-Study. Animals 2023, 13, 1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091472

AMA Style

Lüning J, Campe A, Rautenschlein S. Investigations of Histomonosis-Favouring Conditions: A Hypotheses-Generating Case-Series-Study. Animals. 2023; 13(9):1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091472

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lüning, Julia, Amely Campe, and Silke Rautenschlein. 2023. "Investigations of Histomonosis-Favouring Conditions: A Hypotheses-Generating Case-Series-Study" Animals 13, no. 9: 1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13091472

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop