Next Article in Journal
Olive Mill Waste-Water Extract Enriched in Hydroxytyrosol and Tyrosol Modulates Host–Pathogen Interaction in IPEC-J2 Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Coccidiosis in Egg-Laying Hens and Potential Nutritional Strategies to Modulate Performance, Gut Health, and Immune Response
Previous Article in Journal
Detection and Characterization of Zoonotic Pathogens in Game Meat Hunted in Northwestern Italy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Automated Image Analysis for Detection of Coccidia in Poultry
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Occurrence of Eimeria spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free-Range Chickens from Northwest and Central Romania

by
Mircea Coroian
1,2,*,
Tünde-Zsuzsánna Fábián-Ravasz
2,
Patricia Roxana Dobrin
2 and
Adriana Györke
2
1
Department of Poultry Management and Pathology, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(4), 563; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040563
Submission received: 22 December 2023 / Revised: 21 January 2024 / Accepted: 6 February 2024 / Published: 7 February 2024

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In the context of backyard poultry raising, a notable concern arises regarding the susceptibility to parasitic infections. The poultry industry holds a crucial position in ensuring food safety and nutritional requirements, emerging as the most rapidly advancing agricultural sub-sector. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens raised in the backyard system within the northwestern and central regions of Romania. Fecal samples were collected and tested using flotation, McMaster, and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) methods. The overall prevalence of infection with gastrointestinal parasites was 53.1%. Intestinal parasites demonstrate a pronounced prevalence within the context of backyard poultry flocks, and the substantial burdens imposed by these parasites can deleteriously influence both avian productivity and economic considerations.

Abstract

Chickens raised in backyard free-range systems are confronted with a significant threat of parasitic infections. Among the parasitic agents, protozoa belonging to the genus Eimeria and helminths, including Ascaridia galli, Capillaria spp., Heterakis gallinarum, and Strongyloides avium, stand out as the most prevalent. The sampling protocol included sixteen localities in four counties within the Transylvania region of Romania. Fecal samples were collected from chickens reared in a backyard system. Fecal samples were screened for oocysts (O) and eggs (E) by flotation method, and their number per gram of feces (OPG/EPG) was calculated after counting them by McMaster method. Positive samples for Eimeria spp. were further analyzed by PCR (polymerase chain reaction) method to identify the Eimeria species. A total of 145 flocks were tested and the overall prevalence of infection was 53.1%. The most prevalent infections were with A. galli/H. gallinarum (25.5%), and Eimeria spp. (24.8%), followed by Capillaria spp. and strongyles. The mean OPG/EPG values were as follows: 63,577 for Eimeria spp., 157 for Ascaridia/Heterakis, 362 for Capillaria spp., and 1671 for Strongyle eggs. Identified Eimeria species were E. acervulina (41.7%), E. tenella (27.8%), E. praecox (16.7%), E. brunetti (16.7%), OTUy (operational taxonomic unit y) (8.3%), OTUz (operational taxonomic unit z) (8.3%) and E. mitis (5.6%). Intestinal parasites exhibit a high prevalence among chickens in backyard poultry flocks, and the presence of significant parasite burdens can adversely affect both productive and economic aspects. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study that aimed to analyze the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens raised in a backyard free-range system in Romania, and the first report of OTUy species in Europe.

1. Introduction

The rising need for poultry products in human diets has led to significant expansion in both extensively and intensively managed poultry farming over the past few decades [1]. Consequently, poultry production is increasingly becoming a noteworthy contributor to the national economies of many countries [2].
In 2022, the European Union (EU) generated approximately 13 million tons of poultry meat [3]. According to EUROSTAT, Romania produced a total of 491.22 thousand metric tons, securing the 6th position among EU member states in terms of poultry meat production [4]. Poultry meat constitutes approximately 45 percent of the aggregate animal protein production in Romania, emerging as the predominant meat category in recent years. This marks a noteworthy transition from the preceding decade, during which pork production held the leading position [5]. Furthermore, in accordance with data from the National Institute of Statistics (INS), the production of eggs totaled 6.005 million units, and is anticipated to experience an annual growth rate of 7.63% [6,7].
Even though intensive farms currently dominate the primary production of poultry meat, consumer preferences are gradually moving towards alternative rearing systems, such as free-range and organic [8]. Despite the diminished impact of parasitic diseases in industrial farms attributed to modernization and effective bio-security measures, chickens raised in backyard free-range systems are confronted with a significant threat of parasitic infections. This is particularly due to factors such as unhygienic management practices, litter contamination, and abundance of intermediate hosts [9,10]. Given that numerous farm workers practice extensive chicken raising for personal consumption, they may serve as passive vectors for various diseases, thereby posing a threat to the farm’s biosecurity [11].
Among the parasitic agents, protozoa belonging to the genus Eimeria and helminths, including Ascaridia galli, Capillaria spp., Heterakis gallinarum, and Strongyloides avium, stand out as the most prevalent [12]. Consequences attributed to parasitic infections include diminished health, welfare, and production efficacy marked by compromised feed conversion ratios, lower growth rates or weight loss, diminished egg production and compromised egg quality, as well as intestinal damage. In severe instances, fatalities may occur [11]. Additionally, an indirect effect is expressed by an increased susceptibility to secondary infectious diseases and a reduction in the host’s immune response [2].
Eimeria spp. exerts a more pronounced negative impact on the health, welfare and production. The annual estimated worldwide financial burden of coccidiosis in chickens surpassed £10 billion. This cost encompasses expenses related to prevention, treatment, and economic losses [13]. Prophylaxis is achieved through a combination of chemoprophylaxis, vaccination, and dietary supplementation with various plant extracts. However, it still poses a significant threat [14,15,16,17].
For a long time, seven species have been identified as infecting chickens, inducing enteritis lesions that result in diarrhea, malabsorption, and hemorrhages [18]. Recently, three cryptic variants, designated as Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) X, Y, and Z, have been suggested and assigned as new species, namely Eimeria lata, E. nagambie, and E. zaria [19]. Although initially, the circulation of these species was associated with Australia, Africa, and South America, but recently their presence has been reported in Europe [18].
However, despite the widespread adoption of the free-range system for chicken rearing in Romania and the frequent occurrence of parasitic diseases in this species, there has been no comprehensive study to evaluate their prevalence. Therefore, the current study aims to assess the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens raised in the backyard system within the northwestern and central regions of Romania.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals, Samples, and Sample Analysis

A total of 290 fecal samples were collected from 145 chicken backyard farms located in Northwest and Central Romania. The number of chickens in a flock varied between households, from 6 to 45, with an average of 20.1 ± 9.5 chickens/flock. The age distribution of the chickens spanned from 1 to 3 years, encompassing both males and females, with the ratio heavily favoring females. The investigation spanned from December 2016 to May 2023. The sampling protocol included 16 localities in 4 counties within the Transylvania region of Romania, as follows: Cluj (Mera, Ceanu Mare, Coruș, Frata), Harghita (Corund, Lupeni, Valea lui Pavel, Ocna de Sus), Mureș (Sovata, Chibed, Sărățeni, Sângeorgiu de Pădure), and Satu Mare (Carei, Urziceni, Foieni, Căpleni) (Figure 1). Fecal samples were collected one time from chickens reared in a backyard agricultural system. Two samples were collected randomly, by hand, from each household. Each fecal sample consisted of 10 pooled droppings, collected from the floor. Subsequently the samples were stored at 4–8 °C until the testing procedure.
Fecal samples were screened by the flotation method. The parasitic elements in positive samples were counted using the McMaster method [20]. Positive samples for Eimeria spp. identified through the flotation method were further analyzed using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method in order to identify the Eimeria species.

2.2. PCR

First, DNA extraction was performed from fecal samples (n = 18) or concentrated oocysts (n = 28) using the commercial kit Isolate Fecal DNA Kit (Bioline, London, England, United Kingdom; Cat. No. BIO-52038) [21].
Eimeria species were identified using specific primers for each species (Table 1).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the data was conducted using EpiInfoTM 2000 software (version 7.2.0.1, Atlanta, GA, USA). The frequency, prevalence, and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of detected species were recorded. The differences in prevalence among identified parasites overall and by the average age of the flock, flock size, and season of sample collection were evaluated using the chi-squared test, or Pearson’s chi-squared test. Based on the age of the chickens, the poultry flocks were divided into flocks with 12–23-month-old chickens and flocks with 24–36-month-old chickens. Depending on the number of chickens in a household, flocks were divided into flocks with 1–10, 11–20, 21–30, and 31–45 chickens, respectively. According to the month of sample collection, two seasons were included in the statistical analysis: winter for samples collected from December to February, and spring for samples collected from March to May. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

2.4. Ethical Statement

The investigation was carried out within backyard farms. The animals under consideration were neither manipulated nor subjected to constraints on their mobility or daily activities. The verbal consent of the flock owners to collect the fecal samples and to publish the results was obtained.

3. Results

The overall prevalence of infection with intestinal parasites in free-range chickens was 53.1% (77/145; 95% CI: 45.0–61.0). Ascaridia galli/Heterakis gallinarum (25.5%) and Eimeria spp. (24.8%) were the most prevalent statistically significant (p = 0.002) infections, followed by Capillaria spp. (23.5%) and digestive strongyles (8.3%) (Table 2). Single infection was recorded in 29.7% (43/145; 95% CI 22.8–37.5), while mixed infection was recorded in 22.8% (33/145; 95% CI 16.7–30.2) of analyzed samples (Table 2). The mean OPG/EPG values, determined through the McMaster method, were as follows: 63,577 for Eimeria spp., 157 for Ascaridia/Heterakis, 362 for Capillaria spp., and 1671 for Strongyle eggs.
No statistically significant findings were observed in relation to the age of chickens as indicated in Table 3. However, noteworthy statistical significance (p = 0.003) was observed for A. galli/H. gallinarum, a prevalence of 13.1% was recorded in flocks with 11–20 chickens. Also, significant results were recorded (p = 0.01) for the mixed infections in the same group of chickens (11.0%), as detailed in Table 4.
Depending on the season in which the samples were collected, namely winter and spring, statistically significant results were obtained for Capillaria spp., as well as between the total number of positive samples between the two seasons (Table 5).
Within polyspecific parasitism15.2% (22/145; 95% CI 10.2–21.9) of the flocks were positive for two parasites, while 7.6% (11/145; 95% CI 4.3–13.1) for three parasites. Statistically significant results were recorded within polyspecific parasitism (p = 0.03) (Table 6).
The following Eimeria species were identified by PCR: E. acervulina (41.7%), E. tenella (27.8%), E. praecox (16.7%), E. brunetti (16.7%), OTUy (8.3%), OTUz (8.3%) and E. mitis (5.6%). Coinfections involving multiple Eimeria spp. were also documented. Statistically significant results were recorded (Table 7). Additionally, one flock tested positive for both OTUz and OTUy species.

4. Discussion

The poultry industry holds a crucial position in ensuring food safety and nutritional requirements, emerging as the most rapidly advancing agricultural sub-sector. Anticipated factors influencing sectoral expansion encompass ongoing urbanization trends, population increase, and rising income levels. In 2020, the poultry sector exhibited a market value of $310.7 billion, with projections indicating an ascent to surpass $400 billion by 2025 [26]. Intestinal parasites exhibit a high prevalence among chickens in backyard poultry flocks, and the presence of significant parasite burdens can adversely affect both productivity and economic aspects [27]. However, regular deworming is not commonly practiced in free-range systems, as owners often lack awareness regarding the risks posed by gastrointestinal parasites [28].
A systematic review on the prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in chicken published by Shifaw, encompassing nearly 200 studies published over 80 years, revealed that A. galli, H. gallinarum, and Capillaria spp. were the most commonly identified parasites [2]. This aligns with our findings, where these three species exhibited the highest prevalence.
The pooled prevalence reported by Shifaw for Europe (78.9%) and for the backyard production system (82.6%) surpasses the prevalence observed in our study. This variance could be attributed to ecological, environmental, and climatic factors, including seasonal dynamics, the quantity and accessibility of intermediate hosts, among others. Additionally, variations in diagnostic and sampling procedures, along with diverse host-related factors, may significantly impact the recorded prevalence values [2,29]. The complete absence of cestodes and trematodes species could be elucidated by their more intricate life cycle, in terms of intermediate hosts and environment conditions [2,30].
Polyspecific parasitism was recorded in 11.4% of the samples, strengthening the hypothesis that parasitic infestations usually co-circulate in chickens [31]. This is of significant importance, as the association within parasites with gastrointestinal predilection, such as nematodes and coccidia, may heighten their role in early chick mortality and other productivity losses among adults [31].
Similar results were documented in a study conducted in Poland, a prevalence of nearly 35% was recorded for Eimeria spp., with E. acervulina being the most frequently identified species [28].
Thus far, Eimeria zaria (OTUz) stands as the sole OTU species reported in Europe. However, we managed to identify two species out of three, namely, OTUy and OTUz. Further studies are imperative, particularly in the intensive sector where coccidiosis remains a significant risk, to evaluate the prevalence of the new OTU species. The heightened risk of the presence of the new species is underscored by the inadequacy of protection conferred by current anticoccidial vaccines [18]. Moreover, given that mechanical vectors constitute the most common way of Eimeria oocyst transmission, and considering that many employees in poultry farms own a backyard flock, preventive biosecurity measures should be implemented in order to avoid this route of contamination [32].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study that aimed to analyze the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens raised in a backyard free-range system in Romania. Moreover, this is the first report of OTUy in Europe.

5. Conclusions

The widespread distribution of gastrointestinal parasites in chickens raised in the free-range system is most likely explained by poor management practices, including sanitary deficiencies and the absence of deworming programs. Moreover, the scavenging activities of the chickens, a characteristic of this system that enhances contact with excreta, could contribute to this distribution.
Although the prevalence recorded in Romania is relatively lower compared to other European countries, we managed to identify the most prevalent gastrointestinal parasite species.
Considering the upward trend of organic growth systems, there should be an implementation of increased awareness among owners regarding the prevention and availability of treatment methods.
Additional research is necessary to obtain an optimal understanding of the epidemiological status of Romania concerning gastrointestinal parasites in chickens.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and M.C.; methodology, A.G.; software, M.C.; validation, A.G.; formal analysis, T.-Z.F.-R., P.R.D. and M.C.; investigation, T.-Z.F.-R. and P.R.D.; resources, A.G.; data curation, T.-Z.F.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.; writing—review and editing, A.G.; visualization, M.C.; supervision, A.G.; project administration, A.G.; funding acquisition, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by UASVM Cluj-Napoca through an internal grant, Solution, project number 24868/5.11.2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The investigation was carried out within backyard farms. The fecal samples were collected from shelters in the absence of chickens. The animals under consideration were neither manipulated nor subjected to constraints on their mobility or daily activities. Consequently, formal ethical approval from a commission was deemed unnecessary.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Other datasets used and/or analyzed can be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Farrell, D. The role of poultry in human nutrition. In Poultry Development Review; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 2–9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Shifaw, A.; Feyera, T.; Walkden-Brown, S.W.; Sharpe, B.; Elliott, T.; Ruhnke, I. Global and regional prevalence of helminth infection in chickens over time: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Statista. Leading Poultry Producers in the European Union in 2022. 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1407478/leading-poultry-meat-producers-in-the-eu/ (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  4. Eurostat. Agricultural Production—Livestock and Meat. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=427096 (accessed on 25 November 2023).
  5. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Romania: Challenging Prospects for Romania’s Poultry Industry. 2020. Available online: https://fas.usda.gov/data/romania-challenging-prospects-romanias-poultry-industry (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  6. National Institute of Statistics. Efectivele de Animale şi Producţia Animală, în Anul 2022. 2023. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/ro/content/efectivele-de-animale-%C5%9Fi-produc%C5%A3ia-animal%C4%83-%C3%AEn-anul-2022 (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  7. Statista. Eggs—Romania. 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/dairy-products-eggs/eggs/romania (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  8. El Jeni, R.; Dittoe, D.K.; Olson, E.G.; Lourenco, J.; Seidel, D.S.; Ricke, S.C.; Callaway, T.R. An overview of health challenges in alternative poultry production systems. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Javaregowda, A.K.; Kavitha Rani, B.; Revanna, S.P.; Udupa, G. Prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasites of backyard chickens (Gallus domesticus) in and around Shimoga. J. Parasit. Dis. 2016, 40, 986–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mujahid, T. Prevalence of Intestinal Helminth Parasites of Chicken (Gallus Gallus Domesticus Linnaeus, 1758) in Lalitpur District, Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Zoology, Institute of Science and Technology, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gržinić, G.; Piotrowicz-Cieślak, A.; Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A.; Górny, R.L.; Ławniczek-Wałczyk, A.; Piechowicz, L.; Olkowska, E.; Potrykus, M.; Tankiewicz, M.; Krupka, M.; et al. Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 160014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tomza-Marciniak, A.; Pilarczyk, B.; Tobiańska, B.; Tarasewicz, N. Gastrointestinal parasites of free-range chickens: A worldwide issue. Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca Vet. Med. 2019, 76, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blake, D.P.; Knox, J.; Dehaeck, B.; Huntington, B.; Rathinam, T.; Ravipati, V.; Ayoade, S.; Gilbert, W.; Adebambo, A.O.; Jatau, I.D.; et al. Re-calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens. Vet. Res. 2020, 51, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. McDonald, V.; Shirley, M.W. Past and future: Vaccination against Eimeria. Parasitology 2009, 136, 1477–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peek, H.W.; Landman, W.J.M. Coccidiosis in poultry: Anticoccidial products, vaccines and other prevention strategies. Vet. Q. 2011, 31, 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pop, L.M.; Varga, E.; Coroian, M.; Nedișan, M.E.; Mircean, V.; Dumitrache, M.O.; Farczádi, L.; Fülöp, I.; Croitoru, M.D.; Fazakas, M.; et al. Efficacy of a commercial herbal formula in chicken experimental coccidiosis. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Coroian, M.; Pop, L.M.; Popa, V.; Friss, Z.; Oprea, O.; Kalmár, Z.; Pintea, A.; Borșan, S.D.; Mircean, V.; Lobonțiu, I.; et al. Efficacy of Artemisia annua against Coccidiosis in Broiler Chickens: A Field Trial. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jaramillo-Ortiz, J.M.; Burrell, C.; Adeyemi, O.; Werling, D.; Blake, D.P. First detection and characterisation of Eimeria zaria in Europe. Vet. Parasitol. 2023, 324, 110068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blake, D.P.; Vrba, V.; Xia, D.; Jatau, I.D.; Spiro, S.; Nolan, M.J.; Underwood, G.; Tomley, F.M. Genetic and biological characterisation of three cryptic Eimeria operational taxonomic units that infect chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Int. J. Parasitol. 2021, 51, 621–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nicholls, J.; Obendorf, D.L. Application of a composite faecal egg count procedure in diagnostic parasitology. Vet. Parasitol. 1994, 52, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Györke, A.; Pop, L.; Cozma, V. Prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in broiler chicken farms of different capacities. Parasite 2013, 20, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Schnitzler, B.E.; Thebo, P.L.; Mattsson, J.G.; Tomley, F.M.; Shirley, M.W. Development of a diagnostic PCR assay for the detection and discrimination of four pathogenic Eimeria species of the chicken. Avian Pathol. 1998, 27, 490–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Schnitzler, B.E.; Thebo, P.L.; Tomley, F.M.; Uggla, A.; Shirley, M.W. PCR identification of chicken Eimeria: A simplified read-out. Avian Pathol. 1999, 28, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Haug, A.; Thebo, P.; Mattsson, J.G. A simplified protocol for molecular identification of Eimeria species in field samples. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 146, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Blake, D.P.; Worthing, K.; Jenkins, M.C. Exploring Eimeria genomes to understand population biology: Recent progress and future opportunities. Genes 2020, 11, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Feed&Additive. Global Poultry Industry and Trends. 2021. Available online: https://www.feedandadditive.com/global-poultry-industry-and-trends/ (accessed on 30 November 2023).
  27. Butcher, G.D.; Miles, R.D. Intestinal Parasites in Backyard Chicken Flocks; University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS: Gainesville, FK, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tomza-Marciniak, A.; Pilarczyk, B.; Tobianska, B.; Tarasewicz, N. Gastrointestinal parasites of free-range chickens. Ann. Parasitol. 2014, 60, 305–308. [Google Scholar]
  29. McDougald, L.R. Internal Parasites. In Diseases of Poultry, 13th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: New York City, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1117–1147. [Google Scholar]
  30. Afolabi, O.J.; Simon-Oke, I.A.; Olasunkanmi, A.O. Intestinal parasites of domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Akure, Nigeria. J. Biomed. 2016, 1, e9771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Belete, A.; Addis, M.; Ayele, M. Review on major gastrointestinal parasites that affect chickens. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2016, 6, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mesa-Pineda, C.; Navarro-Ruíz, J.L.; López-Osorio, S.; Chaparro-Gutiérrez, J.J.; Gómez-Osorio, L.M. Chicken coccidiosis: From the parasite lifecycle to control of the disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 787653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sampled counties within the Transylvania region of Romania www.qgis.org (accessed on 29 November 2023).
Figure 1. Sampled counties within the Transylvania region of Romania www.qgis.org (accessed on 29 November 2023).
Animals 14 00563 g001
Table 1. Sequence of specific primers used for identification of Eimeria species in backyard chickens in Romania by the PCR method [22,23,24,25].
Table 1. Sequence of specific primers used for identification of Eimeria species in backyard chickens in Romania by the PCR method [22,23,24,25].
SpeciesPrimer Sequence 5′ 3′Annealing Temperature (°C)Amplicon Size (bp)
E. acervulinaF 5′-GGGCTTGGATGATGTTTGCTG-3′
R 5′-GCAATGATGCTTGCACAGTCAGG-3′
65145
E. brunettiF 5′-CTGGGGCTGCAGCGACAGGG-3′
R 5′-ATCGATGGCCCCATCCCGCAT-3′
58183
E. maximaF 5′-GTGGGACTGTGGTGATGGGG-3′
R 5′-ACCAGCATGCGCTCACAACCC-3′
65205
E. mitisF 5′-GTTTATTTCCTGTCGTCGTCTCGC-3′
R 5′-GTATGCAAGAGAGAATCGGGATTCC-3′
65330
E. necatrixF 5′-AGTATGGGCGTGAGCATGGAG-3′
R 5′-GATCAGTCTCATCATAATTCTCGCG-3′
58160
E. praecoxF 5′-CATCGGAATGGCTTTTTGAAAGCG-3′
R 5′-GCATGCGCTAACAACTCCCCTT-3′
65215
E. tenellaF 5′-AATTTAGTCCATCGCAACCCTTG-3′
R 5′-CGAGCGCTCTGCATACGACA-3′
65278
OTUxXf2 5′-GGGTAGAGCCAGGGGTAGAG-3′
Xr2 5′-CGTAGTCCCAAGTGCCAACT-3′
581018
OTUyYf1 5′-CAAGAAGTACACTACCACAGCATG-3′
Yr1 5′-ACTGATTTCAGGTCTAAAACGAAT-3′
56346
OTUzZf1 5′-TATAGTTTCTTTTGCGCGTTGC-3′
Zr1 5′-CATATCTCTTTCATGAACGAAAGG-3′
58147
Table 2. The frequency, prevalence, and its 95% CI of identified parasitic species by flotation technique (n = 145).
Table 2. The frequency, prevalence, and its 95% CI of identified parasitic species by flotation technique (n = 145).
SpeciesFrequency (n)Prevalence (%)95% CIp-Value
Eimeria spp.3624.818.5–32.50.002
A. galli/H. gallinarum3725.519.1–33.2
Capillaria spp.3423.517.3–31.0
Strongyle egg128.34.8–13.9
Single infection4329.722.8–37.50.251
Mixed infection3322.816.7–30.2
Total7753.145.0–61.0
Legend: 95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Table 3. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the age of the chickens.
Table 3. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the age of the chickens.
Species12–23 Months
(n = 69)
24–36 Months
(n = 76)
p-Value
Eimeria spp.14 (9.7; 5.8–15.6)22 (15.2; 10.2–21.9)0.182
A. galli/H. gallinarum18 (12.4; 8.0–18.8)19 (13.1; 8.6–19.6)0.869
Capillaria spp.17 (11.7; 7.5–18.0)17 (11.7; 7.5–18.0)1
Strongyle eggs5 (3.5; 1.5–7.8)7 (4.8; 2.4–9.6)0.563
Single infection16 (11.0; 6.9–17.2)28 (19.3; 13.7–26.5)0.07
Mixed infection16 (11.0; 6.9–17.2)17 (11.7; 7.5–18.0)0.861
Total32 (22.1; 16.1–29.5)45 (31.0; 24.1–39.1)0.138
Table 4. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the size of the chicken flock.
Table 4. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the size of the chicken flock.
1–10 Chickens
(n = 40)
11–20 Chickens
(n = 58)
21–30 Chickens
(n = 30)
31–45 Chickens
(n = 17)
p-Value
Eimeria spp.6 (4.1; 1.9–8.7)10 (6.9; 3.8–12.2)10 (6.9; 3.8–12.2)10 (6.9; 3.8–12.2)0.957
A. galli/H. gallinarum6 (4.1; 1.9–8.7)19 (13.1; 8.6–19.6)5 (3.5; 1.5–7.8)7 (4.8; 2.4–9.6)0.003
Capillaria spp.7 (4.8; 2.4–9.6)12 (8.3; 4.8–13.9)10 (6.9; 3.8–12.2)5 (3.5; 1.5–7.8)0.332
Strongyle egg2 (1.4; 0.4–4.9)5 (3.5; 1.5–7.8)4 (2.8; 1.1–6.9)1 (0.7; 0.1–3.8)0.343
Single infection13 (9.0; 5.3–14.7)13 (9.0; 5.3–14.7)9 (6.2; 3.3–11.4)9 (6.2; 3.3–11.4)0.692
Mixed infection3 (2.1; 0.7–5.9)16 (11.0; 6.9–17.2)8 (5.5; 2.8–10.5)6 (4.1; 1.9–8.7)0.010
Total16 (11.0; 6.9–17.2)29 (20.0; 14.3–27.3)17 (11.7; 7.5)15 (10.3; 6.4–16.4)0.08
Table 5. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the season of the samples collection.
Table 5. The frequency (prevalence; 95% CI) of identified parasitic species by flotation technique according to the season of the samples collection.
SpeciesWinter
(n = 66)
Spring
(n = 79)
p-Value
Eimeria spp.16 (11.0; 6.9–17.2)20 (13.8; 9.1–20.4)0.504
A. galli/H. gallinarum13 (9.0; 5.3–14.7)24 (16.6; 11.4–23.5)0.07
Capillaria spp.9 (6.2; 3.3–11.4)25 (17.2; 12.0–24.2)0.006
Strongyle egg4 (2.8; 1.1–6.9)8 (5.5; 2.8–10.5)0.248
Single infection17 (11.7; 7.5–18.0)26 (17.9; 12.5–25.0)0.169
Mixed infection11 (7.6; 4.3–13.1)22 (15.2; 10.2–21.9)0.05
Total29 (20.0; 14.3–27.3)48 (33.1; 26.0–41.1.)0.03
Table 6. Single and mixed parasitic infections. Co-occurrence between species within polyspecific parasitism.
Table 6. Single and mixed parasitic infections. Co-occurrence between species within polyspecific parasitism.
Frequency (n)Prevalence (%)95% CIp-Value
Single infection
Eimeria spp.1611.06.9–17.20.121
Ascaridia/Heterakis117.64.3–13.1
Capillaria spp.106.93.8–12.2
Strongyle53.51.5–7.8
Mixed infection
E + A/H85.52.8–10.50.03
E + C32.10.7–5.9
A/H + C106.93.8–12.2
A/H + S21.40.4–4.9
E + A/H + C53.51.5–7.8
E + C + S42.81.1–6.9
A/H + C + S10.70.1–3.8
Legend: E—Eimeria, A/H—Ascaridia/Heterakis, C—Capillaria, S—Strongyle type egg, 95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Table 7. Eimeria species identified by PCR and their coinfections (n = 36).
Table 7. Eimeria species identified by PCR and their coinfections (n = 36).
SpeciesFrequency (n)Prevalence (%)95% CIp-Value
E. acervulina1541.727.1–57.80.002
E. tenella1027.815.9–44.0
E. praecox616.77.9–31.9
E. brunetti616.77.9–31.9
OTUy38.32.9–21.8
OTUz38.32.9–21.8
E. mitis25.61.5–18.1
A + P12.80.5–14.20.699
A + T38.32.9–21.8
A + B38.32.9–21.8
M + P12.80.5–14.2
M + T12.80.5–14.2
P + T38.32.9–21.8
A + P + T25.61.5–18.10.818
A + M + P + T12.80.5–14.2
A + P + T + B25.61.5–18.1
Legend: A—E. acervulina, M—E. mitis, P—E. praecox, T—E. tenella, B—E. brunetti, 95% CI—95% confidence interval. Mixed infections with OTUy and OTUz are not included in the table.
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

Coroian, M.; Fábián-Ravasz, T.-Z.; Dobrin, P.R.; Györke, A. Occurrence of Eimeria spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free-Range Chickens from Northwest and Central Romania. Animals 2024, 14, 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040563

AMA Style

Coroian M, Fábián-Ravasz T-Z, Dobrin PR, Györke A. Occurrence of Eimeria spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free-Range Chickens from Northwest and Central Romania. Animals. 2024; 14(4):563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040563

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coroian, Mircea, Tünde-Zsuzsánna Fábián-Ravasz, Patricia Roxana Dobrin, and Adriana Györke. 2024. "Occurrence of Eimeria spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free-Range Chickens from Northwest and Central Romania" Animals 14, no. 4: 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040563

APA Style

Coroian, M., Fábián-Ravasz, T. -Z., Dobrin, P. R., & Györke, A. (2024). Occurrence of Eimeria spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free-Range Chickens from Northwest and Central Romania. Animals, 14(4), 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040563

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