Survey of Peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) for Potential Pathogens at Three Michigan Zoos

Hollamby, Simon; Sikarskie, James G.; Stuht, John N.

doi:10.1638/03-077

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the literature, there is only one survey in pet birds where the prevalence of each intestinal parasite population was examined in parallel [8]. Some published studies included case reports [9–11] or surveys on a single parasitic agent [12, 13], while others examined intestinal parasites in a limited range of zoo species [14–16]. Only a few coprological surveys were carried out in a wide range of avian species displayed at zoo settings [17–20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoparasite Infections in Pet and Zoo Birds in Italy

Papini

Girivetto

Marangi

et al. 2012

The Scientific World Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faecal samples were individually collected from pet (n = 63) and zoo (n = 83) birds representing 14 orders and 63 species. All the samples were examined by faecal flotation technique. In a subgroup of samples (n = 75), molecular assays were also used to detect Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia duodenalis cysts. Overall, 35.6% of the birds harboured parasites (42.2% of zoo birds and 27% of pet birds), including Strongyles-Capillarids (8.9%), Ascaridia (6.8%), Strongyles (5.5%), G. duodenalis Assemblage A (5.3%), Coccidia (4.1%), Cryptosporidium (4%), Porrocaecum (2.7%), Porrocaecum-Capillarids (2%), and Syngamus-Capillarids (0.7%). The zoonotic G. duodenalis Assemblage A and Cryptosporidium were exclusively found in Psittaciformes, with prevalences of 10.3% and 7.7% within this bird group. Zoo birds were more likely to harbor mixed infections (OR = 14.81) and symptomatic birds to be parasitized (OR = 4.72). Clinicians should be aware of the public health implications posed by zoonotic G. duodenalis Assemblages and Cryptosporidium species in captive birds.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoparasite Infections in Pet and Zoo Birds in Italy

Papini

Girivetto

Marangi

et al. 2012

The Scientific World Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None of these evaluations involves cranes. Studies focusing on the bacterial flora of birds have concentrated primarily on the presence of abnormal bacterial species and possible outbreaks of disease [Maeda et al, 2001;Hiett et al, 2002;Hollamby et al, 2003;Waldenstrom et al, 2002]. To assess the possible role of bacterial flora in disease, as well as to determine the relative importance of bacteria that are found within diseased specimens, an understanding of what is typically present in healthy individuals is required [D'Aloia et al, 1996].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the enteric microflora of captive whooping cranes (Grus americana) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis)

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The enteric flora of captive whooping cranes (Grus americana) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) has not been well described, despite its potential importance in the understanding of both the normal condition of the intestinal physiology of these animals and the altered colonization within disease states in these birds. Nineteen whooping cranes and 23 sandhill cranes housed currently at the Calgary Zoo or its affiliated Devonian Wildlife Conservation Centre (DWCC) in Calgary, Alberta were sampled from October 2004-February 2005 by collecting aerobic and anaerobic cloacal swabs from each bird. There were seven major groupings of bacteria isolated from both species of crane. Gram-positive cocci, coliforms, and gram-negative bacilli were the most prevalent types of bacteria isolated for both crane species, with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Streptococcus Group D, not Enterococcus the bacterial species isolated most commonly. There was a significant difference in the average number of isolates per individual between the two crane species but no differences between age or gender categories within crane species. Campylobacter sp. were isolated from five whooping cranes. The potential zoonotic pathogen Campylobacter jejuni was isolated from one whooping crane and C. upsaliensis was isolated from a second. Three other isolates were unspeciated members of the Campylobacter genus and likely belong to a species undescribed previously. The evaluation of the enteric cloacal flora of whooping cranes and sandhill cranes illustrates that differences exist between these two closely related crane species, and highlights the potential implications these differences may have for current practices involving captive wildlife. Zoo Biol 0:1-13, 2007. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…Despite the above, very little is known about the incidence of Bordetella avium in populations of wildlife birds. A US study revealed that Bordetella avium can affect mallards, Canada geese, wild turkeys and birds kept in Zoos (Hopkins et al 1990, Raffel et al 2002, Hollamby et al 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of Bordetella avium by TaqMan real-time PCR in tracheal swabs from wildlife birds

Stenzel¹,

Pestka²,

Tykałowski³

et al. 2017

Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bordetella avium, the causing agent of bordetellosis, a highly contagious infection of the respiratory tract in young poultry, causes significant losses in poultry farming throughout the world. Wildlife birds can be a reservoir of various pathogens that infect farm animals. For this reason the studies were conducted to estimate the prevalence of Bordetella avium in wildlife birds in Poland. Tracheal swab samples were collected from 650 birds representing 27 species. The bacterial DNA was isolated directly from the swabs and screened for Bordetella avium by TaqMan real-time PCR.The assay specificity was evaluated by testing DNA isolated from 8 other bacteria that can be present in avian respiratory tract, and there was no amplification from non-Bordetella avium agents. Test sensitivity was determined by preparing standard tenfold serial dilutions of DNA isolated from positive control. The assay revealed to be sensitive, with detection limit of approximately 4.07x10^2 copies of Bordetella avium DNA. The genetic material of Bordetella avium was found in 54.54% of common pheasants, in 9.09% of Eurasian coots, in 3.22% of black-headed gulls and in 2.77% of mallard ducks.The results of this study point to low prevalence of Bordetella avium infections in wildlife birds. The results also show that described molecular assay proved to be suitable for the rapid diagnosis of bordetellosis in the routine diagnostic laboratory.

show abstract

Survey of Peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) for Potential Pathogens at Three Michigan Zoos

Cited by 25 publications

References 5 publications

Endoparasite Infections in Pet and Zoo Birds in Italy

Endoparasite Infections in Pet and Zoo Birds in Italy

Evaluation of the enteric microflora of captive whooping cranes (Grus americana) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis)

Detection of Bordetella avium by TaqMan real-time PCR in tracheal swabs from wildlife birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About