The Control of Infectious Laryngotracheitis

Abstract

IntroductionIn areas where the disease is not endemic and the flocks on neighbouring farms are well separated, the most satisfactory method of controlling infectious laryngotracheitis is to dispose of all survivor stock, clean and disinfect the premises and after a period of at least a month restock with uninfected chickens. Such a method was first advocated by GIBBS in 1933. Where the disease is endemic and the poultry flocks on neighbouring farms are within a few hundred yards of each other reinfection commonly occurs and vaccination is the best means of control. BEAUDETTE (1949) and SEDDON (1952) reviewed the control of the disease in the U.S.A. and Australia, respectively, and it is in these two countries that most of the recent research into the control of the disease by vaccination has been undertaken. Thus, in America, BENTON, COVER and GREENE (1958) have shown that a relatively mild virus administered by intranasal drop produces immunity which, at least for a short period, is comparable with that produced by cloacal scarification. HITCHNER and WINTERFIELD (1960) showed that one vaccination by cloacal scarification does not always produce a durable immunity and that revaccination is advisable, for which they advocate the conjunctival drop method. SHIBLEY, LUGINBUHL and HELMBOLT (1963) produced immunity in seven-day-old cockerels by intraconjunctival drop. I n Australia,

Real-time PCR quantification of infectious laryngotracheitis virus in chicken tissues, faeces, isolator-dust and bedding material over 28 days following infection reveals high levels in faeces and dust

“…In severe cases, dyspnoea and expectoration of blood stained mucus is very characteristic. Morbidity varies from 90 to 100 % and mortality varies from 5 to 70 % (Hinshaw et al, 1931;Jordan, 1958;Seddon & Hart, 1935). In mild enzootic form, chicks may show ill-thrift, conjunctivitis, swelling of infraorbital sinuses, mild tracheitis, persistent nasal discharge and decreased egg production.…”

Epidemiology of Avian Infectious Laryngotracheitis with Special Focus to South America: an update

“…Humoral immunity is not the main response against the virus (Ou & Giambrone, 2012). In humoral response tests, such as virus neutralization and ELISA, antibodies are detected after 5-7 dpi, peak on 21 dpi, and may decline in the next months (Jordan, 1981) or persist for a year or longer . Antibodies can be detected in tracheal secretions approximately 7 dpi and peak 10-28 dpi (Garcia et al, 2014).…”

Comparison of the replication and transmissibility of an infectious laryngotracheitis virus vaccine delivered via eye-drop or drinking-water

“…This suggests that viral replication occurred in these birds, thus generating a humoral immune response. Cell-mediated immunity is associated with protection against infection by ILTV, while humoral and local antibodies are not (Hayles et al, 1976;Jordan, 1981;Fahey et al, 1983;Fahey & York, 1990). Cell-mediated immunity was not investigated in this study; however, it would be interesting to establish whether different routes of inoculation induce different cell-mediated immune responses.…”