Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Antimicrobials and competitive exclusion.

N G Fowler1

  • 1River House Associates, Canterbury, Kent, UK.

International Journal of Food Microbiology
|March 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Salmonella enteritidis PT4: broiler breeder flock breakdowns.

The Veterinary record·1992
Same author

Salmonella in poultry.

Lancet (London, England)·1991
Same author

Competitive exclusion and Salmonella enteritidis.

The Veterinary record·1990
Same author

Competitive exclusion--Salmonella in poultry.

The Veterinary record·1989
Same author

Reduced hatchability associated with engine fumes.

The Veterinary record·1989
Same author

Competitive exclusion--Salmonella in poultry.

The Veterinary record·1989
Same journal

Diversity and source-tracking of spoilage molds in bakery products using MALDI-TOF MS and molecular approaches.

International journal of food microbiology·2026
Same journal

Biocontrol effects of bacteria isolated from compost tea against postharvest disease of tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum L.).

International journal of food microbiology·2026
Same journal

Bacteriostatic mechanisms of CO<sub>2</sub> against high-oxygen packaged meat-borne Pseudomonas fragi during chilled storage: Membrane physiological and microstructural changes.

International journal of food microbiology·2026
Same journal

Characterization of a method to detect hepatitis A virus and norovirus in meat products.

International journal of food microbiology·2026
Same journal

Temporal microbial succession informs the reformulation of a defined four-member starter for fermented milk.

International journal of food microbiology·2026
Same journal

Extending the shelf-life of Lentinula edodes: the interplay between ozone dosage, bacterial dynamics, and physicochemical stability.

International journal of food microbiology·2026
See all related articles

Antimicrobial feed additives generally do not affect chickenโคลิสติเนีย (CE) treatment. Differences in vitro versus in vivo effects are likely due to bioavailability in birds, with dose variation being key.

Area of Science:

  • Veterinary microbiology
  • Poultry science
  • Antimicrobial resistance

Background:

  • Antimicrobial feed additives are widely used in poultry production.
  • Concerns exist regarding their impact on gut health and therapeutic interventions.
  • Chickenโคลิสติเนีย (CE) is a significant enteric pathogen in poultry.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the compatibility of common antimicrobial feed additives with CE treatment.
  • To investigate the in vitro versus in vivo efficacy of these antimicrobials.
  • To determine optimal antimicrobial strategies for infected birds before microflora administration.

Main Methods:

  • In vitro testing of antimicrobial additives against CE cultures.
  • In vivo studies assessing the effects of additives on CE infection in poultry.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of antimicrobial bioavailability within the avian caecum.
  • Examination of dose-response relationships.

    • Main Results:

    • Most UK-approved antimicrobial additives showed no significant effect on CE.
    • Avoparcin exhibited a potential exception, warranting further investigation.
    • A discrepancy exists between in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial effects, possibly due to limited caecal availability.
    • Observed in vivo effects were primarily dose-dependent.

    Conclusions:

    • Antimicrobial feed additives generally do not interfere with CE treatment efficacy.
    • Bioavailability in the avian gut is a critical factor influencing antimicrobial activity.
    • Careful consideration of antimicrobial dosage and timing is essential for infected birds prior to probiotic administration.