BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720
EVALUATION OF FACTORS LIMITING TURKEY PRODUCTION IN ENUGU STATE AND COMPARISON OF PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH NEWCASTLE DISEASE IN TURKEYS AND CHICKENS.
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the factors limiting turkey production in Enugu State, Nigeria, determine the sero-prevalence of Newcastle disease (ND) virus infection in turkeys raised in Enugu State and compare the clinical signs and lesions of velogenic ND virus (NDV) in turkeys and chickens.
The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey of turkey producers in the three senatorial zones of Enugu State and an experimental infection of chickens and turkeys with a velogenic NDV (VNDV).
Three Local Government Areas in each of the three senatorial zones, Enugu East, West and North were purposively selected for the survey because of the preponderance of turkeys in the selected areas. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Two hundred and fifty copies of the questionnaire were administered to turkey producers in the selected areas. Five hundred and sixty-nine serum samples were randomly collected from unvaccinated turkeys in ninety backyard poultry farms in Enugu East, Enugu West and Enugu North senatorial zones. The sera were analysed for ND antibody titres using haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test.
For the challenge experiment, 120 turkeys and 120 chickens were used. The 120 turkeys and chickens were divided into two groups of sixty vaccinated and sixty unvaccinated. The vaccinated groups were given HB1 (I/O) and La Sota ND vaccines on day 1 and day 21 of age respectively. Inoculated birds were given 0.2 ml (10 6.46 per ml) of the VNDV (KUDU 113) intramuscularly, at 6 weeks of age. Morbidity and mortality, changes in live body weight and gross lesions were recorded. Antibody response of the birds were carried out by collection of sera on days 0, 5, 10, 15 and 21 PI. Pack cell volume (PCV), haemoglobin concentration (HbC), red blood cell count (RBC) and white blood cell (WBC, total and differential) were carried out on days 0, 3, 6, 10, 15 and 21 PI. Data generated from survey were subjected to descriptive statistics and Chi-square test, while for the challenge studies, students’ t test and one way analysis of variance were used. Variant means were analyzed post hoc using the least significant difference method. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05.
Turkey production was carried out mainly by adult female in Enugu East (65.3%) and Enugu West (57.7%) and adult males in Enugu North (51.1%) Although most (87.5%) of the respondents in the three senatorial zones had formal education, they were not (48.8%) experienced in turkey production. The major (52.5%) age group involved in the business was 36-50 years old. Turkey production in Enugu State was generally a part-time occupation as respondents were engaged in other primary occupation such as crop farming, trading, civil service etc. The management system adopted by the respondents in the three senatorial zones, Enugu East, Enugu West and Enugu North respectively were mainly (20.4%,55.0%,47.3%) intensive or semi-intensive (59.2%,34.0%,36.8%).
Majority (84.8%) of the respondents in Enugu State keep turkeys in small numbers (1-20) along with local chicken, exotic chicken, guinea fowl, ducks etc. According to majority (91.2%) of the respondent, turkey production was found to be profitable venture based on the cash generated after sale of the turkeys. Newcastle Disease (57.0%), fowl pox (65.0%), fowl typhoid (6.0%), fowl cholera (3.7%), ectoparasitism (1.0%), fracture and nutritional deficiencies (2.6%) were the diseases constantly encountered in turkey production by majority of the respondents and of all the diseases reported by the respondents, fowl pox (65%) and Newcastle Disease (57%) were the major diseases limiting production in the study area.
The major factors limiting turkey production in Enugu State as identified by the respondents in the study area were high cost of feed (86.5%), high disease morbidity and mortality (85.2%), inadequate access to veterinary care (78.80%), unavailability and high cost of poults (74.40%), lack of management skills (63.3%) and lack of capital (61.7%) while minor problems were low reproductive potential (56.9%), theft and predators (52.5%).
Out of the 569 sera collected from the three senatorial zones and tested for Newcastle Disease virus antibody, a total of 186 sera representing 32.7% were positive for Newcastle Disease antibody. Out of the 186 sera, 138 (74.1%) had titres of 8 and above and were considered protected while 48 (25.9%) had titres of less than 8 and considered to be at risk. The mean HI antibody titre in Enugu East senatorial zone against ND was significantly (P<0.05) higher than mean HI antibody titres in Enugu West and North senatorial zones. The results showed that these turkeys were exposed to Newcastle Disease Virus.
Following intramuscular inoculation with the KUDU 113, severe depression, whitish -greenish diarrhoea, lethargy, hunched posture, tremors and torticolis were consistent clinical feature observed in unvaccinated turkeys and chickens while mild depression and lethargy were observed in vaccinated chickens and very mild clinical signs in few vaccinated turkeys. Morbidity was 100%, 92%, 22.2% and 4.1% in unvaccinated infected chickens and turkeys, vaccinated inoculated chickens and turkeys respectively, while mortality of 90%, 80%, 13.3% and 0% were recorded for unvaccinated inoculated chickens and turkeys, vaccinated inoculated chickens and turkeys respectively. Reduction in weight was highly significant in both unvaccinated and vaccinated inoculated groups (p<0.05). Postmortem examination showed atrophy of the lymphoid organs (thymus, bursa of Fabricius and spleen) and congestion of kidneys in inoculated groups. Haemorrhages on the mucosa of the proventriculus, sharply-demarcated haemorrhagic ulcers in the intestine and haemorrhagic and swollen caecal tonsils were observed only in inoculated chickens. Congestion of the brain vessels was present in inoculated turkeys.
By day 6 PI all the unvaccinated inoculated chickens had died showing no significant changes in the weights of the thymus. Inoculated vaccinated chickens also showed no significant changes in thymic weights (p>0.05). But the gross lesions of the control and inoculated chickens showed clear reduction in sizes of the thymus of both unvaccinated and vaccinated inoculated chickens on days 5 and 6 PI. The only change in the weight of the spleen was significant reduction in vaccinated inoculated chickens on day 5 PI only. The gross lesions showed clear atrophy of the spleen in vaccinated and unvaccinated inoculated chickens on day 10 and 5 PI respectively and in the vaccinated and unvaccinated inoculated turkeys on days 20 and 10 PI respectively. The weights of the bursa were lower (p<0.05) in the unvaccinated inoculated chickens on days 3 and 5 PI and days 3, 10, 15 and 21 PI in the unvaccinated inoculated turkeys.
There was a significant increase (p<0.05) in antibody titre in both inoculated unvaccinated/ vaccinated cockerels and turkeys. Newcastle Disease virus was detected in brain, intestine and spleen but none detected in the cloacal swabs.
No significant (p>0.05) changes were observed in the erythrocytic parameters in chickens while there was a significant decrease (p<0.05) in PCV on day 15 PI in unvaccinated turkeys. Significant (p<0.05). leucocytosis, heterophilia and lymphopenia were observed in unvaccinated inoculated chickens on day 3PI while days 3, 10 and 21PI for unvaccinated turkeys.
Despite the factors limiting turkey production as outlined by the respondents such as high cost of feed, high disease morbidity and mortality, inadequate access to veterinary care, unavailability and high cost of poults, lack of capital and lack of reasonable degree of management skills, turkey production has great potential in bridging the animal protein supply therefore, poultry farmers should be encouraged by the government to increase their level of production by establishing reliable breeding centres in the South East Nigeria which will ensure regular supply of day old poults, subsidizing the price of feed and drugs, prompt disease control by employment of more veterinarians, provision of animal health care delivery vehicles provision of poultry vaccines, provision and easy access to soft loans. These will boost overall production and increase the standard of living of the farmers..
The seroprevalence of 32.7% shows exposure of the turkeys to Newcastle Disease virus thus the local husbandry practice of keeping different species together, increases the chances of transfer of Newcastle Disease virus across these species, it will be noteworthy to recommend that turkey farmers be encouraged in the study area to keep species separately and vaccinate against Newcastle Disease regularly.
Susceptibility to highly virulent NDV was shown to vary among chickens and turkeys. However, in general, disease among turkeys was less severe, despite virus detection in its various organ (Spleen, Intestine and Brain), than in chickens. Intramuscular inoculation test showed high mortality in chickens with intestinal ulcers and haemorraghic lesions which indicated that the KUDU-113 NDV strain is a velogenic viscerotropic virus.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
Title page – – – – – – – – – – i
Approval page – – – – – – – – – ii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – – iii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – – iv
Table of contents – – – – – – – – – v
Abstract – – – – – – – – – – xi
List of Tables – – – – – – – – – xvi
List of Figures – – – – – – – – – xix
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction——————————————————————————— 1
1.1 Background of the study——————————————————————- 1
Problem Statement ————————————————————————- 4
Aim of the study —————————————————————————– 5
Null hypothesis —————————————————————————– 5
1.5 Significance of the study ——————————————————————- 6
1.6 Scope of the study ————————————————————————– 6
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature review————————————————————————— 8
2.1 Background information on Newcastle Disease————————————- 8
2.2 Synonyms .——————————————————————————– 8
2.3 Definition of Newcastle Disease——————————————————– 8
2.4 History of Newcastle Disease———————————————————— 9
2.5 Aetiology of Newcastle Disease———————————————————- 10
2.5.1 Classification—————————————————————————- 10
2.5.2 Morphology——————————————————————————- 10
2.6 Biologic properties of the Newcastle Disease Virus———————————– 12
2.6.1 Haemagglutination activity————————————————————– 12
2.6.2 Neuraminidase activity——————————————————————- 13
2.6.3 Cell Fusion and Hemolysis————————————————————- 13
2.7.0 Replication of Newcastle Disease Virus————————————————- 13
2.8.0 Strains and pathotypes of Newcastle Disease Virus————————————- 14
2.9.0 Laboratory host systems.—————————————————————– 15
2.9.1 Chicken Embryos————————————————————————– 15
2.9.2 Cell Cultures——————————————————————————- 15
2.10 Pathogenicity——————————————————————————- 16
2.11 Distribution of the Newcastle Disease ————————————————- 17
2.11.1 Worldwide situation ——————————————————————– 17
2.11.2 Incidence of Newcastle Disease in Nigeria——————————————– 19
2.12 Epidemiology of Newcastle Disease in poultry—————————————– 21
2.13 Specie susceptibility————————————————————————- 24
2.14 Age susceptibility————————————————————————- 27
2.15 Reservoir hosts——————————————————————————- 27
2.16. Transmission of Newcastle Disease ——————————————————- 28
2.16.1 Methods of Infection———————————————————————- 28
2.16.2 The role of free-ranging/semi-captive and wild/feral birds in the transmission of
Newcastle Disease Virus——————————————————————- 30
2.17 Epizootic and enzootic Newcastle Disease ———————————————– 31
2.18 Incubation period————————————————————————– 31
2.19 Clinical signs——————————————————————————- 32
2.20 Pathology of Newcastle Disease in birds———————————————— 34
2.20.1 Gross Lesions——————————————————————————- 34
2.20.2 Histopathology—————————————————————————– 36
2.21 Immunity to Newcastle Disease infection———————————————- 38
2.21.1 Passive Immunity————————————————————————— 41
2.21.2 Assays to Measure Immunity————————————————————- 42
2.22 Diagnosis of Newcastle Disease———————————————————– 43
2.23 Differential diagnosis of Newcastle Disease——————————————— 44
2.24 Control of Newcastle Disease ———————————————————— 45
2.24.1 Biosecurity———————————————————————————- 45
2.24.2 Vaccines and Vaccination—————————————————————– 46
2.24.3 Combined Vaccines————————————————————————- 49
2.25 Turkey production———————————————————————– 49
2.25.1 Varieties of Turkey ————————————————————————– 50:
2.25.3 Turkey meat——————————————————————————– 51
2.26 Turkey production in Nigeria problems and prospects ——————————– 51
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Studies on the factors limiting turkey production in Enugu State——————— 53
3.1 Abstract—————————————————————————————– 53
3.2.0 Introduction———————————————————————————- 55
3.3. Materials and Methods———————————————————————– 56
3.3.1 Study area————————————————————————————- 56
3.3.2 Study design——————————————————————————— 58
3.3.3 Study population—————————————————————————– 58
3.3.4 Sample size, Determination and Sampling technique———————————– 58
3.3.5 Instrument for data collection————————————————————- 60
3.3.6 Validation of instrument——————————————————————– 60
3.3.6 Reliability of instrument——————————————————————– 60
3.3.7 Methods of questionnaire administration ———————————————— 60
3.3.8 Data presentation and analysis————————————————————- 60
3.4 Results——————————————————————————————- 62
3.5 Discussion————————————————————————————– 75
3.6 Conclusion————————————————————————————- 80
CHAPTER FOUR
Serological survey for evidence of Newcastle Disease Virus antibody in turkey in Enugu State——————————————————————————————————- 81
4.1. Abstract————————————————————————————— 81
4.2. Introduction———————————————————————————- 82
4.3. Materials and Methods———————————————————————– 84
4.3.1 Study area———————————————————————————– 84
4.3.2 Study design ——————————————————————————- 84
4.3.3 Study population————————————————————————– 84
4.3.4 Sample size and Sampling technique————————————————— 84
4.3.5 Blood sampling, serum harvesting and storage—————————————- 85
4.3. 6 Haemagglutination test——————————————————————- 85
4.3.7 Haemagglutination inhibition test—————————————————— 85
4.3.8 Data presentation and analysis———————————————————- 86
4.4. Results————————————————————————————– 87
4.5. Discussion———————————————————————————- 91
4.6. Conclusion———————————————————————————– 94
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1.0 Comparative study of the pathology and pathogenesis of velogenic Newcastle Disease Virus infection in chickens and turkeys—————————————————————– 95
5.2. Abstract —————————————————————————————— 95
5.3 Introduction————————————————————————————— 97
5.3 Materials and methods—————————————————————————- 98
5.3.1 Experimental birds—————————————————————————– 98
5.3.2 Experimental design————————————————————————— 98
5.3.3 The Velogenic Newcastle Disease Virus innoculum———————————— 100
5.3.4 Newcastle Disease Virus challenge——————————————————— 100
5.3.5 Clinical signs———————————————————————————– 101
5.3.6 Changes in body weight———————————————————————- 101
5.3.7 Gross Pathologic examination————————————————————— 101
5.3.8 Histopathology——————————————————————————– 101
5.3.9 Changes in weight of lymphoid organs—————————————————- 101
5.3.10 Serology—————————————————————————————– 102
5.3.11 Virus isolation———————————————————————————- 102
5.3.12 Collection of tissue—————————————————————————- 102
5.3.13 Preparation of the inoculum —————————————————————– 102
5.3.14 Collection of cloacal swabs—————————————————————- 103
5.3.15 Preparation of the inoculum————————————————————— 103
5.3.16 Egg inoculation —————————————————————————– 103
5.3.17 Spot-HA Test——————————————————————————— 104
5.4 Haematology———————————————————————————– 104
5.4.1 Blood sample collection———————————————————————- 104
5.4.2 Haematologic methods and procedures—————————————————- 104
5.5 Data Analysis———————————————————————————- 106
5.6 Results——————————————————————————————– 107
5.6.1 Clinical signs——————————————————————————— 107
5.6.2 Gross lesion———————————————————————————— 112
5.6.3 Histopathology——————————————————————————– 128
6.4 Changes in the weight of lymphoid organs (Organ index)—————————– 131
5.6.5 Serology—————————————————————————————- 135
5.6.6 Virus isolation from some organs in chickens and turkeys inoculated with KUDU 113
virus ——————————————————————————————— 139
5.6.7 Shedding of virus in faeces of chickens and turkeys infected with KUDU 113 virus.
————————————————————————————————— 139
5.6.8 Haematology———————————————————————————– 142
5.7 Discussion————————————————————————————— 153
0 Conclusion————————————————————————————— 162
References———————————————————————————————- 163
Appendix———————————————————————————————— 192
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
The production and consumption of eggs and poultry meat is increasing worldwide. Over the last quarter of a century the consumption of eggs has doubled and chicken meat tripled (Jordan and Pattisons, 1996). Poultry production forms an important component of Nigeria’s livestock sector. Poultry is the most commonly kept livestock and over 70% of those who keep livestock are reported to keep chickens (Amar Klemesu and Maxwell, 2000). As a provider of employment and income, poultry production constitutes an important form of livelihood for rural and urban dwellers. Poultry farmers who are well spread all over the different ecological zones of this country engage in the production of chicken, eggs, day old chicks and poultry manure for rural, urban and peri-urban populations (Eduvie, 2002).
The poultry population in Nigeria is estimated at 104.3 million comprising 72.4 million chickens,11.8 million ducks,4.7 million guinea fowl,15.2 million pigeons and 0.2 million turkeys (FDLPCS,1992). Poultry sector is a major source of animal protein supply in Nigeria. It is next to ruminants as a source of animal protein supply in Nigeria and accounts for almost 25% of local meat production (Ajala and Alli-Balogun, 2004). According to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report of 1988 cited by Nwanta et al. (2012), Nigeria recorded the lowest animal protein intake with an average of 6 g per head per day. The FAO (2010) also estimated that in an average Nigerian meal, animal protein contributes 3% against 12% recommended for healthy living. Among Nigerians, poultry meat and eggs are to some extent still considered luxury food (Adene and Oguntade, 2006). One of the major reasons for the poor intake of animal protein among Nigerians maybe due to inadequate supply of animal products occasioned by low productivity and consequent rise in cost of meat. With the continued rise in the cost of production of beef, sheep and chicken, which are the primary sources of animal protein in Nigeria, it has become very necessary to explore other efficient and less common but potential sources of animal protein for economic viability (Ajala and Alli-Balogun, 2004).
There are many underrated, but highly promising poultry species such as turkeys, quails and guinea fowl. Turkey (meleagris gallopavo) is a type of poultry specie with numerous attributes; Turkey thrives better under arid conditions, tolerates heat better and has higher quality meat (Fisinin and Zlochevskaya, 1989; Yakubu et al., 2013). Smith (1990) reported that carcasses of turkey contained a higher percentage of protein than the carcasses of chicken. Turkeys have also been found to be of considerable economic and social significance in the tradition of Nigerians (Peters et al., 1997).
While the production of other types of poultry species has rapidly increased in recent years (Okoruwa et al.,2006) and despite its greater potential than the chicken, very little successes have been recorded in turkey production in the developing countries (Shingari and Sapra 1993; Peters et al., 1997; Perez-Lara et al., 2013). In Nigeria, consumers continue to pay high prices for imported turkeys and even for local ones. The reason for the apparent inertia in turkey production appears to be due to high cost of turkey poults, inconsistency in feeding programmes, lack of understanding of its management and production requirements, disease threats and lack of appreciation of its potential in contributing to the protein needs of the consuming public. (Nwagu, 2002; Ojewola et al., 2002).
Disease patterns in poultry production are changing with increasing industrialization and intensification of rearing systems. Outbreak of diseases is often due to increased stress the birds are subjected to and the high infectious disease pressure on thousands of birds in a confined space (Jordan and Pattison, 1996). In developing countries, infectious diseases still play a predominant role. Sainsbury (1992) reported that tropical countries have more problems with infectious diseases due to climatic circumstances.
Diseases have been the major constraint in rearing domestic poultry. Of all the diseases of poultry, velogenic Newcastle disease (VND) constitutes a major problem of poultry in Africa and Asia (Awan et al., 1994). Newcastle disease (ND) is one of the most important avian diseases, because of its economic impact on the poultry industry (Alexander et al., 1997a). It continues to be a serious economic threat to the poultry industry causing increased morbidity and mortality rates, loss of eggs for both breeding and human consumption (Jungherr et al., 1946; Abdu et al., 1992; Philips, 1998). It is a worldwide problem in poultry industry (Lancaster, 1966). It has been the most important disease of chickens, turkey and other poultry species in Nigeria (Ezeokoli et al., 1984), since the first outbreak of the disease that occurred in Ibadan, Nigeria in 1952 (Hill et al.,1953).
Newcastle Disease is caused by avian paramyxovirus. Nine serogroups of avian paramyxovirus have been recognized (APMV1-9). APMV-1 remains the most important pathogen for poultry while others are known to cause diseases in poultry and other types of birds (Alexander, 2003). Newcastle disease virus (NDV) has been grouped into five pathotypes based on clinical signs seen in infected birds. These include velogenic viscerotropic, velogenic neurotrophic, mesogenic, lentogenic and asymtomatic pathotypes (Jordan and Pattison, 1996; OIE, 2005) and it is believed that all these pathotypes of NDV exist in Nigeria (Nawathe et al., 1975; Onunkwo and Momoh, 1980; Adu et al., 1985; Ibu et al., 2009). All isolates of NDV in Nigeria so far characterized, belong to the velogenic virulent strains (Majiyagbe and Nawathe, 1981, Adu et al., 1985). Studies of naturally occurring and experimental infections have shown that the velogenic NDV is the commonest pathotype in Nigeria (Onunkwo and Momoh, 1980; Echeonwu et al., 1993, Fagbohun et al., 2000; Sa’idu et al., 2004 and Oyekunle et al., 2006). It is the major cause of infection in many species of birds both domestic and wild birds. Turkeys are susceptible to VND virus (VNDV) even though they do not develop severe signs (Fatumbi and Adene, 1979; Gomwalk et al., 1985; Adu et al., 1986). Outbreaks of ND occurred in domestic fowl and turkeys in Great Britain in 1997 (Alexander et al., 1999) and in Nigeria there are few reports of natural outbreak of ND in turkeys (Sa’idu et al., 1994).
Currently, turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production is an aspect of poultry industry whose potentials have not been fully utilized and is one of the most suitable alternative sources of animal protein supply in Nigeria considering the cost of production (Ibe, 1990; Peters et al., 1997).
1.2 Statement of the problem
The impact of ND is most notable in commercial and local chickens, due to the high susceptibility of the chickens and the severe consequences of outbreaks on the poultry industry. In fact, it has been argued that ND may represent a bigger drain on the world economy than any other viral disease of animals (Alexander, 2003). Despite constant vaccination polices to prevent outbreaks, ND continues to occur in vaccinated chicken flocks (Alexander, 2003; Senne et al., 2004; Ezema et al., 2009).
Because turkey production in Nigeria is still at a small holder level, (Ojewola et al., 2002), there are few reports of natural outbreaks of ND in turkeys (Sa’idu et al., 1994). The few reports of serologic evidence of NDV infection in turkeys are reports by Sa’idu et al. (2004) in Zaria with a prevalence rate of 68% and Saidq et al. (2011) in Maiduguri which recorded a prevalence of 57.2%. None has been reported in turkeys in south-east, Nigeria.
Most birds other than the domestic chicken are known to be sources of the spread of NDV (Lancaster, 1966; Roy et al., 1998). It was reported by Alexander et al. (1985a) that the spread of NDV to chickens has occurred in several countries, including Great Britain, where 20 outbreaks in unvaccinated chickens occurred in 1984 as a result of feed that had been contaminated by faeces of infected birds. In rural Nigeria, like in the South East it is common to find a combination of different poultry species such as chickens, turkeys, Muscovy ducks and pigeons being reared in the same compound (Ibrahim and Abdu, 1992). This encourages cross infection of NDV across species (Abdu et al., 1985).
Furthermore, studies on the susceptibility of chickens to ND is well documented unlike in turkeys (Piacenti et al., 2006). There is need to study the susceptibility of turkeys to velogenic NDV. This may throw more light on the risk factors to the successful production of turkeys and chickens in the study area.
1.3 Aim of the study
The aim of this study was to determine the susceptibility of turkeys to velogenic NDV. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to;
Determine the limiting factors associated with turkey production and assess the significance of Newcastle Disease among other disease problems of turkeys in Enugu State.
Determine the sero-prevalence of NDV infection in turkeys raised in Enugu State.
Compare the clinical signs, gross and histopathologic lesions of experimental velogenic NDV in turkeys with those of the chickens.
Investigate the shedding of virus in the faeces/tissue of turkeys and chickens, experimentally inoculated with VNDV.
Compare the antibody response of turkeys and chickens to VNDV infection.
Compare the effect of VNDV strain on the blood parameters of turkeys and chickens experimentally inoculated.
1.4 Null Hypothesis
The following hypotheses will guide the study and will be tested at 0.05 level of significance.
There are no limiting factors associated with turkey production in Enugu State.
ND is not significant among other disease problems of turkeys in Enugu State.
There’s no significant difference in the susceptibility, pathogenesis and pathology of VND in experimentally inoculated turkeys and chickens?
There is no significant difference in the shedding of NDV in faeces/tissues of turkeys compared to that of chickens.
There is no significant difference in the antibody response of turkeys and chickens experimentally inoculated with VNDV.
There is no significant difference in the haematological changes in turkeys and chickens experimentally inoculated with VND
1.5 Significance of the study
1. The results of the study will give information on the nature of the disease caused by the
Nigerian velogenic NDV strain in turkeys. This will be of help in diagnosis of ND in
turkeys.
The information will help farmers formulate a proper ND vaccination schedule for the
turkeys in Nigeria.
1.6 Scope of the study
This study covered farmers who keep chickens and turkeys in Enugu State. The farmers in the study area were used as respondents.
The study centred on gathering information on socio-economic characteristics of turkey producers, production patterns, management practices and prevalent diseases in turkeys, in order to identify the common problems facing turkey production in Enugu State.
The study also determined the sero-prevalence of NDV infection in turkeys raised in backyard poultry farms/households in Enugu State, with the aim of determining the role of turkeys in the epidemiology of ND in both local and exotic chickens.
Experimental infection of turkeys and chickens with VNDV was be carried out in order to characterize clinicopathologic features, determine the persistence of the virus in faeces, monitor the immune response and study the haematologic changes in turkeys and chickens inoculated with VNDV.
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420