JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, A.
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 8, Issue 4, 448-450
Copyright © 1996 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Articles

Comparison of pharyngeal, fecal, and cloacal samples for the isolation of Chlamydia psittaci from experimentally infected cockatiels and turkeys

AA Andersen

United States Department of Agriculture, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA 50010, USA.

Direct comparisons were made of chlamydial isolation rates from pharyngeal swabs, fecal samples, and cloacal swabs from cockatiels and pharyngeal and cloacal swabs from turkeys experimentally infected with Chlamydia psittaci. During pathogenesis studies, 133 paired specimens were collected from cockatiels and 118 paired specimens were collected from turkeys. Of the 51 cockatiel chlamydial infections detected, 80.4% were positive by the pharyngeal swab sample, 45.1% were positive by the fecal swab sample, and 37.3% were positive by the cloacal swab sample. Of the 87 turkey infections detected, 93.1% were positive by the pharyngeal swab sample and 77.0% were positive by the cloacal swab. The pharyngeal swabs were the most reliable sample for isolation of chlamydia from live birds. However, no single sampling site yielded positive results from all infected birds. Specimens from multiple sites are recommended because a number of infected birds were identified by isolation from only 1 sample.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.