Table 7. Testing Results of Fowl Other Than Chickens 



Number Tested Percent Rea tors 



Ducks 10 0.00 



Geese 1 0.00 



Guinea Fowl 7 . 00 



Pheasants 61 0.00 



Turkeys 4,277 2.29 



Comments and Suggestions 



A recapitulation of the testing results suggests that the following important 

 eradication and prevention measures should be emphasized to flock owners at 

 this time. 



(1) In order to determine the true status of breeding flocks all birds on the 

 premises should be tested annually. Intermittent and partial flock testing may 

 appear to be successful in some flocks, but from the standpoint of establishing 

 and identifying pullorum clean flocks the chances of failure are far greater than 

 through the practice of annual testing of all birds on the premises. Under practical 

 commercial plant conditions birds are shifted on the plant from time to time. 

 Untested birds are apt to have direct or indirect contact with tested birds. In 

 order to determine the true status of the flock every bird on the premises should 

 be tested. 



(2) The problem of infection appearing in flocks previously negative is an 

 important one. When a "break" occurs in a breeding flock it is exceedingly dis- 

 couraging and also very expensive to the owner. The flock owner who con- 

 scientiously observes the prevention measures listed in this bulletin should feel 

 reasonably certain that his flock is free from the disease. A poultryman should 

 be constantly alert in preventing the introduction of infection since there are 

 several avenues through which the disease organism may enter. 



(3) In view of the fact that our knowledge concerning the relationship of fowl 

 other than chickens to the pullorum disease eradication problem is still somewhat 

 meager, it appears advisable to suggest to owners of breeding flocks to test all 

 birds on the premises, including fowl other than chickens. Since birds such as 

 turkeys, pheasants, quail, and grouse are now being hatched in artificial incubators 

 on premises where pullorum infection may exist, it seems quite possible that such 

 birds will contract the disease. Such infected birds may later introduce the disease 

 onto pullorum clean premises by means of custom hatching. This is especially 

 possible with turkeys, since adult infected turkeys have been found to eliminate 

 the organism by way of the egg. 



(4) In identifying pullorum clean flocks, the problem of the doubtful reactor 

 is a significant one. It has been observed that birds' sera may give weak or non- 

 specific reactions which do not always indicate that such birds are necessarily 

 infected with pullorum disease. For the last ten years, when previously non- 

 reacting flocks reveal only doubtful reacting birds, it has been the practice that 

 they be submitted to the laboratory for necropsy and bacteriological examination. 

 When no evidence of pullorum infection is detected on such examinations the 

 flock is regarded as negative. The results over a period of ten years show that 

 this supplementary examination is very helpful and reliable in establishing an 

 accurate flock diagnosis. Flock owners are expected to submit doubtful reacting 

 birds for examination when requested by the testing laboratory. Failure to 

 comply with such request places the tested flock on record as posit ive. 



( 10) 



