Immune and physiological responses of turkeys with green-liver osteomyelitis complex

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.

A study of field turkeys was undertaken in order to determine the involvement of relative immunological differences in the etiology of turkey osteomyelitis complex (TOC). Lame and normal turkeys were sampled from commercial flocks just prior to processing in two separate trials. After testing for functions of both humoral and cellular immunity, the turkeys were necropsied and examined for lesions of TOC. There were significantly higher relative spleen and over weights and significantly lower body weights and relative bursal weights in birds with TOC. The birds with TOC had lower response to phytohemagglutinin-P in both in vivo and in vitro tests as well as lower circulating lymphocyte counts and higher monocyte, heterophil, and total white blood cell counts. There was a significantly higher antibody response to sheep red blood cells in turkeys with TOC, whereas antibody response to Salmonella pullorum antigen was not different. There were no significant differences in the percentages of mononuclear cells or heterophils able to phagocytize bacteria or latex particles, or kill bacteria; however, the heterophils from turkeys with TOC lesions did phagocytize significantly fewer latex particles per cell than did those of the healthy turkeys. Total serum protein, uric acid, and blood urea nitrogen levels were higher in birds with TOC, whereas hemoglobin, iron, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl-transferase levels were lower. Although many of the differences in birds with TOC could be caused by the normal host reaction to infection, further study may reveal innate differences that contribute to susceptibility to TOC.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. L. Stedman, T. P. Brown, R. L. Brooks, and D. I. Bounous Heterophil Function and Resistance to Staphylococcal Challenge in Broiler Chickens Naturally Infected with Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup J Vet. Pathol., September 1, 2001; 38(5): 519 - 527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]