Skip to main content

Table 4 Scoring of microscopic liver lesions and liver/body weight ratios in all the chickens. For caged group, the Nos 10–12, 13–15, 16–18, 28–30, 31–33 and 34–36 chickens were kept separately in the same cage

From: Effect of housing arrangement on fecal-oral transmission of avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks

Housing arrangements No. of chickens (score a, liver/body weight ratio b)
Cage-free (Inoculated) 1(1, 23.16) 2(4, 40.92) 3(2, 23.44) 4(2, 32.19) 5(4, 37.98) 6(3, 33.25) 7(2, 24.01) 8(4, 36.78) 9(2, 23.48)
Caged (Inoculated) 10(0, 24.84) 11(4, 36.47) 12(1, 23.39) 13(0, 22.08) 14(4, 35.88) 15(0, 24.12) 16(2, 23.98) 17 (1, 22.68) 18(4, 38.11)
Cage-free (Negative) 19(0, 23.98) 20(0, 24.12) 21(1, 22.65) 22(0, 23.65) 23(1, 24.09) 24(0, 23.51) 25(0, 22.98) 26(1, 23.65) 27(0, 24.01)
Caged (Negative) 28(1, 22.99) 29(0, 25.01) 30(0, 23.98) 31(0, 24.19) 32(1, 24.67) 33(2, 24.88) 34(0, 22.87) 35(1, 23.13) 36(0, 24..35)
  1. a Liver lesion scores ranged from 0 to 4 (0, no lesions; 1, <5 foci; 2, 5 to 8 foci; 3,9 to 15 foci; 4,>15 foci)
  2. b Liver to body weight ratio was calculated by (liver weight)/(body weight) × 100
  3. The liver of each chicken was weighed and the liver/body weight ratios were calculated. Compared with the uninfected chickens, the mean ratios from the 6 inoculated chickens (bold) and 2 contact-infected chickens (Nos.4 and 6) were significantly higher(P < 0.05)