Fowl Cholera (Avian Pasteurellosis) in Poultry: Etiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Signs, Pathology, Diagnostics, Treatment, and Control

Introduction

Fowl cholera (avian pasteurellosis) is a highly contagious bacterial disease affecting domestic poultry, waterfowl, and wild birds worldwide. The disease is caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, a Gram-negative coccobacillus that produces a range of clinical manifestations from peracute septicemia to chronic localized infections [1-3]. The economic impact of fowl cholera outbreaks is substantial, with mortality rates reaching 100% in susceptible flocks [1]. Understanding the bacterial etiology, transmission dynamics, host-pathogen interactions, and effective control measures is essential for veterinary practitioners and poultry health managers. This article provides an exhaustive reference on fowl cholera, integrating recent genomic, immunological, and epidemiological findings from peer-reviewed literature.

Etiology: The Causative Agent

Pasteurella multocida is the etiological agent of fowl cholera. The bacterium is classified into five capsular serogroups (A, B, D, E, F) and 16 somatic serotypes based on lipopolysaccharide (LPS) antigens [2, 3]. In poultry, capsular type A and somatic serotypes 1, 3, and 4 are most frequently isolated [4, 5]. The organism's genome encodes multiple virulence factors, including a polysaccharide capsule, fimbriae, outer membrane proteins, and the Pasteurella multocida toxin (PMT) [6, 7]. The capsule, composed of hyaluronic acid in type A strains, is critical for evasion of phagocytosis and complement-mediated killing [7]. The filamentous hemagglutinin B1 (FhaB1) gene, although present in some avian strains, has been shown not to be involved in pathogenesis in turkey poults [8]. Instead, the hyaluronidase activity encoded by hyaD contributes to virulence by facilitating bacterial dissemination through connective tissues [9]. Phase variation in glycosyltransferase genes of the LPS outer core has been linked to outbreak persistence on free-range layer farms [10].

Fowl cholera bacterial strains exhibit considerable genomic diversity. Whole-genome sequencing has identified multiple sequence types (STs), with ST20 being widespread in Australian poultry farms and capable of infecting wild waterbirds [11]. Complete genome sequences of eight isolates representing all LPS outer core loci have been published, providing a foundation for serotyping and vaccine development [3]. The stringent response, mediated by (p)ppGpp, negatively regulates hyaluronic acid capsule production, revealing a complex regulatory network governing virulence [7].

Transmission and Epidemiology

Fowl cholera transmission occurs horizontally through direct contact with infected birds, contamination of feed and water with respiratory secretions or feces, and exposure to contaminated fomites [12]. Carrier birds, often recovered or asymptomatically infected individuals, serve as reservoirs for P. multocida and are central to the maintenance of infection within a flock [13]. The bacterium can survive for several days in organic material but is readily inactivated by desiccation and sunlight [12]. Land cover and environmental factors influence outbreak occurrence; a case-case study exploring the impact of land cover on the occurrence of ornithobacteriosis and fowl cholera found that certain landscape features are associated with increased risk [14].

A chicken bacteria outbreak of fowl cholera can result in explosive mortality. Miller et al. described 100% mortality in commercial slow-growing broiler chickens with acute fowl cholera, highlighting the devastating potential of highly virulent strains [1]. High mortality in commercial turkey flocks has also been reported, with coinfection by Mycoplasmoides gallisepticum exacerbating the disease [15]. In Morocco, an outbreak in turkeys caused by serotype A was characterized by isolation and subsequent vaccine preparation [4]. In Ethiopia, molecular detection and antibiogram profiling of P. multocida from breeder chickens suspected of fowl cholera revealed multidrug resistance [16, 17].

Ground chicken bacteria can serve as a vehicle for transmission if contaminated carcasses enter the food chain, though P. multocida is primarily a poultry pathogen and less commonly associated with foodborne illness compared to Salmonella or Campylobacter. The question "does chicken get bacteria" is answered affirmatively; poultry are naturally colonized by diverse microbiota and can acquire pathogenic P. multocida through environmental exposure [12]. The term "fowl cholera in Hindi" refers to "मुर्गी हैजा" (murgi haija) and in Bengali it is "মুরগির কলেরা" (murgir kolera), though the disease is distinct from human cholera caused by Vibrio cholerae.

Fowl cholera transmission to humans is rare but documented, primarily following bites or scratches from infected birds. A case report described P. multocida bacteremia in a patient scratched by a Pekin duck [18]. However, the organism is not considered a major zoonotic pathogen. The query "fowl cholera is caused by which bacteria" is answered definitively: Pasteurella multocida.

Clinical Signs

Clinical presentation depends on the course of the disease. Peracute fowl cholera presents with sudden death of apparently healthy birds, often with no premonitory signs [1, 17]. Acute disease is characterized by fever, anorexia, depression, mucoid or hemorrhagic diarrhea, respiratory distress (rales, dyspnea), cyanosis of the comb and wattles, and increased mortality over 24 to 48 hours [15, 17]. Chronic infections manifest as localized lesions including swollen wattles, conjunctivitis, sinusitis, arthritis, and torticollis due to middle ear infection [13].

The clinical course can be influcted by co-pathogens. Gornatti-Churria et al. observed that coinfection with Mycoplasmoides gallisepticum resulted in higher mortality and more severe respiratory signs in turkeys compared to P. multocida alone [15]. Breed susceptibility also plays a role; Kannaki et al. showed that Indian native Nicobari chickens exhibited disease tolerance and a distinct host immune response to experimental infection with P. multocida A:1 [19].

Pathology

Gross lesions in acute fowl cholera include petechiae and ecchymoses on the heart, serosal surfaces, and abdominal fat; multifocal hepatic necrosis (small, pale foci); splenomegaly; and hemorrhagic enteritis [1, 20]. In peracute cases, the only lesion may be generalized congestion. Chronic cases show caseous exudate in wattles, joints, and sinuses. Histopathologically, there is fibrinoid necrosis of blood vessels, thrombosis, and infiltration of heterophils and macrophages in affected tissues [13]. Virulence assessment using embryonated chicken eggs has been employed to categorize strains based on mean death time and lesion score [20].

Differential Diagnosis

Fowl cholera must be differentiated from other acute septicemic diseases of poultry, including avian influenza, Newcastle disease, salmonellosis (fowl typhoid), and avian coryza (caused by Avibacterium paragallinarum) [13]. The term "avian coryn" likely refers to avian coryza, which presents with facial swelling, sinusitis, and nasal discharge but lacks the systemic hemorrhagic lesions typical of fowl cholera. Coinfections with Mycoplasma species further complicate diagnosis [15]. Clinical history, postmortem lesions, and laboratory confirmation are essential for accurate differentiation.

Diagnostics

Definitive diagnosis requires isolation and identification of P. multocida from affected tissues (liver, spleen, bone marrow, heart blood) [16, 17]. The bacterium grows on blood agar or MacConkey agar (though many strains are inhibited) producing characteristic non-hemolytic, mucoid colonies. Confirmation is achieved through biochemical profiling (oxidase positive, catalase positive, indole positive) and species-specific PCR targeting the kmt1 gene [21, 22]. Molecular typing methods include capsular PCR typing, LPS genotyping, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) [2, 3, 11]. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays offer rapid, field-deployable detection with sensitivity comparable to PCR [22]. Serological detection of antibodies using in-house indirect ELISA kits has been developed for flock-level surveillance in chickens [23]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing is recommended given the prevalence of resistance [2, 16, 21, 17]. The following decision tree summarizes the diagnostic workflow:

graph TD
    A["Suspected fowl cholera outbreak"], > B{"Clinical signs + mortality?"}
    B, >|Peracute/acute| C["Postmortem examination"]
    B, >|Chronic| D["Collect swabs of sinuses, joints, wattles"]
    C, > E["Collect liver, spleen, heart blood"]
    D, > F["Culture on blood agar"]
    E, > F
    F, > G["Biochemical identification + Gram stain"]
    G, > H{"kmt1 PCR"}
    H, >|Positive| I["Confirm P. multocida"]
    H, >|Negative| J["Consider other pathogens"]
    I, > K["Capsular/somatic PCR typing"]
    I, > L["Antimicrobial susceptibility testing"]
    I, > M["Optional: MLST or WGS"]

Treatment

Antimicrobial therapy is most effective when initiated early in the course of disease. Commonly used agents include tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones, and penicillins [2, 21]. However, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing concern. Miao et al. characterized AMR genes in avian P. multocida isolates from China, identifying resistance to tetracycline, sulfonamides, and beta-lactams [2]. El-Tarabili et al. reported multidrug resistance patterns among isolates from poultry and rabbits, with kmt1 sequence analyses revealing genetic diversity [21]. In Ethiopia, Geda et al. found high levels of resistance to penicillin G, oxytetracycline, and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim in breeder chickens [16, 17]. Therefore, treatment should be guided by culture and sensitivity results. Probiotic intervention using multi-strain probiotics has been shown to reduce fowl cholera mortality in broilers, suggesting a non-antimicrobial strategy for disease mitigation [24].

The question "what kills chicken bacteria" encompasses physical and chemical methods. P. multocida is susceptible to most disinfectants, including formaldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and quaternary ammonium compounds [13]. "Freezing chicken kill bacteria" is a common misconception: freezing does not reliably kill P. multocida or other bacterial pathogens; proper cooking to an internal temperature of 74 degrees Celsius is required [13].

Prevention and Control

Biosecurity

Strict biosecurity measures are the cornerstone of fowl cholera prevention. These include all-in-all-out flock management, pest and rodent control (rodents can mechanically transmit the organism), quarantine of new birds, and sanitation of equipment and housing [13]. Carrier birds should be culled to eliminate the reservoir. The term "chicken feces bacteria" highlights the role of fecal-oral transmission; manure removal and dry litter management reduce environmental contamination.

Vaccination

Both killed (bacterin) and live attenuated vaccines are available. Killed vaccines are widely used but provide serotype-specific protection of limited duration [13]. Live vaccines, such as the serially passaged strain PMZ8 in ducks, have shown attenuation with retained immunogenicity [25]. Newer vaccine approaches include gamma-irradiated fowl cholera vaccines formulated with adjuvants such as Montanide ISA 70, which induced strong antibody responses and cytokine expression in chickens [26]. Mucosal delivery of gamma-irradiated vaccines has also been explored as a safe alternative for oral immunization [27]. Hydrogel inactivated vaccines have demonstrated immunoprotective effects in chickens [28]. Subunit vaccines targeting lipoprotein E (PlpE) with flagellin as an adjuvant enhance immunogenicity [29, 30]. Bacterin vaccines with various adjuvants have been compared for their protective efficacy in chickens [31]. Autogenous vaccines, prepared from farm-specific isolates, offer targeted protection but require regulatory approval [4, 13].

The phrase "raw chicken breast bacteria" commonly refers to Salmonella and Campylobacter, but P. multocida can also contaminate poultry meat if processing hygiene is compromised. The so-called "chicken breast salmonella meme" highlights public awareness of raw chicken contamination; while Salmonella is the primary concern, P. multocida is rarely a foodborne hazard due to its low infectious dose but susceptibility to cooking.

Conclusions

Fowl cholera remains a significant threat to commercial poultry production worldwide. Advances in genomic characterization, diagnostics, and vaccine technology have improved our ability to manage the disease. However, antimicrobial resistance and the presence of carrier birds complicate control. Integrated strategies combining biosecurity, vaccination, and responsible antimicrobial use are essential for reducing the impact of P. multocida infections. Continued research into host-pathogen interactions, as exemplified by studies on hyaluronic acid capsule regulation [7] and LPS phase variation [10], will inform next-generation vaccines and therapeutics.

References

[1] Miller I, Jerry C, Nguyen V, et al. 100% Mortality in Commercial Slow-Growing Broiler Chickens with Acute Fowl Cholera. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40643942/

[2] Miao F, Dai B, Li Z, et al. Antimicrobial resistance and genomic characteristics of avian Pasteurella multocida. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41637789/

[3] Hashish A, Johnson TJ, Ghanem M, et al. Complete genome sequences of eight Pasteurella multocida isolates representing all lipopolysaccharide outer core loci. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39365089/

[4] Semmate N, Bamouh Z, Elkarhat Z, et al. Isolation and Characterization of Pasteurella multocida A from an Outbreak in Turkeys in Morocco and Vaccine Preparation and Evaluation. Avian Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40643939/

[5] Xiao J, Li Y, Hu Z, et al. Characterization of Pasteurella multocida isolated from ducks in China from 2017 to 2019. Microb Pathog. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34534643/

[6] Kubatzky KF. Pasteurella multocida toxin - lessons learned from a mitogenic toxin. Front Immunol. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36591313/

[7] Smallman TR, Williams GC, Harper M, et al. Genome-Wide Investigation of Pasteurella multocida Identifies the Stringent Response as a Negative Regulator of Hyaluronic Acid Capsule Production. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35404102/

[8] Dassanayake RP, Briggs RE, Kaplan BS, et al. Pasteurella multocida filamentous hemagglutinin B1 (fhaB1) gene is not involved with avian fowl cholera pathogenesis in turkey poults. BMC Vet Res. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40140814/

[9] Gao P, Wang L, Wang S, et al. The activity of hyaD contributed to the virulence of avian Pasteurella multocida. Microb Pathog. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38960217/

[10] Omaleki L, Blackall PJ, Cuddihy T, et al. Phase variation in the glycosyltransferase genes of Pasteurella multocida associated with outbreaks of fowl cholera on free-range layer farms. Microb Genom. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35266868/

[11] Allen JL, Bushell RN, Noormohammadi AH, et al. Pasteurella multocida ST20 is widespread in Australian poultry farms and may infect wild waterbirds. Vet Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38228079/

[12] Malek A. Dynamics of cholera transmission in poultry farm: insights from a compartmental model and control strategies. Br Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40960429/

[13] Fasina YO, Suarez DL, Ritter GD, et al. Unraveling frontiers in poultry health (part 1) - Mitigating economically important viral and bacterial diseases in commercial Chicken and Turkey production. Poult Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417326/

[14] Ouyang L, Campler MR, Wong S, et al. Exploring the Impact of Land Cover on the Occurrence of Ornithobacteriosis and Fowl Cholera: A Case-Case Study. Animals (Basel). 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39943166/

[15] Gornatti-Churria CD, Jerry C, Ramsubeik S, et al. High mortality in a commercial turkey flock associated with coinfection by Pasteurella multocida and Mycoplasmoides (Mycoplasma) gallisepticum. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40996859/

[16] Geda AM, Wendimu A, Lulie S, et al. Molecular Detection and Antibiogram Profiling of Pasteurella multocida Isolated From Breeder Chickens Suspected of Fowl Cholera in Gondar City, Ethiopia. Int J Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40297765/

[17] Geda AM. Fowl Cholera in Chickens: Current Trends in Diagnosis and Phenotypic Drug Resistance in Gondar City, Ethiopia. Vet Med Int. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39669206/

[18] Bathobakae L, Cho H, Philip S, et al. Friend Turned Foe: Pasteurella multocida Bacteremia Following a Scratch by an Adopted Pekin Duck. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40110910/

[19] Kannaki TR, Priyanka E, Haunshi S. Research Note: Disease tolerance/resistance and host immune response to experimental infection with Pasteurella multocida A:1 isolate in Indian native Nicobari chicken breed. Poult Sci. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217907/

[20] Shalaby AG, Bakry NR, El-Demerdash AS. Virulence attitude estimation of Pasteurella multocida isolates in embryonated chicken eggs. Arch Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34554268/

[21] El-Tarabili RM, Enany ME, Alenzi AM, et al. Unveiling resistance patterns, kmt1 sequence analyses, virulence traits, and antibiotic resistance genes of multidrug-resistant Pasteurella multocida retrieved from poultry and rabbits. Sci Rep. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39948418/

[22] Poussard M, Pant SD, Huang J, et al. Comparative evaluation of PCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays for detecting Pasteurella multocida in poultry. N Z Vet J. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39448061/

[23] Beyene D, Shite A, Getachew B. Development and optimization of in-house made indirect ELISA kit for the detection of antibodies against Pasteurella multocida in chicken. BMC Immunol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41724974/

[24] Reuben RC, Sarkar SL, Ibnat H, et al. Novel multi-strain probiotics reduces Pasteurella multocida induced fowl cholera mortality in broilers. Sci Rep. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33903662/ *** Disclaimer This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.

[25] Ji X, Meng Y, Yang H, et al. Attenuation mechanisms and vaccine potential of the serial passage-derived Pasteurella multocida strain PMZ8 in ducks. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41747463/

[26] Belay E, Bitew M, Ibrahim SM, et al. Gamma-irradiated fowl cholera vaccines formulated with different adjuvants induced antibody response and cytokine expression in chickens. Front Immunol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40103817/

[27] Dessalegn B, Bitew M, Asfaw D, et al. Gamma-Irradiated Fowl Cholera Mucosal Vaccine: Potential Vaccine Candidate for Safe and Effective Immunization of Chicken Against Fowl Cholera. Front Immunol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34917086/

[28] Chen J, Sun Y, Hu Y, et al. Evaluation of the immunoprotective effect of gel 01 hydrogel inactivated vaccine against Pasteurella multocida infection in chickens. Microb Pathog. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40934985/

[29] Chung YC, Cheng LT, Chu CY, et al. Flagellin Enhances the Immunogenicity of Pasteurella multocida Lipoprotein E Subunit Vaccine. Avian Dis. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39400212/

[30] Cheng LT, Chu CY, Vu-Khac H, et al. Signal sequence contributes to the immunogenicity of Pasteurella multocida lipoprotein E. Poult Sci. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36423524/

[31] Ghadimipour R, Ghorbanpoor M, Gharibi D, et al. Effects of Selected Adjuvants on Immunogenicity and Protectivity of Pasteurella multocida Bacterin Vaccine in Chickens. Arch Razi Inst. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35096310/

[32] Islam MA, Haque ME, Iftehimul M, et al. Genomic profiling of Pasteurella multocida strains isolated from ISA Brown (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Bangladesh. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41920836/

[33] Wahdan A, Elsebai MF, Elhaig MM, et al. Innovative use of wild Egyptian artichoke extract to control fowl cholera in vitro. Vet World. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40182829/

[34] Zhao X, Yang F, Shen H, et al. Immunogenicity and protection of a Pasteurella multocida strain with a truncated lipopolysaccharide outer core in ducks. Vet Res. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35236414/

[35] Saha O, Islam MR, Rahman MS, et al. First report from Bangladesh on genetic diversity of multidrug-resistant Pasteurella multocida type B:2 in fowl cholera. Vet World. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840474/