Worm-control practices and prevalence of anthelmintic resistance using in vivo FECRTs on smallholder sheep farms in Lithuania
, , , , and | Mar 10, 2016
About this article
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Mar 10, 2016
Page range: 24 - 30
Received: Apr 14, 2015
Accepted: Aug 26, 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/helmin-2015-0064
Keywords
© 2016 Institute of Parasitology, SAS, Košice
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Worm-control practices on the sheep farms
| Worm-control factor | Number(%) |
|---|---|
| Macrocyclic lactones | 29 (56.9) |
| Benzimidazoles | 8 (15.7) |
| Imidazothiazoles | 2 (3.9) |
| Macrocyclic lactones and benzimidazoles | 12 (23.5) |
| None | 20 (28.2) |
| Once | 7 (9.8) |
| One to two times | 9 (12.7) |
| Twice | 32 (45.1) |
| Two to three times | 1 (1.4) |
| Three to four times | 2 (2.8) |
| None | 20 (28.2) |
| Once | 16 (22.5) |
| One to two times | 3 (4.2) |
| Twice | 30 (42.3) |
| Two to three times | 2 (2.8) |
Third-stage larvae (L3) identified in post-treatment coprocultures on 6 sheep farms with AR in Lithuania treated with fenbendazole (7,5 mg/kg)and ivermectin (0,2 mg/kg)
| Farm No | Anthelmintic class (drug) | Larval identification (% L3) post-treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trich. | Telad. | Chab | Haem. | Coop. | |||
| 1 | FBZ | 88 | - | - | - | 12 | |
| IVM | - | 100 | - | - | - | ||
| 4 | BZ | 58 | 42 | - | - | - | |
| IVM | 100 | - | - | - | - | ||
| 5 | FBZ | 40 | - | - | 10 | 50 | |
| IVM | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 7 | FBZ | 44 | - | - | - | 56 | |
| IVM | 42 | 4 | 4 | - | 50 | ||
| 13 | FBZ | 52 | 28 | - | - | 20 | |
| IVM | n.d | n.d | n.d | n.d | n.d. | ||
| 15 | FBZ | - | - | - | - | - | |
| IVM | 54 | 22 | 18 | - | 6 | ||
Mean eggs per gram of faeces (EPG), faecal egg count reduction percentages (FECR%) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on 18 sheep farms in Lithuania treated with fenbendazole (7,5 mg/kg) and ivermectin (0,2 mg/kg)
| Farm no. | Anthelmintic class (drug) | EPG (range) pre – treatment | EPG (range) post – treatment | FECR% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FBZ | 596 (160 – 1340) | 34 (0 – 140) | 94.3 (93 – 99) |
| IVM | 300 (140 – 600) | 10 (0 – 100) | 96.7 (94 – 100) | |
| 2 | FBZ | 1346 (160 – 3540) | 26 (0 – 100) | 98.1 (97 – 100) |
| IVM | 446 (160 – 1040) | 0 | 100 | |
| 3 | FBZ | 378 (140 – 1240) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 415 (140 – 1080) | 0 | 100 | |
| 4 | FBZ | 544 (140 – 2120) | 82 (0 – 220) | 85 (73 – 98) |
| IVM | 332 (140 – 1000) | 2 (0 – 20) | 99.4 (99 – 100) | |
| 5 | FBZ | 3114 (140 – 11720) | 120 (0 – 940) | 96.2 (95 – 100) |
| IVM | 2843 (140 – 19760) | 0 | 100 | |
| 6 | FBZ | 264 (140 – 640) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 267 (140 – 420) | 0 | 100 | |
| 7 | FBZ | 278 (140 – 620) | 68 (0 – 140) | 75.6 (66 – 85) |
| IVM | 428 (160 – 1080) | 98 (0 – 520) | 77.2 (68 – 89) | |
| 8 | FBZ | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| IVM | 736 (140 – 3120) | 0 | 100 | |
| 9 | FBZ | 1366 (160 – 6680) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 788 (140 – 2660) | 0 | 100 | |
| 10 | FBZ | 352 (140 – 1060) | 6 (0 – 40) | 98.3 (96 – 100) |
| IVM | 216 (140 – 400) | 4 (0 – 40) | 98.2 (98 – 100) | |
| 11 | FBZ | 287 (140 – 620) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 12 | FBZ | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| IVM | 388 (140 – 680) | 0 | 100 | |
| 13 | FBZ | 783 (140 – 2960) | 432 (60 – 1360) | 44.9 (31 – 56) |
| IVM | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 14 | FBZ | 414 (140 – 1100) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 246 (140 – 560) | 0 | 100 | |
| 15 | FBZ | 2724 (140 – 15120) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 1080 (160 – 3600) | 272 (0 – 2140) | 74.9 (65 – 84) | |
| 16 | FBZ | 223 (140 – 680) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 1044 (140 – 6840) | 0 | 100 | |
| 17 | FBZ | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| IVM | 238 (140 – 760) | 0 | 100 | |
| 18 | FBZ | 725 (140 – 2680) | 0 | 100 |
| IVM | 868 (140 – 3240) | 0 | 100 |