Comparing pooled and individual samples for estimation of gastrointestinal strongyles burden and treatment efficacy in small ruminants
Monitoring endoparasite burden (FEC) and treatment efficacy (FECR) is a key element of sustainable parasite control. However, the costs of the analysis often discourage their implementation by farmers and veterinary practitioners. Pooling samples is considered to be a good alternative to reduce time...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary parasitology 2023-06, Vol.318, p.109935-109935, Article 109935 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Monitoring endoparasite burden (FEC) and treatment efficacy (FECR) is a key element of sustainable parasite control. However, the costs of the analysis often discourage their implementation by farmers and veterinary practitioners. Pooling samples is considered to be a good alternative to reduce time and monetary costs, but limited data are available on the use of pooled samples in small ruminants, especially for goats. In this study, data collected over the years in sheep and goat farms were analyzed, and results obtained from individual and pooled analysis were compared for the purposes of FEC and FECR assessment. A total of 801 individual and 134 pooled samples (composed of 3–12 individual samples) were included. For FECR testing, 2 pools of 5 samples each were created per trial and the same animals were sampled at day 0 (D0 – treatment day) and 14 days after (D14). Samples were analyzed by McMaster technique (limit of detection 20 EPG). Results from pooled and individual FEC were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) and correlation (Spearman’s rank test) was high for all sub-categories, although agreement (Lin’s concordance correlation) was often classified as poor. Results were not influenced by the pool size ( |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0304-4017 1873-2550 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109935 |