Rapid assessment of faecal egg count and faecal egg count reduction through composite sampling in cattle.
Cattle
FECRT
Gastrointestinal strongyles
Mini-FLOTAC
Pooled faecal samples
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jul 2019
16 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
27
02
2019
accepted:
06
07
2019
entrez:
18
7
2019
pubmed:
18
7
2019
medline:
19
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Faecal egg counts (FEC) and the FEC reduction test (FECRT) for assessing gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infection and efficacy of anthelmintics are rarely carried out on ruminant farms because of the cost of individual analyses. The use of pooled faecal samples is a promising method to reduce time and costs, but few studies are available for cattle, especially on the evaluation of different pool sizes and FECRT application. A study was conducted to assess FEC strategies based on pooled faecal samples using different pool sizes and to evaluate the pen-side use of a portable FEC-kit for the assessment of FEC on cattle farms. A total of 19 farms representing 29 groups of cattle were investigated in Italy and France. On each farm, individual faecal samples from heifers were collected before (D0) and two weeks after (D14) anthelmintic treatment with ivermectin or benzimidazoles. FEC were determined individually and as pooled samples using the Mini-FLOTAC technique. Four different pool sizes were used: 5 individual samples, 10 individual samples, global and global on-farm. Correlations and agreements between individual and pooled results were estimated with Spearman's correlation coefficient and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients, respectively. High correlation and agreement coefficients were found between the mean of individual FEC and the mean of FEC of the different pool sizes when considering all FEC obtained at D0 and D14. However, these parameters were lower for FECR calculation due to a poorer estimate of FEC at D14 from the faecal pools. When using FEC from pooled samples only at D0, higher correlation and agreement coefficients were found between FECR data, the better results being obtained with pools of 5 samples. Interestingly, FEC obtained on pooled samples by the portable FEC-kit on-farm showed high correlation and agreement with FEC obtained on individual samples in the laboratory. This field approach has to be validated on a larger scale to assess its feasibility and reliability. The present study highlights that the pooling strategy and the use of portable FEC-kits on-farm are rapid and cost-effective procedures for the assessment of GIN egg excretion and can be used cautiously for FECR calculation following the administration of anthelmintics in cattle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Faecal egg counts (FEC) and the FEC reduction test (FECRT) for assessing gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infection and efficacy of anthelmintics are rarely carried out on ruminant farms because of the cost of individual analyses. The use of pooled faecal samples is a promising method to reduce time and costs, but few studies are available for cattle, especially on the evaluation of different pool sizes and FECRT application.
METHODS
METHODS
A study was conducted to assess FEC strategies based on pooled faecal samples using different pool sizes and to evaluate the pen-side use of a portable FEC-kit for the assessment of FEC on cattle farms. A total of 19 farms representing 29 groups of cattle were investigated in Italy and France. On each farm, individual faecal samples from heifers were collected before (D0) and two weeks after (D14) anthelmintic treatment with ivermectin or benzimidazoles. FEC were determined individually and as pooled samples using the Mini-FLOTAC technique. Four different pool sizes were used: 5 individual samples, 10 individual samples, global and global on-farm. Correlations and agreements between individual and pooled results were estimated with Spearman's correlation coefficient and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
High correlation and agreement coefficients were found between the mean of individual FEC and the mean of FEC of the different pool sizes when considering all FEC obtained at D0 and D14. However, these parameters were lower for FECR calculation due to a poorer estimate of FEC at D14 from the faecal pools. When using FEC from pooled samples only at D0, higher correlation and agreement coefficients were found between FECR data, the better results being obtained with pools of 5 samples. Interestingly, FEC obtained on pooled samples by the portable FEC-kit on-farm showed high correlation and agreement with FEC obtained on individual samples in the laboratory. This field approach has to be validated on a larger scale to assess its feasibility and reliability.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study highlights that the pooling strategy and the use of portable FEC-kits on-farm are rapid and cost-effective procedures for the assessment of GIN egg excretion and can be used cautiously for FECR calculation following the administration of anthelmintics in cattle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31311591
doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3601-x
pii: 10.1186/s13071-019-3601-x
pmc: PMC6636157
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anthelmintics
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
353Références
Vet Parasitol. 1992 Sep;44(1-2):35-44
pubmed: 1441190
Vet Parasitol. 2005 Jul 15;131(1-2):79-87
pubmed: 15921855
Parasite. 2008 Sep;15(3):506-9
pubmed: 18814731
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Apr;88(4):626-9
pubmed: 23478580
Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2013 Mar 13;80(1):539
pubmed: 23718204
Aust Vet J. 1990 May;67(5):165-7
pubmed: 2378599
Vet Parasitol. 2014 Sep 15;205(1-2):216-23
pubmed: 25002307
Vet Rec. 2014 Sep 13;175(10):250-5
pubmed: 25217603
Vet Rec. 2015 May 23;176(21):546
pubmed: 25762583
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015 Aug 18;5(3):163-71
pubmed: 26448902
Int J Parasitol. 2016 Jul;46(8):485-93
pubmed: 27025771
Vet Parasitol. 2016 Jul 30;225:53-60
pubmed: 27369575
Vet Parasitol. 2017 Jun 15;240:24-29
pubmed: 28576340
Trends Parasitol. 2017 Sep;33(9):669-677
pubmed: 28647171
Nat Protoc. 2017 Sep;12(9):1723-1732
pubmed: 28771238
Vet Parasitol. 2017 Nov 30;247:85-92
pubmed: 29080771
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 May;65 Suppl 1:217-234
pubmed: 29124904
Parasitology. 2018 Nov;145(13):1655-1664
pubmed: 29415781
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Apr 15;253:71-78
pubmed: 29605007
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Jun 15;257:21-27
pubmed: 29907188
Vet Parasitol. 1994 Apr;52(3-4):337-42
pubmed: 8073617
Vet Parasitol. 1997 Dec 15;73(1-2):181-7
pubmed: 9477505