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 (<6 or >= 6). Interpretation of treatment efficacy between the two methods was comparable for all sheep trials, while it differed for goats in 4 out of 10 trials. Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated a non significant difference between pooled and individual FECR. However, correlation and agreement between FECR were considerably better for sheep compared to goats, for which they were very limited, despite the correlation between FEC at D0 and D14 was always high. According to our results, pooled FECR can be a good option but the absence of 95 %CI represents a major drawbacks in the interpretation of results. Further studies on the topic for goats are needed.

Comparing pooled and individual samples for estimation of gastrointestinal strongyles burden and treatment efficacy in small ruminants

Maurizio, Anna;Marchiori, Erica;Tessarin, Cinzia;Cassini, Rudi
2023

Abstract

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 (<6 or >= 6). Interpretation of treatment efficacy between the two methods was comparable for all sheep trials, while it differed for goats in 4 out of 10 trials. Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated a non significant difference between pooled and individual FECR. However, correlation and agreement between FECR were considerably better for sheep compared to goats, for which they were very limited, despite the correlation between FEC at D0 and D14 was always high. According to our results, pooled FECR can be a good option but the absence of 95 %CI represents a major drawbacks in the interpretation of results. Further studies on the topic for goats are needed.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3488529
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact