Short communication: A practical farm-based trial to compare ewe nematode control strategies in peri-parturient ewes

Determining the Effects of Pelleted Cranberry Vine Grains on the Ewe and Offspring during Pregnancy and Lactation

When creating any new anti-parasitic interventions, it is important to evaluate their effects across all life stages. This study had three objectives, which were to evaluate the effect of feeding cranberry vine pellet (CVP) on (1) ewes' body weights and BCS during late gestation and lactation; (2) ewes' milk quality during lactation; and (3) lambs' body weight and growth parameters from birth to 65 days of age. Across two years, 41 Dorset ewes were fed either a 50% CVP or a matching control pellet (CON) from 104 ± 1.60 days of gestation for 62.8 ± 0.68 days of lactation. Measurements were collected from ewes (BW, BCS, and milk) and lambs (BW and body size). Milk from CVP ewes exhibited reduced milk fat and solids (p < 0.01) and increased concentrations of milk urea nitrogen (p = 0.02) when evaluated for the treatment-time. There was no significant difference in the BCS, protein, lamb BW, or growth measurements for treatment-time (p ≥ 0.05). Additional research that targets blood biochemistry and metabolic assessments is needed to fully determine the impact of this pellet on ewes and lambs.

Moxidectin use in Scottish sheep flocks suggests a need for clearer product labelling and communication of updated SCOPS guidelines

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for sustainable use of moxidectin were established in 2020. This study aimed to identify how Scottish sheep farmers are using this key endectocide and estimate its effectiveness against gastrointestinal nematodes.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to sheep farmers across Scotland, and analysis focused on moxidectin use in relation to Sustainable Control of Parasites in Sheep (SCOPS) guidelines. Farmers using moxidectin in their flock volunteered to submit post-treatment sheep faecal samples, which were analysed for the presence of gastrointestinal nematodes using faecal egg counts with polymerase chain reaction to determine species.

RESULTS

Despite 70% of farmers using moxidectin in 2020, knowledge levels varied: 24% of farmers included other anthelmintics when asked about moxidectin use. Moxidectin was used for a wide variety of reasons, and most farmers did not consistently follow SCOPS guidelines. Despite only 2 of 76 farmers reporting failure of moxidectin treatment, gastrointestinal nematodes were found following moxidectin treatment on five out of six farms tested and included Teladorsagia circumcincta, Cooperia curticei, Haemonchus contortus and Nematodirus sp.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this project indicate the need for improved anthelmintic product labelling and farmer support to encourage sustainable use. The presence of nematodes in treated animals is suggestive of anthelmintic resistance.

Gastrointestinal nematode control practices in ewes: Identification of factors associated with application of control methods known to influence anthelmintic resistance development

Gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) negatively impact productivity and welfare in sheep globally and are estimated to cost the European sheep industry €157-477 million annually. GIN are mainly controlled by anthelmintic treatment, however, as anthelmintic resistance becomes prominent, the routine treatment of ewes against GIN has been questioned. A questionnaire survey of 383 sheep farmers in Great Britain was conducted to identify strategies currently used to control GIN infections in ewes. Ordinal and binary regression analysis were used to identify factors associated with use of practices known to influence anthelmintic resistance development, including number and timing of ewe GIN anthelmintic treatment, targeted selective treatment (TST) of ewes, drench and move of ewes and long-acting moxidectin treatment of periparturient ewes. Participating farmers treated their ewes against GIN 1.68 times per year on average, with 42.3% and 32.1% of participating farmers worming their ewes once or twice a year on average, respectively. 17.2% of participating farmers wormed their ewes more than twice a year, and 8.4% never worm their ewes. Participating farmers who devised GIN control strategies based on SCOPS guidelines treated their ewes significantly less per year (P < 0.001), whilst those determining treatment timing based on ewe DAG scores or the time of year treated their ewes significantly more frequently (P < 0.001). Farmers who devised GIN control strategies in conjunction with their vet had greater odds of using TST (P < 0.001), as well as farmers who determined flock treatment timing based on ewe condition (P = 0.027). The use of narrow spectrum flukicides was significantly associated with reduced number of annual ewe GIN anthelmintic treatments (P < 0.001), TST of ewes against GIN (P < 0.001) and the avoidance of moving ewes to clean pastures following GIN treatment (P < 0.001). The presence of sheep scab on a farm or in the area was significantly associated with increased annual GIN treatments for ewes (P = 0.002), not using TST strategies to control GIN in ewes (P < 0.001) and moving ewes to clean pasture after anthelmintic treatment, whilst using macrocyclic lactones treatments to prevent sheep scab was significantly associated with the treatment of periparturient ewes with long-acting moxidectin (P = 0.001). This research suggests that by encouraging the application of evidence based targeted or targeted selective treatment strategies, further interaction between farmers and veterinarians/SCOPS guidance, and the uptake of best practices for controlling liver fluke and sheep scab on farms, sustainable GIN control strategies can become the common practice in ewes.