FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
The Veterinary record2005; 156(7); 208-210; doi: 10.1136/vr.156.7.208

Counting nematode eggs in equine faecal samples.

Abstract: No abstract available
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2005-03-08 PubMed ID: 15747658DOI: 10.1136/vr.156.7.208Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article aims to compare the efficiency of the FECPAK and McMaster fecal egg count tests to detect gastrointestinal nematodes in horses and determine which test is more reliable, particularly at low egg densities.

Background of the Study

  • Controlling gastrointestinal nematodes in horses relies on anthelmintic treatments to decrease the parasite burden in individual animals and limit pasture pathogen contamination.
  • However, a challenge with this approach is the routine administration of the treatment, which can lead to unnecessary drug use, the development of drug resistance, and failing to address climate-driven infection risk fluctuations.
  • Current fecal egg count tests are not widely available, posing an obstacle to targeted treatments. The most commonly used test, the McMaster technique, is less sensitive at low egg densities and requires expensive specialist equipment.
  • A potential solution is the FECPAK fecal egg count test, which examines a larger stool sample, does not require centrifugation, and can potentially be administered by horse owners or vets on-site.

About the FECPAK Test

  • The FECPAK test applies the flotation-dilution principle. About 10g of feces is mixed in a plastic bag with three times its volume of water.
  • The mixed suspension is filtered to remove coarse debris, and a portion of the filtrate is put into a counting chamber.
  • Nematode eggs that float to the top of the chamber within 30 seconds are then counted under a microscope, and each egg counted represents 20 eggs per gram of feces (epg).

Comparison of FECPAK and McMaster Tests

  • The study compared the two tests using fecal samples from an uninfected horse to which a known amount of strongyle eggs was added.
  • The FECPAK test detected eggs in all instances, while the McMaster test produced six false negatives.
  • FECPAK’s higher sensitivity may result from examining more feces, thus reducing the likelihood of missing eggs present at low density.

Accuracy and Repeatability Test

  • To evaluate these aspects, fecal samples were taken from two naturally infected horses, and each test was conducted 20 times.
  • The FECPAK test showed relatively lower variance and a narrower range, indicating higher accuracy and repeatability compared to the McMaster technique.

The study concludes that the FECPAK test is more sensitive than the McMaster technique at low egg densities, which may help more accurately identify horses needing treatment for nematodes and limit unnecessary anthelmintic administration.

Cite This Article

APA
Presland SL, Morgan ER, Coles GC. (2005). Counting nematode eggs in equine faecal samples. Vet Rec, 156(7), 208-210. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.7.208

Publication

The Veterinary record
ISSN: 0042-4900
NlmUniqueID: 0031164
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 156
Issue: 7
Pages: 208-210

Researcher Affiliations

Presland, S L
  • Department of Anatomy, University of Bristol, Southwell Street, Bristol BS2 8EJ.
Morgan, E R
    Coles, G C

      MeSH Terms

      • Animals
      • Cattle
      • Feces / parasitology
      • Horses
      • Nematoda
      • Parasite Egg Count / methods

      Citations

      This article has been cited 12 times.
      1. Sabatini GA, de Almeida Borges F, Claerebout E, Gianechini LS, Höglund J, Kaplan RM, Lopes WDZ, Mitchell S, Rinaldi L, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Steffan P, Woodgate R. Practical guide to the diagnostics of ruminant gastrointestinal nematodes, liver fluke and lungworm infection: interpretation and usability of results. Parasit Vectors 2023 Feb 8;16(1):58.
        doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05680-wpubmed: 36755300google scholar: lookup
      2. Ghafar A, Abbas G, King J, Jacobson C, Hughes KJ, El-Hage C, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes EJA, Hurley J, Cudmore L, Carrigan P, Tennent-Brown B, Nielsen MK, Gauci CG, Beveridge I, Jabbar A. Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis 2021;1:100046.
        doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046pubmed: 35284858google scholar: lookup
      3. Tyson F, Dalesman S, Brophy PM, Morphew RM. Novel Equine Faecal Egg Diagnostics: Validation of the FECPAK(G2). Animals (Basel) 2020 Jul 23;10(8).
        doi: 10.3390/ani10081254pubmed: 32717982google scholar: lookup
      4. McCarthy C, Höglund J, Christley R, Juremalm M, Kozlova I, Smith R, van Dijk J. A novel pooled milk test strategy for the herd level diagnosis of Dictyocaulus viviparus. Vet Parasitol X 2019 May;1:100008.
        doi: 10.1016/j.vpoa.2019.100008pubmed: 31633106google scholar: lookup
      5. Moser W, Bärenbold O, Mirams GJ, Cools P, Vlaminck J, Ali SM, Ame SM, Hattendorf J, Vounatsou P, Levecke B, Keiser J. Diagnostic comparison between FECPAKG2 and the Kato-Katz method for analyzing soil-transmitted helminth eggs in stool. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2018 Jun;12(6):e0006562.
        doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006562pubmed: 29864132google scholar: lookup
      6. Rashid MH, Stevenson MA, Waenga S, Mirams G, Campbell AJD, Vaughan JL, Jabbar A. Comparison of McMaster and FECPAK(G2) methods for counting nematode eggs in the faeces of alpacas. Parasit Vectors 2018 May 2;11(1):278.
        doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-2861-1pubmed: 29716657google scholar: lookup
      7. Sowerby SJ, Crump JA, Johnstone MC, Krause KL, Hill PC. Smartphone Microscopy of Parasite Eggs Accumulated into a Single Field of View. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2016 Jan;94(1):227-230.
        doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0427pubmed: 26572870google scholar: lookup
      8. Baines L, Morgan ER, Ofthile M, Evans K. Occurrence and seasonality of internal parasite infection in elephants, Loxodonta africana, in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl 2015 Apr;4(1):43-8.
        doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2015.01.004pubmed: 25830107google scholar: lookup
      9. Upjohn MM, Shipton K, Lerotholi T, Attwood G, Verheyen KL. Coprological prevalence and intensity of helminth infection in working horses in Lesotho. Trop Anim Health Prod 2010 Dec;42(8):1655-61.
        doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9617-zpubmed: 20574819google scholar: lookup
      10. Nielsen MK. Restrictions of anthelmintic usage: perspectives and potential consequences. Parasit Vectors 2009 Sep 25;2 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S7.
        doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S7pubmed: 19778468google scholar: lookup
      11. Mirzaei A, Rahmani Shahraki A, Maunsell FP, Diehl BN. Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance and Validation of an AI-Assisted Fluorescence Imaging Device for Fecal Egg Counts Against the Manual McMaster Reference Method in Kiko Male Goats. Animals (Basel) 2026 Jan 14;16(2).
        doi: 10.3390/ani16020248pubmed: 41594438google scholar: lookup
      12. Sillence MN, Holt K, Li FI, Harris PA, Coyle M, Fitzgerald DM. Sources of Environmental Exposure to the Naturally Occurring Anabolic Steroid Ecdysterone in Horses. Animals (Basel) 2025 Jul 17;15(14).
        doi: 10.3390/ani15142120pubmed: 40723581google scholar: lookup
      Subscribe to our newsletter
      Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.