FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2024; 57(3); 703-711; doi: 10.1111/evj.14212

Farm size and biosecurity measures associated with Strongylus vulgaris infection in horses.

Abstract: Selective anthelmintic treatment, advocated due to evolving anthelmintic resistance, has been associated with an increase in Strongylus vulgaris prevalence. Reverting to routine interval anthelmintic treatments is not viable and therefore, identifying other management factors correlated with S. vulgaris infection is vital. Objective: To investigate possible risk factors associated with the presence of S. vulgaris infection in resident horses on Swedish horse establishments. Methods: Internet-based questionnaire survey. Methods: A questionnaire, created using the internet-based survey platform Netigate, was distributed to owners of equine establishments throughout Sweden via established equine platforms and social media channels. The survey was available for response from 21 May until 1 September 2022. Questions were closed ended with branching logic paths. Results: Four factors were significantly associated with S. vulgaris infection, with an increased odds of infection seen in livery yards (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-2.36, p = 0.004) and premises with more than 10 resident horses (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.64-3.56, p < 0.001). A lower odds of infection were seen in establishments using quarantine routines (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.96, p = 0.03) and anthelmintic treatment of new horses prior to arrival at the premise (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.74, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Due to the presence of S. vulgaris infection in the present study being based on S. vulgaris diagnostics performed at the farm level, any association between faecal diagnostic use and risk of infection could not be investigated. Conclusions: Although the use of diagnostics for S. vulgaris can keep infection rates low, large farms or livery yards with many different horse owners, and those with low use of biosecurity measures as regards to new horses arriving at the premise, are associated with a higher risk of infection.
© 2024 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-08-22 PubMed ID: 39171858PubMed Central: PMC11982428DOI: 10.1111/evj.14212Google 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

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.

Overview

  • This study examined the factors associated with Strongylus vulgaris infection in horses at Swedish equine establishments.
  • It identified that larger farms, livery yards, and poor biosecurity measures increased infection risk, while quarantine and pre-arrival treatment reduced it.

Background

  • Strongylus vulgaris is a parasitic worm infecting horses, which can cause serious health problems.
  • Due to increasing resistance to anthelmintic drugs (dewormers), selective treatment strategies are used rather than routine treatments.
  • However, selective treatments have been linked to increased prevalence of S. vulgaris, raising concerns about infection control.
  • Improving management practices and identifying risk factors beyond drug treatment are necessary for controlling infections.

Objective

  • To identify risk factors related to the presence of S. vulgaris infection in horses residing on Swedish horse farms.

Methods

  • Researchers designed an internet-based questionnaire using the Netigate platform.
  • The survey targeted owners of horse establishments across Sweden.
  • Distribution occurred through equine industry platforms and social media channels, collecting responses from 21 May to 1 September 2022.
  • Questions were mostly closed-ended with branching logic to follow relevant paths based on responses.
  • The questionnaire collected data on farm characteristics, biosecurity, deworming practices, and presence of S. vulgaris infection.

Key Findings

  • Four significant factors were associated with S. vulgaris infection risk:
  • Higher risk factors:
    • Livery yards: Premises where horses are housed on a livery basis showed a 1.67 times higher odds of infection.
    • Premises with >10 resident horses: Large farms with more than 10 horses had 2.42 times increased odds of infection.
  • Protective factors:
    • Use of quarantine procedures: Establishments practicing quarantine on incoming horses had 31% lower odds of infection.
    • Anthelmintic treatment of new arrivals prior to arrival: Premises treating new horses before arrival had 63% lower odds of infection.

Interpretation

  • The findings suggest that biosecurity measures such as quarantine and pre-arrival treatment are effective in reducing transmission of S. vulgaris.
  • Larger horse populations and livery yards likely increase infection risk due to more animal-to-animal contact and varied horse ownership.
  • While diagnostics for detecting S. vulgaris can help control infection, this study was unable to assess the impact of diagnostic use at the farm level because infection status was determined from farm-level diagnostics only.

Conclusions and Implications

  • Routine anthelmintic treatment is not a sustainable solution due to resistance issues, so management and biosecurity practices are critical to infection control.
  • Horse farms with more than 10 animals or operating as livery yards should be especially vigilant in implementing quarantine and pre-arrival treatments.
  • Education and awareness to improve biosecurity among horse owners can reduce the prevalence of S. vulgaris.
  • Future research could explore how diagnostic testing at individual horse levels influences infection risk and treatment effectiveness.

Cite This Article

APA
Hedberg Alm Y, Tydén E, Martin F, Lernå J, Halvarsson P. (2024). Farm size and biosecurity measures associated with Strongylus vulgaris infection in horses. Equine Vet J, 57(3), 703-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14212

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 57
Issue: 3
Pages: 703-711

Researcher Affiliations

Hedberg Alm, Ylva
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Parasitology Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tydén, Eva
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Parasitology Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Martin, Frida
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Parasitology Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Lernå, Jessica
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Parasitology Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Halvarsson, Peter
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Parasitology Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Animal Husbandry / methods
  • Strongylus
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Sweden / epidemiology
  • Risk Factors
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Horse Diseases / parasitology
  • Horse Diseases / prevention & control
  • Biosecurity
  • Strongyle Infections, Equine / epidemiology
  • Strongyle Infections, Equine / parasitology
  • Strongyle Infections, Equine / prevention & control
  • Farms

Grant Funding

  • H-15-47-097 / The Foundation for Swedish and Norwegian Equine Research

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared no conflicting interests.

References

This article includes 49 references
  1. Morariu S, Mederle N, Badea C, Dărăbuş G, Ferrari N, Genchi C. The prevalence, abundance and distribution of cyathostomins (small stongyles) in horses from Western Romania. Vet Parasitol 2016;223:205–209.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.04.021pubmed: 27198801google scholar: lookup
  2. Collobert‐Laugier C, Hoste H, Sevin C, Dorchies P. Prevalence, abundance and site distribution of equine small strongyles in Normandy, France. Vet Parasitol 2002;110(1–2):77–83.
    doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(02)00328-xpubmed: 12446091google scholar: lookup
  3. Mfitilodze MW, Hutchinson GW. Prevalence and abundance of equine strongyles (Nematoda: Strongyloidea) in tropical Australia. J Parasitol 1990;76(4):487–494.
    pubmed: 2380857
  4. Ogbourne CP. The prevalence, relative abundance and site distribution of nematodes of the subfamily Cyathostominae in horses killed in Britain. J Helminthol 1976;50(3):203–214.
    doi: 10.1017/s0022149x00027760pubmed: 993579google scholar: lookup
  5. Corning S. Equine cyathostomins: a review of biology, clinical significance and therapy. Parasit Vectors 2009;2(2):S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S1pmc: PMC2751837pubmed: 19778462google scholar: lookup
  6. Lawson AL, Malalana F, Mair T. Larval cyathostominosis: clinicopathological data and treatment outcomes of 38 hospitalised horses (2009–2020). Equine Vet J 2023;35(8):424–435.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13782google scholar: lookup
  7. Hedberg‐Alm Y, Tydén E, Tamminen LM, Lindtröm L, Anlén K, Svensson M. Clinical features and treatment response to differentiate idiopathic peritonitis from non‐strangulating intestinal infarction of the pelvic flexure associated with infection in the horse. BMC Vet Res 2022;18(1):149.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03248-xpmc: PMC9034621pubmed: 35461295google scholar: lookup
  8. Pihl TH, Nielsen MK, Olsen SN, Leifsson PS, Jacobsen S. Nonstrangulating intestinal infarctions associated with : clinical presentation and treatment outcomes of 30 horses (2008–2016). Equine Vet J 2018;50(4):474–480.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12779pubmed: 29112788google scholar: lookup
  9. Vibe‐Petersen G, Nielsen K. [Verminous enteritis and thrombo‐embolic colic in the horse. A description of 36 cases (author's transl)]. Nord Vet Med 1979;31(9):385–391.
    pubmed: 492971
  10. Nilsson O, Andersson T. Strongylus vulgaris hos häst—epizootologi och profylax. Svensk Veterinärtidning 1979;31:148–156.
  11. Osterman Lind E, Höglund J, Ljungström B, Nilsson O, Uggla A. A field survey on the distribution of strongyle infections of horses in Sweden and factors affecting faecal egg counts. Equine Vet J 1999;31(1):68–72.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03793.xpubmed: 9952332google scholar: lookup
  12. Matthee S, McGeoch MA. Helminths in horses: use of selective treatment for the control of strongyles. J S Afr Vet Assoc 2004;75(3):129–136.
    doi: 10.4102/jsava.v75i3.468pubmed: 15628805google scholar: lookup
  13. Gomez HH, Georgi JR. Equine helminth infections: control by selective chemotherapy. Equine Vet J 1991;23(3):198–200.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1991.tb02754.xpubmed: 1884701google scholar: lookup
  14. Kaplan RM, Nielsen MK. An evidence‐based approach to equine parasite control: it ain't the 60s anymore. Equine Vet Educ 2010;22:306–316.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2010.00084.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Osterman‐Lind E, Holmberg M, Grandi G. Selective anthelmintic treatment in horses in Sweden based on coprological analyses: ten‐year results. Animals (Basel) 2023;13(17):1–11.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13172741pmc: PMC10486379pubmed: 37685005google scholar: lookup
  16. Nielsen MK, Vidyashankar AN, Olsen SN, Monrad J, Thamsborg SM. Strongylus vulgaris associated with usage of selective therapy on Danish horse farms—is it reemerging?. Vet Parasitol 2012;189(2–4):260–266.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.04.039pubmed: 22703964google scholar: lookup
  17. Tyden E, Enemark HL, Franko MA, Höglund J, Osterman‐Lind E. Prevalence of Strongylus vulgaris in horses after ten years of prescription usage of anthelmintics in Sweden. Vet Parasitol X 2019;2:100013.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vpoa.2019.100013pmc: PMC7458386pubmed: 32904767google scholar: lookup
  18. Jurgenschellert L, Krucken J, Bousquet E, Bartz J, Heyer N, Nielsen MK. Occurrence of strongylid nematode parasites on horse farms in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, with high seroprevalence of infection. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:892920.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.892920pmc: PMC9226773pubmed: 35754549google scholar: lookup
  19. The R Development Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.
  20. Moon KW. AutoReg: automatic linear and logistic regression and survival analysis. 2023.
  21. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer‐Verlag; 2016.
  22. Aragon T. epitools: epidemiology tools. R package version 0.5‐10.1; 2020. [cited 2023 March 8]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools.
  23. SJV. Horses and horse establishments in 2016. Sweden: Statens Jordbruksverk; 2017.
  24. Hedberg‐Alm Y, Penell J, Riihimäki M, Osterman‐Lind E, Nielsen MK, Tydén E. Parasite occurrence and parasite management in Swedish horses presenting with gastrointestinal disease—a case–control study. Animals (Basel) 2020;10(4):1–19.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040638pmc: PMC7222828pubmed: 32272754google scholar: lookup
  25. Joo K, Truzski RL, Kalman CZ, Àcs V, Jakab S, Baba A. Evaluation of risk factors affecting strongylid egg shedding on Hungarian horse farms. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep 2022;27:100663.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2021.100663pubmed: 35012724google scholar: lookup
  26. Kornas S, Cabaret J, Skalska M, Nowosad B. Horse infection with intestinal helminths in relation to age, sex, access to grass and farm system. Vet Parasitol 2010;174(3–4):285–291.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.09.007pubmed: 20933334google scholar: lookup
  27. Kuzmina TA, Dzeverin I, Kharchenko VA. Strongylids in domestic horses: influence of horse age, breed and deworming programs on the strongyle parasite community. Vet Parasitol 2016;227:56–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.07.024pubmed: 27523938google scholar: lookup
  28. Relf VE, Morgan ER, Hodgkinson JE, Matthews JB. Helminth egg excretion with regard to age, gender and management practices on UK thoroughbred studs. Parasitology 2013;140(5):641–652.
    doi: 10.1017/S0031182012001941pubmed: 23351718google scholar: lookup
  29. Fritzen B, Rohn K, Schneider T, Von Samson‐Himmelstjerna G. Endoparasite control management on horse farms—lessons from worm prevalence and questionnaire data. Equine Vet J 2010;42(1):79–83.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X471485pubmed: 20121919google scholar: lookup
  30. Carminatti A, Chitolina MB, Ribeiro AB, Forest M, Collet SG, Prestes AM. Occurrence and risk factors associated with gastrointestinal parasitism in horses reared in different systems. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep 2023;42:100890.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2023.100890pubmed: 37321795google scholar: lookup
  31. Stoughton WB, Begin S, Outman S, Stryhn H, Yu J, Conboy G. Occurrence and control of equine strongyle nematode infections in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep 2023;40:100856.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2023.100856pubmed: 37068859google scholar: lookup
  32. Buono F, Veronesi F, Pacifico L, Roncoroni C, Napoli E, Zanzani SA. Helminth infections in Italian donkeys: more common than . J Helminthol 2021;95:e4.
    doi: 10.1017/S0022149X20001017pubmed: 33536094google scholar: lookup
  33. Hautala K, Nareaho A, Kauppinen O, Nielsen MK, Sukura A, Rajala‐Schultz PJ. Risk factors for equine intestinal parasite infections and reduced efficacy of pyrantel embonate against sp. Vet Parasitol 2019;273:52–59.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.08.004pubmed: 31442894google scholar: lookup
  34. Nielsen MK, Baptiste KE, Tolliver SC, Collins SS, Lyons ET. Analysis of multiyear studies in horses in Kentucky to ascertain whether counts of eggs and larvae per gram of feces are reliable indicators of numbers of strongyles and ascarids present. Vet Parasitol 2010;174(1–2):77–84.
    doi: 10.1016/vetpar.2010.08.007pubmed: 20850927google scholar: lookup
  35. Kaspar A, Pfister K, Nielsen MK, Silaghi C, Fink H, Scheuerle MC. Detection of in equine faecal samples by real‐time PCR and larval culture—method comparison and occurrence assessment. BMC Vet Res 2016;13:19.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0918-ypmc: PMC5225560pubmed: 28077153google scholar: lookup
  36. Nielsen MK, Peterson DS, Monrad J, Thamsborg SM, Olsen SN, Kaplan RM. Detection and semi‐quantification of DNA in equine faeces by real‐time quantitative PCR. Int J Parasitol 2010;38:443–453.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.07.014pubmed: 17889881google scholar: lookup
  37. Sallé G, Cortet J, Bois I, Dubes C, Guyot‐Sionest Q, Larrieu C. Risk factor analysis of equine strongyle resistance to anthelmintics. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2017;7(3):407–415.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2017.10.007pmc: PMC5727347pubmed: 29149701google scholar: lookup
  38. Nielsen MK, Banahan M, Kaplan RM. Importation of macrocyclic lactone resistant cyathostomins on a US thoroughbred farm. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2020;14:99–104.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2020.09.004pmc: PMC7548974pubmed: 33022574google scholar: lookup
  39. Hedberg Alm Y, Halvarsson P, Martin F, Osterman‐Lind E, Törngren V, Tydén E. Demonstration of reduced efficacy against cyathostomins without change in species composition after pyrantel embonate treatment in Swedish equine establishments. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2023;23:78–86.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2023.11.003pmc: PMC10690405pubmed: 37979235google scholar: lookup
  40. Elghryani N, Duggan V, Relf V, De Waal T. Questionnaire survey on helminth control practices in horse farms in Ireland. Parasitology 2019;146(7):873–882.
    doi: 10.1017/S0031182019000271pubmed: 30975241google scholar: lookup
  41. Lloyd S, Smith J, Connan RM, Hatcher MA, Hedger TR, Humphrey DJ. Parasite control methods used by horse owners: factors predisposing to the development of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Vet Rec 2000;146(17):487–492.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.146.17.487pubmed: 10887995google scholar: lookup
  42. Comer KC, Hillyer MH, Coles GC. Anthelmintic use and resistance on thoroughbred training yards in the UK. Vet Rec 2006;158(17):596–598.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.158.17.596pubmed: 16648441google scholar: lookup
  43. Papini RA, De Bernart FM, Sgorbini M. A questionnaire survey on intestinal worm control practices in horses in Italy. J Equine Vet 2015;35(1):70–75.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2014.11.009google scholar: lookup
  44. Herd RP. Epidemiology and control of equine strongylosis at Newmarket. Equine Vet J 1986;18(6):447–452.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1986.tb03684.xpubmed: 3803357google scholar: lookup
  45. Osterman‐Lind E, Hedberg Alm Y, Hassler H, Wilderoth H, Thorolfson H, Tydén E. Evaluation of strategies to reduce equine strongyle infective larvae on pasture and study of larval migration and overwintering in a Nordic climate. Animals (Basel) 2022;12(22):1–17.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223093pmc: PMC9686517pubmed: 36428321google scholar: lookup
  46. Nielsen MK, Reist M, Kaplan RM, Pfister K, Van Doorn DC, Becher A. Equine parasite control under prescription‐only conditions in Denmark—awareness, knowledge, perception, and strategies applied. Vet Parasitol 2014;204(1–2):64–72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.10.016pubmed: 24275444google scholar: lookup
  47. Tzelos T, Morgan ER, Easton S, Hodgkinson JE, Matthews JB. A survey of the level of horse owner uptake of evidence‐based anthelmintic treatment protocols for equine helminth control in the UK. Vet Parasitol 2019;274:108926.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.108926pubmed: 31563583google scholar: lookup
  48. Stratford CH, Lester HE, Morgan ER, Pickles KJ, Relf V, McGorum BC. A questionnaire study of equine gastrointestinal parasite control in Scotland. Equine Vet J 2014;46(1):25–31.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12101pubmed: 23879737google scholar: lookup
  49. Greenacre Z. A the importance of selection bias in internet surveys. Open J Stat 2016;6:397–404.
    doi: 10.4236/ojs.2016.63035google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Lu Y, Ru P, Qin S, Zhang Y, Fu E, Cai M, Tuohuti N, Wu H, Zhang Y, Zhang Y. Epidemiological Patterns of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in Equine Populations from Urumqi and Ili, Xinjiang, China. Vet Sci 2025 Jul 6;12(7).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci12070644pubmed: 40711304google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.