FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Acta Vet Scand / Parasite control practices on Swedish horse farms.
Acta veterinaria Scandinavica2007; 49(1); 25; doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-49-25

Parasite control practices on Swedish horse farms.

Abstract: Virtually all horses are infected with helminth parasites. For some decades, the control of parasites of Swedish horses has been based on routine treatments with anthelmintics, often several times per year. Since anthelmintic resistance is becoming an increasing problem it is essential to develop more sustainable control strategies, which are adapted to different types of horse management. The aim of this study was to obtain information on practices used by Swedish horse owners for the control of endoparasites. Methods: A questionnaire with 26 questions about management practices and parasite control routines was posted to 627 randomly selected horse establishments covering most types of horse management in Sweden. Results: The response rate was good in all categories of respondents (66-78%). A total of 444 questionnaires were used in the analyses. It was found that virtually all horses had access to grazing areas, usually permanent. Generally, pasture hygiene was infrequently practiced. Thirty-six percent of the respondents clipped or chain harrowed their pastures, whereas weekly removal of faeces from the grazing areas was performed by 6% of the respondents, and mixed or rotational grazing with other livestock by 10%. The number of anthelmintic treatments per year varied from 1-8 with an average of 3.2. Thirty-eight percent considered late autumn (Oct-Dec) to be the most important time for deworming. This finding, and an increased use of macrocyclic lactones in the autumn, suggests a concern about bot flies, Gasterophilus intestinalis. Only 1% of the respondents stated that faecal egg counts (FEC) were performed on a regular basis. The relatively high cost of FEC analyses compared to purchase of anthelmintics was thought to contribute to the preference of deworming without a previous FEC. From the study it was evident that all categories of horse owners took advice mainly from veterinarians. Conclusions: The results show that routines for endoparasite control can be improved in many horse establishments. To increase the knowledge of equine endoparasite control and follow the recommendations for how to reduce the spread of anthelmintic resistance, a closer collaboration between parasitologists and veterinary practitioners is desirable.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2007-09-26 PubMed ID: 17897438PubMed Central: PMC2093939DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-49-25Google 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 paper discusses the parasite control practices on Swedish horse farms, focusing on methods used by Swedish horse owners to combat endoparasites. The authors suggest that the current practices can be improved and advocate for more sustainable control strategies to counter the rising problem of anthelmintic resistance.

Research Method

  • The researchers conducted a survey, using a questionnaire that consisted of 26 questions related to management practices and parasite control routines.
  • This questionnaire was sent to 627 randomly selected horse establishments in Sweden, covering a wide array of horse management types.
  • Of the total establishments reached out, 444 questionnaires were returned and used in the research analysis.

Research Findings

  • The study revealed that nearly all horses had access to grazing areas, predominantly permanent ones, suggesting that pasture hygiene was practiced infrequently.
  • Only 36% of the respondents clipped or chain harrowed their pastures, and just 6% removed faeces from the grazing areas on a weekly basis.
  • A minor fraction of respondents, 10%, stated they practiced mixed or rotational grazing with other livestock.
  • The frequency of anthelmintic treatments per year varied greatly among respondents, ranging from 1 to 8 times, with an average of 3.2 times per year.
  • About 38% of horse owners considered the late autumn (October-December) period as the most crucial time for deworming, a finding which, along with the increased use of macrocyclic lactones, indicates a concern over bot flies.
  • Regular faecal egg count (FEC) tests were carried out only by 1% of the respondents. Most considered these tests expensive compared to buying anthelmintics and preferred deworming without prior FEC testing.

Conclusions

  • The results of this study highlighted a requirement for improved endoparasite control routines in horse establishments.
  • Inspite of the tendency among horse owners to lean on veterinarians for advice, researchers stress the importance of more collaboration between parasitologists and veterinary practitioners.
  • With rising anthelmintic resistance, the study suggests exploring sustainable control strategies and increasing knowledge around equine endoparasite control.

Cite This Article

APA
Lind EO, Rautalinko E, Uggla A, Waller PJ, Morrison DA, Höglund J. (2007). Parasite control practices on Swedish horse farms. Acta Vet Scand, 49(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-49-25

Publication

Acta veterinaria Scandinavica
ISSN: 1751-0147
NlmUniqueID: 0370400
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 49
Issue: 1
Pages: 25

Researcher Affiliations

Lind, Eva Osterman
  • Department of Parasitology (SWEPAR), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and National Veterinary Institute, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden. eva.osterman-lind@sva.se
Rautalinko, Erik
    Uggla, Arvid
      Waller, Peter J
        Morrison, David A
          Höglund, Johan

            MeSH Terms

            • Animal Husbandry / methods
            • Animal Husbandry / standards
            • Animals
            • Anthelmintics / administration & dosage
            • Drug Administration Schedule
            • Horse Diseases / parasitology
            • Horse Diseases / prevention & control
            • Horses
            • Humans
            • Ivermectin / administration & dosage
            • Nematode Infections / prevention & control
            • Nematode Infections / veterinary
            • Ownership
            • Pyrantel / administration & dosage
            • Surveys and Questionnaires
            • Sweden

            References

            This article includes 21 references
            1. Osterman Lind E, Höglund J, Ljungström BL, Nilsson O, Uggla A. A field survey on the distribution of strongyle infections of horses in Sweden and factors affecting faecal egg counts. Equine Veterinary Journal 1999;31:68–72.
              pubmed: 9952332
            2. Nilsson O, Ljungström BL, Höglund J, Lundquist H, Uggla A. Anoplocephala perfoliata in horses in Sweden: prevalence, infection levels and intestinal lesions. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 1995;36:319–328.
              pmc: PMC8095443pubmed: 7502948
            3. Swedish Board of Agriculture
            4. Kaplan RM. Anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of horses. Veterinary Reseach 2002;33:491–507.
              doi: 10.1051/vetres:2002035pubmed: 12387486google scholar: lookup
            5. Boersema JH, Eysker M, Nas JWM. Apparent resistance of Parascaris equorum to macrocyclic lactones. The Veterinary Record 2002;150:279–281.
              pubmed: 11924584
            6. Hearn FP, Peregrine AS. Identification of foals infected with Parascaris equorum apparently resistant to ivermectin. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2003;15(223(4)):482–485.
              doi: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.482pubmed: 12930086google scholar: lookup
            7. Nilsson O, Lindholm A, Christensson D. A field evaluation of anthelmintics in horses in Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology 1989;32:163–171.
              doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(89)90117-9pubmed: 2773268google scholar: lookup
            8. Osterman Lind E, Kuzmina T, Uggla A, Waller PJ, Höglund J. A field study on the effect of some anthelmintics on cyathostomins of horses in Sweden. Veterinary Research Communications 2007;31:53–65.
              doi: 10.1007/s11259-006-3402-5pubmed: 17186406google scholar: lookup
            9. Sangster NC. Pharmacology of anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomes: will it occur with the avermectin/milbemycins?. Veterinary Parasitology 1999;85:189–204.
              doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(99)00099-0pubmed: 10485365google scholar: lookup
            10. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman; 1981.
            11. Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall; 1984.
              pubmed: 0
            12. Herd RP. Parasite hygiene: a nonchemical approach to equine endoparasite control. Modern Equine Practice 1986. pp. 36–38.
            13. Lloyd S, Smith J, Connan RM, Hatcher MA, Hedges TR, Humphrey DJ, Jones AC. Parasite control methods used by horse owners: factors predisposing to the development of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Veterinary Record 2000;146:487–492.
              pubmed: 10887995
            14. Pascoe RJ, Wilson TJ, Coles GC. Nematode control in eventer horses. The Veterinary Record 1999;145:200–201.
              pubmed: 10501586
            15. O'Meara B, Mulcahy G. A survey of helminth control practices in equine establishments in Ireland. Veterinary parasitology 2002;109:101–110.
              doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(02)00249-2pubmed: 12383629google scholar: lookup
            16. Lendal S, Larsen MM, Bjørn H, Craven J, Chriél M, Olsen SN. A questionnaire survey on nematode control practices on horse farms in Denmark and the existence of risk factors for the development of anthelmintic resistance. Veterinary Parasitology 1998;78:49–63.
              doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(98)00117-4pubmed: 9703619google scholar: lookup
            17. Lloyd S, Soulsby EJL. Is anthelmintic resistance inevitable: back to basics?. Equine Veterinary Journal 1998;30:280–283.
              pubmed: 9705108
            18. Hoste H, Chartier C, Lefrileux Y, Goudeau C, Broqua C, Pors I, Bergeaud JP, Dorchies P. Targeted application of anthelmintics to control trichostrongylosis in dairy goats: result from a 2-year survey in farms. Veterinary Parasitology 2002;110:101–108.
              doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(02)00307-2pubmed: 12446094google scholar: lookup
            19. Duncan JL, Love S. Preliminary observations on an alternative strategy for the control of horse strongyles. Equine vet J 1991;23:226–228.
              pubmed: 1909236
            20. Krecek RC, Guthrie AJ, Van Nieuwenhuizen LC, Booth LM. A comparison between the effects of conventional and selective antiparasitic treatments on nematode parasites of horses from two management schemes. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 1994;65:97–100.
              pubmed: 7595925
            21. Döpfer D, Kerssens CM, Meijer YGM, Boersema JH, Eysker M. Shedding consistency of strongyle-type eggs in dutch boarding horses. Vet Parasitol 2004;124:249–258.
              doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.06.028pubmed: 15381304google scholar: lookup
            Subscribe to our newsletter
            Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.