Analyze Diet
Parasitology research2011; 108(5); 1083-1091; doi: 10.1007/s00436-011-2362-z

Prevalence of helminths in horses in the state of Brandenburg, Germany.

Abstract: The objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence of helminths in the horse population of the state of Brandenburg, Germany. One hundred and twenty-six horse farms in the state were selected by randomised stratified sampling. In total, 1,407 horses across all farms were examined coproscopically. The experimental unit was the horse farm: a farm was considered infected when at least one horse on the farm investigated was positive for helminth eggs. Animal details such as age, breed and sex were collected for all study horses and analysed for risk of infection. Risk was defined as horses having an above-average shedding of strongyle eggs. The following prevalence on horse farm level were established: Cyathostominae (98.4%), ascarids (16.7%), tapeworms (14.3%), pinworms (8.7%) and strongyloides (4,0%). The large strongyle Strongylus vulgaris was identified on only one farm. Liver flukes and lungworms were not found. Age, breed and sex were identified as risk factors for high shedding of strongyle eggs of individual animals: odds ratios for higher shedding intensities were 4.18 for yearlings and 2.42 for fillies compared to adult animals, and 3.69 for heavy breeds and 4.94 for wild horses compared to thoroughbreds. Mares and stallions did shed more strongyle eggs than geldings. Knowledge about the helminth prevalence will allow the issuance of specific treatment recommendations. Furthermore, the information on risk factors of individual horses will facilitate targeting single animals for selective treatments.
Publication Date: 2011-04-07 PubMed ID: 21472400DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2362-zGoogle 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.
  • 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.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of parasitic worms, or helminths, in horses from the Brandenburg state of Germany. A total of 126 horse farms were randomly selected and analyzed, with factors such as age, breed, and sex being considered as potential risk factors for infection.

Research Methodology

  • The researchers examined the fecal matter (coproscopy) of 1,407 horses from these 126 different horse farms in Brandenburg, Germany. These farms were selected through randomized stratified sampling.
  • The “experimental unit” of the study was the horse farm itself. A farm was defined as infected if at least one horse on the premises tested positive for the presence of helminth eggs.
  • The researchers also collected and analyzed data about each horse’s details, such as its age, breed, and sex, as potential risk factors for helminth infection.
  • The risk was considered to be if a horse was shedding more strongyle eggs than average.

Research Findings

  • Out of all the farms investigated, the prevalences of different types of worms were found to be: Cyathostominae (98.4%), ascarids (16.7%), tapeworms (14.3%), pinworms (8.7%) and strongyloides (4,0%). Only one farm had horses infected with the large strongyle Strongylus vulgaris. None of the horses were found to be infected with liver flukes or lungworms.
  • Through analysis, the researchers found that certain categories of horses were more likely to shed higher amounts of strongyle eggs and thus be at greater risk of infection. For instance, yearlings were 4.18 times more likely and fillies were 2.42 times more likely than adult horses. Heavy breeds and wild horses were also found to be at elevated risk of infection, with odds ratios of 3.69 and 4.94 respectively, compared to thoroughbreds. Moreover, mares and stallions shed more strongyle eggs than geldings, indicating a higher risk of infection.

Implications of the Research

  • The findings from this research can be used to develop specific treatment recommendations for horses, tailored to the prevalence of particular helminths in the region.
  • The data on the risk factors of individual horses will enable the development of targeted treatments for specific animals, which might be more effective and efficient.

Cite This Article

APA
Hinney B, Wirtherle NC, Kyule M, Miethe N, Zessin KH, Clausen PH. (2011). Prevalence of helminths in horses in the state of Brandenburg, Germany. Parasitol Res, 108(5), 1083-1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-011-2362-z

Publication

ISSN: 1432-1955
NlmUniqueID: 8703571
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 108
Issue: 5
Pages: 1083-1091

Researcher Affiliations

Hinney, Barbara
  • Institute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Königsweg 67, 14193, Berlin, Germany. Barbara.hinney@vetmeduni.ac.at
Wirtherle, Nicole Catherine
    Kyule, Moses
      Miethe, Norbert
        Zessin, Karl-Hans
          Clausen, Peter-Henning

            MeSH Terms

            • Animals
            • Female
            • Germany / epidemiology
            • Helminthiasis, Animal / epidemiology
            • Helminthiasis, Animal / parasitology
            • Helminths / classification
            • Helminths / isolation & purification
            • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
            • Horse Diseases / parasitology
            • Horses
            • Male
            • Prevalence
            • Sex Factors

            References

            This article includes 40 references
            1. Vet Parasitol. 1999 Aug 31;85(2-3):113-21; discussion 121-2, 215-25
              pubmed: 10485358
            2. Vet Parasitol. 2005 Jan 20;127(2):115-9
              pubmed: 15631904
            3. Vet Parasitol. 2006 Sep 10;140(3-4):289-95
              pubmed: 16687215
            4. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2007 Aug;23(2):509-17
              pubmed: 17616325
            5. Vet Parasitol. 2004 Oct 5;124(3-4):249-58
              pubmed: 15381304
            6. Cornell Vet. 1992 Oct;82(4):453-63
              pubmed: 1424638
            7. Equine Vet J. 2007 Nov;39(6):529-33
              pubmed: 18065311
            8. Vet Parasitol. 2008 May 6;153(1-2):73-84
              pubmed: 18339482
            9. Acta Vet Scand. 2002;43(2):99-106
              pubmed: 12173507
            10. Vet Parasitol. 2006 Jan 15;135(1):47-55
              pubmed: 16309841
            11. Vet Rec. 2005 May 7;156(19):597-600
              pubmed: 15879539
            12. Equine Vet J. 1999 Jan;31(1):68-72
              pubmed: 9952332
            13. Vet Parasitol. 1984 Jul;15(1):75-83
              pubmed: 6237483
            14. Vet Parasitol. 2005 Jun 30;130(3-4):233-40
              pubmed: 15908124
            15. Vet Rec. 1994 May 14;134(20):515-8
              pubmed: 8085308
            16. Equine Vet J. 1990 Jul;22(4):251-4
              pubmed: 2209521
            17. Vet Q. 1996 Mar;18(1):7-9
              pubmed: 8833604
            18. Int J Parasitol. 1995 Jun;25(6):711-24
              pubmed: 7657457
            19. Vet Parasitol. 2008 Feb 14;151(2-4):249-55
              pubmed: 18037244
            20. Vet Parasitol. 1999 Sep 15;86(1):15-21
              pubmed: 10489198
            21. Vet Parasitol. 1989 Nov;34(1-2):135-43
              pubmed: 2588465
            22. J Parasitol. 1990 Aug;76(4):487-94
              pubmed: 2380857
            23. Acta Vet Scand. 1995;36(3):319-28
              pubmed: 7502948
            24. Vet Parasitol. 1987 Feb;23(3-4):273-84
              pubmed: 3564356
            25. Vet Rec. 1992 Jul 25;131(4):71-2
              pubmed: 1529504
            26. Equine Vet J. 1998 Jul;30(4):289-93
              pubmed: 9705110
            27. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2004 Sep;75(3):129-36
              pubmed: 15628805
            28. J Parasitol. 1986 Dec;72(6):926-30
              pubmed: 3819969
            29. Equine Vet J. 1991 May;23(3):226-8
              pubmed: 1909236
            30. Parasitol Res. 2004 Mar;92(5):400-4
              pubmed: 14760526
            31. Vet Rec. 2004 Jan 10;154(2):39-41
              pubmed: 14758828
            32. Vet Parasitol. 2009 Oct 14;164(2-4):357-62
              pubmed: 19632049
            33. Vet Parasitol. 1995 May;58(1-2):99-108
              pubmed: 7676606
            34. Pol J Vet Sci. 2009;12(2):225-30
              pubmed: 19645353
            35. Vet Parasitol. 2010 Feb 26;168(1-2):84-92
              pubmed: 19906489
            36. Vet Parasitol. 2002 Dec 11;110(1-2):77-83
              pubmed: 12446091
            37. Vet Parasitol. 1997 Dec 31;73(3-4):277-89
              pubmed: 9477514
            38. Vet Parasitol. 2010 Jun 24;170(3-4):268-77
              pubmed: 20307938
            39. Parasitol Res. 2006 Jul;99(2):114-8
              pubmed: 16508764
            40. Appl Parasitol. 1996 Dec;37(4):239-44
              pubmed: 9060170