Analyze Diet
The Veterinary record1976; 98(14); 274-276; doi: 10.1136/vr.98.14.274

The prevalence of Gasterophilus intestinalis and G nasalis in horses in Ireland.

Abstract: During the months October-May inclusive 90-8% of horses slaughtered at an abattoir near Dublin and 66-9% of those at an abattoir near Belfast were infected with Gasterophilus intestinalis; 28-6% of horses at the former abattoir harboured G nasalis while none of the horses examined at the latter abattoir was found to be infected with this species.
Publication Date: 1976-04-03 PubMed ID: 1274134DOI: 10.1136/vr.98.14.274Google 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 article investigates the frequency of two types of Gasterophilus infections, namely Gasterophilus intestinalis and G nasalis, in horses slaughtered in Ireland during October-May at two specific abattoirs.

Overview of Research

  • The research was initiated with the prime focus of discerning the prevalence rates of two particular Gasterophilus infections (G. intestinalis and G. nasalis) found in horses. The livestock under study were those which were to be slaughtered across two distinctive abattoirs located in Dublin and Belfast.
  • The timeframe for the collection of data was from October to May and the ensuing analysis was conducted using these collected samples.

Results of the Study

  • After sampling, the study recognized an infection rate of Gasterophilus intestinalis, amounting to 90.8% of the horses at the Dublin-based abattoir, and 66.9% of the horses at the Belfast-based abattoir. This data suggests that there was a high prevalence of G. intestinalis infection in the sampled population of horses across these two areas.
  • In case of the horses killed at the Dublin-based abattoir, 28.6% were found to be infected with G. nasalis. However, interestingly, none of the horses examined at the Belfast-based abattoir was detected with G. nasalis infection.

Significance and Implication

  • The research concluded that there was a significant prevalence of G. intestinalis among the studied population of horses across the two abattoirs during the stated period. However, G. nasalis infection was present only in the livestock sent to the Dublin-based abattoir.
  • This type of research is fundamental for addressing parasitic infections in horses and can guide future management and prevention strategies aimed at reducing infection rates.

Cite This Article

APA
Hatch C, McCaughey WJ, O'Brien JJ. (1976). The prevalence of Gasterophilus intestinalis and G nasalis in horses in Ireland. Vet Rec, 98(14), 274-276. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.98.14.274

Publication

ISSN: 0042-4900
NlmUniqueID: 0031164
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 98
Issue: 14
Pages: 274-276

Researcher Affiliations

Hatch, C
    McCaughey, W J
      O'Brien, J J

        MeSH Terms

        • Animals
        • Diptera
        • Duodenal Diseases / epidemiology
        • Duodenal Diseases / veterinary
        • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
        • Horses
        • Ireland
        • Parasitic Diseases / epidemiology
        • Parasitic Diseases, Animal
        • Stomach Diseases / epidemiology
        • Stomach Diseases / veterinary

        Citations

        This article has been cited 2 times.
        1. Zhang B, Huang H, Wang H, Zhang D, Chu H, Ma X, Ge Y, Ente M, Li K. Genetic diversity of common Gasterophilus spp. from distinct habitats in China.. Parasit Vectors 2018 Aug 22;11(1):474.
          doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3042-ypubmed: 30134994google scholar: lookup
        2. Mukbel R, Torgerson PR, Abo-Shehada M. Seasonal variations in the abundance of Gasterophilus spp. larvae in donkeys in northern Jordan.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2001 Dec;33(6):501-9.
          doi: 10.1023/a:1012732613902pubmed: 11770204google scholar: lookup