Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T11:51:19.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of transportation and confinement stress on egg production by Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2024

S.T. Sotiraki ,
L.S. Leontides  and
C.A. Himonas
S.T. Sotiraki*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, 54 006, Greece
L.S. Leontides
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, 54 006, Greece
C.A. Himonas
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, 54 006, Greece
*
*Fax: 30 31 999947 E-mail: sotiraki@vet.auth.gr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of transportation and confinement stress on Dicrocoelium dendriticum egg production was investigated. Sheep passing a minimum of 200 eggs g-1 of faeces were selected from a naturally infected flock. A group of six ewes (group A) was transferred to the laboratory premises and kept indoors for 28 days, while another group (B) of six ewes remained on pasture and was used as a control. Faecal examinations and egg counting were performed weekly, on all sheep, from one week before to 28 days after the transportation of the animals. Comparison of faecal egg counts between groups revealed higher (P < 0.01) counts in transported sheep sampled on days 7, 14 and 28 of the trial. Furthermore, egg counts obtained from sheep that were transferred remained consistently high while the ones from sheep that remained on pasture showed significant variation. Therefore, it is concluded that stress-inducing factors, such as transportation and confinement may enhance egg production of D. dendriticum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , April 1999 , pp. 337 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, R.C. (1992) Nematode parasites of vertebrates: their development and transmission. pp. 89–90. Wallingford, CAB International.Google Scholar
BMDP (1990) Statistical software manual. pp. 425–434. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, D.D. (1995) Parasitology for veterinarians. 6th edn. pp. 124–126. London, W.B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Raynaud, J.P. (1970) Etude de l'efficacite d'une technique de coproscopie quantitative pour le diagnostic de routine et le controle des infestations parasitaires des bovines, ovines, equins et porcins. Annales de Parasitologie 45, 321–392.Google Scholar
Rojo-Vasquez, F.A., Cordero-Del-Campillo, K., Diez-Banos, P. & Chaton-Schaffner, M. (1981) Relation existant entre le nombre d'oeufs dans les feces et la charge parasitaire lors des infestation naturelles a Dicrocoelium dendriticum chez les ovins. Revue de Medicine Veterinaire 132, 8–9.Google Scholar
Shott, S. (1990) Statistics for health professionals. pp. 229–267. London, W.B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Solomons, N.W. & Scott, M.W. (1994) Nutritional status of host populations influences parasitic infections. pp. 101–112 in Scott, M.E. & Smith, G. (Eds) Parasitic and infectious diseases: epidemiology and ecology. California, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Urquhart, G.M., Armour, J., Duncan, J.L. & Jennings, F.W. (1987) Veterinary parasitology. pp. 9–10. Longman Scientific and Technical, UK.Google Scholar