Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:04:02.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential recoveries from faecal cultures of larvae of some gastro-intestinal nematodes of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

D. A. Berrie
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Science, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Qld, 4068, Australia
I. J. East*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Science, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Qld, 4068, Australia
A. S. Bourne
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Long Pocket Laboratories
K. C. Bremner
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Science, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, P.O., Indooroopilly, Qld, 4068, Australia
*
Author for correspondence.

Abstract

Faecal cultures were established using bovine faeces containing known numbers of eggs from either Oesophagostomum radiatum, Haemonchus placei, Cooperia pectinata or a mixture of all three. A substantially greater percentage of larvae was recovered from cultures of O. radiatum and C. pectinata than was recovered from cultures of H. placei. The same pattern was observed in mixed cultures although yields of larvae from all species in mixed cultures were significantly reduced (p<0·001). The lower recovery of H. placei was not associated with a lower viability of H. placei eggs. Of the three different methods of harvesting larvae, the jar and mesh recovery technique was the least effective and significantly fewer larvae were recovered with this technique than with the Baermann and inversion techniques (p<0·05). The results are discussed with reference to the use of faecal culture and larval differentiation in the diagnosis of mixed species nematode infections of cattle.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Baermann, G. (1917) Eine einfache Methode zur Auffinding von Ankylostomum (Nematoden) Larven in Erdproben. Geneeskundig Tidjschrift voor Nederlandsch Indië, 57, 131137.Google Scholar
Brunsdon, R. V. (1968) Trichostrongyle Worm Infection in Cattle: Ostertagiasis—Effect of a field outbreak on production, with a review of the disease, syndromes, problems of diagnosis and treatment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 16, 176187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, T. E. (1965) Examination of faeces for helminth eggs and larvae. Veterinary Bulletin, 35, 403410.Google Scholar
Herlich, H. (1965) The effects of the intestinal worms, Cooperia pectinata and Cooperia oncophora on experimentally infected calves. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 26, 10321036.Google ScholarPubMed
Hubert, J. & Kerboeuf, D. (1984) A new method for culture of larvae used in diagnosis of ruminant gastrointestinal strongylosis: comparison with faecal cultures. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine, 48, 6371.Google Scholar
Keith, R. K. (1953) The differentiation of the infective larvae of some common nematode parasites of cattle. Australian Journal of Zoology, 1, 223241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S., Elek, P. & Keith, R. K. (1962) Studies on resistance in calves to experimental infections with the nodular worm, Oesophagostomum radiatum (Rudolphi, 1803) Raillet, 1898. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 13, 551573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S. & O'Sullivan, P. J. (1950) Methods for egg counts and larval cultures for strongyles infesting the gastro-intestinal tract of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1, 99102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S., O'Sullivan, P. J. & Riek, R. F. (1951) The significance of faecal egg counts in the diagnosis of parasitic gastro-enteritis of cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal, 27, 1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, R. (1967) Some observations in the interpretation of faecal egg counts. American Journal of Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 1, 145148.Google Scholar