Unexpected Decrease in Milk Production after Fenbendazole Treatment of Dairy Cows during Early Grazing Season

Nadine Ravinet; Christophe Chartier; Nathalie Bareille; Anne Lehebel; Adeline Ponnau; Nadine Brisseau; Alain Chauvin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147835

Abstract

Gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) infection can impair milk production (MP) in dairy cows. To investigate whether MP would be optimized by spring targeted-selective anthelmintic treatment in grazing cows, we assessed (1) the effect on MP of an anthelmintic treatment applied 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out, and (2) herd and individual indicators associated with the post-treatment MP response. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 13 dairy farms (578 cows) in western France in spring 2012. In each herd, lactating cows of the treatment group received fenbendazole orally, control cows remained untreated. Daily cow MP was recorded from 2 weeks before until 15 weeks after treatment. Individual serum pepsinogen and anti-Ostertagia antibody levels (expressed as ODR), faecal egg count and bulk tank milk (BTM) Ostertagia ODR were measured at treatment time. Anthelmintic treatment applied during the previous housing period was recorded for each cow. In each herd, information regarding heifers’ grazing and anthelmintic treatment history was collected to assess the Time of Effective Contact (TEC, in months) with GIN infective larvae before the first calving. The effect of treatment on weekly MP averages and its relationships with herd and individual indicators were studied using linear mixed models with two nested random effects (cow within herd). Unexpectedly, spring treatment had a significant detrimental effect on MP (-0.92 kg/cow/day on average). This negative MP response was particularly marked in high producing cows, in cows not treated during the previous housing period or with high pepsinogen levels, and in cows from herds with a high TEC or a high BTM ODR. This post-treatment decrease in MP may be associated with immuno-inflammatory mechanisms. Until further studies can assess whether this unexpected result can be generalized, non-persistent treatment of immunized adult dairy cows against GIN should not be recommended in early grazing season.

Citation: Ravinet N, Chartier C, Bareille N, Lehebel A, Ponnau A, Brisseau N, et al. (2016) Unexpected Decrease in Milk Production after Fenbendazole Treatment of Dairy Cows during Early Grazing Season. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0147835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835

Editor: Graciela Andrei, Rega Institute for Medical Research, BELGIUM

Received: July 2, 2015; Accepted: November 27, 2015; Published: January 25, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Ravinet et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are only available upon request from the authors. Indeed, the milk production data used and analysed in this study belong to farmers who accepted to work with us (milk production data were directly recovered and extracted from the farm computer). Farmers agreed to participate in this study on the condition that their data would only be used for this study. This is the reason why data will only be available upon request, and only after obtaining the agreement of farmers. Moreover, a description of the data is provided within the paper.

Funding: The study was funded by the CASDAR project N°1127 (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt). CASDAR: Compte d'Affectation Spécial Développement Agricole et Rural. Authors who received the funding: NR, AC, CC, N. Bareille. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infections are highly prevalent in young and adult grazing cattle [1–4]. The most frequent and pathogenic GIN in cattle is Ostertagia ostertagi, an abomasal worm responsible for clinical disease and growth retardation in young stock [5–9], and subclinical decrease in milk production (MP) in adult dairy cows [10–12].

Control measures are essential and depend heavily on blanket anthelmintic treatments, applied to whole groups or herds, to remove or prevent infection with GIN. Nevertheless, the regular use of anthelmintics exerts a heavy selection pressure on parasite populations leading to possible emergence of anthelmintic resistance. This risk is no longer negligible in cattle [13–19], threatening the long term efficacy of usual control programs aiming at securing growth of young stocks and MP in adult dairy cows. Changes in treatment practices are therefore needed, towards a more rational and sustainable use of anthelmintics.

In adult grazing dairy cows, looking at the large variability of the effect of anthelmintic treatment on MP among studies, between herds and between cows [10,11,20–26], there appears both a need and an opportunity to use anthelmintics in a more targeted and selective way. In targeted treatment (TT) and targeted-selective treatment (TST) strategies, treatments are restricted to herds, and cows within herds, that will most benefit from treatment (TST), drug being administered at the most appropriate time(s) (TT), bearing in mind the need to maintain susceptible parasites in refugia (parasites unexposed to drug, i.e. free-living stages on pasture, and parasitic stages within untreated hosts) [27–30]. The implementation of such treatment strategies against GIN should enable: (i) MP optimization, while (ii) limiting the use of anthelmintics, and (iii) lowering the risk of development of anthelmintic resistance thanks to the preservation of a susceptible parasite population in refugia.

TST administered during the winter housing period allows the preservation of a refugia population made up mainly of parasites within untreated hosts. Indeed, housed cows are no longer in contact with infective stages at that time, and the population of free-living stages on pasture decline in a substantial level during winter in cold temperate climate areas [5, 31]. Conversely, with TST during grazing season, the size of the refugia population could be theoretically greater, because it could be increased by the free-living stages on pasture resulting from spring parasitic cycles. To optimize MP in adult dairy cows while maintaining a large reservoir of susceptibility to anthelmintics in the GIN population, TST during grazing season, if it is associated with a significant increase in MP, could thus be optimal.

The effect of an anthelmintic treatment applied in autumn-winter (housing period) on MP has been broadly studied: it differs from one study to another, but even if it is sometimes non-significant or slight, a post-treatment increase in MP has often been observed [20–22, 25, 32–37]. In contrast, the MP response of anthelmintic treatment applied during the grazing season is less documented. Only one study reported a positive effect of a single treatment applied 1.5 months after turn out [38], but this study was conducted with a small sample size (40 cows in one herd). In a few other studies, several treatments were applied repeatedly on lactating cows during the grazing season, with a positive or a non-significant effect on MP [23, 39, 40]. But this whole herd repeated-treatment strategy is of course questionable if we keep in mind the need to preserve a large population of parasites in refugia. In other studies, a single treatment was applied, not in a given season and to the entire herd at the same time, but all over the year, at a given physiological stage, namely at calving or drying off [24, 26, 41–47]. Unfortunately, the majority of these studies did not provide a comparison of the effects on MP of treatments applied during housing period (autumn-winter) versus grazing season (spring, summer, and early autumn). Indeed, either the effect of season on the MP response after anthelmintic treatment was not investigated [24, 43, 45–47], or failed to be detected because of a possible lack of statistical power, as pointed out by the authors [44], or because seasons were not sufficiently distinguishable to be compared [41, 42]. Only one recent study reported that the treatment effects were similar during housing versus pasture period [26].

Consequently, the MP response after a single anthelmintic treatment during grazing season would deserve more in-depth examination, to determine whether such treatment strategies could offer a good compromise between the optimization of MP and the preservation of a large population of parasites in refugia.

The objectives of this study were (i) to assess the effect on MP of a single anthelmintic treatment applied at early grazing season, 1.5 to 2 months after turn out, (ii) to evaluate whether TST treatment could be possible at that time by analyzing the relationships between treatment response and several parasitological or production-based indicators, at both herd- and individual-levels.

Materials and Methods

Farms and animals

Thirteen dairy herds in the North-West of France were visited twice during spring 2012. The first visit took place around the date of turn out, and the second 1.5 to 2 months after turn out. Eleven of these herds were already included in a previous randomized controlled clinical field trial conducted in autumn 2011 [25]. The major herd recruitment criteria were the breed (Holstein), an access to pasture (with at least 1/3 of grazed grass in the cows’ diet), no intention of anthelmintic treatment on adult dairy cows in the upcoming grazing season, and a daily recording of MP (automatic milking system, or milk parlor with milk meters). In each herd, the majority of lactating cows were included provided that they were planned to be milked for at least 5 weeks after the second visit and in apparent good health.

This study was carried out in commercial dairy farms, so on "private lands". On the basis of an accurate description of the objectives of the study and its design, the owners of the lands (the farmers) gave permission to conduct the study on their farm, accepted to follow the protocol and to participate in the handling of cows. Except this informed consent of each farmer and his permission to conduct the study on his farm and on his animals, no other specific permission was required.

This field study did not involve endangered or protected species. No cows were sacrificed for the purposes of the study.

Anthelmintic treatment

On the first visit, the history of anthelmintic treatment applied during autumn-winter 2011–2012 was recorded for each cow. In fact, some cows had actually been treated during the previous housing period either by the farmer, or by researchers in the context of the autumn clinical trial [25]. On the second visit, in each herd, cows were stratified according to three criteria: treated during the previous housing period (yes versus no), parity (first, second, third and greater), and days in milk (DIM) classes (less than 35 DIM, 35 to 100 DIM, 100 to 200 DIM, and more than 200 DIM). Then, in each stratum, cows were ranked and paired by ascending expected production level (last test-day milk yield before the second visit). Finally, cows of each pair were randomly assigned to a treatment group or a control group using a random number table. Cows belonging to the treatment group received orally on the day of the second visit a single 60 mL dose of fenbendazole (Panacur^® 10%), which is the dose for 800 Kg body weight (7.5 mg/Kg). Cows from the control group remained untreated.

Samples and laboratory analysis

On the first visit, individual blood samples were taken from all cows (5mL blood sample at the coccygeal vein). On the day of treatment (second visit), individual blood and faecal samples (around 100g taken directly into the rectum, using gloves and lubricating gel) were taken from all treated and control cows, and a bulk tank milk (BTM) sample was collected in each herd.

Anti-Ostertagia antibody levels were determined with the ELISA SVANOVIR kit (Svanova Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden) on the individual blood samples and on the BTM samples. Results were expressed as an optical density ratio (ODR) [25]. Individual serum pepsinogen levels were also determined on blood samples, following the simplified method described by Kerboeuf et al. (2002) [48]. Results were expressed in milli-Units of Tyrosine (mUTyr). Individual faecal egg counts (FEC) per 5g of feces were determined using the modified Wisconsin Sugar Centrifugal flotation method [49].

This study was conducted by a veterinarian researcher who holds a licence to experiment on live animals (diploma issued by the National Veterinary School of Nantes (Oniris) which relies on the Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt). The protocol was painless for cows, all efforts were made to minimize stress and holding time, and every samples and handling were performed by a veterinarian, helped by the farmer when needed.

Daily milk production data

Daily individual cow MP data were recorded and extracted from the farm computer from 14 days before treatment until 105 days after treatment. The average daily MP over the period of 14 days before treatment was calculated (one reference point for the pre-treatment period). Then, for the post-treatment period (15 weeks), daily MPs were averaged by week.

Indicators characterizing cows and herds

Each cow was characterized by its daily MP averaged by week, and by 3 production-based indicators: parity, days in milk at the time of treatment (DIMt) and pre-treatment production level. To estimate this latter indicator, additional daily MP data, up to 49 days before the day of treatment, were recovered. The pre-treatment production level was then evaluated for each cow calculating the average daily MP over this period (maximum 49 days, and minimum 3 days according to DIMt).

Each cow was also characterized by 6 individual parasitological indicators: history of treatment applied during the previous housing period, serum pepsinogen levels and individual serum anti-Ostertagia antibody levels at the time of the first visit and on the day of treatment (second visit), and FEC on the day of treatment.

Each herd was characterized by its BTM anti-Ostertagia antibody level measured on the day of treatment. Moreover, on the basis of information regarding heifers’ grazing and anthelmintic treatment history, the Time of Effective Contact (TEC, in months) with GIN infective larvae before the first calving was calculated in each herd according to Ravinet et al. (2014) [25]: each herd was characterized by a minimal TEC (TECmin) and a maximal TEC (TECmax) according to its pattern of dates of birth and age at first calving.

Statistical analysis

Coding and classification of variables.

Raw data were entered into an Access database (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). They were then transferred into SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) to build the variables of interest and carry out statistical analyses.

The treatment was coded as described by Ravinet et al. (2014) [25]: a combined variable between treatment and time was created (‘week-trt’) and divided into 17 categories: for a treated cow, ‘week-trt’ took the values -1 (reference point before treatment), 0, 1, 2, 3 … up to 14 (after treatment period, week 0 being the week of treatment); and for a control cow, ‘week-trt’ only took the value 99 whatever the week.

The 3 production-based indicators were categorized. Three classes were constructed for parity (1, 2, 3 and more), and days in milk at the time of treatment (DIMt≤100, 100<DIMt≤200, DIMt>200 days). The pre-treatment production level was corrected for parity and days in milk and categorized in 3 classes (low, moderate, high) according to terciles of the distribution of the average MP calculated on the 3 to 49 days period before treatment (see above).

The 6 individual parasitological indicators were also categorized. Two classes were defined for FEC at the time of treatment (positive versus negative) and for the history of treatment applied during the previous housing period (yes versus no, whatever the drug used). For individual serum pepsinogen and anti-Ostertagia antibody levels measured on the first and on the second visit, three classes were defined according the terciles of their respective distribution.

At the herd-level, the BTM anti-Ostertagia antibody level was categorized in two classes, according to the median of its distribution. Two classes were also defined for TEC: high-TEC when TECmin ≥ 8 months (every heifers in the herd experienced a long TEC with GIN infective larvae before the first calving), and low-TEC otherwise (TECmax < 8 months, or TECmax ≥ 8 months but TECmin < 8 months).

To ensure that the number of treated cows and control cows was evenly distributed among the different categories of each indicator, the proportion of treated cows and control cows was compared using Chi-square tests (level of significance set at p≤0.05).

Comparison of individual parasitological indicators between cows treated or not treated during the previous housing period.

Cows treated and not treated during the previous housing period were first compared on the basis of their individual serum pepsinogen levels and anti-Ostertagia antibody levels measured on the first visit around the date of turn out (parametric or non-parametric mean comparison tests according to the normality of the distribution of quantitative variables, level of significance set at p≤ 0.05).

These comparisons were also performed for the 3 parasitological indicators measured on the second visit (1.5 to 2 months after turn out) (chi-square tests for categorized variables, and parametric or non-parametric mean comparison tests according to the normality of the distribution of quantitative variables, level of significance set at p≤0.05).

Assessment of the overall treatment effect over time on milk production.

The overall effect, over time, of spring treatment on daily MP averaged by week was studied using a first linear mixed model (model 0) with two nested random effects (cow within herd). The outcome variable was the daily MP averaged by week, expressed in Kg per day, and normally distributed (8393 observations, mean = 28.6 Kg/day, sd = 8.2 Kg/day). This model 0 included the following independent variables: week-trt (variable of interest, reference = 99), parity (1, 2, 3 or greater), days in milk (DIM) (expressed as week in milk: 1 to 52, and 52 or greater), pre-treatment production level corrected for parity and DIM (low, moderate, high), month of milk production (April to September), and a two way interaction between parity and DIM.

This model 0 was of the following form: where (Daily MP averge by week)_wij = MP for cow i in farm j, on week w, μ = average MP after adjusting for covariates, β_wij = coefficients for X_wij, X_wij = variables varying between daily MP averaged by week (DIM, week-trt, month of milk production, and DIM*parity), β_ij = coefficients for X_ij, X_ij = variables varying between cows (parity, pre-treatment production level), v_j = farm random effect, ω_ij = cow random effect nested into herd, ε_wij = residual at week w. The random effects v_j, ω_ij and the residual ε_wij were assumed to be normally distributed with mean 0 and variance , and respectively.

Residuals and predicted values were plotted to evaluate their heteroscedasticity and their normality.

Assessment of the variations of the treatment effect according to indicators characterizing herds and cows on the second visit.

The relationships between the treatment response and (i) the 3 categorical individual production-based indicators, (ii) the 3 categorical individual parasitological indicators measured on the second visit, plus the history of treatment applied during the previous housing period, and (iii) the 2 categorical herd-level indicators were evaluated using one linear mixed model per indicator. Each of these models included the same independent variables as the model 0, plus the indicator of interest in interaction with week-trt. For each of these models, residuals and predicted values were plotted to evaluate their heteroscedasticity and their normality.

Estimation method to assess the milk production gain week after week.

The statistical models estimated each week the average daily MP of treated cows versus control cows, for the whole population of our study sample (model 0), or within each category of the investigated indicators (models including the interaction terms between week-trt and indicators). On the basis of these estimations, the treated cows’ MP gain was calculated each week as described in Ravinet et al. (2014) [25]. Finally, with G_i being the estimated treated cows’ MP gain in week_i, the average treated cows’ MP gain for the whole period of follow up after treatment (from week₀ to week₁₄) was the arithmetic mean of the G_is.

To test each week if G_is were significantly different from zero, we used student tests with adjusted p-values for multiple testing.

Results

Description of the study sample

625 cows in 13 herds were initially included in the study. 11 herds were equipped with an automatic milking system, and 2 with a milking parlor with milk meters (herd n°1 and 9). General information regarding spring grazing practices of dairy cows in our study sample is provided in Table 1. Cows were turned out between 2012-02-28 and 2012-03-28. The proportion of grazed grass in the cows’ spring diet increased gradually from turn out onwards (from 20% to 75%) (Table 1), and was not lower in herds with automatic milking systems. The first visits took place between 2012-03-07 and 2012-03-28. In five herds it was on the day of turn out, or 2 to 13 days before, whereas in 7 herds it was 6 to 14 days after. The time lag between turn out and this first visit was longer (25 days) only for one herd (herd n°13) (Table 1). Anthelmintic treatment was administered between 2012-04-16 and 2012-05-29, that is to say 41 to 68 days after turn out. In two herds (n°4 and 10), the actual time spent on pasture between turn out and treatment was shorter (37 and 34 days, respectively) because cows returned to the barn for 4 and 1 weeks respectively, because of adverse weather conditions.

Download:

Table 1. Dates of visits and description of the spring grazing management practices of dairy cows in the 13 herds included in the study carried out on spring 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.t001

47 cows were excluded from the dataset for the following reasons: insufficient number of MP data recovered before treatment to calculate the pre-treatment production level (10 cows), days in milk at the time of treatment exceeding 516 days (11 cows), daily MP data not correctly recorded on farm (1 cow), duration of the post-treatment follow-up shorter than 4 weeks or health issue indicated by the farmer (25 cows).

Finally, 578 cows were included to carry out our statistical analysis: 295 treated cows and 283 control cows, 31 to 72 cows per herd. The final dataset is described in Tables 2–4. Among these 578 cows, 556 were present on the two visits, and 22 were sampled only on the second visit. Thus, serum pepsinogen levels and anti-Ostertagia antibody levels measured on the first visit were not available for these 22 cows.

Download:

Table 2. Description of the dataset (578 cows in 13 herds, 295 treated cows, 283 control cows): distribution and classification of individual production-based indicators characterizing cows, number of treated cows and control cows per classes for each categorized indicator, and distribution of the daily milk production average by week.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.t002

Download:

Table 3. Description of the dataset (578 cows in 13 herds, 295 treated cows, 283 control cows): distribution and classification of individual parasitological indicators characterizing cows, number of treated cows and control cows per classes for each categorized indicator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.t003

Download:

Table 4. Description of the dataset (578 cows in 13 herds, 295 treated cows, 283 control cows): distribution and classification of indicators characterizing herds, number of treated cows and control cows per classes for each categorized indicator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.t004

Several cows were dried off or sold during the period of post-treatment follow-up. The number of cows therefore decreased gradually from one week to another, similarly in treated cows and control cows. On week₁₄, there were still 428 cows in the dataset (226 treated cows and 202 control cows).

For each indicator, there was no difference in the proportion of treated cows between categories (p>0.05) (Tables 2–4).

Comparison of individual parasitological indicators between cows treated or not treated during the previous housing period

At the time of the first visit.

On the first visit, on average, serum pepsinogen levels tended to be slightly higher in cows not treated during the previous housing period compared to cows treated during the previous housing period (1708 versus 1632 mUTyr, p = 0.07). In the five herds sampled before or on the day of turn-out, this difference was not significant (1575 versus 1600 mUtyr, p = 0.7). In contrast, in the 8 herds sampled 6 to 25 days after turn-out, this difference was significant: cows not treated during the previous housing period had a higher serum pepsinogen level than cows treated during this autumn-winter period (1770 versus 1645 mUTyr, respectively, p = 0.02).

On average, anti-Ostertagia antibody levels were not different between cows treated or not during the previous housing period (average ODR = 0.53 and 0.54 respectively, p = 0.32), whatever the date of first visit compared to the date of turn-out.

At the time of the second visit.

Table 5 describes the individual parasitological indicators measured 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out according to the history of anthelmintic treatment applied during the previous housing period. Anti-Ostertagia antibody levels and pepsinogen levels were on average significantly higher in cows not treated versus cows treated during the previous housing period (p < 0.0001). Moreover, those previously untreated cows had more often a positive FEC (39% versus 28%, p = 0.007).

Download:

Table 5. Comparison of individual parasitological indicators measured 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out (second visit, spring 2012) according to the history of anthelmintic treatment applied during the previous housing period (autumn-winter 2011–2012).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.t005

Overall milk production response after spring anthelmintic treatment over time

In model 0, all the usual factors associated with the variations of MP were significant (parity, DIM, interaction between parity and DIM, pre-treatment production level, and month of milk production) (p<0.0001). The combined variable of interest ‘week-trt’ was significant (p < 0.0001), and the effect of spring treatment on MP was negative: in comparison with the 283 control cows, the 295 treated cows’ daily MP averaged by week decreased significantly (G_is were negative). The evolution of the treated cows’ MP over time is displayed in Fig 1. The drop in MP after treatment was sharp: -0.92 Kg/cow/day on average for the whole period of follow up after treatment, with a maximum of -1.8 Kg/cow/day on week₉ after treatment (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Evolution of the treated cows’ milk production over time in comparison with control cows (G_is < 0) (model 0, n = 578 cows, 295 treated cows, 283 control cows).

Week₀ = week of treatment, the first day of week₀ is the day of treatment. Black dots on the curve indicate that the corresponding negative G_i are significantly different from zero, adjusted p-value<0.05: the drop in milk production for treated cows is significant during these weeks).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.g001

Variations of the milk production response after spring anthelmintic treatment according to the indicators characterizing cows and herds

Variations of the treatment response according to individual production-based indicators.

The interaction between week-trt and pre-treatment production level was significant (p < 0.0001). The high-producing treated cows’ daily MP averaged by week decreased significantly and markedly compared to the one of high-producing control cows (-2.3 Kg/cow/day on average, until -3.7 Kg/cow/day on week₈ after treatment), whereas moderate and low-producing treated cows did not experience significant losses in milk production after treatment (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. Evolution of the treated cows’ milk production over time in comparison with control cows (G_is) according to the pre-treatment production level (corrected for parity and days in milk).

Week₀ = week of treatment, the first day of week₀ is the day of treatment. Black dots on the curve indicate that the corresponding negative G_i are significantly different from zero, adjusted p-value<0.05: the drop in milk production for treated cows is significant during these weeks). See Table 2 for the number of treated cows and control cows per category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.g002

Interactions between parity or days in milk at the time of treatment and week-trt were not significant (p = 0.44 and p = 0.41, respectively).

Variations of the treatment response according to individual parasitological indicators.

The evolution of MP after spring treatment differed significantly between cows which had been treated during the previous housing period and cows which had not been treated during this autumn-winter period (interaction between week-trt and history of anthelmintic treatment: p < 0.0001). The decrease in MP after spring treatment was marked and significant in cows not previously treated during the housing period (-1.2 Kg/cow/day on average, until -2.4 Kg/cow/day on week₉ after spring treatment), whereas this decrease remained non-significant in cows previously treated during the housing period (Fig 3).

Download:

Fig 3. Evolution of the treated cows’ milk production over time in comparison with control cows (G_is) according to the history of anthelmintic treatment (treated versus not treated during the previous housing period).

Week₀ = week of treatment, the first day of week₀ is the day of treatment. Black dots on the curve indicate that the corresponding negative G_i are significantly different from zero, adjusted p-value<0.05: the drop in milk production for treated cows is significant during these weeks).—See Table 3 for the number of treated cows and control cows per category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.g003

Serum pepsinogen level measured on the second visit was significantly associated with the evolution of MP after treatment (interaction between week-trt and pepsinogen level 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out: p < 0.0001). Moderate and high-pepsinogen level cows (between 1409 and 2025 mUTyr, and > 2025 mUTyr, respectively) experienced higher MP losses after treatment than low-pepsinogen level cows: -1.1 Kg/cow/day on average for moderate and high-pepsinogen level cows, whereas the post-treatment decrease in MP was not significant in low-pepsinogen level cows (Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Evolution of the treated cows’ milk production over time in comparison with control cows (G_is) according to serum pepsinogen level at the time of treatment (second visit, 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out).

Week₀ = week of treatment, the first day of week₀ is the day of treatment. Black dots on the curve indicate that the corresponding negative G_i are significantly different from zero, adjusted p-value<0.05: the drop in milk production for treated cows is significant during these weeks). See Table 3 for the number of treated cows and control cows per category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.g004

FEC and anti-Ostertagia antibody level measured at the time of treatment were not associated with the evolution of MP after treatment: interactions between these two variables and the combined variable week-trt were not significant (p = 0.21 and p = 0.81, respectively).

Variations of the treatment response according to herd-level indicators.

Fig 5 displays the evolution of the treated cows’ MP in comparison with control cows’ MP (G_is) according to the two herd-level indicators. The interaction between week-trt and TEC was significant (p = 0.001): after treatment, the MP of cows from high-TEC herds decreased somewhat more markedly than the MP of cows from low-TEC herds (-1.2 versus -0.7 Kg/cow/day, on average) (Fig 5a). The interaction between week-trt and BTM ODR was also significant (p < 0.0001): cows from high-BTM ODR herds (BTM ODR ≥ 0.717) experienced significant MP losses after treatment (-1.7 Kg/cow/day on average, down to -3.1 Kg/cow/day on week₉ after treatment), whereas the decrease in MP for treated cows from low-BTM ODR herds (BTM ODR < 0.717) remained much lower (-0.33 Kg/cow/day, down to -1.3 Kg/cow/day on week₈ after treatment) (Fig 5b).

Download:

Fig 5. Evolution of the treated cows’ milk production over time in comparison with control cows (G_is) according to the 2 herd-level indicators (n = 578 cows): 5a) Time of Effective Contact (TEC) with GIN infective larvae before the first calving, 5b) Anti-Ostertagia antibody level in the bulk tank milk (BTM ODR).

Week₀ = week of treatment, the first day of week₀ is the day of treatment. Black dots on the curve indicate that the corresponding negative G_i are significantly different from zero, adjusted p-value<0.05: the drop in milk production for treated cows is significant during these weeks). See Table 4 for the number of treated cows and control cows per category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147835.g005

Discussion

This is the first study dealing with the effect on milk production (MP) of a single non-persistent anthelmintic treatment (fenbendazole) applied on lactating cows in spring, in the first part of the grazing season, and taking into account the history of treatment administered during the previous housing period. By treating 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out, one could expect (i) either a positive effect on MP due the removal of parasites from hosts, with in addition the preservation of a parasite population in refugia (free-living stages on pastures resulting from the spring development of eggs excreted since turn-out), (ii) or an absence of effect on MP due the possible rapid re-infection after this non-persistent anthelmintic treatment (persistent exposure to parasites as cows are grazing). Therefore, this prolonged negative marked effect of spring treatment on MP is quite surprising and contrary to what was initially expected. This negative effect made it impossible to identify the categories of cows that could be treated selectively in spring (TST strategy) on the basis of the demonstration of their improved milk production after treatment. However, a possible explanation of this negative effect of the treatment may be found by looking at the factors associated with the treatment response. The decrease in MP was particularly marked in cows (i) with a high pre-treatment production level, (ii) not treated with anthelmintics during the previous housing period (autumn-winter 2011–2012), (iii) with moderate or high pepsinogen level at the time of spring treatment (pepsinogen level being associated with the history of anthelmintic treatment), (iv) from herds with a high bulk tank milk anti-Ostertagia antibody level (BTM ODR > 0.717, median of our sample), and (v) from high-TEC herds.

Studies investigating the effect of a benzimidazole treatment on MP sometimes reported negative values, but the decrease in MP always remained non-significant [10, 11], except in one Norwegian study, conducted in 22 dairy herds, where fenbendazole treatment was applied at calving from September to the end of January, while cows were housed [50]. In this previous Norwegian study, the significant reduction in milk yield of the fenbendazole-treated cows was -151 kg in the subsequent lactation. The authors did not put forward any hypothesis to explain this decrease in MP. Jara et al. (1984) [51] showed that albendazole, fenbendazole and oxfendazole could cause a decrease in volatile fatty acid concentration and digestibility of cellulose in the rumen of sheep. However, according to Tharaldsen and Helle (1989) [50], those effects of fenbendazole treatment are unlikely to influence significantly MP for several consecutive weeks, in light of its rapid elimination from the body.

Forbes et al. (2004) [38] reported a significant positive MP response on weeks 2 and 3 after a single anthelmintic treatment applied, as in our study, 1.5 month after turn-out. However, in this previous study, cows were treated with eprinomectin, a persistent-activity product which prevents from re-infection with Ostertagia for 28 days [52]; and MP was followed for only 4 weeks after treatment, a period over which cows could therefore not be re-infected. The same was true in studies where several treatments were applied repeatedly on lactating cows during the grazing season [23, 39, 40]: positive effects of these repeated treatment strategies on MP were mainly reported but with highly limited post-treatment reinfections during the period of follow-up. On the contrary, in our study, treated cows could be re-infected during the 105 days period of follow up after the non-persistent fenbendazole treatment, because they kept grazing together with control cows on pastures where parasitic cycles had been re-initiated for 1.5 to 2 months. As a result, it may be assumed that the prolonged negative marked effect of spring treatment on MP was associated with post-treatment re-infection. This hypothesis is supported by the more severe and significant post-treatment decrease in MP observed in cows from high-BTM ODR herds at the time of treatment, i.e. from herds with a higher exposure to and therefore more prone to re-infection, due to a higher pasture infectivity [53].

Moreover, our observations suggest that immunological and inflammatory mechanisms may be associated with this negative effect of spring treatment on MP. Indeed, the negative post-treatment MP response was more marked in herds where the higher exposure to GIN could have induced a heavier antigenic stimulation (high BTM ODR herds). The negative post-treatment MP response was also somewhat more marked in cows from high-TEC herds, i.e. in herds where the acquired immune response controlling the establishment of ingested L3 could be stronger [25, 54], causing a stronger reaction when new contact with L3 occurred. This phenomenon is known in resistant sheep: a new larval challenge can induce a strong inflammatory reaction, with clinical signs of diarrhea, even though worm burdens are low [55–59]. As it leads to the elimination of worms, this phenomenon is commonly described as “self-cure”. It has been demonstrated that it is based on mechanisms similar to type I hypersensitivity [60], explaining the deleterious consequences for hosts. In cattle, high pepsinogen levels observed in second-grazing-season cattle exposed to an initial low level of infection [5, 31] and clinical forms of oedematous ostertagiosis [61] are also considered as deleterious effects of these particular immuno-inflammatory processes in immune animals.

This hypothetical association between inflammatory processes and negative MP response is also supported by the fact that the post-treatment decrease in MP was particularly marked in cows not treated during the previous housing period. In such cows, which contributed the most to the overall negative spring treatment response, the inflammatory state of the abomasal mucosa could have been more pronounced. Indeed, their worm burden is expectedly higher than the one of cows treated during the previous housing period, resulting in the resumption of development of a larger number of inhibited larvae, with higher damage of the abomasal mucosa (as evidenced by higher pepsinogen levels found in these cows). In addition, serum pepsinogen levels of these cows were higher when they were measured after turn-out, particularly on the second visit 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out, demonstrating higher abomasal mucosal damages potentially also caused by the response to larval challenge between turn-out and the date of anthelmintic treatment.

Those inflammatory processes may have been exacerbated by the persistence of dead Ostertagia larvae in the abomasal mucosa following fenbendazole treatment. Two studies come in support of this hypothesis. (i) In yearling beef cattle naturally infected with O. ostertagi, treated with fenbendazole while a large number of early fourth stage inhibited larvae had been established, and then slaughtered 7 to 12 days after treatment, Snider III et al. (1985) [62] observed an aggravation of the abomasal inflammatory lesions compared to those found in untreated calves. This aggravation was related to the persistence of dead and degenerate O. ostertagi larvae in the abomasal mucosa of fenbendazole treated calves. Indeed, these degenerate larvae were not observed in the tissues of untreated calves nor in calves treated with ivermectin, and were thus attributed to the fenbendazole treatment. Histologically, the presence of a marked eosinophil and lymphocyte infiltration and of an unidentified material coating the degenerate larvae suggested an inflammatory and/or immunological response initiated or exacerbated by the presence of such larvae [62]. (ii) Similar results were found in horses naturally infected with cyathostomins and treated either with fenbendazole or moxidectin [63]: in contrast to moxidectin effects, the killing of larvae due to fenbendazole treatment was associated with severe tissue damage. These observations argue in favor of the involvement of fenbendazole treatment in the maintenance of inflammatory reaction of the abomasal mucosa. However, considering the persistence of the negative effect of treatment on MP, one may wonder what the duration of the pro-inflammatory effect of dead larvae is. Snider III et al. (1985) [62] indicated that these degenerate Ostertagia larvae were found up to 20 days after treatment, but in smaller proportion than between 7 to 12 days after treatment, and that the time needed for dead nematode clearance is unknown for O. ostertagi and other GIN. Moreover, other observations are in favour of the pro-inflammatory effect of larvae killed by the treatment. In the study conducted by Ravinet et al. (2014) [25], where adult dairy cows were treated with fenbendazole at housing and where the pattern/kinetics of the treatment response is described, the global effect of treatment on MP was positive but was not immediate, and treated cows tended to produce less milk than control cows during the first two weeks following the date of treatment. This could suggest a slight deleterious effect of treatment, before tissue repair and increased feed intake following the removal of parasites could allow a moderate increase in MP [25].

Further studies are needed to assess whether this unexpected negative effect of spring anthelmintic treatment on MP can be generalized, and to identify and understand the biological mechanisms underlying this decrease in MP. A study investigating more closely the inflammatory and immune responses would be necessary to assess the potential adverse effects of (i) the larval challenge at turn-out, and of (ii) the spring anthelmintic treatment under different exposures to GIN, and with different immunological status (TEC). Moreover, the approach outlined in this study should be replicated with another anthelmintic (eprinomectin), to assess whether our observed negative effect of treatment is related, at least in part, to the use of fenbendazole. Finally, a longer post-treatment follow-up of MP would enable to assess if this deleterious effect of treatment on MP is reversible and how long it lasts.

Conclusion

The idea of optimizing milk production while preserving a large GIN population in refugia by spring TST in grazing dairy cows ran up against an unexpected result: the anthelmintic treatment applied 1.5 to 2 months after turn-out had a significant negative effect on milk production.

Our result suggests that treatment for GIN of dairy cows cannot be generally recommended and must be associated with seasonal considerations. Until further studies can assess whether this unexpected result can be generalized or is tied to specific conditions, anthelmintic treatment of adult dairy cows immunized against GIN, specifically non-persistent treatment, should be discouraged at the beginning of the grazing season, and should rather be targeted in autumn at housing.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the farmers for their participation, their help and co-operation. They are very grateful for all the assistance provided on the field and at the laboratory by Jean-Yves Audiart, Marie-Astrid Malard, Françoise Leray, Emmanuelle Blandin, Didier Billon, Manon Joly and Melissa Girard (ONIRIS). The authors would also like to thank all the veterinary practitioners who provided their support to the recruitment and on the field. The study was conducted within the UMT Cattle Herd Health Management.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: NR CC N. Bareille AC. Performed the experiments: NR CC N. Brisseau AP AC. Analyzed the data: NR AL N. Brisseau. Wrote the paper: NR AC CC N. Bareille.

References

1. Agneessens J, Claerebout ., Dorny P, Borgsteede FHM,Vercruysse J. Nematode parasitism in adult dairy cows in Belgium. Vet Parasitol 2000;90: 83–92. pmid:10828514
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Borgsteede FHM, Tibben J, Cornelissen JB, Agneessens J, Gaasenbeek CP. Nematode parasites of adult dairy cattle in the Netherlands. Vet Parasitol 2000;89: 287–296. pmid:10799842
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Chartier C, Le Corre A, Ravinet N, Chauvin A. Nematode parasites from the abomasa of adult dairy cows in France: an abattoir survey. In: Proceeding WAAVP, Perth, Australia, 25–29 August 2013, p. 540.
4. Slocombe JOD. Abomasal nematodes in cattle in Ontario. Can J Comp Med 1974;38: 18–21. pmid:4272952
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Armour J, Bairden K, Duncan JL, Jennings FW, Parkins JJ. Observations on ostertagiasis in young cattle over two grazing seasons with special references to plasma pepsinogen levels. Vet Rec 1979;105: 500–503. pmid:524707
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Anderson N, Armour J, Jarrett WFH, Jennings FW, Ritchie JSD, Urquhart GM. A field study of parasitic gastritis in cattle. Vet Rec 1965;77: 1196–1204. pmid:5890703
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Anderson N. Aspects of the biology of Ostertagia ostertagi in relation to the genesis of ostertagiasis. Vet Parasitol 1988;27: 13–21. pmid:3284162
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Dorny P. Gastrointestinal nematode infections of first-grazing season calves in Western Europe: general patterns and the effect of chemoprophylaxis. Vet Parasitol 1998;75: 115–131. pmid:9637215
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Dorny P. Gastrointestinal nematode infections of first-grazing season calves in Western Europe: associations between parasitological, physiological and physical factors. Vet Parasitol 1998;75: 133–151. pmid:9637216
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Gross SJ, Ryan WG, Ploeger HW. Anthelminthic treatment of dairy cows and its effect on milk production. Vet Rec 1999;144: 581–587. pmid:10378289
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Carrier J, DesCôteaux L. A meta-analysis of the milk-production response after anthelminthic treatment in naturally infected adult dairy cows. Prev Vet Med 2004;63: 237–256. pmid:15158573
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Charlier J, Höglund J, Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Dorny P, Vercruysse J. Gastrointestinal nematode infections in adult dairy cattle: Impact on production, diagnosis and control. Vet Parasitol 2009;164: 70–79. pmid:19414223
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Sutherland IA, Leathwick DM. Anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of cattle: a global issue? Trends Parasitol 2011;27: 176–180. pmid:21168366
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Demeler J, Van Zeveren AMJ, Kleinschmidt N, Vercruysse J, Höglund J, Koopmann R, et al. Monitoring the efficacy of ivermectin and albendazole against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle in Northern Europe. Vet Parasitol 2009;160: 109–115. pmid:19062191
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Gasbarre L.C., 2014. Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in the US. Vet Parasitol 2014;204: 3–11. pmid:24798800
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Geurden T, Chartier C, Frangipane di Regalbono A, Traversa D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Otranto D, et al. Anthelmintic resistance of cattle gastro-intestinal nematodes in 4 European countries. In: Proceeding WAAVP, Perth, Australia, 25–29 August 2013, p. 167.
17. Waghorn TS, Leathwick DM, Rhodes AP, Jackson R, Pomroy WE, West DM, et al. Prevalence of anthelmintic resistance on 62 beef cattle farms in the North Island of New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2006;54: 278–282. pmid:17151725
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. O'Shaughnessy J, Earley B, Mee JF, Doherty ML, Crosson P, Barrett D, et al. Detection of anthelmintic resistance on two Irish beef research farms. Vet Rec 2014;175: 120.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Rose H, Rinaldi L, Bosco A, Mavrot F, de Waal T, Skuce P, et al. Widespread anthelmintic resistance in European farmed ruminants: a systematic review. Vet Rec 2015
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. O’Farrell KJ, Downey NE, Sherington J. The effect of anthelmintic treatment at calving on the subsequent milk production characteristics of dairy cows. Ir Vet J 1986;40: 116–123.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Ploeger HW, Schoenmaker GJW, Kloosterman A, Borgsteede FHM. Effect of anthelminthic treatment of dairy cattle on milk production related to some parameters estimating nematode infection. Vet Parasitol 1989;34: 239–253. pmid:2617828
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Ploeger HW, Kloosterman A, Bargeman G, Wuijckhuise L, Van Der Brink R. Milk yield increase after anthelminthic treatment of dairy cattle related to some parameters estimating helminth infection. Vet Parasitol 1990;35: 103–116. pmid:2343521
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Mason WA, Pomroy WE, Lawrence KE, Scott I. The effect of a repeated, four-weekly eprinomectin treatment on milk production in pasture-based, seasonally-calving dairy cattle. Vet Parasitol 2012;189: 250–259. pmid:22664339
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Vanderstichel R, Dohoo I, Sanchez J, Sithole F, Keefe G, Stryhn H. Predicting the effect of anthelmintic treatment on milk production of dairy cattle in Canada using an Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA from individual milk samples. Prev Vet Med 2013;111: 63–75. pmid:23647705
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Ravinet N, Bareille N, Lehebel A, Ponnau A, Chartier C, Chauvin A. Change in milk production after treatment against gastrointestinal nematodes according to grazing history, parasitological and production-based indicators in adult dairy cows. Vet Parasitol 2014;201: 95–109. pmid:24468428
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Verschave SH, Vercruysse J, Forbes A, Opsomer G, Hostens M, Duchateau L, et al. Non invasive indicators associated with the milk yield response after anthelmintic treatment at calving in dairy cows. BMC Vet Res 2014;10:264. pmid:25394846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. van Wyk JA. Refugia—overlooked as perhaps the most important factor concerning the development of anthelmintic resistance. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 2001;68: 55–67. pmid:11403431
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Kenyon F, Greer AW, Coles GC, Cringoli G, Papadopoulos E, Cabaret J, et al. The role of targeted selective treatments in the development of refugia-based approaches to the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants. Vet Parasitol 2009;164: 3–11. pmid:19450930
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Kenyon F, Jackson F, 2012. Targeted flock/herd and individual ruminant treatment approaches. Vet Parasitol 2012;186: 10–17. pmid:22188982
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Charlier J, Morgan ER, Rinaldi L, van Dijk J, Demeler J, Höglund J, et al. Practices to optimize gastrointestinal nematode control on sheep, goat and cattle farms in Europe using targeted (selective) treatments. Vet Rec 2014;175: 250–255. pmid:25217603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Armour J. The epidemiology of helminth disease in farm animals. Vet. Parasitol. 1980;6: 7–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. McBeath DG, Dean SP, Preston NK. The effect of a preparturient fenbendazole treatment on lactation yield in dairy cows. Vet Rec 1979;105: 507–509. pmid:524709
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Fréchette JL, Lamothe P. Milk production effect of a morantel tartrate treatment at calving in dairy cows with subclinical parasitism. Can Vet J 1981;22: 252–254. pmid:7340928
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Bisset SA, Marshall ED, Morrison L. Economics of a dry-cow anthelmintic drenching programme for dairy cows in New Zealand. Part 1. Overall response in 47 herds. Vet Parasitol 1987;26: 107–118. pmid:3439001
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Reist M, Medjitna TDE, Braun U, Pfister K. Effect of a treatment with eprinomectin or thrichlorfon on the yield and quality of milk produced by multiparous dairy cows. Vet Rec 2002;151: 377–380. pmid:12403517
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Charlier J, Duchateau L, Claerebout E, Vercruysse. Predicting milk-production responses after an autumn treatment of pastured dairy herds with eprinomectin. Vet Parasitol 2007;143: 322–328. pmid:16989949
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Charlier J, Vercruysse J, Smith J, Vanderstichel R, Stryhn H, Claerebout E, et al. Evaluation of anti-Ostertagia ostertagi antibodies in individual milk samples as decision parameter for selective anthelminthic treatment in dairy cows. Vet Parasitol 2010;93: 147–152.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Forbes AB, Huckle CA, Gibb MJ. Impact of eprinomectin on grazing behaviour and performance in dairy cattle with sub-clinical gastro-intestinal nematode infections under continuous stocking management. Vet Parasitol 2004;125: 353–364. pmid:15482891
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Gibb MJ, Huckle CA, Forbes AB. Effects of sequential treatments with eprinomectin on performance and grazing behaviour in dairy cattle under daily-paddock stocking management. Vet Parasitol 2005;133: 79–90. pmid:16129562
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. McQueen IPM, Cottier K, Hewitt SR, Wright DF. Effects of anthelmintics on dairy cow yields. New Zeal J Exp Agr 1977;5: 115–119.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Michel JF, Richards M, Altman JFB, Mulholland JR, Gould CM, Armour J. Effect of anthelmintic treatment on the milk yield of dairy cows in England, Scotland and Wales. Vet Rec 1982;111: 546–550. pmid:7164331
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Kloosterman A, Ploeger HW, Pieke EJ, Lam TJGM, Verhoeff J. The value of bulk milk ELISA Ostertagia antibody titres as indicators of milk production response to anthelmintic treatment in the dry period. Vet Parasitol 1996;64: 197–205. pmid:8888553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. McPherson WB, Gogolewski RP, Slacek B, Familton AS, Gross SJ, Maciel AE, et al. Effect of a peri-parturient eprinomectin treatment of dairy cows on milk production. N Z Vet J 2001;49: 106–110. pmid:16032172
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Nødtvedt A, Dohoo I, Sanchez J, Conboy G, DesCôteaux L, Keefe G. Increase in milk yield following eprinomectin treatment at calving in pastured dairy cattle. Vet Parasitol 2002;105: 191–206. pmid:11934459
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Nødtvedt A, Keefe G, Markham F, Leslie K, et al. A longitudinal study of gastrointestinal parasites in Canadian dairy farms. The value of an indirect Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA as a monitoring tool. Vet Parasitol 2002;107: 209–226. pmid:12127251
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Leslie K, Keefe G, Markham F, Sithole F. The use of an indirect Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA to predict milk production response after anthelmintic treatment in confined and semi-confined dairy herds. Vet Parasitol 2005;130: 115–124. pmid:15893078
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Sithole F, Dohoo I, Leslie K, DesCôteaux L, Godden S, Campbell J, et al. Effect of eprinomectin treatment at calving on milk production in dairy herds with limited outdoor exposure. J Dairy Sci 2005;88: 929–937. pmid:15738227
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Kerboeuf D, Koch C, Le Dréan E, Lacourt A. Méthode simplifiée de mesure de la concentration en pepsinogène dans le sérum. Revue Méd. Vét. 2002;153: 707–712.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Bliss DH, Kvasnicka WG. The Fecal Examination: a Missing Link in Food Animal Practice. The Compendium 1997;4: 104–109.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Tharaldsen J, Helle O. The effect of periparturient treatment with fenbendazole on the milk production of cows. Acta Vet Scand 1989;30: 247–252. pmid:2629501
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Jara W, Sumano H, Ocampo L. Effects of three benzimidazole anthelmintics on the ruminal fermentation ability of sheep. Vet Rec 1984;115: 565–566. pmid:6523680
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Cramer LG, Pitt SR, Rehbein S, Gogolewski RP, Kunkle BN, Langhoff WK, et al. Persistent efficacy of topical eprinomectin against nematode parasites in cattle. Parasitol Res 2000;86: 944–946. pmid:11097305
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Eysker M, van Aarle D, Kooyman FNJ, Nijzink AM, Orsel K, Ploeger HW. Exposure of dairy cows to nematode infections at the end of the grazing season in the Netherlands. Vet Parasitol 2002;110: 93–100. pmid:12446093
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Vercruysse J, Claerebout E. Immunity development against Ostertagia ostertagi and other gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 1997;72: 309–326. pmid:9460204
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Miller HRP, Jackson F, Newlands G, Appleyard WT. Immune exclusion, a mechanism of protection against the ovine nematode Haemonchus contortus. Res Vet Sci 1983;35: 357–363. pmid:6665320
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Balic A, Bowles VM, Meeusen ENT. The immunobiology of gastrointestinal nematodes infections in ruminants. Adv Parasit 2000;45: 181–241.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Larsen JW, Anderson N, Vizard AL, Anderson GA, Hoste H. Diarrhoea in Merino ewes during winter: association with trichostrongylid larvae. Aust Vet J 1994;71: 365–372. pmid:7726760
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Larsen JW, Anderson N, Vizard AL. The pathogenesis and control of diarrhea and breech soiling in adult Merino sheep. Int J Parasitol 1999;29: 893–902. pmid:10480726
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Larsen JW, Anderson N. The relationship between the rate of intake of trichostrongylid larvae and the occurrence of diarrhoea and breech soiling in adult merino sheep. Aust Vet J 2000;78: 112–116. pmid:10736672
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Meeusen ENT. Immunology of helminth infections, with special reference to immunopathology. Vet Parasitol 1999;84: 259–273. pmid:10456418
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Raynaud JP, Bouchet A. Bovine ostertagiosis, a review. Analysis of types and syndromes found in France by post mortem examinations and total worm counts. Ann rech vétér 1976;7: 253–280.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Snider TG III, Williams JC, Knox JW, Roberts ED, Romaire TL. Persistence of dead Ostertagia ostertagi in the abomasal mucosa following anthelminthic treatment. Vet Rec 1985;116: 69–72. pmid:3838393
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Steinback T, Bauer C, Sasse H, Baumgärtner W, Ray-Moreno C, Hermosilla C, et al. Small strongyle infection: consequences of larvicide treatment of horses with fenbendazole and moxidectine. Vet Parasitol 2006;139: 115–131. pmid:16675126
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Agneessens J, Claerebout ., Dorny P, Borgsteede FHM,Vercruysse J. Nematode parasitism in adult dairy cows in Belgium. Vet Parasitol 2000;90: 83–92. pmid:10828514
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Borgsteede FHM, Tibben J, Cornelissen JB, Agneessens J, Gaasenbeek CP. Nematode parasites of adult dairy cattle in the Netherlands. Vet Parasitol 2000;89: 287–296. pmid:10799842
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Chartier C, Le Corre A, Ravinet N, Chauvin A. Nematode parasites from the abomasa of adult dairy cows in France: an abattoir survey. In: Proceeding WAAVP, Perth, Australia, 25–29 August 2013, p. 540.

[ref4] 4. Slocombe JOD. Abomasal nematodes in cattle in Ontario. Can J Comp Med 1974;38: 18–21. pmid:4272952
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Armour J, Bairden K, Duncan JL, Jennings FW, Parkins JJ. Observations on ostertagiasis in young cattle over two grazing seasons with special references to plasma pepsinogen levels. Vet Rec 1979;105: 500–503. pmid:524707
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Anderson N, Armour J, Jarrett WFH, Jennings FW, Ritchie JSD, Urquhart GM. A field study of parasitic gastritis in cattle. Vet Rec 1965;77: 1196–1204. pmid:5890703
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Anderson N. Aspects of the biology of Ostertagia ostertagi in relation to the genesis of ostertagiasis. Vet Parasitol 1988;27: 13–21. pmid:3284162
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Dorny P. Gastrointestinal nematode infections of first-grazing season calves in Western Europe: general patterns and the effect of chemoprophylaxis. Vet Parasitol 1998;75: 115–131. pmid:9637215
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Shaw DJ, Vercruysse J, Claerebout E, Dorny P. Gastrointestinal nematode infections of first-grazing season calves in Western Europe: associations between parasitological, physiological and physical factors. Vet Parasitol 1998;75: 133–151. pmid:9637216
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Gross SJ, Ryan WG, Ploeger HW. Anthelminthic treatment of dairy cows and its effect on milk production. Vet Rec 1999;144: 581–587. pmid:10378289
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Carrier J, DesCôteaux L. A meta-analysis of the milk-production response after anthelminthic treatment in naturally infected adult dairy cows. Prev Vet Med 2004;63: 237–256. pmid:15158573
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Charlier J, Höglund J, Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Dorny P, Vercruysse J. Gastrointestinal nematode infections in adult dairy cattle: Impact on production, diagnosis and control. Vet Parasitol 2009;164: 70–79. pmid:19414223
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Sutherland IA, Leathwick DM. Anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of cattle: a global issue? Trends Parasitol 2011;27: 176–180. pmid:21168366
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Demeler J, Van Zeveren AMJ, Kleinschmidt N, Vercruysse J, Höglund J, Koopmann R, et al. Monitoring the efficacy of ivermectin and albendazole against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle in Northern Europe. Vet Parasitol 2009;160: 109–115. pmid:19062191
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Gasbarre L.C., 2014. Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in the US. Vet Parasitol 2014;204: 3–11. pmid:24798800
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Geurden T, Chartier C, Frangipane di Regalbono A, Traversa D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Otranto D, et al. Anthelmintic resistance of cattle gastro-intestinal nematodes in 4 European countries. In: Proceeding WAAVP, Perth, Australia, 25–29 August 2013, p. 167.

[ref17] 17. Waghorn TS, Leathwick DM, Rhodes AP, Jackson R, Pomroy WE, West DM, et al. Prevalence of anthelmintic resistance on 62 beef cattle farms in the North Island of New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2006;54: 278–282. pmid:17151725
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. O'Shaughnessy J, Earley B, Mee JF, Doherty ML, Crosson P, Barrett D, et al. Detection of anthelmintic resistance on two Irish beef research farms. Vet Rec 2014;175: 120.
View Article
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Rose H, Rinaldi L, Bosco A, Mavrot F, de Waal T, Skuce P, et al. Widespread anthelmintic resistance in European farmed ruminants: a systematic review. Vet Rec 2015
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. O’Farrell KJ, Downey NE, Sherington J. The effect of anthelmintic treatment at calving on the subsequent milk production characteristics of dairy cows. Ir Vet J 1986;40: 116–123.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Ploeger HW, Schoenmaker GJW, Kloosterman A, Borgsteede FHM. Effect of anthelminthic treatment of dairy cattle on milk production related to some parameters estimating nematode infection. Vet Parasitol 1989;34: 239–253. pmid:2617828
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Ploeger HW, Kloosterman A, Bargeman G, Wuijckhuise L, Van Der Brink R. Milk yield increase after anthelminthic treatment of dairy cattle related to some parameters estimating helminth infection. Vet Parasitol 1990;35: 103–116. pmid:2343521
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Mason WA, Pomroy WE, Lawrence KE, Scott I. The effect of a repeated, four-weekly eprinomectin treatment on milk production in pasture-based, seasonally-calving dairy cattle. Vet Parasitol 2012;189: 250–259. pmid:22664339
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Vanderstichel R, Dohoo I, Sanchez J, Sithole F, Keefe G, Stryhn H. Predicting the effect of anthelmintic treatment on milk production of dairy cattle in Canada using an Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA from individual milk samples. Prev Vet Med 2013;111: 63–75. pmid:23647705
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Ravinet N, Bareille N, Lehebel A, Ponnau A, Chartier C, Chauvin A. Change in milk production after treatment against gastrointestinal nematodes according to grazing history, parasitological and production-based indicators in adult dairy cows. Vet Parasitol 2014;201: 95–109. pmid:24468428
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Verschave SH, Vercruysse J, Forbes A, Opsomer G, Hostens M, Duchateau L, et al. Non invasive indicators associated with the milk yield response after anthelmintic treatment at calving in dairy cows. BMC Vet Res 2014;10:264. pmid:25394846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. van Wyk JA. Refugia—overlooked as perhaps the most important factor concerning the development of anthelmintic resistance. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 2001;68: 55–67. pmid:11403431
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Kenyon F, Greer AW, Coles GC, Cringoli G, Papadopoulos E, Cabaret J, et al. The role of targeted selective treatments in the development of refugia-based approaches to the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants. Vet Parasitol 2009;164: 3–11. pmid:19450930
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Kenyon F, Jackson F, 2012. Targeted flock/herd and individual ruminant treatment approaches. Vet Parasitol 2012;186: 10–17. pmid:22188982
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Charlier J, Morgan ER, Rinaldi L, van Dijk J, Demeler J, Höglund J, et al. Practices to optimize gastrointestinal nematode control on sheep, goat and cattle farms in Europe using targeted (selective) treatments. Vet Rec 2014;175: 250–255. pmid:25217603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Armour J. The epidemiology of helminth disease in farm animals. Vet. Parasitol. 1980;6: 7–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. McBeath DG, Dean SP, Preston NK. The effect of a preparturient fenbendazole treatment on lactation yield in dairy cows. Vet Rec 1979;105: 507–509. pmid:524709
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Fréchette JL, Lamothe P. Milk production effect of a morantel tartrate treatment at calving in dairy cows with subclinical parasitism. Can Vet J 1981;22: 252–254. pmid:7340928
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Bisset SA, Marshall ED, Morrison L. Economics of a dry-cow anthelmintic drenching programme for dairy cows in New Zealand. Part 1. Overall response in 47 herds. Vet Parasitol 1987;26: 107–118. pmid:3439001
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Reist M, Medjitna TDE, Braun U, Pfister K. Effect of a treatment with eprinomectin or thrichlorfon on the yield and quality of milk produced by multiparous dairy cows. Vet Rec 2002;151: 377–380. pmid:12403517
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Charlier J, Duchateau L, Claerebout E, Vercruysse. Predicting milk-production responses after an autumn treatment of pastured dairy herds with eprinomectin. Vet Parasitol 2007;143: 322–328. pmid:16989949
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Charlier J, Vercruysse J, Smith J, Vanderstichel R, Stryhn H, Claerebout E, et al. Evaluation of anti-Ostertagia ostertagi antibodies in individual milk samples as decision parameter for selective anthelminthic treatment in dairy cows. Vet Parasitol 2010;93: 147–152.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Forbes AB, Huckle CA, Gibb MJ. Impact of eprinomectin on grazing behaviour and performance in dairy cattle with sub-clinical gastro-intestinal nematode infections under continuous stocking management. Vet Parasitol 2004;125: 353–364. pmid:15482891
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Gibb MJ, Huckle CA, Forbes AB. Effects of sequential treatments with eprinomectin on performance and grazing behaviour in dairy cattle under daily-paddock stocking management. Vet Parasitol 2005;133: 79–90. pmid:16129562
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. McQueen IPM, Cottier K, Hewitt SR, Wright DF. Effects of anthelmintics on dairy cow yields. New Zeal J Exp Agr 1977;5: 115–119.
View Article
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Michel JF, Richards M, Altman JFB, Mulholland JR, Gould CM, Armour J. Effect of anthelmintic treatment on the milk yield of dairy cows in England, Scotland and Wales. Vet Rec 1982;111: 546–550. pmid:7164331
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Kloosterman A, Ploeger HW, Pieke EJ, Lam TJGM, Verhoeff J. The value of bulk milk ELISA Ostertagia antibody titres as indicators of milk production response to anthelmintic treatment in the dry period. Vet Parasitol 1996;64: 197–205. pmid:8888553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] PubMed/NCBI

[156] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. McPherson WB, Gogolewski RP, Slacek B, Familton AS, Gross SJ, Maciel AE, et al. Effect of a peri-parturient eprinomectin treatment of dairy cows on milk production. N Z Vet J 2001;49: 106–110. pmid:16032172
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] PubMed/NCBI

[160] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Nødtvedt A, Dohoo I, Sanchez J, Conboy G, DesCôteaux L, Keefe G. Increase in milk yield following eprinomectin treatment at calving in pastured dairy cattle. Vet Parasitol 2002;105: 191–206. pmid:11934459
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] PubMed/NCBI

[164] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Nødtvedt A, Keefe G, Markham F, Leslie K, et al. A longitudinal study of gastrointestinal parasites in Canadian dairy farms. The value of an indirect Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA as a monitoring tool. Vet Parasitol 2002;107: 209–226. pmid:12127251
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] PubMed/NCBI

[168] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Sanchez J, Dohoo I, Leslie K, Keefe G, Markham F, Sithole F. The use of an indirect Ostertagia ostertagi ELISA to predict milk production response after anthelmintic treatment in confined and semi-confined dairy herds. Vet Parasitol 2005;130: 115–124. pmid:15893078
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Sithole F, Dohoo I, Leslie K, DesCôteaux L, Godden S, Campbell J, et al. Effect of eprinomectin treatment at calving on milk production in dairy herds with limited outdoor exposure. J Dairy Sci 2005;88: 929–937. pmid:15738227
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Kerboeuf D, Koch C, Le Dréan E, Lacourt A. Méthode simplifiée de mesure de la concentration en pepsinogène dans le sérum. Revue Méd. Vét. 2002;153: 707–712.
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Bliss DH, Kvasnicka WG. The Fecal Examination: a Missing Link in Food Animal Practice. The Compendium 1997;4: 104–109.
View Article
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Tharaldsen J, Helle O. The effect of periparturient treatment with fenbendazole on the milk production of cows. Acta Vet Scand 1989;30: 247–252. pmid:2629501
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] PubMed/NCBI

[186] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Jara W, Sumano H, Ocampo L. Effects of three benzimidazole anthelmintics on the ruminal fermentation ability of sheep. Vet Rec 1984;115: 565–566. pmid:6523680
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] PubMed/NCBI

[190] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Cramer LG, Pitt SR, Rehbein S, Gogolewski RP, Kunkle BN, Langhoff WK, et al. Persistent efficacy of topical eprinomectin against nematode parasites in cattle. Parasitol Res 2000;86: 944–946. pmid:11097305
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] PubMed/NCBI

[194] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Eysker M, van Aarle D, Kooyman FNJ, Nijzink AM, Orsel K, Ploeger HW. Exposure of dairy cows to nematode infections at the end of the grazing season in the Netherlands. Vet Parasitol 2002;110: 93–100. pmid:12446093
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[196] View Article

[197] PubMed/NCBI

[198] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Vercruysse J, Claerebout E. Immunity development against Ostertagia ostertagi and other gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle. Vet. Parasitol. 1997;72: 309–326. pmid:9460204
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[200] View Article

[201] PubMed/NCBI

[202] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Miller HRP, Jackson F, Newlands G, Appleyard WT. Immune exclusion, a mechanism of protection against the ovine nematode Haemonchus contortus. Res Vet Sci 1983;35: 357–363. pmid:6665320
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] PubMed/NCBI

[206] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Balic A, Bowles VM, Meeusen ENT. The immunobiology of gastrointestinal nematodes infections in ruminants. Adv Parasit 2000;45: 181–241.
View Article
Google Scholar

[208] View Article

[209] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Larsen JW, Anderson N, Vizard AL, Anderson GA, Hoste H. Diarrhoea in Merino ewes during winter: association with trichostrongylid larvae. Aust Vet J 1994;71: 365–372. pmid:7726760
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[211] View Article

[212] PubMed/NCBI

[213] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Larsen JW, Anderson N, Vizard AL. The pathogenesis and control of diarrhea and breech soiling in adult Merino sheep. Int J Parasitol 1999;29: 893–902. pmid:10480726
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[215] View Article

[216] PubMed/NCBI

[217] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Larsen JW, Anderson N. The relationship between the rate of intake of trichostrongylid larvae and the occurrence of diarrhoea and breech soiling in adult merino sheep. Aust Vet J 2000;78: 112–116. pmid:10736672
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[219] View Article

[220] PubMed/NCBI

[221] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Meeusen ENT. Immunology of helminth infections, with special reference to immunopathology. Vet Parasitol 1999;84: 259–273. pmid:10456418
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[223] View Article

[224] PubMed/NCBI

[225] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Raynaud JP, Bouchet A. Bovine ostertagiosis, a review. Analysis of types and syndromes found in France by post mortem examinations and total worm counts. Ann rech vétér 1976;7: 253–280.
View Article
Google Scholar

[227] View Article

[228] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Snider TG III, Williams JC, Knox JW, Roberts ED, Romaire TL. Persistence of dead Ostertagia ostertagi in the abomasal mucosa following anthelminthic treatment. Vet Rec 1985;116: 69–72. pmid:3838393
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[230] View Article

[231] PubMed/NCBI

[232] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Steinback T, Bauer C, Sasse H, Baumgärtner W, Ray-Moreno C, Hermosilla C, et al. Small strongyle infection: consequences of larvicide treatment of horses with fenbendazole and moxidectine. Vet Parasitol 2006;139: 115–131. pmid:16675126
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[234] View Article

[235] PubMed/NCBI

[236] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Farms and animals

Anthelmintic treatment

Samples and laboratory analysis

Daily milk production data

Indicators characterizing cows and herds

Statistical analysis

Coding and classification of variables.

Comparison of individual parasitological indicators between cows treated or not treated during the previous housing period.

Assessment of the overall treatment effect over time on milk production.

Assessment of the variations of the treatment effect according to indicators characterizing herds and cows on the second visit.

Estimation method to assess the milk production gain week after week.

Results

Description of the study sample

Comparison of individual parasitological indicators between cows treated or not treated during the previous housing period

At the time of the first visit.

At the time of the second visit.

Overall milk production response after spring anthelmintic treatment over time

Variations of the milk production response after spring anthelmintic treatment according to the indicators characterizing cows and herds

Variations of the treatment response according to individual production-based indicators.

Variations of the treatment response according to individual parasitological indicators.

Variations of the treatment response according to herd-level indicators.

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References