Search

To mitigate emerging anthelmintic resistance (AR) in cattle, sustainable gastrointestinal nematode control strategies should be adopted. A multi-centre study was set up to understand the factors affecting European dairy cattle farmers’ adoption of diagnostics and to gauge for differences between regions. The data were collected through a multi-lingual survey by participating countries of the European Co-operation in Science and Technology (COST) action COMbatting Anthelmintic Resistance in ruminants (COMBAR). Four countries provided sufficient data to be included in the data analysis: Norway, Italy, Germany and Austria. Three models were estimated and validated through structural equation modelling. Norway, along with Germany and Austria (pooled dataset) showed similar trends that align with previous studies. AR risk perception had no influence on the adoption intention of diagnostics, a positive influence was found for attitude towards diagnostics and subjective norms (i.e., perceived opinion of others), and a negative influence of attitudes towards anthelminthics. Additionally, routine (i.e., perception of the current treatment) had an indirect effect on adoption intention through attitudes. Italy’s data deviated from these findings, presenting a positive effect of the perceived severity of AR, and perceived behavioural control (i.e., perceived ability to perform a specific behaviour) on adoption intention of diagnostics. Finally, Norway’s data set allowed for inclusion of a measurement of current behaviour in the model, identifying a direct positive effect of the perceived actual behaviour of other farmers on their own behaviour.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to investigate possible cross-infection of Dichelobacter nodosus in Norwegian farms practising co-grazing of sheep and cattle. Methods Thirteen farms practising co-grazing of sheep and cattle were included in this descriptive study: five farms with a history of severe ovine footrot (Group I) and eight farms with free-stall housing of cattle and signs of mild or no footrot in sheep (Group II). Sampling for PCR detection of D. nodosus was performed from animals in all farms, and clinical claw examination of sheep and cattle was performed in Group II. D. nodosus positive samples were analysed by a multiplex PCR method that detects variants of the fimA gene corresponding to D. nodosus serogroups A through I. Results D. nodosus serogroup A was identified more frequently in sheep from farms with a history of severe footrot (Group I) versus from Group II, and in most of the farms with a history of severe footrot there was a coexistence of D. nodosus serogroup A in sheep and cattle. In one farm heel horn erosion and dermatitis emerged in cattle after co-grazing with sheep suffering from severe footrot where D. nodosus serogroup A was detected. Six months later heel horn erosion and dermatitis were still diagnosed, and D. nodosus serogroup A was identified. Out of the 16 D. nodosus positive sheep samples from Group II, ten of the samples were positive by the fimA serogrouping PCR. Among these 10 samples all serogroups except G were detected. All the D. nodosus serogroups detected in sheep were also present in the corresponding cattle herds. Conclusion The clinical findings and the coexistence of the same serogroups in co-grazing sheep and cattle could indicate cross-infection. However, further research including isolation of the bacterial strains, virulence-testing and genetic identification, is needed.

The objectives of this study were to investigate the use of anticoccidials in Norwegian sheep flocks and identify farms with management procedures likely to select for drug resistance. Data were obtained by a questionnaire sent to all members of the Norwegian Sheep Recording System in October 2015. The data set consisted of 1215 answers, corresponding to 8.5% of Norwegian sheep flocks. Anticoccidials were used in 82.7% of flocks. Main treatment was at turnout (38.6% of treated flocks) or 1 week after turnout (32.4%). Interestingly, clinical signs possibly related to coccidiosis were observed by almost 40% of the farmers after treatment, which might be an indication of drug resistance. Correlations between the apparently reduced anticoccidial efficacy and management conditions, such as the size of the farms, were found. From the farmers' perspective, metaphylactic treatment was used in 88.5% of treated flocks, of which approximately one third had no history of clinical coccidiosis. Even though farmers seem aware of the importance of good drenching routines based on reliable estimates of weights and calibration of drench guns, drench gun used for anticoccidial administration was never calibrated in 12.1% of the flocks. Finally, dose estimation was made by visual appraisal in 27.5% of the flocks, which can lead to incorrect dosing. Based on the present study, it cannot be determined whether the apparent treatment failure was related to management practises, incorrect administration of the drug, other infections or actual anticoccidial drug resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]