Brian LassenEesti Maaülikool

Parasites are not “sexy” diseases!

Do they cause any

“real” problems?

agebb.missouri.edu/select/overview.htm

BCS

Do parasites cause any real problems?Corruption as analogy

agebb.missouri.edu/select/overview.htm

BCS

Do parasites cause any real problems?Corruption as analogy

agebb.missouri.edu/select/overview.htm

BCS

Do parasites cause any real problems?Corruption as analogy

When is everyones problem your problem?

Stress

incl. infectious diseases

Coccidia in cattle:EimeriaCryptosporidium

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Eimeria_life_cycle_usda.jpg

http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/content/images/large/2003/1/036_06.jpeghttp://www.atlas.or.kr/donation/donation_files/Dscn4097.jpghttp://www.cryptosporidium.it/img/detection/1cB.jpg

Cryptosporidium life cycle

Macrogamont

Acid-fast staining method

http://www.avianbiotech.com/Diseases/Images/cryptosporidium_3.gif

Sporozoites

Eimeria and CryptosporidiumOverview

Eimeria Cryptosporidium

Life cycle Direct DirectInfects Intestine IntestineInfective stage Oocysts OocystsPrepatent period 15-24 days * 3-12 daysPatent period 2-11 days * 0 daysClinical signs “Diarrhoea (bloody)” “Diarrhoea”

Reduced wt gain Reduced wt gainLoss of appetite Loss of appetite

* E. alabamensis, E. bovis, E. zuernii

Eimeria in Estonia

100%

Vanus (kuud)

%

- Eimeria spp.+ Eimeria spp.

0-3 3-12 >12 All0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Alar Karis (1987): National prevalence: 100%

Sample prevalence: 35% (0-94%)

35

63

17

37

Eimeria in Estonia

Table 2 Distribution of bovine Eimeria species in Estonia

Species Samples%

E. alabamensis -

E. auburnensis 11.6E. bovis 45.0

E. brasiliensis -

E. bukidnonensisE. canadensis -

E. cylindrica -

E. ellipsoidalis 49.8E. pellita -

E. subspherica 1.3

E. wyomingensis -E. zuernii 6.5

Table 2 Distribution of bovine Eimeria species in Estonia

Species Herds SamplesN % N %

E. alabamensis 19 42.2 32 3.5

E. auburnensis 25 55.6 51 5.6E. bovis 40 88.9 274 29.9

E. brasiliensis 7 15.6 9 1.0

E. bukidnonensis 1 2.2 1 0.1E. canadensis 33 73.3 117 12.8

E. cylindrica 11 24.4 21 2.3

E. ellipsoidalis 37 82.2 128 14.0E. pellita 6 13.3 8 0.9

E. subspherica 17 37.8 52 5.7

E. wyomingensis 15 33.3 28 3.1E. zuernii 34 75.6 206 22.5

P = Pathogenic

P

P

(P)

Alar Karis (1987) 2007

Cryptosporidium in Estonia

86.7%

Talvik and Daugschies (2004): Case study of calves with diarrhoea

Eimeria and Cryptosporidium

0 – 3 3 – 12 > 12 All0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cryptosporidium spp. in Estonian dairy farms

+ Cryptosporidium spp. - Cryptosporidium spp.Age (months)

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%

)

2427

34 29

Mainly C. parvum(zoonotic)

0 – 3 3 – 12 > 12 All0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Eimeria only Cryptosporidium only Mixed

Age (months)

Fre

quen

cy o

f di

arrh

oeic

sam

ples

(%

)

Diarrhea is fairly common (17.4% of samples)

Diarrhea most common in youngest animals (25.6%), both pathogens

Diarrhoea and coccidia

Diarrhea in mainly 3-12 month old animals infected with Eimeria

Diarrhea in older animals mainly infected with Cryptosporidium

Parasites are not “sexy” diseases!

Why bother with coccidia?

What does it cost? What is the best action?

Do they cause any

“real” problems?

Costs of Eimeria spp. to the dairy farmer

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

Column C

Column H

Age in years

BW

, k

g

Normal growth

Altered growth (Eimeria)

Model (SimHerd) Mortality Reduction in growth

Global annual loss estimate by Fitzgerald

731 bill. US$ (1980)

1,659 bill. US$ (2005)

Scenarios Worst case effects Best guess (status quo) Low case effects

Costs of Eimeria spp. to the dairy farmer

Ten year period. Herd size: 100. High infection and death risk.

Effects High Low ValueNew calves -3,5 -0,7 NSold meat -952 -106 KgMilk -8564 -2183 KgMilk per cow -26 -5,3 KgIncome milk -23725 -6004 DKRIncome heifers -17542 -4519 DKRIncome cows -6900 -768 DKRIncome calf -761 -204 DKR

-7,5 -1,4 NTotal balance (DKR) -61354 -5442 DKRTotal balance (EEK) -122708 -10884 EEK

Insemination quotient

Costs of Eimeria spp. to the dairy farmer

104,000 cattle in Estonia (2007) amounting to losses between 1.1-12.8 million EEK/year (low-high estimate)

Treatment of all new calves (~90,000/year) with Toltrazuril products cost ~6.75 million EEK/year

Globally1,339,000,000 cattle in the worldLosses: 12-131 billion US$/year

(Fitzgerald in 1980 currency: 346-1,385 bill. US$/year)

Prophylactic? Metaphylactic?Therapeutic?Prophylactic?

Actions to prevent coccidiosis

Management!

Removing sick animals

Don't mix age groups

Late turn out

Pasture rotation (grazing)

Frequent cleaning

<15 ºC in farm

<80% humidity in farm(ventilation)

Slatted floors

Low animal density

Dormant period before reusing pens

The fast solution

Neospora caninum life cycle

http://www.neosporosis.com/Life-cycle-image.asp

Neospora caninum

http://www.neosporosis.com/abortions.asphttp://www.jkkeskus.ee/english/sisu/aastaraamat_2007.pdf

Reported abortions 2007: 845 (0.9%)

Reported stillbirths 2007: 6773 (7.0%)

3.43.7

23.9

0.1

25

14.6

5.6

11.2

12.6

Culling reasons (%)RESULTS OF ANIMAL RECORDING IN ESTONIA 2007

AgeLow productivitySterileInfectious diseasesUdder diseasesFeet diseasesAccidentsMetabolic diseasesOther reasons

Neospora caninum in Estonia

Bulk milk samples

26%

2007

16%

2008

N=65 N=320

15.5%

2005

N=1421.01%

N=495

2005

Hurkova, L., Halova, D., Modry, P. The prevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in bulk milk of dairy herds in the Czeck Republic: a case report. 2005. Vet. Med. - Czeck, 12, 259-552.Eihvalde, E., Keidans, P., Antane V. Serological examination of bulk milk samples to neosporosis in Lativa and comparison of cow's morphological composition of blood. The 2nd Scandinavian – Baltic Symposium for Parasitology. 2007. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland: 31

ExampleTable 2: The cause of treatment time against gastro-intestinal parasites in small ruminant flocks in Norway

1001001009.40.50Others*

075.60Dry period (non- lactating period)

00.50Faecal egg count0.83.06.9Clinical signs

89.820.493.1Experience/climatic conditions

Sheep(n=628)

Dairy goats(n=201)

Non-lactating goats(n=29)

*housing time most common

100100

1.26.2Other

6.23.3Weight of the heaviest animal

12.17.1Mean weight

78.682.5Visual appraisal of weight

1.90.9Individual weight

Sheep (n=626)Goat (n=212)

Table 3: Estimation of the dose of anthelmintic used (%) in small ruminant flocks

Treatment procedures against gastro-intestinal parasite infection in small ruminant flocks in NorwayAtle V. Meling Domke1, Christophe Chartier2, Bjørn Gjerde3, Nils Leine4, Synnøve Vatn5, Olav Østerås3, Snorre Stuen1

1Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Sandnes (atle.domke@veths.no); 2AFSSA Niort, France; 3Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo; 4Norwegian Goat Health Service, Oslo; 5Norwegian Sheep Health Service, Oslo

Who do you consult when in doubt about treatment?

1. Neighbors2. Family

.

.

.My veterinarian

Diagnostic investigations in Estonia

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Parasitological faecal investigationsEstonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory

Year

Sa

mp

les

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Cattle virus diarrhoea investigations (var-ious methods)Estonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory

Cattle virus diarrhoea (samples) Positive samples

Year

Sam

ples

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Eimeria investigationsEstonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory

Eimeria (cattle) Eimeria (cattle herds)

Year

Sa

mp

les

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cryptosporidium investigationsEstonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory

Cryptosporidium (cattle) Cryptosporidium (cattle herds)

Year

Sam

ples

Rapid tests

Not sensitive to infection intensity and species!

Individual samples!(min. info.: age)

Do I have eimeriosis?

Species!

Intensity!

Diagnose

Climate Change and parasitesChange in climate opens new opportunities for parasitic pathogens in areas they could previously not survive...

...but it is humans who introduce the new parasites!

New habitats Tourism Import New hosts