Journal of Bacteriology & Parasitology

Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites and their Impact in Sheep in Riyom Local Government Area of Plateau State

Maimadu AA¹, Bata SI², Olabode MP³, Akinsulie OC^4*, Waziri IA³ and Sabo JA^{1 1}Department of Animal Health, Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology, Vom, Nigeria
²Department of Veterinary and Science Laboratory Technology, Federal College of Animal Health and Pro, Vom, Nigeria
³National Veterinary Research Institute, Vom, Nigeria
⁴Royal (Dick) Vet School, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
^*Correspondence: Akinsulie OC, Royal (Dick) Vet School, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, Tel: +34671197522, Email:

Received: 06-Jul-2020 Published: 28-Jul-2020, DOI: 10.35248/2155-9597.20.11.375

Introduction

Gastrointestinal parasites are usually classified into nematodes, trematodes and cestode which are the three major types of parasitic helminthes of economic importance in sheep production [1]. Nematodes causes the most pathologies and production loss in sheep [2]. Moreover, studies have shown that some of sheep gastrointestinal parasites are of public health importance and they were indicted in zoonotic transmission to human either by direct contact with sheep feces or indirectly through consumption of contaminated water or food [3]. Majority of farmers in Nigeria raise their livestock under extensive or semi-intensive production system as an addition to main agriculture activities [4]. Most of these non-nomadic farmers buy their stock from the Fulani nomads who actually keep livestock as the main activity for sustenance and income generation. With this cycle both endo and ecto parasitism control becomes critical if economic benefits are to be generated from livestock production [5]. In the tropics the warm and humid climatic condition, the region provide favorable environment for development of worm eggs to infective larvae, thus apart from nutritional problems helminthosis is a limiting factors in the improvement of livestock due to production losses, increase cost of management and treatment and even mortality in severe cases [6]. While among flukes, liver flukes, particularly,

Fasciola spp. was the major threat for sheep and goat production [7]. Also, tiny liver flukes such as Dicrocoelium spp. and rumen flukes (Paramphistomum spp.) were comparatively less important for sheep because only few sporadic losses had been caused by them [8]. Clinical and sub clinical signs of the disease, such as diarrhea, mortalities affect mainly young animals, anorexia, emaciation and poor reproductive performance and even death [9].

Study Location

The research was conducted in Riyom local Government area in Plateau State, Nigeria. Riyom is endowed with a land area of 807 square kilometers (km2), the area is divided into two, Jal and Riyom districtwith a population of 134,557 at the 2006 census and located between latitude 9038”N, longitude 8.460“E and the altitude ranges from around 1200 m-1829 m above sea level, which is predominantly Berom. The LGA has boundaries with Kaduna and Nasarawa State.

Materials and Methods

Saturated sodium chloride salt (NaCl), distilled water, applicator stick, universal bottle, polythene bags, labeling sheet, slides, hand gloves, masking tape, saturated salt solution,beaker,cover slips, universal bottles, spatula sieve, microscope, fecal samples, refrigerator, sheep, flask or coolers, ice packs and marks.

Study design

Sampling was carried out using simple random sampling method. A total of 200 sheep were randomly selected from two districts of Riyom Local government area of Plateau State.

Sample collection and handling

A total of 200 sheep were used for the research work. About 10 g of fecal sample was collected directly from the rectum using disposable hand gloves and freshly fecal samples obtained were place in a sample container label and carried in a flask (cooler) with ice packs then taken to parasitology laboratory of the Federal College of Animal Health And Production Technology, Vom as soon as possible for analyses.

Sample processing

Fecal sample obtained were examined using saturated sodium chloride floatation and sedimentation techniques while eggs and oocytes were identified using the light microscope at X40 objective [10].

Fecal sample

The fecal samples were examined, the present of helminthes eggs using the floatation technique and sedimentation technique as described [11,12].

Data Analysis and Results

The data was analyzed using chi square (chi x2) with p values equal to or less than (p ≥ 0.05) regarded as significant and the Graph Pad prism version 4.0 window, was used to analyzed the distribution of gastrointestinal parasites (Tables 1-3) (Figures 1 and 2).

Table 1: Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites showing relation in sex.

Table 2: Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in sheep with relation in age.

Table 3: Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites showing relation with location.

Figure 1: Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in sheep feces in Riyom (100%) in relation to phylum.

Figure 2: Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in sheep feces in Riyom, in relation to species (100%).

Discussion

Out of 200 fecal samples of sheep examined, 128 were infested with various types of GI parasites the result of the research clearly showed a high prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) parasites in sheep in Riyom LGA with an overall prevalence of 64%. This result is in consonance with the reports of in Jammu province who reported 67.2% sheep were infected with parasites [13]. According to reports about 58.7% and 53.3% of sheep were infested with single or multiple GI parasites, respectively [13,14]. GI parasites was prevalence in sheep with Nematodes having 50.6%, Cestodes 0.5%, Trematode 8.3%, whereas protozoa was more frequent in sheep with 40.6% ( Figure 1 above).

The prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites by sex is shown in Table 1. Male sheep 55 (63.2%) and female sheep 73 (64.6%) were infested with one or more GI tract parasites. Although there was no statistically significant (p=0.478) and (p>0.05) just like authors had found before showing no significant difference (p<0.05) in the prevalence of GI tract parasites between sex, while found significant difference (p<0.05) in the prevalence of GI tract parasites between sex [14,15].

Among the different age group, there no significant difference in the overall prevalence of GI parasites. However, the prevalence of GI parasites was higher in adults with 102 (66.7%) compared to young with 26 (55.3). This result agreed with the report of who report that higher infection in adult (100%) compared to young sheep (76.1%) in Mymensingh, Bangladesh [16]. However, higher prevalence of infection in adult might be due to compromised body defence as they do not developed immunity due to repeated natural infection. Higher prevalence in the young could be attributed to under developed immune system and susceptibility to the infection [17].

Table 3 presented high prevalence of GI parasite in sheep with location. It showed significant difference (p=0.001) on the prevalence of GI parasite due to location, with the highest prevalence of GI parasite observed in location in JAL district 77.0% and Riyom district 55.0%. Geographical location and climate conditions of the experimental area Riyom L.G.A might be responsible for this variation [18-21].

Figure 2 above show the prevalence of infection with different GI parasites identified, namely, Stronglyloidies spp. (8.9%), Oesophagustomum spp. (19.4%), Trichostrongylus spp. (13.9%), Haemanchus (5%), Bunostomum spp. (2.8%), Neoascaris (0.5%), Fasciola spp. (6.1%), Dicrocoelium spp. (1.7%), Paramphistomum spp. (0.5%). Avitellina spp. eggs were the only cestodes found in 0.5% and Eimeria spp. was also the only protozoa parasites found in 40.6% of examined samples respectively. Higher parasitic load was detected for Eimeria spp., Oesophagustomum, Trichostrongylus spp. and Stronglyloidies spp. whereas low parasitic load was prevalence in Dicrocoelium spp., Paramphistomum spp., Fasciola spp.,Haemanchus, Bunostomum, Avitellinaspp and Neoascaris [22-25].

Conclusion

The result of the study clearly showed that most of the sheep (small ruminants), kept in the research study area are infected with gastrointestinal parasites. The owners or farmers may not have noticed the effects because of the subclinical or chronic nature of the infection, which often do not result in mortality. However, their effects is usually manifested in production losses in the form of impairment of productive potential such as decreased growth rate in the lambs, late maturity, weight loss and increased susceptibility to other disease. Therefore, there is need for prevention and control programs against these parasites of sheep in the study area of Riyom. These when carried out will improve the production potential of these animals and the economic well-being of the farmers and country at large.

Recommendation

• More studies on gastrointestinal parasites in Riyom LGA should be carried out.

• Preventive and control measure should be considered in the research study area to reduce the problem of gastrointestinal parasites by embarking on a proper strategic deworming program and good management practices.

• Awareness and enlightenment program to educate sheep farmers should be instituted by the local government authority.

Conflict of Interest

The authors affirm that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Abdu SB, Hassan MR, Yashin SM, Adamu HY, Kabir M, Abdulrashid M, et al. Survey of small ruminants production and management in Riyom L.G.A of plateau state, Nigeria. AdvAgricSci Engineering Res. 2013;3(12): 51.
2. Aga TS, Tolossa YH, Terefe G. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematodes ofHorro sheep in Western Oromiya, Ethiopia. J Vet Med Anim Health. 2013;5(10): 296-304.
3. Bhaia BB, Pathax KML, Juyal PD. Major parasitic diseases and treatment. Textbook of veterinary Parasitology. (3rd edn) Kelyami publisher, New Delhi, India, 2010. pp: 59-207.
4. Knipscheer HC, Sabrani MAJD, Soejana TD. The economic role of sheep and goats in Indonesia. A case study of wet java bulletin of Indonesia economic studies. 1983;pp: 19-74.
5. Knox DP. Development of vaccines against gastrointestinal nematodes. Parasitol. 2000;120(7): 43-61.
6. Yeasmin T, Khanum H, Zaman RF. Seasonal prevalence of arthropoda and Helminth parasites in sheep (Ovisaris). Bangladesh J Zool. 2014;42(1): 45-55.
7. Urquhart G, Aremour J, Dunchan JL, Dunn AM, Jeninis FW. Veterinary Parasitology (2nd edn) Longman, Harlow, United Kingdom 1996. pp: 250-280.
8. Bansal DK, Agrawal V, Hague M.A. A slaughter house study on prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths among small ruminants at Mhow, Indore. J Parasit Dis. 2015;39(4): 773-776.
9. Singh AK, Das G, Roy B, Nath S, Naresh R, Kumar S, et al. Prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasitic infections in goat of Madhya Pradesh, India. J Parasit Dis. 2015;39(4): 716-719.
10. Hansen J, Perry B. The epidemiology, diagnosis and control of helminth parasites of ruminants (2nd edn) ILRAD (International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases), Nairobi, Kenya 1994. p: 171.
11. Soulsby EJL. Helminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals (7th Edn) BaillereTindall, London 1982. pp: 707-773.
12. Khajuria JK, Katoch R, Yadav A, Godara R, Gupta SK, Singh A, et al. Seasonal prevalence ofgastrointestinalhelminths in sheep and goats of middle agro-climatic zone of Jammu province. J Parasit Dis. 2013;37(1): 21-25.
13. Gadahi JA, Arshed MJ, Ali Q, Javaid SB, Shah SI. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites of sheep and goats in and around Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. Vet World. 2008;1(1): 14-17.
14. Emiru B, Ahmed Y, Tigre W, Feyera T, Deressa B. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal parasites of small ruminants in Gechi District, Southwest Ethiopia. Adv Biomed Res. 2013;7(5): 169-174.
15. Admasu P, Nurlign L. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites of small ruminants in Kuarit District, North West Ethiopia. Afr J Bas Appl Sci. 2014;6(5): 125-130.
16. Mazid MA, Bhattacharjee J, Begum N, Rahman MH. Helminth parasites of the digestive system of sheep in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J Vet Med. 2006;4(2): 117-122.
17. Singh E, Kaur P, Singla LD, Bal MS. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitism in small ruminants in western zone of Punjab, India. Vet World. 2017;10(1): 61-66.
18. Fikru R, Teshale S, Reta D, Yosef K. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal parasites of ruminants in Western Oromia, Ethiopia. J Appl Res Vet Med. 2006;4(1): 51-57.
19. Perry BD, Randolph TF, McDermott JJ, Sones KR, Thornton PK. Investing in animal health research to alleviate poverty. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). 2002;p: 148.
20. Ferre I, Bursal CM, Manzanerat E, Rojo-Yazque FA, Buratovichr OF, Manteconr AR, et al. Effect of supplementary feeding on the gastrointestinal Strongylid eggs shedding in grazing pregnant Merino ewes. J Anim Feed Sci. 1995;4(3): 237-245.
21. Coffey L, Hale M. Tools for managing internal parasites in small ruminant: pasture management. National Center for Appropriate Technology, Agriculture Specialists. 2012;1-20.
22. Matebesi P. Merino Breeding in Lesotho. Merino 2014 South Africa. 2014.
23. Shalaby HA. Anthelmintics Resistance; How to overcome it. Iran J Parasitol. 2013;8(1): 18-32.
24. Susan S. Sheep 201, a beginners’ guide to raising sheep: Internal parasite (worm) control. University of Maryland, United States of America. 2013.
25. Vlasoff A, Leathwick DM, Heath ACG. The Epidemiology of Nematode. 2001.