PREVALENCE OF GASTROINTESTINAL NEMATODE INFECTIONS IN

SMALL RUMINANTS IN PALLISA TOWN COUNCIL, PALLISA DISTRICT.

BY
GEORGE EMUSUGUT
BU/UG/2010/192
(Dip Educ-Kyu)

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AND

ANIMAL SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ANIMAL
PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF BUSITEMA UNIVERSITY.

MAY 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Richard A. Alingu my supervisor for
all the guidance and support; Mr. Patrick Emudong laboratory technician NaLIRRI, for
the support in the laboratory work. Special thanks go my family, institutions NaLIRRI
and Busitema University for the financial, material and logistical support during the
course of my study.
Thanks to all the teaching staff of Arapai campus, the small ruminant farmers who availed
animals for the study. This project would not have been successful without your support.
Last but not least, I want to say thanks to my wife, Juliet, mum, and Brother Stephen for
your love, encouragement and support. You people were always there when I needed you.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the problem....................................................................................................... 1
1.3.1 General objective ................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................................................. 2
1.4. Research questions .............................................................................................................. 2
1.5. Significance of the study ....................................................................................................... 3
1.6. Justification of the study ........................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 4

2.1. The biology and lifecycle of nematodes:............................................................................... 4
2.3. Epidemiology and risk factors of GI nematodes in small ruminants ..................................... 5
2.4. Anthelmintic use in the control of GIT nematodes ............................................................... 8
2.5. Economic importance of gastro intestinal helminthes ........................................................... 9

CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND MATERIALS................................................................. 10

3.1. Research approach ............................................................................................................... 10
3.2. Study area ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.3. Sampling technique ............................................................................................................. 10
3.5. Faecal samples collection .................................................................................................... 11
3.6. Questionnaire data acquisition ............................................................................................ 11
3.7. Procedure in diagnosis of nematodes infection ................................................................... 11

iii

3.8. Examination and calculation of results ................................................................................ 12

3.9. Data analysis........................................................................................................................ 12
3.10. Data presentation ............................................................................................................... 13
3.11. Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION .................... 14

4.6.1. The overall prevalence in species ..................................................................................... 16
4.6.2. Prevalence by age ............................................................................................................. 17
4.6.3. Prevalence by Sex............................................................................................................. 17
4.6.4. Prevalence by Management system.................................................................................. 18
4.6.5. Prevalence by location/ward............................................................................................. 18
4.6.6. Prevalence by drug use ..................................................................................................... 18
4.6.7. Prevalence by breed.......................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION. ................................................................................................ 20

5.1. Worm species spectrum identified in Pallisa town council: ................................................ 20
5.2. Prevalence in relation to the epidemiological factors: ......................................................... 20

5.2.1. In relation to age .............................................................................................. 20

5.2.2. In relation to sex............................................................................................... 21
5.2.3. In relation to the breed of small ruminant:....................................................... 21
5.2.4. In relation to the management system: ............................................................ 21
5.2.5. In relation to the location/wards: ..................................................................... 22
5.3. The level of anthelmintic use in Pallisa town council: ....................................... 22
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 23
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDICES: ............................................................................................................................. 26

iv

L.C1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Local Council One

NAADS

National Agricultural Advisory Services

EPG

Egg Per Gram

NALIRRI

National Livestock Resources Research Institute

GIT

Gastrointestinal tract

PGE

Parasitic Gastro Enteritis

FEC

Faecal Egg Count

NEMA

National Environment Management Authority

NUSAF

Northern Uganda Social action Fund

GI

Gastro Intestinal

SEAG

Small East African Goat

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2. OVERALL DISTRIBUTION OF PREVALENCE IN THE GOATS................... 17
TABLE 3. OVERALL DISTRIBUTION OF PREVALENCE IN THE SHEEP .................... 17
TABLE 4. THE DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE AGE GROUPS OF SMALL
RUMINANTS .................................................................................................................. 17
TABLE 5. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PREVALENCE BETWEEN THE
SEXES.(N=178). ............................................................................................................. 18
TABLE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF PREVALENCE AMONG MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.. 18
TABLE 7. PREVALENCE BY THE WARDS ....................................................................... 18
, TABLE 8. LEVEL OF ANTHELMINTIC USE AND PREVALENCE OF INFECTION .. 19
TABLE 9. DISTRIBUTION OF PREVALENCE AMONG THE BREED OF SMALL
RUMINANTS .................................................................................................................. 19

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. BREED OF GOATS KEPT, ............................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 2.MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF GOATS ............................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 3: LEVEL OF USAGE OF ANTIHELMINTIC DRUGS ............................................................................. 16
FIGURE 4: SOURCES OF ANTIHELMINTIC DRUGS. ....................................................................................... 16

vii

ABSTRACT
Across sectional study was carried out in the 3 wards of Pallisa town council, Pallisa
district between January to May 2013 to determine the prevalence of GIT nematode
infections in the small ruminants and the level of anthelmintic drug usage in the control of
the parasites. Samples were taken from 221 goats and 24 sheep and analysed for presence
of GI nematodes using the modified McMaster technique. A structured questionnaire was
administered to 46 farmers to generate data on the of anthelmintic drug usage. The
clinical and questionnaire data were analysed in Epi -info and SPSS respectively. The
overall prevalence infection in the goats and sheep was 72.7% (CI=95%, 66.6%-78.1%).
In goats and sheep alone, the prevalence was 74.2% (CI=95%, 67.9%-79.8%) and 58.3%
(CI=95%,36.6%-77.9%), respectively.The most common parasite species encountered in
single species infections, were haemonchus 40.0% (CI = 95% 33.8%-46.4%),
trichostronglus 15.1% (CI=95%, 10.9%-20.2%), strongyloides 2.4% ( CI=95%,0.9%5.3%), trichuris 3.3% (CI=95%,1.4%-6.3%), while mixed infections had
haemonchus+trichostrongylus 6.1% (CI=95%,3.5%-9.9%), haemonchus and nematodirus
0.8% (CI=95%,0.1%-2.9%). A high prevalence was recorded in the animals aged 12
months and above (55.6%) and there were significant differences between age (x2
=15.698, df=3, p=0.001), management systems (x2= 10.038, df=4 ,P= 0.040) wards
(x2=9.566, df=2,p == 0.008).and the prevalence.
A higher proportion of farmers (58.7%) applied anthelmintic drugs with albendazole
being the most (28.3%) applied drug
In conclusion there was a high prevalence of GI nematodes in small ruminants 72.7% (CI
= 95% 66.6%-78.1%) despite the high level of anthelmintic drug usage (58.7%). Age,
Management system, and location played a significant role in the epidemiology of the
disease.

viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction
Livestock production (including small ruminants) contributes 17% of Agricultural gross
domestic product (AGDP), representing about 7.5% of total gross domestic product
(GDP) (Byarugaba, 2007; Mugenyi, 2005) in Uganda. Small ruminant farming is one of
the most common livelihood activities in Uganda with 39.2% of the households owning
goats (12.5 million goats) and 3.4 million sheep. 2.5million and0.57 million households
keep goats and sheep in Uganda respectively (National livestock census report, 2008).
Eastern Uganda leads with the highest estimated number of households owning goats and
sheep at 0.74 and 0.57 million households respectively.
Small ruminants play an important role in the culture and economics of the indigenous
people of Africa (Boomker et al., 1994). They are especially attractive for poverty
reduction and improvement of family food security and livelihood. Small ruminants meat
constitutes a major source of animal protein in Pallisa town council, being consumed
across ethnic cultural and religious groups.
Gastro intestinal parasitism ranks among the leading diseases of small ruminants in
Pallisa town council with effects as economic losses, lowered productivity, reduced
animal performance and weight gain, retarded growth, cost of treatment and mortality are
caused by the parasites.The problem to be addressed through this research is the GI
nematodiasis and ineffective use of anthelmintic drugs.
1.2. Statement of the problem
The production systems of small ruminants are currently characterized by a high diversity
of management types and production intensity (Carla, 2006).This also means that the
helminthes spectrum and intensity of infections vary greatly, especially in areas with
several types of production systems like Pallisa town council.
One of the challenges in small ruminants production in Pallisa town council is disease of
which helminthiasis ranks among the leading (annual production department report
2010, Pallisa district) with effects as economic losses, lowered productivity, reduced

animal performance and weight gain, retarded growth, highest cost of treatment and
mortality are caused by the parasites. According to Magona(1999), prevalence of
gastrointestinal nematodes is estimated at 70% in pastoral goats in Uganda.
Little information is published on the prevalence of GIT nematodes in the present study
areas, where sheep and goats are important assets to the community/ local farmers. The
level of anthelmintic drug usage is unknown.
The current study attempts to provide a better understanding of GI nematodes prevalence
in the small ruminants of Pallisa town council.
1.3 Objectives:
1.3.1 General objective
To determine the prevalence of GIT nematodes infection and effects of risk factors
associated with the disease in the small ruminants in Pallisa town council, Pallisa district.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
i.
To determine the prevalence of GIT nematodes species in small ruminants in
Pallisa town council.
ii.

To determine the relationship between ages, sex, breed location and management
systems and the prevalence of GIT nematodes in small ruminants.

iii.

To establish the level of anthelmintic drug usage by livestock farmers in control of

GIT nematodes in small ruminants in Pallisa town council.

1.4. Research questions

i.
What is the extent of prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes species
infection in small ruminants in Pallisa town council?
ii.

What is the relationship between ages, sex, breed, location and

management systems and the prevalence of GIT nematodes in small
ruminants in Pallisa town council?

iii.

What is the level of anthelmintic usage by livestock farmers in control of

GIT nematodes in small ruminants in Pallisa town council?

1.5. Significance of the study

The study evaluated association of GIT nematodes infection with risk factors and initially
added to the existing body of knowledge on the epidemiology of GIT nematodes in the
small ruminants.
Data on the prevalence of GIT nematodes, species and risk factors associated with this
prevalence rate is lacking in Pallisa town council and yet important in planning strategic
helminthes control.
The study will also contribute to the body of knowledge with respect to GI nematode
prevalence and control methods by the farmers.
1.6. Justification of the study
The determination of the prevalence of GIT nematodes species in small ruminants in
Pallisa town council and their relationship with epidemiological factors will provide
better understanding GI nematodes, which is important in devising appropriate control
and prophylactic strategies by extension staff and farmers. This is through provision of
information for them to schedule correct and timely control measures against nematodes
in small ruminants, thus minimizing losses to the owners.
The study would also provide data on the level of anthelmintic drugs usage in the study
area and these findings will help in planning GIT control strategies by the stakeholders in
animal health and production in Pallisa district.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The biology and lifecycle of nematodes:
Nematodes are minute, non-segmented worms that belong to several genera such as;, ,
Trichostrongylus spp and Haemonchus contortus(stomach round worms) Trichuris
spp(whipworms).,Strongyloides(thread worms), Oesophagostomum spp among others that
fall under the class Nematoda of the phylum Nemathelminthes.(Soulby,1982). They are
also known as roundworms due to their cross sectional appearance and are ubiquitous in
nature, mostly infesting the soil, but can feed on plants, and animals (Maposa, 2009).
All grazing goats and sheep are infected with a community of strongylid nematodes,
whose combined effect is known as parasitic gastro-enteritis PGE (Sissay., 2007).
Nematodes infections, thus refers to a complex of conditions caused by parasites of the
nematoda.
The basic life of nematodes is that the adult female lays eggs, which hatch into larvae.
The eggs may hatch outside the body of the host or after ingestion and is controlled partly
by moisture and temperature. The successive larval stages are L1, L2, L3, and L4 (preadult/juvenile). Infection of the host is mostly through ingestion of free living L3 (Sissay,
2007; Soulsby, 1982).
Lifecycle of gastrointestinal nematodes below (Picture: Katarina Nslund).

2.2. Prevalence of GI nematodes infections in the small ruminants

Studies conducted by Nwosu et al ( 2007) , reported three nematode egg types recovered
with strongyle egg type, (22.5% in sheep and 35.4% in goats) being the most prevalent
species followed, respectively, by Trichuris (5.9% in sheep and 4.1% in goats) and
Strongyloides (4.9% in sheep and 4.1% in goats) egg types. The results suggested

therefore that Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus and Strongyloides species were the major
contributors to small ruminant helminthiasis in that study area.
Faizal& Rajapakse (2007),also found that gastrointestinal nematode eggs in 89% of the
kids, 94% of the young goats and 84% of the adult goats in their study .Their
identification of gastrointestinal nematodes revealed that Haemonchus contortus had
(90%) followed by Oesophogostomum spp. (8.5%) and Trichostrongylus spp. (1%) in all
three age categories examined. They found that the egg counts in the kids were
significantly lower than that in young goats (P<0.05).
Also,Kanyari et al (2009) in their study in Kenya, found the prevalence of various types
of nematode parasites in the sheep and goats respectively as follows: strongyles 80%,
90%; Strongyloides spp 5%, 13%; Trichuris spp.
Haemonchus contortus was reported to be the most prevalent nematode larvae in faecal
cultures with a percentage composition of 73% in goats and 62.8% in sheep (Mbae.,
2002) while Trichostrongylus spp followed (20.7% and 25.6%) in goats and sheep
respectively. Others were Oesophagostomum spp. (5.7% and 9.8%) and Bunostomum
spp.(0.6% and 1.8%) in sheep and goats respectively. Strongyle eggs per gram (EPG) of
faeces in young animals were significantly higher (P< 0.0001) than in mature animals.
Magona(1999), also reported a prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes at 70% in the
pastoral goats in Uganda, while Maposa(2009) reported 69.7% prevalence in the goats of
Gweru district in Zimbabwe, with the common parasites encountered being
haemonchus,trichostrongylus,teladosargia and oesophagostomum.
2.3. Epidemiology and risk factors of GI nematodes in small ruminants Epidemiology
is the study of diseases or infections in host populations and the factors that determine
their occurrence (Sissay., 2009). In addition, it includes investigation and assessment of
other health-related events in livestock, such as productivity and resistance to the drugs
used to control these infections (Sissay, 2007). Although all grazing sheep and goats may
be infected, low worm burdens, usually have little impact on animal health and as the
burden increases, effects in form of reduced weight gain and decreased appetite occur.
With heavier burdens, clinical signs may develop. The occurrence of nematodes infection
is a result of; an increase in the number of infective stages on pasture, an alteration in host

susceptibility, the introduction of susceptible stock into an infected environment ,the

introduction of infections into an environment.
In-efficient parasite removal from the host animals is due to; poor administration
techniques, the use of sub-standard anthelmintic drugs, and or the development of
anthelmintic resistance (Urquhart et al, 1996; Sissay., 2007). The major risk factors
involved are the parasite factors (including epidemiology of different species), the host
factors (genetic resistance, age, and physiological status) and the environmental factors
(climate, nutrition, stocking density, and management).
Host factors include issues such as nutritional status, physiological state, ages, sex,
breed/genetic resistance, and levels of acquired or innate resistance. Poor nutrition
increases susceptibility of the host. Adequately fed animals are better able to tolerate the
effects of parasites than the ones on a poor diet (Faizal&Rajapakse, 2001). For example,
animals infected with blood sucking parasites such as Haemonchus will maintain their
haemoglobin levels for as long as their iron intake is adequate (Urquhart et al., 1988).
This is usually the case that happens when the quality of feed is such that the animals do
not ingest sufficient iron and start to die. The physiological status of the host, such as
pregnancy and lactation, especially if nutrition is not increased to meet the fetuses and
milk needs, may increase susceptibility to parasitic infection. Under such a case, low
worm burdens can become detrimental to feed conversion of the dam thus poor growth of
the neonate /foetus. Goats are especially susceptible in gestation and lactation (Urquhart
et.al.; 1988). The phenomenon of per parturient rise (PPR) is an extremely important
aspect of epidemiology and should be considered when designing control
programs(Kaplan.,2004) as ewes and does lose much of their protective immunity to GI
nematodes around the time of kidding/lambing(-2 to+8 weeks).enhancing pathogenicity,
therefore,parasite egg production and contamination of the environment with infective
larvae increases,thus a dangerous situation for highly susceptible young kids/lambs.
Age is well known to have a significant effect on the susceptibility to infection attributed
to increased resistance to infection and or re-infection with age, due to immunity as a
result of intake of small numbers of larvae early in life (Assoku 1981). Even though these

animals develop immunity with age, the majority remain susceptible until such time as
they have been exposed to infection, for instance, if they are moved into an endemic area.
Kaplan(2004), observed that GI nematodiasis is most severe in young animals in their
first year on pasture since immunity to GI nematodes is slow to develop and is
incomplete , thus even mature goats are at considerable risk. Further, any one or
combination of factors such as poor nutrition, concurrent diseases, stress, over stocking
or pregnancy/lactation can cause loss of immunity to parasites. Most animals become
more resistant to primary infection with internal parasites as they become older but adults
not previously exposed to the helminthes are at risk if moved into an endemic area
(Urquhart et al.1988). There is also an inverse relationship between the ages of the goats
and the mean nematode burden (Boomker et al., 1994). In their study, very young kids
where noted to have low burdens and this was attributed to a diet consisting of mainly
milk and only small amounts of vegetation containing infective larvae. However age was
found not have a significant influence on the faecal egg count (Magona&Musisi, 2002).
There is also a great variation in resistance between genotypes. Some species/genotypes
may be more resistant to helminthes infection than others with the variability being
genetically determined (Urquhart et al., 1988). For example, it has been shown that the
red masai sheep, indigenous to East Africa, is more resistant to Haemonchus contortus
than exotic breeds such as the dorper(Nginyiet al, 2001). Studies have also reported that
goats are more susceptible than sheep to a similar challenge (Baxendell, 1984), other
studies have reported that sheep usually suffer heavier burdens because of the difference
in grazing habits ( Tembley et al.,1996).
The environment has an important role in the epidemiology of helminthes infections as
development of the infective stages depends on temperature and moisture, with levels of
pasture contamination fluctuation in relation to rainfall (Nginyi.,et al 2001). Similarly, the
total gastrointestinal nematode burden were found to be positively related to climatic
conditions especially rainfall (Pandey et al.1994) and similarly to faecal egg counts
(Specht 1982., Yadav and Tendon 1989). The cycle of infection-pasture contaminationreinfection-more pasture contamination can rapidly transform pastures into very

dangerous places for small ruminants, especially in a warm environment, where

transmission occurs throughout the year( Kaplan.,2004).
The influence of global warming plays a role in the occurrence of parasitic diseases. An
increase in temperature may permit development of parasites where previously ambient
temperatures were too low to allow for it (Coles, 2001) or eradicate the parasites should
the temperatures increase above tolerable levels.
The intensity of infection with nematodes has been related to stocking rates
(Ccabaret&Gasnier ;1994). And for this to have an impact, all or most of the animals
must be susceptible. This makes the immune status of the animal very important.
2.4. Anthelmintic use in the control of GIT nematodes
Gastro intestinal nematodes are the single most important health problem of sheep and
goats and have been traditionally controlled by frequent administration of anthelmintic
drugs, but the emergence of multiple drug resistant parasites have threatened it and new
approaches are needed(Kaplan.,2004).
The use of prophylactic anthelmintic has been preferred as a possible intervention strategy
in developing countries to reduce the impact of GIT parasitism. Sissay(2007) observed
that in most regions of Africa, there is limited availability and in frequent use of
anthelmintic by most small-scale farmers thus, the development of anthelmintics
resistance could be expected to low. Effective use of anthelmintic remains un avoidable
in profitable worm control (Van Wyk, Hoste ,Kaplain and Besier ;2006) as the control of
GIT nematodes control in the small ruminants remains largely dependent on the use of
anthelmintic drugs. Kaplan (2004) proposed new recommendations for parasite control in
response to the changing paradigm of anthelmintic use that included knowledge about the
parasite, the animal and the drugs, to develop strategies that maximize effectiveness of
treatments, while also decreasing the development of drug resistance-smart drenching
programs. Implementation of such programs is only possible with help and involvement
of small ruminant veterinarians and other animal health workers.
However, treatment is often expensive for small scale farmers and in correct use often
induces

drug

resistance.

Anthelmintic

resistance

involving

particularly the

gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants is escalating globally, to the extent that in

certain countries, such as South Africa, has reached alarming proportions and is affecting

practically all anthelmintics (Van Wyk, 2001). This is attributed to the frequent use of
anthelmintics to continual use of remedies with the same chemical composition and mode
of action (Urquartet al; 1988).
Resistance may be partial or complete. In the case of some anthelmintics, partial
resistance may temporarily be overcome by increasing the dosage (Maposa, 2009).
Treatment with anthelmintics, when clinical parasitism is apparent is done to prevent
mortalities, not to control the parasites. This is the frequently used method by the rural
small ruminant keepers. Unfortunately, once clinical disease is seen in an animal, it may
take 2-3 months for it to return to a physiologically normal state, during which time it can
be easily overcome by further infections and losses are inevitable (Faizal et al., 2001).
The above factors indicate insufficient knowledge of farmers on the biology/ecology of
the parasites and their reluctance to adopt new technologies.
With the crisis of anthelmintics resistance, there is an urgent need to develop alternative
methods-novel non-chemical controls. As these controls become available and widely
applied, anthelmintics will only be needed for life saving therapy when control
fails(Kaplan.,2004) become It has been realized that there is no single effective method of
reducing worm infections. According to (Venturia., 2002; Sissay., 2007), the alternative
methods include; strategic deworming, grazing management, provision of good housing,
improved nutrition, and use of herbal plants.
2.5. Economic importance of gastro intestinal helminthes
Gastrointestinal parasitism is widely regarded as the most serious constraint to
development of small ruminant enterprises in the humid and tropical conditions
(Carmicel, 1993), particularly in developing countries (Tariq et al., 2010). Economic
losses, lowered productivity, reduced animal performance and weight gain, retarded
growth, cost of treatment and mortality are caused by the parasites affecting the income of
the smallholder farming communities (Perry et al., 2002). Most of these losses are caused
by the gastrointestinal nematodes (roundworms). However, Trematodes (flukes) and
Cestodes (tapeworms) parasites may also contribute to detrimental worm burdens in
animals (Rahmann&Seip, 2006).
Within Sub Saharan Africa,(De hoan&Bekure,1991), estimated that the endo-parasites
cause mortality and production losses in the order of $2 billion annually.

CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1. Research approach
A cross sectional study which involved faecal samples collection from small ruminants to
determine the prevalence of GI nematodes and administration of questionnaires to farmers to
generate data on anthelmintic usage in the control of GI nematodes was carried out in Pallisa
town council.
3.2. Study area
The study was conducted at Pallisa town council in Pallisa district which is located in Eastern
Uganda. The district lies between 00 45N and 110 52 E and longitudes 33047E and 340 05 E
(Nema, 2004). The sub-county practices two main economic activities, subsistence
agriculture and animal husbandry. The livestock kept include pigs, poultry, goats, sheep, and
cattle which are found in most households. Small ruminant farming is one of the most
common livelihood activities in Uganda with 39.2% of the households owning goats (12.5
million goats) and 3.4 million sheep. 2.5million and0.57 million households keep goats and
sheep in Uganda respectively (UBOS & MAAIF, 2009). Eastern Uganda leads with the
highest estimated number of households owning goats and sheep at 0.74 and 0.57 million
households respectively.
These animals are vital for poverty reduction and improvement of family food security and
livelihood due to modest starting capital easily acquired by the poor, easily tended by the
weak, women, and children; provide valuable nutrients and the growing demand for small
ruminant meat.
3.3. Sampling technique
Simple random sampling was done so that 46 households and 3 parishes of the study
population would have an equal chance of being included. Accordingly, names of small
ruminant farmers owning on average 7 animals were obtained from LC 1 of the villages in
each of the three parishes sampled. The names were written on slips of paper and then put
into a box. The slips of paper were thoroughly mixed and then the required number of slips
for the sample picked one after the other without replacement.
3.4. Sample size determination
The population of study in Pallisa town council was 8,644 goats and 2,372 sheep (UBOS &
MAAIF, 2009)

10

The appropriate sample size for the population survey was determined largely by three
factors that is; the estimated prevalence of the variable of interest, the desired confidence
level, and the acceptable margin of error (Margnani, 1997). The sample size was determined
basing on the estimated prevalence of 70% in pastoral goats in Uganda (Magona, 1999),
using the following formula according to Margnani(1997):
n=t2xP(1-P)
m2
Where:
n= sample size,
t=CL at 95% (standard value of 1.96),
P=estimated prevalence in the area..70% (0.7),
m=margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.5),
n=1.962 x 0.7(1-0.7)

0.52

0.8067 = 323
0.0025

n=323
Depending on the herd size, 5 small ruminants were sampled from each household giving a
total of 46 participating households. The number of small ruminants sampled and examined
were 245 due to financial and time constraints.
3.5. Faecal samples collection
Faecal samples were obtained per rectum using clean polythene to prevent contamination.
When sufficient amount of 3g was estimated, using with 1-3 pellets depending on their size,
the sample was placed inside a screw-capped bottle that served as a container. 3mls of
formalin (5%) solution was immediately added to each faecal sample and sealed prior to
transportation to National Livestock Resources Research Institute (NaLIRRI) laboratories in
Torero district for analysis.
3.6. Questionnaire data acquisition
A structured questionnaire was pretested and adjusted accordingly. This was then
administered to 46 households to generate data on anthelmintic drug usage.
3.7. Procedure in diagnosis of nematodes infection
The laboratory technician and the researcher carried out nematodes diagnosis, egg counting
and species identification.
The presence of nematodes infection was detected with the Modified McMaster technique
and expressed as number of eggs per gram of faeces (Thienpont et,al.,1986). The Food and
11

Agriculture Organisation Guide to Veterinary Diagnostic Parasitological procedures were

used as follows;
3g of fresh faeces were weighed and placed in a beaker.
Faecal sample were crushed using a mortar and pestle.
42ml of water were added to the faecal sample in the beaker
45ml of saturated sodium chloride solution were added as the floatation fluid.
The contents of the beaker were stirred thoroughly with a fork/spatula.
The faecal suspension was filtered through a tea strainer into the second container/beaker.
The filtrate in the second beaker was stirred with a Pasteur pipette.
A sub sample as the filtrate was withdrawn using the pipette while being stirred.
The first and second compartments of the McMaster counting chamber were filled with the
sub sample.
The counting chamber was allowed to stand for 5 minutes. This was to allow the eggs to
float to the surface and the debris to go to the bottom of the chamber.
3.8. Examination and calculation of results
McMaster egg counting method (sedimentation and floatation methods) were used to
determine the number of eggs per gram of faeces in the positive faecal samples (Urquhart.,et
al 1987). The eggs in each counting chamber were examined at low magnification (x10)
under the compound microscope. High power(x20, x40, or high index/HI oil was not used
because it would break the thick upper plate of the McMaster slide.
All eggs within the engraved areas/grid of both chambers were identified and counted of each
chamber, ignoring those outside the squares. The total numbers were multiplied by 100, a
simple conversion factor, to give the eggs per gram of faeces (EPG). (The RVC/FAO guide).
Laboratory observations were recorded in an egg count and species summary sheet. An egg
per gram count of 1000 and above was considered to be significant. The threshold infection
level according to (Blood et al., 1994) for treatment is 500 eggs per gram.
In this study, no larval culture (coproculture) or necropsy was done, the identification of the
different species was on the basis of morphological appearance and size of the eggs (Soulby;
1982, Bondarenko, et al .;2009; The RVC/FAO guide to veterinary diagnostic parasitology).
3.9. Data analysis
Questionnaire data was entered in the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (version 16.0)
while Laboratory data was entered into the MS excel (version 2007) and later exported to
Epidemiological Package for Information (Epi-Info) (version3.4.2) for analysis.
12

All variables were summarized into frequencies and Chi- square (x2) test used was at 95%
confidence level 5% allowable error to determine the association between the risk factors
(breed, age, location, and sex and management system) and the prevalence of the infections.
3.10. Data presentation
Data obtained was presented in the form of tables, and bar charts
3.11. Ethical considerations
Introduction letters were obtained from the concerned authorities (University and local
leadership), putting the researcher in a better position to conduct the survey.
Animal welfare concerns were taken into account to avoid inflicting a lot of pain to the study
animals and ensuring safety of the animals and the researcher, in addition to wearing
protective gear (overcoat, overall, gloves and gumboots) .

13

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Clinical and questionnaire data was acquired and analysed in SPSS and Epi-Info packages
and the results were as follows;
4.1. Profile of the Households
Majority of small ruminant farmers,(39.1%) had attained primary education, 28.3% tertiary
education, 17.4% secondary,

while 15.2%% had no formal education.

65.0% of the

respondents interviewed were males and 35.0% were females.

4.2. Sex and number of small ruminants sampled:
A total of 245 small ruminants were sampled where 66 (n=245) were males and 179 (n=245)
females with 6 animals on average sampled per household.
4.3.Breed of small ruminants kept
The study found that single breed stock of goats kept was predominantly Small East African,
65.12%, followed by the Boer goats 18.60%, and Toggenburg at 4.65% while the mixed
stock consisted Small East African and Boer 9.30%, and Small East African and Saanen had
2.32%
Two breeds of sheep kept were the East African black head and the red masaai at 20 percent
and 80 percent respectively.

Figure 1. Breed of goats kept,

4.4. Management system
Tethering (75.0%) was identified as the most practiced management system of the goats,
followed by communal grazing (10.0%), and zero-grazing (7.5%). While 5% of the farmers
14

practiced a combination of tethering and communal grazing and 2.5% herding and communal
grazing. Sheep on the other hand were both tethered (75.0%) and communally grazed
(25.0%).

Figure 2.Management systems of goats

4.5.Anthelmintic drug usage
The study also found that 58.7% of the farmers used anthelmintic drugs, and 41.3% did not.

15

Figure 3: level of usage of antihelmintic drugs

The type of anthelmintic drugs used ranged from albendazole (28.3%), levamisole (19.5%)
and ivermectin (8.7%).
Majority of the farmers, 95.3%, obtained anthelmintic drugs from open markets and 4.7%
obtained from animal health workers

Figure 4: Sources of anthelmintic drugs.

The frequency of anthelmintic drug usage was found to be
predominantly twice in a year (34.8%), once a year (19.6%) and
thrice a year (4.3%).
Table 1. Frequency of anthelmintic drug usage in a year
Frequency of drug

Frequency

Percent

Once

19.6%

Twice

16

34.8%

Thrice

4.3%

Total

27

58.7%

use (n = 27)

The study also found that all the farmers 27 (n = 27) that used anthelmintic drugs applied
them themselves rather than use animal health workers.
4.5. Prevalence of nematode infections in Pallisa town council:
4.6.1. The overall prevalence in species
The prevalence of GIT nematodes in the goats only was 74.2% (CI =95%, 67.9%-79.8%)
while in sheep only, 58.3 % ( CI =95%, 36.6%-77.9%.)
16

H.contortus was the dominant nematode species of the sheep and goats, 40% (CI=95%,
33.8%46.4%), Trichostrongylus spp, were the next most prevalent parasites 15.1%
(CI=95%, 10.9%-20.2%). Others, including Strongyloides 2.4%,( CI=95%,0.9%-5.3%) and
trichurisspp 3.3%(CI=95%,1.4%-6.3%) in single species infections. Those in mixed species
infections included; haemonchus and Nematodirus 0.8% ( CI=95%,0.1%-2.9%), haemonchus
and trichostrongylus 6.1% (CI=95%,3.5%-9.9%) and Trichuris and haemonchus 0.8%
(CI=95%,0.1%-2.9%).
Table 2. overall distribution of prevalence in the goats
Result Goats (n = 221)
Frequencies

Percent

Negative

57

25.8%

Positive

164

74.2%

Total

221

100%

Table 3. overall distribution of prevalence in the sheep

Result - Sheep (n = 24)
Frequencies

Percent

Negative

10

41.7%

Positive

14

58.3%

Total

24

100%

4.6.2. Prevalence by age

Prevalence of GI nematodes was highest in animals more than 12 months (55.6%), followed
by 29.2% in animals 5-12 months and least (15.2%) in those aged 1-4 months. There was a
significant difference between age and prevalence (x2 = 15.698, df = 3, P=0.001)
Table 4.Distribution along the age groups of small ruminants
Age group (n = 178)
No. positive
Percent
>12

99

55.6%

1-4

27

15.2%

5-12

52

29.2%

Total

178

100%

4.6.3. Prevalence by Sex

The prevalence of GI nematodes infection was higher in females (75.3%) than in male
animals (24.7%). There was no significant differences between prevalence of nematodes
infection and sex (x2 =1.629,df=1,p=0.202).

17

Table 5. Distribution of prevalence between the sexes.(n=178).

Sex (n = 178)
No. positive
Percent
Female

134

75.3%

Male

44

24.7%%

Total

178

100%

4.6.4. Prevalence by Management system

The prevalence was highest in communal grazing (80.8%) followed by communal grazing
and tethering (77.8%), tethering (72.5%), and least in zero grazing (57.1%). There was a
significant difference between the prevalence of GI nematodes infection and management
systems (x2= 10.038, df=4 ,P= 0.040)
Table 6. Distribution of prevalence among management systems
Management
No. positive
Percent
systems (n = 178)
Communal grazing

21

11.8%

Communal and

21

11.8%

Tethering

132

74.2%

Zero grazing

2.2%

Total

178

245

tethering

4.6.5. Prevalence by location/ward

The results of the study indicated highest prevalence of GI nematodes infection in Kaucho
ward ( 52.8%), followed by Hospital ward (39.8%) and least in Westward ( 7.3%). There was
a significant difference between the prevalence of infection and the wards (x2=9.566, df=2,p
== 0.008).
Table 7. Prevalence by the wards
Wards (n = 178)
No. positive

Hospital
Kaucho
Westward
Total

Percentage

71
94
13
178

39.8%
52.8%
7.3%
100.0%

4.6.6. Prevalence by drug use

The results showed there was a high prevalence of nematodes infections within the
18

anthelmintic drug users, 98 (n=178) compared to 80 (n = 178) with non drug users. However,
there was

no significant differences between drug use

and the prevalence of GI

nematodes infections (x2=2.937, df=1, p = 0.087 ).

Table 8. Level of Anthelmintic drug usage and prevalence of GI nematode infection
Drug use (n=178)
No. positive
Percent
No

80

44.9%

Yes

98

55.1%

Total

178

100%

4.6.7. Prevalence by breed

The analysis of prevalence in different breeds of small ruminants as indicated in table 9
below indicated that Saanen had11.7%, Boer cross 24.2%, East African blackhead1.7%,
Small EastAfrican goats 63% , red masai 6.2% and Toggenburg cross had 3.4%. There was
no significant between prevalence and breed of small ruminants (x2=8.994,df=6, P = 0.174).
Table 9 showing the distribution of prevalence among the breed of small ruminants
No. positive
Percent
Breed of small ruminants
(n=178)
Boer

43

24.2%

EA blackhead

1.7%

Red masai

11

6.2%

Saanen

11.7%

SEAG

112

63%

3.4%

178

100%

Toggenburg
Total

19

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION.

5.1. Worm species spectrum identified in Pallisa town council:
These studies indicated that Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus, Nematodirus, strongyloides and
trichuris species were commonly identified helminthes of sheep and goats in this part of
Pallisa. Of these parasites, H. contortus was the most prevalent, representing 40% of the total
worm burdens recorded in laboratory egg counts.
The observed results, of highest EPGs with the largest percentages of H. contortus, were in
accordance with studies in other countries in Ethiopia: Sissay.,2007 Kenya: Maingi et al.,
1993; Nginyi et al., 2001; Zimbabwe: Pandey et al., 1994 ; Maposa.,2009; Uganda: Magona
& Musisi(2002) in pastoral goats in Uganda.
The high biotic potential of H. contortus, results in this parasite rapidly taking up dominance
at times when environmental conditions on pasture are favorable for the development and
survival of the free living stages (Sissay.,2007). In addition, overstocking, which is a major
problem in many communal pastures (Hansen & Perry, 1994), may have contributed to the
increased availability of infective larvae of GI nematodes on pasture.
The prevalence of infection in the goats was higher, 74.2% than in the sheep, 58.3%. This
agrees with Pomroy et al., 1986; Baxendell (1984) who reported goats to have higher burdens
when only on pasture to graze. Vercruysee (1983), Papadoulous et al (2003) however
observed higher endoparasites prevalence in sheep than in goats ,in areas where only browse
was freely availed. The above results reflect how grazing behavior and management system
accounts for this differences between the species.
The high overall prevalence in both goats and sheep(72.7%) could be attributed to the
alteration of host resistance due to the inappropriate management systems with tethering
being predominant, poor nutrition, stocking densities, variation in host factors such as age,
physiological status, the ineffective parasite removal techniques employed and the parasite
factors.
5.2. Prevalence in relation to the epidemiological factors:
5.2.1. In relation to age
While absolute figures might seem to indicate higher prevalence in adults (49.2%), than in
young ones (31.1%) and least in the kids/lambs (19.7%), the prevalence in the infection did
show existence of a significant trend (x2 =15.698,df=3 P = 0.001,) related to the age of small
ruminants with kids having least infection, followed by young ones and highest infection in
the adults.
20

This is in agreement with the findings of Boomker et al., 1994; Kaplan (2004) and
Assoku(1981) It is generally recognized that young sheep/goats are more susceptible to
parasite infection than are sheep/goats older than 1 year of age due to increased resistance to
infection and or re-infection with age from intake of infective larvae on contaminated
pasture. However, in this study the apparent high egg output of the adult sheep/goats was
likely to be due to a failure of their naturally acquired immune responses to parasitism
(Sissay.,2007),
The findings, however, disagree with Magona & Musisi(2002),who found that age does not
to play a major role.
5.2.2. In relation to sex
There was higher rate of prevalence in females (73.1%) against26.9% in males. However,
there was lack of significant difference between prevalence of nematodes infection and sex of
the animals.(x2=1.629, df=1,p= 0.202,).
This disagrees with the findings of Urquhart et al (1998), who reported existence of some
evidence that male animals were more susceptible than females to some helminthes infection.
However, the physiological status of the host, such as gestation and lactation may have
increased susceptibility to parasitic infection, especially if nutrition is not increased to meet
fetus and milk needs.
5.2.3. In relation to the breed of small ruminant:
The study also looked at the effect of breed of small ruminant in the prevalence of GI
nematodes infection with absolute figures indicating higher overall prevalence in the goats
breeds than in sheep breeds There was no significant difference of prevalence in relation to
the breed of small ruminants ( x2=8.994 ,df=6,p= 0.174,). These findings disagree with
Nginyi et al(2001);Urquhart et al,(1988) that reported great variation in resistance between
genotypes.
The lower prevalence in the red masai than EA blackhead could be due to genetic variations
as the red masai has been shown to more resistant to haemonchus (Nginyi et al.,2001),while
the higher prevalence in the small east African compared to the boer and toggenburgs could
be due to the common practice of tethering indigenous goats with less use of anthelmintics as
opposed to the improved breeds.
5.2.4. In relation to the management system:
The percent prevalence of infection within the management system indicates that prevalence
was highest in communal grazing(80.8%), followed by communal grazing and
21

tethering(77.8%), tethering(72.5%), and least in zero grazing(57.1%).The was existence of

significant differences between the prevalence of GI nematode infections and management
systems ( x2=10.038, df=4, P =0.040,). This findings agrees with Magona & Musisi (2002),
and Faizal & Rajapakse(2001) who found higher FECs in extensive system than intensive
The results reflect inability of such animals to select forages, reducing nutrient supply which
enhances pathogenicity of GIT parasites(Hood,2004).
In addition, traditionally reared animals are raised by the poor smallholders who cannot
afford suppressive anthelmintics,to reduce parasitism, have limited access to animal health
workers or do not actively seek their services(Hood.,2004).
5.2.5. In relation to the location/wards:
The study reflected existence of a significant difference in prevalence of infection and the
wards (x2=9.566,df=2,p=0.008,). The observed variation in prevalence of GIT nematodes
infection across the wards reflects how the environment plays an important role in the
epidemiology of the infection, since development of infective stages (pre-adults/juveniles)
from the eggs depends on temperatures and moisture while levels of pasture contamination
fluctuation differ in relation to locations (Nginyi et al.,2001;Pandy.,et al.,1994).
5.3. The level of anthelmintic use in Pallisa town council:
The study in absolute figures also revealed that the level of anthelmintic use among small
ruminant farmers was higher (58.7%) with frequency of use/administration being
predominantly twice in a year (34.8%), but with a high overall prevalence in both the goats
and sheep respectively.
This result could be attributed to the fact that 95.3% of the farmers obtained anthelmintics
from open markets rather than from the animal health workers (4.7%) and in addition
administered by them. These findings could indicate ineffective parasite removal techniques
that involved use of single dose packages and poor administration thus likelihood of
anthelmintic resistance.

22

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Conclusions
Age, Management system and Location played roles in the prevalence of the infection. The
overall prevalence was found to be high (72.7%) despite and the level of anthelmintic drug
usage being higher (58.7%).
This could be attributed to the fact that 95.3% of the farmers obtained anthelmintics from
open markets rather than from the animal health workers (4.7%) and in addition administered
by themselves indicating ineffective parasite removal techniques that involved use of single
dose packages and poor administration thus likelihood of anthelmintic resistance.
6.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, a number of GI nematodes control and prophylactic
strategies could be used in Pallisa town council and these include:
1. To ensure proper anthelmintic usage and to preserve anthelmintic efficacy small ruminant
farmers should seek and obtain drugs and services from animal health workers.
2. The animal health extension personnel could incorporate in their routines regular
monitoring of fecal egg output of the small ruminant animals, detect anemia, and well
provide treatment to the animals based on the outcomes of these analyses.
3. Practice proper management of the small ruminants by;
i.

Ensuring proper utilization of locally available feed resources like crop residues,
natural pastures and browses and nutritional supplementation for young and lactating
animals

ii.

Goats are natural browsers, so browse areas should be used as much as possible, to
reduce the parasite transmission as the goats ingest forages farther from the ground.

iii.

Use of sound pasture management can prevent resistance by minimizing dependence

on dewormers as anthelmintics alone cannot control parasites. Managing pastures so
that safe grazing areas are available allows movement of animals to a safe area,
reducing the number of treatments needed.

23

REFERENCES
Anonymous, (2005): Faecal egg counts (interpretation).New South Wales department of
industries www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/vetmanual/specimens-bydiscipline/parasitolgy/eggcounts.
Boomker,J.Horak,I,G.,Ramsay,K.A,(1994):Helminths and arthropod parasites of indigenous
goats in the northern Transvaal, Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research,61;13-20.
Cabaret.J, and Gasnier,N. (1994): Farm history and breeding management influences on the
intensity and specific diversity of nematode infection of dairy goats. Veterinary Parasitology
53.219-232.
Coles, G.C, 2001: The future of veterinary Parasitology. Vet. Parasitol. 98:31-39.
Faizal, A.C.M, Rajapakse, R.P.V.J; (2001): Prevalence of coccidian and gastrointestinal
nematodes infections in crossbred goats in the dry areas of Sri lanka. Small ruminants
research 40;233-238
Hood G.M; (2004): Anthelmintics resistance in small ruminant parasites: implications for
small holders in South East Asia: Australian centre for international Agricultural research.
MagonaJ.W. and Musisi.G.,(2002): Influence of age, grazing

system, season and agro

climatic zone on the prevalence and intensity of gastrointestinal strongylosis in Ugandan

Goats. Small ruminants research 44. 187-192.
Maposa leonard. (2009): The prevalence and economic importance of nematodes infection in
goats in Gweru district in Zimbabwe, faculty of veterinary science, university of Pretoria.
MargnaniRobert.(1997):Sampling guide. Impact food security and nutrition monitoring
group, Arlington.
Mbae, Cecilia Kathure ( 2002 ): A study on the prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in
sheep and goats northern Turkana District, Kenya Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture
and Technology, Kenya
NginyiJ.M,Duncan,J.L,MellorD.G,SteraJ.M,Wanyangu

S.W.,

Bain

R.K.,Gatongi.P.M.,(2001): Epidemiology of parasitic gastrointestinal nematode infections of

ruminants on smallholder farms in central Kenya. Research vet.sci, 70:33-39.
P W N Kanyari, J M Kagira and R J Mhoma( 2009): Prevalence and intensity of
endoparasites in small ruminants kept by farmers in Kisumu Municipality, Kenya
24

PandeyV.S, Ndao.M, Kumar.V, (1994):Seasonal prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in

Communual land goats from the Highveld of Zimbabwe. Vet. Parasitol.,51:241-248.
Perry.B.D,RandolphT.F, Mcdermott,J.JSonesK.R and Thornton.P.K( 2002): Investing in
animal

health

research

to

alleviate

poverty.

InternationalLivestockResearch

Institute,Nairob,.Kenya. 148.
Rahmann .G.andSeip.H.( 2006): Alternative strategies to prevent and control endoparasite
diseases in organic sheep and goat farming.
Ray .M.Kaplan.,(2004): Responding to the emergence of multiple drug resistant haemochus
contortus. Department of infectious diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine.University of
Georgia,Athens,Georgia 30602.
SissayMenikorMekonnen., (2007): Epidemiology and anthelmintic resistance and its
management. Swedish university of agricultural sciences, Uppsala, 2007. ISBN: 1652-6880.
Soulby.J,(1982): Helminthes, anthropods and protozoan of domesticated animals,7 Edition,
TindallLondon,u.k.pp579-624,766-766..9.
SpechtE.J.K.,(1982): Seasonal incidence of helminthes in sheep and goats in South
Mozambique. Vet.Parasitol.,11:317-328.
Tembley.S,Hansen .J.W.,(1996): Helminthes diseases of small ruminants in the tropics:
Review of epidemiology and control strategies.pp123-127.
The RVC/FAO Guide to Veterinary Diagnostics Parasitology.
Thienpont.D.,Rochette,.F.,Vanparijsi,.O.F.J.,(1986):

Diagnosing

helminthiasis

by

Coprological examination. 2nd Edition.Janssen Research Foundation, Belgium.

Uganda bureau of statistics & ministry of Agriculture,(2008); National livestock census
report.
Urquhart.G.M.,Armour,J.,Duncan.J.L.,Dunn.A.M.,JeningsF.W.,(1988):

Veterinary

parasitology. ELSB Edition longmanu.k.

Virginia Mauro Venturina.,(2002): Worm control status in small ruminants in the Phillpines.
Yadav.A.K.,Tandon.v.,(1989):Gastrointestinal nematode infections in sub tropical and humid
zone of India. Vet. Parasitol.,33:135-142

25

APPENDICES:
Appendix 01. The questionnaire administered
Dear sir/madam,
Iam Emusugut George a student of Busitema university,carrying out aresearch project on
Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in the small ruminants of Pallisa Town
Council.
Section A: Household identification

Questionnaire number

Animal number .

Age of the animal (months)

Sex of the animal

Name of village..

Name of Parish/ward...

Name of respondent

Name of the enumerator.

Section B: Household and individual profile

Gender of respondent

Male

No formal
education

Female

Literacy highest level of education respondent has attended

Primary 2

Lower
3
Secondary

Higher
4
Secondary

Section C: Livestock data and management

Category and number of livestock kept

26

College 5

University
& beyond

Livestock category

Number

Cattle
Goats
Sheep
Pigs
Other (specify)

Type of goats kept

Local 1

Exotic 2

Type of sheep kept

Local 1

Exotic 2

Other (specify) 3

Breed of goats kept

Boer
cross

SEAG 1

Other (specify) 3

Breed of sheep kept

Black head 1

Herding

herding

Other (specify) 3

Red masaai 2

Other (specify) 3

Management system of goats

1

Tethering 2

Paddocking 3

zero grazing 4

Other
(specify)

Management system of sheep

1

Tethering 2

Paddocking 3

zero grazing 4

Other
(specify)

Source of water for the animals

Piped water 1

Bore hole 2

River/stream

27

Other
4
(specify)

Section 4: Use of anthelmintic drugs

Do you use anthelmintic drugs on your farm?

Yes

Goats 2

Sheep 3

Twice 2

Levamisole 3

Other (specify) 5

Other (specify) 6

Four times 4

Other (specify) 5

Which animal category do you deworm? (tick as appropriate)

Whole
2
flock

Who applies the dewormers?

Farmer 1

Levafas

Thrice 3

selected
sheep/goats 1

Pigs

How often do you apply the drugs in a year?

Once 1

What type of anthelmintic drugs are you currently using?

Albendazole 1

No

If yes, what type of livestock do you apply the drugs on?

Cattle 1

Extension worker 2

Other (specify) 3

Where do you obtain your anthelmintic drugs from?

Open
market 1

Veterinary department
2

28

Other (specify) 3

Have you ever changed from one anthelmintic to another?

Yes
1

If yes, which anthelmintic drug were you using before the current one?

Albendazole 1

No

Ivermectin 2

Levamisole 3

e
Other
t
5
(specify)
c

Levafas 4

What are the reasons for the change of anthelmintic?

Advice from
the vet

Not effective

Not available

THANK YOU

29

4 Expensive

Appendix. 02. Photograph showing the researcher analyzing samples.

Appendix.03, Showing morphological apperance of commonly observed nematode

species

under

the

microscope:

nematodirus(11),haemonchus(17),trichuris(9)

and

trichostrongylus(13).Adapted from RVC/FAO Guide to veterinary diagnostics parasitology.

30

Appendix 04 Map showing location of study area

31