Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-gkscv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T05:48:07.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in Counts of Haemonchus contortus Eggs in the Faeces of Housed Sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

M. R. Brambell
M. R. Brambell
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Mordun Institute, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Evidence is given which confirms the hypothesis of Peters (1941) that nematode eggsin McMaster slides are distributed according to the Poisson series.

2. No significant variation in egg counts due to the time of sampling was found in any of four sheep observed over a period of ten days.

3. A significant negative correlation of egg concentration with faeces output was found in three of the sheep (in the fourth it was negative but not significant).

4. The variation from day to day was relatively much less marked when the counts were expressed as total daily output than when expressed simply as eggs per gram.

5. No significant correlation was found between egg concentration and the dry matter proportion of the faeces.

6. A table derived from the Poisson formula is given to aid in the determination of the range of populations from which an egg count might reasonably have been drawn.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , March 1963 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ewer, T. K., and Sinclair, D. P., 1951.—“Internal parasites in Canterbury sheep.” N. Z. J. Set. Tech., Sec. A, 32, 35–48.Google Scholar
Field, A. C., Brambell, M. R., and Campbell, J. A., 1960.—“Spring rise in faecal worm-egg counts of housed sheep, and its importance in nutritional experiments.” Parasitology, 50, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A., 1954.—Statistical methods for research workers, 12th edition. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., and Yates, F., 1953.—Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. 4th edition. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. C. and Quenouille, M. H., 1952.—“A statistical examination of the worm egg count sampling technique for sheep.” J. Helminth., 26, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, N. D. and Clark, D. T., 1956.—“Correction factors for faecal consistency in making nematode egg counts of sheep faeces.” J. Parasit., 42, 658–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., 1958.—“Equipment for the separate collection of faeces and urine from sheep.” Proc. Brit. Soc. Anitn. Prod.,31–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., Parnell, I.W. and Rayski, C., 1950.—“Further observations on the seasonal variation in worm egg output in Scottish hill sheep.” J. Helminth., 24, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1941.—“Dilution egg-counts and the Poisson series.” J. Helminth., 19, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G., AND Leiper, J. W. G., 1940.—“Variation in dilution-counts of helminth eggs.” J. Helminth., 18, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southcott, W. H., 1955.—“Observations on the removal of Oesophagostomum columbianum Curtice, from sheep grazing on green oats and on pastures.” Aust.J. agric. Res., 6, 456–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W., 1952.—“Variation in the egg content of sheep faeces within one day.” J. Helminth., 26, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W.,1953.—“Variation in the nematode egg content of sheep faeces from day to day.” J. Helminth., 27, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar