Worm control practices on free-range egg farms in Australia and anthelmintic efficacy against nematodes in naturally infected layer chickens

This study investigated worm control practices by free-range egg farmers and the efficacy of the commercial anthelmintics levamisole (LEV), piperazine (PIP), flubendazole (FLBZ) and fenbendazole (FBZ) against gastrointestinal nematodes on two free-range layer farms in Australia. An online survey comprising 36 questions was designed and implemented using SurveyMonkey. The survey contained questions about participant demographics, farm and flock characteristics, perceived intestinal worm importance, infection monitoring, deworming and other worm control practices. A link for the survey was emailed to free range egg producers from their industry body in December 2019. The anthelmintic efficacy trial was conducted in a total of 229 layers naturally infected with Ascaridia galli, Hetarakis gallinarum, Capillaria spp. and/or tape worms. Chickens received a single oral dose of LEV (28 mg/kg), PIP (100 mg/kg), FBZ (10 mg/kg) or LEV-PIP co-administered at their full individual doses, and FLBZ (Flubenol (R)), 30 ppm or 60 ppm) in the feed over 7 days. Anthelmintic efficacies were estimated by both worm count reduction (WCR %) and excreta egg count reduction (EECR %) tests 10 days after start of treatment. The survey with a response rate of 16/203, revealed that worm infection was of moderate concern to the producers and the majority (68%) felt that the current anthelmintics work effectively. The level of understanding of worms, monitoring and control practices did not reveal any major deficiencies of concern. The most commonly used anthelmintic was LEV (73%) followed by PIP (45%). Based on a standard cut-off value (>= 90%), LEV, LEV-PIP, and FBZ attained the desired efficacy but PIP exhibited reduced efficacy against immature A. galli (61-85%), all stages of H. gallinarum (42-77%) and Capillaria spp. (25-44%). FLBZ was highly effective against all stages of roundworms and tapeworm infections. Even though there was some association between the efficacies estimated by WCR % and EECR % the latter was poorly associated in the natural infection model and hence does not provide a reasonable alternative for assessing anthelmintic efficacy when immature stages of the lifecycle are included. These results show no evidence of loss of susceptibility to the tested anthelmintics on these farms supporting the perception of producers that participated in the survey that current treatments work effectively. The reduced efficacy of PIP against some species and immature stages is related to its spectrum of activity rather than providing evidence of emerging resistance.