Reduced anthelmintic use on 13 New Zealand sheep farms: farmer motivations and practical implementation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aims: To describe the personal drivers, sources of information and gastro-intestinal parasite control methods used by a group of New Zealand sheep farmers identified as low users of anthelmintic (AHC), and their perception of the efficacy and impacts of this approach. Methods: A convenience sample of 13 sheep farmers farming with a policy of reduced AHC use (no pre-determined routine treatments of ewes >19 months old and/or lambs not routinely treated at pre-determined intervals from weaning through to late autumn) were identified. Semi-structured interviews were conducted regarding their farming philosophy, motivations for reducing AHC use, perceptions of the impacts of farming with reduced AHC use, and parasite control practices. Semi-quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics for demographic data and categorising participants’ use of AHC and non-chemical control methods. Qualitative data regarding participants’ motivations, approaches and rationale were analysed by systematic analysis of the transcripts and distillation of key concepts. Results: Participants had been operating with reduced AHC use for 3 to ≥20 years. Key motivators for reducing AHC use were a diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance (AR) or concerns about AR developing. Parasite management information came from a wide range of sources. All respondents expressed overall positive views regarding the impacts of reduced AHC use but detailed information was not available. All identified that regular monitoring, based primarily on subjective animal and non-animal factors was important for their parasite control strategy. Most used faecal egg counts (FEC), often in an ad hoc manner. Five never treated adult ewes, two routinely treated ewes prior to lambing with short-acting AHC and the remainder occasionally treated a small number in low body condition. Four routinely treated some or all lambs at 28–30-day intervals from weaning to late autumn while the remainder based their treatment decisions for lambs on monitored information. All placed heavy emphasis on feeding sheep well, ensuring high post-grazing residuals, and cross-grazing. Conclusions: AR was a key motivator for participants to reduce AHC use, and a range of information sources and decision-making processes were used. Key parasite management practices were monitoring, primarily using subjective assessments, emphasis on feeding stock well and cross-grazing. Clinical relevance: The rising prevalence of AR will likely result in increasing the motivation for sheep farmers to reduce their AHC use. Veterinarians will play a key role in providing advice and assistance to facilitate changes in parasite management.