Anthelmintic resistance in sheep nematodes in Australia: the need for new approaches

R. B. Besier and S. C. J. Love

Abstract

Sheep worm infections increasingly threaten the profitability of the Australian sheep industry as the prevalence and severity of anthelmintic resistance continues to rise. Field experiments have demonstrated that the use of drenches that are of reduced efficacy due to resistance can reduce wool production by 10% and significantly reduce sheep sale value. The major factor in benzimidazole (BZ) and levamisole (LV) resistance, and in part macrocyclic lactone (ML) resistance in Haemonchus contortus, is considered to be the excessive frequency of treatment. In Ostertagia circumcincta, ML resistance appears to be related chiefly to interactions between the environment and the time of treatment, where resistant worms surviving drenches are not significantly diluted by worms acquired after treatment. Resistance to the BZs and LV affects almost all Australian sheep farms, and on most drench efficacy is now below a useful level. ML resistance is common in O. circumcincta in Western Australia, and increasingly prevalent in H. contortus in summer rainfall regions. Closantel resistance is a major threat to H. contortus control in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. The organophosphate naphthalophos, especially when used in combination with other compounds, has proved useful although variable in efficacy. It is essential that the sheep industry adopts approaches that minimise reliance on chemical control, such as the breeding of worm resistant sheep, use of specific grazing strategies for worm control and apply flock treatment tactics to minimise further resistance development. New non-chemical technologies under development are also expected to contribute to more sustainable worm control. Nutritional regimens that minimise the impact of worm infections and enhance the immune response require investigation and integration into sustainable control practices.

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43(12) 1383 - 1391 (2003) doi:10.1071/EA02229