Research and extension action for parasitic control in pig breeding families located in Tanguá, Rio de Janeiro

Class, Camila S.C.; Silveira, Renato L.; Palmer, João Pedro S.; Fialho, Priscila A.; Lobão, Lucas F.; Dib, Laís V.; Uchôa, Claudia Maria A.; Barbosa, Alynne S.

doi:10.1590/1678-5150-PVB-6700

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Livestock Diseases • Pesq. Vet. Bras. 40 (10) • Oct 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-5150-PVB-6700 copy

Research and extension action for parasitic control in pig breeding families located in Tanguá, Rio de Janeiro

Pesquisa e ação de extensão para controle das parasitoses em propriedades familiares de criação de suínos localizadas em Tanguá, Rio de Janeiro

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

This study aimed to analyze the parasites infesting pigs and their producers on family farms in Tanguá, RJ, Brazil, and to conduct extension activities between 2018 and 2019. Fecal samples were collected from 132 pigs, as well as, skin scrapings from the ears of 125 animals. In addition, 36 stool specimens from farmers and their families were analyzed. The collected material was processed by direct examination, sedimentation and flotation techniques. Gastrointestinal parasites were detected in 88.6% of the pigs, especially coccidia (71.8%), Balantioides coli (55%), strongyles (40.2%) and Strongyloides ransomi (31.6%) which showed statistically significance (p<0.05). Ectoparasites were identified in 16% of the pigs, mostly Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis (76.2%). Parasites were detected in 19.4% of the humans, including, Entamoeba coli (19.4%), Ascaris lumbricoides (8.3%) and Trichuris trichiura (5.5%). The frequency of B. coli and S. scabiei var. suis (p<0.05) were statistically significant, when analyzing the age group of the animals, having been more detected in the older years, fatterners phase. The pig farmers participated in these activities extension, which included lecture and “field day”, aimed at imparting information about parasites and their prophylaxis. The situation in Tanguá pig farms reinforces the need to carry out programs that provide technical support to these farmers, whose livelihood depends on pig farming.

INDEX TERMS:
Parasitic control; pig breeding; Rio de Janeiro; pigs; gastrointestinal parasites; scabies; rural extension

Colégio Brasileiro de Patologia Animal - CBPA Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, Caixa Postal 74.591, 23890-000 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 21) 2682-1081 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: pvb@pvb.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: alynnedsb@gmail.com

Gastrointestinal parasites	Family pig farming properties
Gastrointestinal parasites	A (n=56)	B (n=5)	C (n=4)	D (n=2)	E (n=1)	F (n=2)	G (n=4)	H (n=1)	I (n=4)	J (n=8)	K (n=21)	L (n=13)	M (n=1)	N (n=10)	Total (n=132)	p value
Balantioides coli	12 (27.3%)	1 (20%)	2 (66.7%)	2 (100%)	1 (100%)	2 (100%)	3 (75%)	1 (100%)	4 (100%)	5 (62.5%)	11 (52.4%)	10 (91%)	1 (100%)	9 (90%)	64 (55%)	<0.0001*
Amoebids	5 (11.4%)	3 (60%)	0	0	0	1 (50%)	1 (25%)	0	2 (50%)	2 (25%)	0	0	0	8 (80%)	22 (18.8%)	0.0744
Coccidia oocysts	33 (75%)	4 (80%)	0	1 (50%)	1 (100%)	0	3 (75%)	1 (100%)	2 (50%)	5 (62.5%)	20 (95.2%)	7 (63.6%)	0	7 (70%)	84 (71.8%)	<0.0001*
Blastocystis sp.	0	0	0	0	1 (100%)	1 (50%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (10%)	3 (2.6%)	1
Ascaris suum	3 (6.8%)	3 (60%)	2 (66.7%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (12.5%)	2 (9.5%)	1 (9.1%)	0	0	12 (10.2%)	0.3591
Nematode larvae	2 (4.5%)	0	0	0	0	0	1 (25%)	0	0	0	3 (14.3%)	0	0	4 (40%)	10 (8.5%)	0.6084
Strongyloides ransomi	7 (15.9%)	3 (60%)	0	0	0	0	2 (50%)	0	0	0	17 (80.9%)	0	0	8 (80%)	37 (31.6%)	0.0112*
Strongyles	14 (31.8%)	1 (20%)	0	2 (100%)	0	0	2 (50%)	1 (100%)	4 (100%)	3 (37.5%)	4 (19%)	5 (45.4%)	1 (100%)	8 (80%)	47 (40.2%)	0.0006*
Trichuris suis	3 (6.8%)	2 (40%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	10 (47.6%)	2 (18.2%)	0	0	17 (14.5%)	0.2159
Capillaria sp.	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (4.8%)	0	0	0	1 (0.8%)	1
Subtotal	44 (78.6%)	5 (100%)	3 (75%)	2 (100%)	1 (100%)	2 (100%)	4 (100%)	1 (100%)	4 (100%)	8 (100%)	21 (100%)	11 (85%)	1 (100%)	10 (100%)	117 (88.6%)
Ectoparasites	A (n=54)	B (n=4)	C (n=4)	D (n=2)	E (n=1)	F (n=0)	G (n=4)	H (n=1)	I (n=4)	J (n=7)	K (n=21)	L (n=12)	M (n=1)	N (n=10)	Total (n=125)	p value
Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis	4 (66.6%)	1 (50%)	1 (100%)	0	0	0	0	1 (100%)	1 (100%)	1 (100%)	4 (80%)	0	0	3 (100%)	16 (76.2%)	<0.0001*
Demodex phylloides	0	1 (50%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (20%)	0	0	0	2 (12.5%)	0.0266*
Arthropod egg	2 (33.3%)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (100%)	0	0	0	0	0	3 (13.6%)	0.0036*
Subtotal	6 (11.1%)	2 (50%)	1 (25%)	0	0	0	0	1 (100%)	1 (25%)	1 (14.2%)	5 (23.8%)	0	0	3 (30%)	20 (16%)

Gastrointestinal parasites		Sex			Age range
Gastrointestinal parasites		Female (n=62)	Male (n=70)	p value	Iniciation (n=58)	Growing (n=48)	Fatteners (n=26)	p value
	Amoebids	11 (19.6%)	11 (18%)	0.81	4 (8.3%)	9 (20.9%)	9 (34.6%)	0.11
	Balantioides coli	32 (57.1%)	32 (52.5%)	0.6	13 (27.1%)	30 (69.8%)	21 (80.8%)	< 0.0001*
	Blastocystis sp.	2 (3.6%)	1 (1.6%)	0.6	1 (2.1%)	1 (2.3%)	1 (3.8%)	0.99
	Coccidia oocysts	35 (62.5%)	49 (80.3%)	0.14	38 (79.2%)	33 (76.7%)	13 (50%)	0.84
Subtotal of samples with protozoa (n=109)		51 (91.1%)	58 (95.1%)	-	43 (89.6%)	41 (95.3%)	25 (96.2%)	-
	Ascaris suum	5 (8.9%)	7 (11.5%)	0.2	7 (14.6%)	2 (4.7%)	3 (11.5%)	0.89
	Strongyles	25 (44.6%)	22 (36.1%)	0.85	13 (27.1%)	22 (51.2%)	12 (46.2%)	0.24
	Nematode larvae	4 (7.1%)	6 (9.8%)	0.74	3 (6.3%)	7 (16.3%)	0	0.42
	Strongyloides ransomi	11 (19.6%)	26 (42.6%)	0.01	17 (35.4%)	20 (46.5%)	0	0.02*
	Trichuris suis	11 (19.6%)	6 (9.8%)	0.12	7 (14.6%)	9 (20.9%)	1 (3.8%)	0.75
	Capillaria sp.	0	1 (1.6%)	1	0	1 (2.3%)	0	0.94
Subtotal of samples with helminths (n=74)		34 (60.7%)	40 (65.6%)	-	28 (58.3%)	32 (74.4%)	14 (53.8%)	-
Total positive samples for gastrointestinal parasites (n=117)		56 (90.3%)	61 (87.1%)	-	48 (82.8%)	43 (89.6%)	26 (100%)	-
Ectoparasites		Female (n=59)	Male (n=66)	p value	Iniciation (n=58)	Growing (n= 48)	Fatteners (n=19)	p value
	Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis	5 (71.4%)	11 (84.6%)	0.59	4 (50%)	8 (100%)	4 (100%)	0.002*
	Demodex phylloides	1 (14.2%)	1 (7.7%)	0.99	2 (25%)	0	0	0.88
	Arthropod egg	1 (14.2%)	2 (15.3%)	0.97	2 (25%)	0	1 (25%)	0.9

Information	Responses in order of frequency
Information	1st place	Farms (%)	2nd place	Farms (%)	3rd place	Farms (%)
Property type	Backyard of the homes	78.6	Little farm	21.4	-	0
Grew fruit trees, vegetables, and herbs	Yes	92.9	No	7.1	-	0
Breed of the pig	Mixed breeds	100	-	0	-	0
Purpose of breeding	Consumption and sale	57.1	Consumption and exchange	28.6	Consumption	14.3
Pig reproduction	No	64.3	Hand Mating	35.7	-	0
Care of piglets born on your property	Teeth cutting. iron shot and anti-parasitic medicine	50	Doesn´t do anytihing	35.7	Teeth cutting. iron shot e breast-feeding after born	14.3
Type of housing for pigs	Pen	78.6	Pen and free pigs in the vicinity of the house	21.4	-	0
Facilities type	Pen with mansory walls	85.7	Pen with wood fence wall	14.3	-	0
Floor pen	Cemented	92.9	Dirt floor	7.1	-	0
Roof pen	Fully covered with fiber cement roof tile	64.3	Partially covered with fiber cement roof tile or french roof tile	28.6	Without roof	7.1
Water to cool the pig	Play on the animal’s body with a hose or bucket	85.7	Water slide on the floor like a little pool	14.3	-	0
Supply of drinking water	Once or twice a day	71.4	Three times or more a day	28.6	-	0
Type of drinking fountains	Cement container attached to the floor	78.6	Cement sink attached on the floor	21.4	-	0
Food provided to animals	Wheat bran, cornmeal, food remnants from producers and commercial establishments	57.1	Wheat bran and food remnants of the producers	28.6	Wheat bran. granulated wheat, food remnants from producers and commercial establishments	14.3
Feeder type	Cement container attached to the floor	92.9	Wooden container	7.1	-	0
Food storage location	Plastic drum type	85.7	Bathtub with lid or does not store	14.3	-	0
Other animals in the farms	Yes	100	No	0	-	0
Observed rats on the property	Yes	64.3	No	35.7	-	0
Observed the pigs itch	Yes	50	No	50	-	0
Noted blood on the pig feces	No	85.7	Yes	14.3	-	0
Vaccinated animals	Yes. association with any injection	78.6	No	21.4	-	0
Anti - parasitc medicine	Yes. worm medicine	85.7	Yes. medicine made with plant or iron shot	14.3	-	0
Annti - ectoparasitic medicine	No	71.4	Yes. cresol-based disinfectant	28.6	-	0
Accumulation of excreta in the pig enclosure (team observation)	Yes	64.3	No	35.7	-	0
Cleaning the enclosures	Removal of feces manually dry and with water, brooms and shovels	57.1	Removal of feces with water	42.9	-	0
Sanitary break	No	100	-	-	-	0
Use of the flamethrower like to fire broom	No	100	-	-	-	0
Cleaning utensils intended only for cleaning the pig facility	Yes	85.7	No	14.3	-	0
Specific clothing only for handling pigs	Yes	50	-	0	-	0
Specific clothing only for handling pigs	No	50	-	0	-	0

Information	Responses in order of frequency
Information	1st palce	Delivered the stool (%)	2nd place	Delivered the stool (%)	3rd place	Delivered the stool (%)	4th place	Delivered the stool (%)
Performed stool examination	Yes	88.8	No	11.1	-	0	-	0
Anti - parasitic medicine	Yes	83.3	No	16.7	-	0	-	0
Intestinal pain	No	61.1	Yes	38.8	-	0	-	0
Diarrhea in the last six months	No	69.4	Yes	30.5	-	0	-	0
Pieces of helminth or whole helminth in their feces	No	88.9	Yes	11.1	-	0	-	0
Observed blood in his stool	No	97.2	Yes	2.7	-	0	-	0
Residence water supply	Public piped water and artesian well	55.5	Artesian well	19.4	Public piped water	19.4	Spring water	5.5
Water treatment	Filtered	52.3	Untreated	47.6	-	0	-	0
Hygiene of roots and leafy vegetables	Washing with water and vinegar	58.3	Washing with water	22.2	Washing with water. vinegar and lemon	5.5	Washing vinegar and bleach water	5.5
Hygiene of roots and leafy vegetables	-	-	-	-	Washing bleach water	8.3	-