| Literature DB >> 31641296 |
M S Ram Prasad1, S Meenakshi Sundaram2, P Tensingh Gnanaraj3, C Bandeswaran4, T J Harikrishnan5, T Sivakumar4, P Azhahiannambi6.
Abstract
AIM: A trial was conducted to assess the influence of parasitic load on the lambs reared under the intensive system, continuous grazing, and rotational grazing systems of management.Entities:
Keywords: FAMACHA© scores; ewe lambs; grazing systems; parasitic load
Year: 2019 PMID: 31641296 PMCID: PMC6755402 DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2019.1188-1194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet World ISSN: 0972-8988
The mean±SE and analysis of variance of fortnightly strongyle egg count per gram in lambs of three treatment groups.
| Fortnights | T1 (intensive system) | T2 (rotational grazing) | T3 (continuous grazing) | F-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1860c±0155.00 | 4310b±1173.0 | 7170a±701.9 | 11.94 |
| 2 | 2700b±0614.00 | 3500b±967.0 | 7480a±788.0 | 10.16 |
| 3 | 2270b±1004.00 | 3020b±710.0 | 7280a±617.0 | 11.17 |
| 4 | 2840b±0854.00 | 3260b±791.0 | 6970a±817.0 | 8.74 |
| 5 | 2810b±0838.70 | 3390b±797.1 | 6943a±817.0 | 7.40 |
| 6 | 1760b±0337.00 | 3850a±645.0 | 4570a±508.0 | 8.09 |
| 7 | 1230b±0289.00 | 3130a±459.0 | 4380a±789.1 | 8.22 |
| 8 | 1250b±0216.10 | 2220b±562.8 | 4150a±897.0 | 5.59 |
| 9 | 1120a±0191.30 | 1980ab±246.0 | 3760a±1098.0 | 4.17 |
| 10 | 1260a±0224.00 | 1960ab±317.0 | 3700a±983.0 | 4.23 |
Significant at 5% level (p<0.05).
Significant at 1% level (p<0.01). Means bearing different superscript in the same column differ significantly
Figure-1Overall percentage of reduction in different treatment groups.
Percentage of reduction between the first and subsequent fortnights.
| Treatment | Percentage of reduction between first versus subsequent fortnights | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 versus 2 | 1 versus 3 | 1 versus 4 | 1 versus 5 | 1 versus 6 | 1 versus 7 | 1 versus 8 | 1 versus 9 | 1 versus 10 | |
| T1 | −32.53 | 1.40 | −20.36 | −60.65 | 11.047 | 37.96 | 37.60 | 39.84 | 36.84 |
| T2 | −70.71 | −58.23 | −14.44 | −36.53 | −45.62 | −8.07 | 19.22 | 50.44 | 44.14 |
| T3 | −11.90 | −11.55 | −8.049 | 3.034 | 27.00 | 31.66 | 33.70 | 50.44 | 44.15 |
Analysis of variance of difference in mean egg count per gram between the initial and subsequent fortnight.
| Treatment | p-value - initial fortnight versus subsequent fortnights | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 versus 2 | 1 versus 3 | 1 versus 4 | 1 versus 5 | 1 versus 6 | 1 versus 7 | 1 versus 8 | 1 versus 9 | 1 versus 10 | |
| T1 | 0.570 | 0.890 | 0.640 | 0.340 | 0.330 | 0.038 | 0.012 | 0.050 | 0.016 |
| T2 | 0.601 | 0.359 | 0468 | 0.525 | 0.361 | 0.126 | 0.068 | 0.068 | 0.069 |
| T3 | 0.770 | 0.910 | 0.836 | 0.836 | 0.008 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.018 | 0.010 |
*Significant at 5% level (p<0.05).
Significant at 1% level (p<0.01). Means bearing different superscript in the same column differ significantly
Monthly mean±SE and Kruskal–Wallis H-test analysis of FAMACHA© scores of lambs under different treatment groups.
| Treatment groups | Months | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | February | March | April | May | |
| T1 | 3.0±0.15 | 3.0±0.15 | 2.9±0.15 | 2.8±0.15 | 2.7±0.15 |
| T2 | 3.5±0.15 | 3.5±0.15 | 3.5±0.15 | 3.4±0.15 | 3.2±0.15 |
| T3 | 4.1±0.12 | 4.1±0.14 | 4.0±0.14 | 3.7±0.14 | 3.2±0.14 |
| p-value | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.064NS | 0.121NS |
*Significant at 5% level (p<0.05).
Significant at 1% level (p<0.01). Means bearing different superscript in the same column differ significantly
Figure-2Mean±SE egg count per gram of lambs under the three treatment groups.
Figure-3Correlation between the mean temperature of the day (°C) and the egg count per gram at each fortnight.
Figure-4(a) Correlation between FAMACHA© scores and egg count per gram (EPG) –continuous grazing; (b) Correlation between FAMACHA© scores and EPG – rotational grazing; (c) Correlation between FAMACHA© scores and EPG – intensive system.