To: WormMail mailing list.

In: Proceedings of the Australian Sheep Veterinarians 2012 Conference (Australian Veterinary
Association Conference, Canberra, May 2012), pp 14-18.
Brown Besier (a), Jill Lyon (a), Darren Michael (a), George Newlands (b), David Smith (b)
(a) Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia
Albany WA 6330 Australia
(b) Moredun Research Institute
Penicuik, Midlothian, EH 26 0PZ, UK

The paper above is reproduced here with the permission of the senior author.

I have attached it as a PDF rather than pasting the text into this newsletter to ensure that the figure in the paper reproduces faithfully. (Much like Haemonchus does).

Relatively few of those who might be interested in this have ready access to the Proceedings of the ASV/AVA, hence its pre-publication here.


SL, 24 Oct 2012


Besier2012 – Haemonchus vaccine-Proc Australian Sheep Veterinarians-Australian Veterinary Association Conf Canberra May 2012.pdf

WRML. Summer drenching cattle – Drs Bruce Watt/Mandi Carr, Bathurst NSW

To WormMail mailing list. WRML.20121023. Summer drenching cattle -Drs Bruce Watt (and Mandi Carr)

Recently I posted a newspaper article by Bruce Watt summarising the results of some on-farm trials regarding liver fluke in young cattle in the NSW central tablelands (Tablelands LHPA).

Bruce of course is the Senior District Veterinarian for the Tablelands LHPA and along with Jeff Eppleston and other colleagues (in this case (below), Dr Mandi Carr) does some very interesting trials on-farm in the Central Tablelands of NSW. This is done with the assistance of farmers, and also at various times MLA, pharmaceutical companies, NSW DPI etc.

In a recent (Oct 2012) article for the local (Bathurst) newspaper, Bruce outlined some work done by Mandi Carr. (Reprinted here with permission). I’ll make one or two comments after the article.


It may have snowed last Friday (12 Oct) but this week spring is back. It is warm, snakes and lizards are out, magpies are bombarding bike riders and barley grass is running into head. All this means that our thoughts turn to … summer drenching.

Firstly, what about summer drenching in cattle? As I have mentioned previously, with some exceptions, adult cattle do not need drenching. However, what about young cattle?

We know that cattle for at least the first six months post weaning are susceptible to worms and if untreated can be 60 kg lighter than their counterparts in which worms are controlled.

We also know that as the spring progresses, Ostertagia (small brown stomach worms) that cattle ingest increasingly burrow into the stomach wall for a summer sojourn. They then re-emerge in the autumn, causing diarrhoea and weight loss (known as Type 2 Ostertagiasis).

Therefore it seems like a good idea to treat young cattle in the summer with a mectin type drench (most effective in removing summer sojourning Ostertagia) both to remove the worm burden and to prevent type 2 Ostertagiasis.

Mandi Carr during her time with us sought to answer this question with the help of 18 tablelands cattle producers. She weighed 1,846 spring 2009-drop heifers from these farms in October-November 2010. Half the heifers, chosen at random, were treated with doramectin (Dectomax, Pfizer) at the manufacturer’s recommended dose rate while the other half were not treated. The heifers were re-weighed in February/March 2011.

The heifers on these 18 farms averaged 429 kg at the start of the trial in October November 2010. By the end of the trial, those heifers that were not drenched gained on average 29 kg while those that were drenched gained on average 36 kg.

This 7 kg difference is so small that the statisticians tell us that it could well have been achieved by chance and is therefore not significant.

Of interest, Mandi found that the average worm egg count (WEC) at the start of the trial was 22 epg. At the end of the trial, in the autumn the WEC of the control group was 48 epg, and the treatment group 31 epg. These results show that egg counts in older cattle are usually low and in my opinion, difficult to interpret.

Our conclusion, from this trial is that least over the summer 2010-2011 it was of no benefit to drench 14-16 month old heifers.

As a general recommendation, I therefore advise that tablelands calves should be drenched, vaccinated with 5:1 and pestivirus and treated with selenium at weaning. They should be drenched and treated for fluke about 3 months later followed by a move onto low worm pastures.

If you used a mectin and especially a long acting mectin at weaning, I suggest that this winter drench should preferably be an alternative to a mectin, acting as an exit drench. Finally, calves should be drenched again in spring, again followed by a move onto a low risk pasture. For heifers, as this is before joining, it is also an ideal time to give a pestivirus booster.

Based on Mandi’s trial results a summer drench is unnecessary. However, heifers probably benefit from a drench pre-calving (although I have no evidence either way on this). This is the ideal time for a 5:1 booster.

While it seems that a summer drench is unnecessary for cattle, it is vital for sheep. More on that next week.”

Some comments (incl comments on ostertagiosis, resistance etc)

* As always, when interpreting trial findings, take account of the context. While general principles may hold, the particulars may not apply to other areas.

* Bruce mentions untreated weaner cattle can be 60 kg lighter than their counterparts in which worms are controlled. This is a reference to earlier trials done by Bruce and Jeff. (See a summary slide (below) from a presentation to producers relating to Central Tablelands and Victoria trials with weaner cattle). Untreated weaners were 60 kgs lighter than weaners which were essentially worm free (achieved by suppressive drenching for the sake of the experiment). In between the untreated weaners and the ‘worm’ free weaners were the weaners treated according to common (‘traditional) district practice.

* In my opinion, this trial further confirms that (roundworm) worm egg counts (WECs) on their own are not always a reliable guide to worm burdens in cattle or the impact of these burdens, at least in our backyard (NSW) and extensive grazing systems. (As opposed to Fluke WECs in cattle: in my opinion, any positive fluke WEC is significant).

* You need to consider if your cattle are at risk of Type 2 ostertagiosis. (Experts, presumably classicists, tell me that disease is more properly referred to as ‘ostertagiosis’ but common usage is ‘ostertagiasis’. (I can be likewise pedantic and say most people don’t say ‘angst’ or ‘kilometre’ properly 🙂

This condition (ostertagiosis, not pedantry) occurs as a result of the accumulation of Ostertagia immature (early L4) stages in the wall of the 4th stomach (abomasum). These larvae, which in the case of ‘Type 2’, are in a state of arrested development (hypobiosis, ‘inhibited’), resume development more or less simultaneously, causing much damage to the abomasum, with leakage of protein from the gut, rapid weight loss and profuse diarrhoea.

Prior to the onset, WECs may be low, and the cattle may appear normal. The condition seems to have been somewhat less common since the advent of the ‘mectin’ (macrocyclic lactone) drenches in the 80s. These are the most effective of the broad-spectrum drenches against adult and inhibited Ostertagia in cattle. The next most effective are the BZs (benzimidazoles).

The last case of Type 2 ostertagiosis I saw was when I was a District Veterinarian in the Glen Innes district in the early 1980s (pre-‘mectins’), however colleagues in other areas still see cases of ‘Type 2’.

Of course, if drench resistance in cattle worms becomes more common – and there is no reason why it won’t – we might see more cases of “Type 2”. And, if the findings of Leathwick and Miller (2012) generally hold true (see here https://wormmailinthecloud.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/wrml-efficacy-of-oral-injectable-and-pour-on-formulations-of-moxidectin-against-gastrointestinal-nematodes-in-cattle-in-new-zealand/ ), then it may happen more often if drenches are given frequently by way of pour-on or injection rather than oral (along with the effect of resistance on efficacy) and/or if single active broad-spectrum drenches are used instead of combination broad-spectrum drenches. Unfortunately in Australia we have very few oral ML drenches for cattle. This may change. And of course pour-ons are very convenient – and can assist with ectoparasite control as well – I understand that. We do now have a combination broad-spectrum cattle drench in Australia, the pour-on (topical) drench “Eclipse” (abamectin+levamisole(Merial)). Others may be in the pipeline.

If designing a cattle worm control program, ‘Type 2’ is one thing you need to consider. Disease from ‘Type 2’ Ostertagia infections in beef cattle in NSW typically occurs in summer/autumn in animals around 18 months old, although it can occasionally occur in older (and younger) animals. (‘Type 2’ is as famous among cattle veterinarians as ‘E-Type’ is among Jaguar enthusiasts).

*2010 and 2011 (when Mandi did her trials) were La Niña years with above average rain in most of NSW.

* Rumours that I am Bruce Watt’s publicist are exaggerated.

The above is my interpretive summary of these trials. Note the URLs above so you can read the full reports for yourself.




WRML. WormFaxNSW.2012-09 (sheep) + comments on fluke and roundworms + parasitology comics

TO: WormMail mailing list (recip. undisclosed)

The September issue of WormFaxNSW is online. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/resources/periodicals/newsletters/wormfax

WormFax is a monthly summary of WormTest results for sheep from the NSW DPI State Vet Lab and private lab, Veterinary Health Research, at Armidale, NSW. http://www.vhr.com.au/

My thanks to them for supplying summary data each month. (Confidentiality is maintained; identifying data is removed).

Liver fluke

A smattering of fluke worm egg counts (WECs) were done across the state with some of them being positive for liver fluke eggs.

On that matter, if producers get abattoir feedback from the National Sheep Health Monitoring Program indicating liver damage consistent with liver fluke in consignments of their sheep, they should not immediately jump into a fluke treatment program unless they already have on-farm evidence (e.g. tests for liver fluke) that this is warranted.

I see abattoir feedback via the NSHMP as a signal to further investigate a potential problem on farm and, having garnered further information, to take appropriate action.

Tests for liver fluke? (in no particular order):

1. Post mortem findings. Liver pathology consistent with fasciolosis (fibrosis, thickened/corded bile ducts/haemorrhagic or necrotic or fibrosed tracts in the parenchyma (fleshy bits) of the liver) +/- the presence of fluke in the liver. (It’s best if fluke are seen as well). Sometimes researchers and the like check gallbladder contents for fluke eggs as well.

2. Liver fluke worm egg count.(sheep, cattle and other species). Available from most parasitology labs. You need to specify a fluke egg count. The technique is different from that used for roundworms.

3. Liver fluke antibody ELISA (blood test) (Sheep and cattle). Available from NSW DPI’s State Vet Lab. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/vetmanual/contact . An antibody test, being a measure of the host’s immune response to a pathogen (disease agent), not detecting the presence of a pathogen itself, is an indirect measure of the presence of a disease/a disease agent. Plus antibodies take some time to rise and then, when the disease/disease agent has gone, to fall (lag and latency). An advantage of the antibody ELISA is that it reportedly is about 30% more sensitive than the liver fluke egg count at picking up the presence of fluke in a mob. A disadvantage, apart from ‘lag and latency’ is that blood samples have to be collected.

4. Liver fluke faecal antigen test. Faecal samples. Cattle. Not sure about other species. As an antigen test, this test directly measures for the presence of the fluke (or ‘bits of fluke’) itself. Available from CSU Wagga: http://www.csu.edu.au/vetservices/vdl

I haven’t gone to any extent into the relative costs and benefits of these tests. Nothing is perfect – or free (not in parasitology, anyway).

You don’t need to have clinical disease ( anaemia, bottle jaw, jaundice, ill-thrift, deaths) to have economically significant production losses from liver fluke.

On the other hand, you don’t want to treat for liver fluke unnecessarily, or excessively. This requires a bit of figuring out and probably requires some testing, including repeat testing, and expert advice.

I mention repeat testing because liver fluke is usually only present on parts of an affected property (where there is suitable snail habitat), and the number of fluke (in snails, on pasture, inside host animals) will wax and wane with the weather, seasons, fluke treatments, and grazing management / patterns.


Although it is still early Spring, and not a wet one like recent years, there are some high round worm WECs around the traps. (But also some low ones).


Weaners. Armidale. WormTest average WEC = 4060 eggs per gram of faeces (epg). Highest WEC was 9480. 96% black scour worm (BSW). 4% barber’s pole worm (BPW). (High WECs are not always due to BPW)

Lambs. Armidale. Average WEC=2520 epg. Highest = 14320. 98% BPW. I guess these might have been weaners ie not what I call lambs.

Ewes. Coonabarabran. Ewes. Average WEC=6860 epg. Highest = 15320 epg. No larval culture.

Ewes. Nyngan. Average WEC=2460. Highest=5440. No larval culture.

Don’t guess, WormTest. (and the extra $25 or so for a larval culture is usually worth it).

And, when you do drench, follow it with a DrenchCheckDay10 i.e a WormTest 10 days (actually, 10-14 days) after a broad-spectrum drench, and preferably one on the day of or just before drenching as well.

In the case of cattle, this test is done 14 days after a broad-spectrum drench (and preferably one on the day of treatment as well).

If you are testing the efficacy of a fluke drench (in sheep, cattle , goats or alpaca), this test, if using a fluke egg count, is done 28 days after the fluke drench.

If using the European fluke faecal antigen test from CSU Wagga, the faecal sample is collected 14 days after using a fluke drench.

The fluke antibody ELISA is not really suitable for testing flukicide efficacy as it takes a number of weeks for antibody levels in the blood to decline after fluke have been killed/removed.

Parasitology Comics

I am not taking about funny parasitologists (either an oxymoron or a tautology depending on your experience/point of view), but about teaching parasitology using comics.

Dr Johann Schröder, alerted me to these.

Here is one for liver fluke: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/captain_higgins Note that this liver fluke: Dicrocoelium – is not the one we usually deal with ( which is Fasciola hepatica, the liver fluke of various warm-blooded animals (incl. humans) in Australia). The cycle is similar in some respects but different in others. For example, the Fasciola cycle involves snails (specifically, lymnaeid snails), but not ants. Still the comic is good fun.

More on liver fluke: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/health/liverfluke-disease-sheep-cattle or go to WormBoss (currently at http://www.wool.com/Grow_WormBoss.htm but soon to be back at its old/original home, but renovated, at www.wormboss.com.au )

Here is one for tapeworm. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tapeworm

Again , not the tapeworm of interest to us.

Two important tapeworms for us are hydatids and sheep measles. The final host (where the adult tapeworms live in the intestine) for these are dogs etc, with the intermediate stage (where larval tapeworms live in cysts) are sheep etc. (Hydatids of course can go into humans as well as sheep etc, but sheep measles (the larval stage (known as Cysticercus ovis) of the tapeworm Taenia ovis), does not go into humans).

The other tapeworm that concerns us, but not a great deal because it is relatively benign, is Moniezia, which lives in the intestines of sheep and goats for example. The intermediate host for Moniezia is a pasture (oribatid) mite. The tapeworm in horses (Anoplocephala) is said to be a cause of colic, so it is not quite as benign as Moniezia mostly is. We don’t have the tapeworm (Stilesia spp) in sheep that they also have in South Africa, and which Dr Johann Schröder talked about in a previous WormMail. ( http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/417006/TTW-29-Nov-2011.pdf )

More on tapeworms: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/health/sheep-measles-another-profit-killer (See Table 1. Cysts of larval cestodes (tapeworms) of sheep and cattle ) or go to WormBoss: http://www.wool.com/Grow_WormBoss_Know-your-worms_Tapeworms-of-sheep.htm




WRML. Liver fluke – field trials – Central Tablelands of NSW // Snow at Guyra

To WormMail mailing list (recip. undisclosed).

‘Some more interesting work done by the Tablelands LHPA (Bruce Watt, Jeff Eppleston and colleagues) and cooperators/collaborators.

(Reproduced here with permission)


(Newspaper article by Dr Bruce Watt, Tablelands LHPA. 2 October 2012)

" Liver fluke are an important cause of production loss and sometimes mortality in livestock on the tablelands. Last month several producers lost sheep from acute fluke infestation. At autopsy, the liver damage was extraordinary. In some, the liver looked more like a roll of devon after the pup had finished with it.

Old hands tell me of heavy losses in livestock both from fluke and black disease, if stock weren’t treated regularly. Fortunately, pioneering research particularly by Dr Joe Boray, some conducted in the Rydal – Hampden area of the central tablelands, has answered many questions and provides us with the tools to control fluke. However, some questions remain.

In March this year I mentioned that in partnership with Virbac Animal Health and cattle producers from the eastern tablelands, we planned to conduct trials aiming to answer three questions on fluke in young cattle.

The first question was; how many mobs of young cattle have evidence of liver fluke infestation at weaning.

We screened 21 mobs of cattle from 17 properties. Using the new faecal antigen test, validated by CSU Wagga in conjunction with Virbac, we found that mobs of young cattle from seven of 17 properties (41%) had evidence of fluke.

Our second question was how many have resistance to the long-standing fluke treatment, triclabendazole (Fasinex for example). We conducted a drench effectiveness test on six of the seven properties on which we found fluke.

We obtained meaningful results on five of these farms. In all cases, triclabendazole was highly effective. Therefore, we have not yet found evidence of triclabendazole resistance in fluke in cattle on the central tablelands.

The third question we hoped to answer was; what are the consequences of treating fluke affected calves at weaning compared to treating them first in the early winter. We weighed cattle treated for fluke at weaning in March April and compared them to untreated cattle. We did not find a significant weight difference.

We held a meeting in Oberon last week to present these results to the owners who co-operated in the trial and to other interested local cattle producers. We mentioned that these results, especially those showing no triclabendazole resistance, are most encouraging.

However, I am reluctant to draw too many conclusions from a trial conducted in only one year and in the case of triclabendazole resistance, on only five properties.

I mentioned to the attendees at the Oberon meeting that we would like to continue this study in 2013. We would like to screen more properties for fluke at calf weaning next autumn and if we find fluke, again test for triclabendazole resistance.

We would also like to re-examine the question of the value of treating calves at weaning compared to treating them in the early winter and we should take more of a look at fluke in sheep. So if you are a livestock producer in the eastern tablelands we hope to speak to you early next year to ask if you might participate in our investigations."

(Emphases/bolding is mine – S.L.)

The liver fluke antigen test, mentioned above, is based on a kit/test from Europe. As mentioned, CSU Wagga has done validation work in NSW/Australia in collaboration with Virbac.

The Veterinary Diagnostic Lab at CSU Wagga offers the test: Go to this URL http://www.csu.edu.au/vetservices/vdl/services and click on ‘Submission Form 2012’. I cannot see the price listed there however.

Other ways of testing for liver fluke:

* Fluke Egg Count. Faecal samples required. This needs to be specifically requested. A different method is used from that for roundworm eggs. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/vetmanual/specimens-by-discipline/parasitology/fasciola ; or www.vhr.com.au or other private labs.

* Liver fluke antibody ELISA. Blood samples required. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/vetmanual/specimens-by-discipline/parasitology/fasciola

* Post-mortem examination. e.g. of ‘killers’; necropsies of animal that have died; examination (of liver) at an abattoir

* Consistent clinical signs: sudden death, bottle jaw, jaundice, ill-thrift, anaemia, exercise intolerance (i.e. failing the ‘Honda test’)

More information on liver fluke:

NSW DPI: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/health

WormBoss. Currently at: www.wool.com/Wormboss But the new, improved WormBoss will be located at www.wormboss.com.au (to be launched within a few months).

Snow at Guyra

Most of you will be aware of the cold snap that went through south eastern Australia last Thursday / Friday. (I was riding in it :-). (I recall a similar if not colder change that went through the New England in ~ October 1982: many sheep died).

Here are some photos from ‘Bellaine’ (Deb Maxwell and partner) near Guyra, just north of Armidale.

As many would know, Deb Maxwell is one of the WormBoss Technical Team working hard on the new, improved WormBoss. Photos reproduced here by permission from Deb. (Please do not reuse without her permission).

Snow on Deb’s 16 year old pet sheep.

Deb goes out to feed the poddies. I hope they like it frozen. (I think I see some very classy welding in these photos).



This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation. 

WRML. Efficacy of oral, injectable and pour-on formulations of moxidectin against gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle in New Zealand

To WormMail mailing list. (recip. undisclosed) ( bcc Livestock Officers-Beef)

Efficacy of oral, injectable and pour-on formulations of moxidectin against gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle in New Zealand

DM Leathwick *, CM Miller

AgResearch, Grasslands Research Centre, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 6 351 8085; fax: +64 6 351 8134.
E-mail address: dave.leathwick@agresearch.co.nz

(Veterinary Parasitology, 2012. Accepted manuscript. On-line from 24 September 2012)

Here is a brief summary:

The efficacy of moxidectin administered by different routes – oral vs injectable (subcutaneous) vs topical (pour-on) – was compared.

(The authors state that. "Moxidectin was chosen as the active solely because it was readily available in all three formulations and because it is an anthelmintic molecule for which considerable efficacy and pharmacokinetic data has been published.")

Faecal egg count reduction tests were done on 14 commercial farms throughout New Zealand.

On each farm, groups of 15 calves, with naturally acquired infections of gastrointestinal nematode parasites, were sampled for faecal nematode egg count and then treated with ivermectin administered orally, or with moxidectin administered either by the oral, subcutaneous injection or topical route.

Samples were collected again 14 days after treatment. Efficacy was calculated as the percentage reduction in group mean egg count between the pre- and post-treatment samples. (Farmers were reluctant to have untreated controls).

To compare the variability of the different treatments, efficacy was also calculated for individual animals .

To estimate plasma-moxidectin concentrations, untreated control groups were run on four farms and five animals from each of the control and all of the moxidectin-treated groups were bled at various times.

Averaged across all tests, the reduction in faecal egg count

* was significantly greater after treatment with moxidectin oral (91.1%)

* than following treatment with moxidectin injection (55.5%) or

* with moxidectin pour-on (51.3%).

Low efficacies were invariably against Cooperia oncophora. Efficacy against Ostertagia, where it was present in sufficient numbers, was generally high.

The oral treatments were significantly less variable in efficacy than the injection and pour-on treatments.

Moxidectin concentrations in plasma following treatment were highest with subcutaneous injection, next highest with oral administration (significantly lower than post injection and significantly higher than post-pour-on) and lowest following pour-on administration.

There was no evidence of transfer of moxidectin to untreated animals through licking.

Based on these results, along with those of other studies, the authors proposed that oral administration of macrocyclic lactone anthelmintics results in higher concentrations of active reaching the target worms in the gastrointestinal tract than following either administration by injection or by pour-on.

Their final comments at the end of the discussion section were: "The results indicate that oral administration of MLs may be the most efficient at achieving high efficacy against some nematodes, especially Cooperia species. Further, the implications of the likely lower, and more variable, concentrations of ML reaching target sites following administration by the injection and pour-on routes on the selection for anthelmintic resistance warrant further investigation."

Please read the whole paper for yourself (for those of you with access to this journal). (For obvious (copyright) reasons, I cannot distribute the manuscript).




This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation.

WRML. 1. don’t import resistant worms 2. NSW Minister for Primary Industries announces Local Land Services

To: WormMail mailing list (recip. undisclosed)

Don’t import resistant worms

Hopefully most of you by now have subscribed to WormBoss News and have already seen this.

For those who haven’t, and/or have Egg-Timers Disease like me (‘can’t remember anything you read more than three minutes ago), I am pasting the lead article (from September WormBoss News) below.

Either way, the message bears repeating. Spreading drench-resistant worms of ruminants by way of animal movements is a very effective way of increasing problems with resistance (and one that many producers do not adequately address).

There is often a lead article for each WormBoss News, as well as state-by-state monthly updates. (The lead article for August was on tapeworms, that perennial favourite).

You really should subscribe to WormBoss News if you haven’t already.  The current way to subscribe to the monthly WormBoss email newsletter:  contact webmaster@wool.com and quote "WormBoss" in the subject line. (This may change (i.e. improve!) when the NEW WormBoss is launched (within a few months)).

Don’t import resistance

As to the article below: in my opinion, when it comes to the quarantine treatment (drench(es)), current best practice is to use not less than four unrelated actives (most if not all broad-spectrum actives), one of them being monepantel (Zolvix).   (Startect is not yet available in Australia, so it does not yet figure in the equation).

I say this because we now know that there are some worms that can resist 3-way and even 4-way combination drenches on the market.

The above relates primarily to roundworms. Don’t forget liver fluke.

Stephen Love, State Coordinator – Internal Parasites, I&D NSW Primary Industries, Armidale: don’t import drench resistance!      http://www.wool.com/Grow_WormBoss.htm

There are two ways you can get drench-resistant worms: breed your own and/or buy someone else’s.

Here is advice on quarantine treatments from the revised material developed for the new WormBoss (to be launched soon):

Keeping drench-resistant worms out of your property is part of sustainable worm control.

Assume that purchased sheep are carrying worms with some degree of drench resistance to one or more drench
1.        Quarantine drench all sheep new to the property.

  • Use a combination of preferably four unrelated drench actives. This can be done using multi-active (combination) and/or single-active products concurrently: up the race with one product, then up the race again with the next.
  • Do not mix different drenches unless the label states you can, as different products may be incompatible.

2.        Quarantine the sheep after treatment.

  • Hold the sheep in quarantine in yards (small mobs) or a secure paddock (larger mobs) for at least three days to allow worm eggs present at the time of drenching to pass out of the gut.
  • Provide adequate feed and water.
  • Keep this paddock free of sheep, goats or alpacas for at least three months in summer or six months in cooler months.

3.        After quarantine, release the sheep onto a paddock that is likely to be contaminated with worm larvae due to grazing by other sheep. This will dilute (lower the proportion of) resistant worms surviving treatment with worm larvae already on your property.
4.        WormTest the imported sheep 10-14 days after drenching for added confidence that treatment was successful.
5.        Get expert advice on up-to-date recommendations for quarantine treatments. These will evolve as the drench resistance picture changes.

Monepantel and Derquantel each represent new drench groups. In Australia, monepantel was released in September 2010 as ZolvixR. Derquantel may be released in Australia in 2012. Either or both of these new drenches are good choices as part of the quarantine treatment.


 MEDIA RELEASE    Katrina Hodgkinson MP Minister for Primary Industries Minister for Small Business

Thursday 4 October 2012


Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson today announced the most fundamental change since the 1940s to the way NSW primary producers access services, information and advice.
In a move long overdue, the NSW Government will give more control of local agricultural and natural resource management services to farmers and landowners.
The new Local Land Services will deliver locally prioritised services including:

� agricultural advice;

� plant and animal pest control and biosecurity;

� natural resource management; and

� emergency and disaster assessment and response.

Local Land Services will see the end of multiple agencies providing unco-ordinated, highly duplicative, inequitable and unnecessarily expensive services to farmers and regional landowners,” Ms Hodgkinson said.

“The current structures are stifling innovation, reducing productivity and making it harder for farmers and landowners to manage their land.

“The status quo is not an option. Our farmers deserve better.”

Local Land Services will be regionally-based, semi-autonomous, statutory organisations that are governed by locally elected and skills-based Board members

They will replace the 13 Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs), 14 Livestock Health & Pest Authorities (LHPAs) and incorporate agricultural advisory services currently provided by Agriculture NSW (part of the Department of Primary Industries).

Local Land Services is a service delivery model for the future which links natural resource management to productive primary industries,” Ms Hodgkinson said.

“Farmers and landowners will be able to easily access natural resource management, agricultural advice and biosecurity functions from one organisation.

“The structure will free up staff to work more closely with their communities, encourage innovation and integration across the landscape and be more accountable to ratepayers.

Local Land Services will also provide greater opportunities to work with community-based natural resource management organisations like Landcare NSW and Greening Australia, as well as other co-funded organisations including the Rural Research and Development Corporations.”

The creation of Local Land Services builds on the recommendations of the 2011-2012 Independent Ryan Review of the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPA) and considers wide stakeholder consultation and feedback.

“Our primary industries sector is worth $9 billion and the NSW Government will continue to invest over $1 billion each year – but we need to ensure ratepayers get better value for money,” Ms Hodgkinson said.

“This is a fresh start for how the NSW Government provides advice and support for NSW farmers and landowners and I encourage people to participate in the process as we build Local Land Services.”

The NSW Natural Resources Commissioner Dr John Keniry AM will Chair a Reference Panel to oversee the construction of the new Local Land Services.

Executive Director of the Australian Farm Institute Mick Keogh will work alongside Dr Keniry with a specific role to engage industry, community and stakeholder groups in the process.

Local Land Serviceswill be operational in January 2014. Throughout the development phase farmers and landholders will still be able to access existing services from DPI, LHPAs and CMAs.


Don’t ask me questions about this (media release above): you know as much as I do. You may have heard it on the radio (e.g. the Country Hour on ABC?) about the same time we were advised by email.

Currently LHPAs raise their own revenue through local ratepayers (landholders), and CMAs receive revenue from federal and state governments. Agriculture NSW’s (a part of NSW DPI) revenue comes from Treasury (a bit over 50%?) and the rest from external sources.



This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation.

WRML. WormBuster Laboratory — closing down March 2013

To WormMail mailing list (recip. undisclosed)

It saddens me to advise WormMail subscribers that the Queensland Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) ‘WormBuster (Parasitology) Laboratory, headed by well-known parasitologist, Maxine Lyndal-Murphy, is slated for closure in March 2013.

This is directly relevant to those ‘WormMailees’ who use the WormBuster lab.

More broadly it is a great loss to others in Australia – and further afield – involved in worm control in ruminants – whether as farmers, advisors or other – as Maxine and colleagues have, over many years, made a substantial contribution to worm control in Australia.

Queensland’s WormBuster lab, with Maxine at the helm, along with the WormBuster sheep worm control program, kicked off in the late 1980s. This was just a few years after its NSW counterpart, WormKill, was launched in northern NSW, by CSIRO scientist Keith Dash and others, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, LHPAs (then Pastures Protection Boards), producer groups, pharmacos and other players in the private sector.

As with WormKill in NSW, I am sure WormBuster was a team effort with a number of participants (including Le Feuvre and others), but I am told that the late Chris Baldock said, if he was the architect of WormBuster, Maxine was the builder.

Maxine also contributed to WormBoss, and has been actively involved with its recent update (due for release within a few months).

I believe the staff at the WormBuster lab will have their employment terminated when the lab closes in March. I understand also the veterinary laboratories at Toowomba and Townsville will be closed too.

There are a number of real pluses in my job. One of them is excellent people I work with within NSW DPI, and also in other sectors and states. Maxine, one of the quiet achievers, is one of them. I often ring her for information and her opinion, mostly on matters parasitological. She has been most generous in sharing her knowledge and experience. I will really miss this, as will many others.

On a lighter note, Maxine, still with a sense of humour intact, referred me to this website about a sheep invasion:




This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation.