Worming help

twiggy2

twiggy2

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 July 2013
Messages
11,803
Location
Highlands from Essex
Visit site
Hi all,
After receiving a new 3 year worming programme from the yard I feel I need to pick some brains.
I don't have a copy of it just this moment but am waiting for one to be emailed to me so I can quote from it.
I does however state that the tape worm test is unreliable.
Also we are supposed to worm for tape worm in 2 weeks, then in spring and then also at the end of summer.
In total it works out that we will be worming approx 22 times in three years including using a panacur 5 day wormer.
It just seems like a really aggressive programme to me.
 
I've heard vets say the tapeworm test isn't reliable but Westgate got a bit cross when I said that in an email to them.

From what I understand we should worm for tapeworm in Autumn and encysted redworm once the frosts have hit. About 6-8 weeks after doing the encysted redworm stuff a poo sample should go off to the lab to check it's effectiveness. They'll let you know if you a have a redworm problem and if not just send off poo samples quarterly to see whether they need dosing.

Your programme sounds a bit extreme....
 
Given that your only meant to worm for tape worm once a year after the first frost, Yip that's a very odd schedule. Are worm counts done at all? Is there a resistance problem in your area? Sounds very like the yard has an underlying worm problem.
 
Sounds excessive. Even if you choose to worm twice a year for tapes because you don't trust the new Equisal test (my vet doesn't think it's reliable either), and once in mid winter for encysted worms, that would only come to 9 treatments over three years, and any additional treatments should be done based on positive worm egg counts. As far as I understand, treating for tapes at 6 month intervals should be sufficient to break their life cycle, so I'm not sure why that programme suggests three doses.
 
it would be helpful if people saying their vet doesn't think the equi sal test is reliable would say the precise reasons as to why their vet thinks it unreliable. Can any of you explain why please? that way we might learn something.
 
I always do tape end of October and then again in April so 6 months apart never have I done a third dose, then I do an equest green one at the end of December I never use the 5 day panacur guard there is known resistance so I won't use it anymore, I tend to worm between 3 and 5 times a year with worm counts in spring and end of summer, so if counts come back under 50 I don't worm, I don't think I have wormed in the summer months for years.
 
paddy555 said:
it would be helpful if people saying their vet doesn't think the equi sal test is reliable would say the precise reasons as to why their vet thinks it unreliable. Can any of you explain why please? that way we might learn something.
Click to expand...

My vet says the test is unreliable too. He said that it can give a false positive because the antibodies to tapeworm remain in the horse's system for some time after effective worming. The conversation I had with the vet was a few years back, so I can't recall whether he was referring to blood or saliva testing.
 
broadly speaking-any diagnostic test will give a certain amount false positives and false negatives-thats just biology. you set the parameters of the test to give less of one or other, depending on what you want to achieve. most diagnostic tests will be loaded against false negatives for obvious reasons.

antibody tests by nature will only inform you as to exposure-generally they can't differentiate between current infection and residual antibodies, or at least not perfectly. the saliva test is a useful tool on tape worm control-you pays your money and you takes your choice.

most vets can barely label a sample correctly when its sent in for testing, much less explain the finer points of it to a client. I expect if vets still had a free for all on how much they could charge for sending on testing they would probably support it more. I design and validate diagnostic tests-its incredibly difficult and takes a lot of work to get one on the market. The EquiSal test is about as good as it gets for worms for many reasons, worms being peculiar in their own right.

*grumpy from having a day of sorting out mucky blood tubes that were scarcely labelled or with submission forms forms you guessed it, vets*
 
Thank you for that MoC - you've explained it well. I was going to worm my lot for tapeworm but you've persuaded me to use the EquiSal test initially.

Bl00dy nightmare trying to work out if, what, when with 2 donks and a rescue horse's worming.

Eta: sorry OP I've hijacked your thread!
 
MotherOfChickens said:
broadly speaking-any diagnostic test will give a certain amount false positives and false negatives-thats just biology. you set the parameters of the test to give less of one or other, depending on what you want to achieve. most diagnostic tests will be loaded against false negatives for obvious reasons.

antibody tests by nature will only inform you as to exposure-generally they can't differentiate between current infection and residual antibodies, or at least not perfectly. the saliva test is a useful tool on tape worm control-you pays your money and you takes your choice.

most vets can barely label a sample correctly when its sent in for testing, much less explain the finer points of it to a client. I expect if vets still had a free for all on how much they could charge for sending on testing they would probably support it more. I design and validate diagnostic tests-its incredibly difficult and takes a lot of work to get one on the market. The EquiSal test is about as good as it gets for worms for many reasons, worms being peculiar in their own right.

*grumpy from having a day of sorting out mucky blood tubes that were scarcely labelled or with submission forms forms you guessed it, vets*
Click to expand...

thank you
 
That does sound OTT.

Personally I only worm once a year, in winter, for encysted redworm and tapeworm. I use the saliva test 6 months after the wormer, I really don't get the argument that it gives false positives given that the alternative is the ultimate false positive of just treating anyway. Surely the only downside to a false positive is the cost of the test, weighed against the benefit of not over-worming that seems worth it to me. Other than that its just worm counts, and I also now test for liver fluke once a year as our summer fields are flooded in winter.

Okay if you have more turnover of different horses or sharing of grazing between herds I can see why you might need to worm a bit more, certainly you'd need to worm a new horse on arrival, but the only reason I know of for using the 5 day panacur these days is for dealing with rundown horses that may have a really high worm burden.
 
Cobbytype said:
Indeed. But I'm in the position of worm counts costing me a tidy sum as there will be the standard worm counts x 3 + lung worm, tapeworm and liver fluke. It will cost me more than routine worming in the long run I think, but hopefully will be the healthier option.
Click to expand...

oh, I know it works out expensive and with multiple animals you have to make a cost-benefit analysis based on an informed choice. vets saying the test is unreliable without explaining why though, are not giving a client an informed choice.
 
That sounds extremely high amount of worming to me, 2-3 times a year might be all some need with worm counts. tapeworm tests are unreliable at the moment so that's fair enough.
 
Thank goodness to see some sense talked from Motherofchickens. All this uninformed calling of the Equisal test as being unreliable is complete rubbish. It is now fully peer reviewed and if vets and others bothered to read the evidence and talk to Dr Austin at Equisal they would have every confidence in the test. No wonder we 'get a bit cross' at Westgate when we read these things. But if you think WE get cross you should talk to Dr Austin who invented the test for tapeworm. She was visiting our stand at YHL last weekend and discussing just this. Please, use the test. Save our wormers for the future and for the horses who really need them. For tapeworm that will be about 23% of horses.

As to a three year worming plan using how many doses? This sort of thing should be against the law. Many good, well run yards will be using 1-3 doses per year per horse and will have good worm control based on tests.
 
SusieT said:
tapeworm tests are unreliable at the moment so that's fair enough.
Click to expand...

saying it's unreliable without providing context is inaccurate. the test is reproducible, therefore not unreliable. not being able to distinguish between previous exposure and current infestation to 100% accuracy, doesn't make the test unreliable-in this case it makes it 83% sensitive/reliable (which is pretty darn good for a helminthic test).


borderreiver-when people complain about the lack of 'reliable' tests then they should perhaps consider how many test markets have been ruined by people saying that existing tests are unreliable, thus destroying confidence in said test- without really understanding the process.


antihelminthic resistance is here, its real (and largely caused by misuse of wormers than over worming per se) and there are threads on here about what can happen to an equine who is not wormed adequately. where we can (i.e. where it makes sense management-wise including financially) we should be testing prior to worming.
 
Ok they have given us the option of worm egg counting but appear to want a worm egg count done everything they want to worm, also they seem to be over worming for tapeworm and using products that there is known resistance to that to my mind should be saved for when they are really needed (5 day panacur).
If you can read it here is the worming programme
 
paddy555 said:
it would be helpful if people saying their vet doesn't think the equi sal test is reliable would say the precise reasons as to why their vet thinks it unreliable. Can any of you explain why please? that way we might learn something.
Click to expand...

My vet thought the evidence that the test worked wasn't solid enough, but couldn't really explain to my satisfaction what he meant by that. I'm a scientist myself (different field), and was going to read the published information myself to see whether sample numbers were adequate, and the statistical analysis solid, but at the time (2 years go), I could not access any peer-reviewed paper. That's no surprise, since the publication date on the one I can find now is May 2016. Here's the link, if anyone's interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vcp.12364/pdf
I've been using the EquiSal tests anyway (3 times over 18 months now), and my results have been clear/high/high. What I find still frustrating is that the test is comparatively expensive, yet management doesn't not seem to make any difference to the tape worm burden. At what point is it reasonable to conclude that my horse is prone to tape worm infections (for whatever reason) and likely to need regular treatment (and save £17 a pop for the test)? That said, I just bought another test for next spring, since it was on sale for £15 at YHL.
 
Oh my lordy. I'm glad I'm on a yard with a sensible YO. I do FEC quarterly so doing so whenever they want to worm for something is probably reasonable, I think that works out about the same? My girls typically get an actual tube of wormer twice a year, once for tape and then Equest or similar later...

Considering making the case for the saliva test for next year now if the number quoted above for horses that actually need treatment is accurate :) much lower than I expected for some reason.

Is that dependent on your pasture? Our fields are poo picked daily and occasionally grazed by cattle.
 
that looks like a lot so worth a few of you getting together and sending samples for testing together as you will get a good discount if there are 10 or more samples sent at the same time or its nearly as cheap to get the season pack. if they come back clear or very low you can get away with just worming for encysted reds and tapeworm so could save a lot of wormer thats not needed and the tests will save money as well.
 
Last edited:
Thank-you to you all for you replies, to answer some of your questions.
I poo pick and strip graze my field- only person on a large yard who does.
The programme is not adjusted at all for this.
This worming programme came direct from the local vet the yard did not make it up.
If we don't worm we are expected to provide a letter from out vets ad to why and a worm egg count every time they want to worm.
Thanks for that info ponypatters I will have a read after work.
 
twiggy2 said:
Thank-you to you all for you replies, to answer some of your questions.
I poo pick and strip graze my field- only person on a large yard who does.
The programme is not adjusted at all for this.
This worming programme came direct from the local vet the yard did not make it up.
If we don't worm we are expected to provide a letter from out vets ad to why and a worm egg count every time they want to worm.
Thanks for that info ponypatters I will have a read after work.
Click to expand...

I think your YO should be providing a letter from their vets as to why they DO worm and not count!!! My vet would have a fit if I didn't worm count and worm only when needed. You would be providing the worm count evidence anyway so do you need a letter from your vet saying the horse does not have a high count and that is why it shouldn't be wormed? Sorry to appear sarcastic but your YO and their vet seem to live in the dark ages.
 
I think in your shoes, I'd start off doing the Pramox winter dose as requested (start off on a good note!), then just do the worm count every time they require a routine worming dose. It would still cost you less than the wormer, even though the interval is probably shorter than it really needs to be. If you have your own field to manage, you should be able to convince the YM that you are not putting any horses at risk if your worm count shows that your horse is not producing eggs. I wouldn't bother with a letter from the vet. Your instruction letter reads that you do not need to worm on advice from a vet OR if you produce a worm count. You have the worm count, so no vet's certificate needed.
 
We have a consultant vet on the team at Westgate so all the programmes we run are veterinary approved. That should be sufficient for your yard owner. I'm really surprised at the vet promoting this sort of worming programme to be honest. Good advice from Supsup above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top