TITLE: GASTROINTESTINAL PARASITISM IN GOATS; THE

CAUSE, EFFECT AND SOLUTIONS

AUTHOR: Elencris Baggeo Labaddan

MS Agriculture Student
Major in Animal Science
Advanced Small and Large Ruminant Production
Ifugao State University – Potia Campus

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper presents a cursory and in-depth analysis of existing

and latest literatures on the cause, effect and solutions of
gastrointestinal parasitism on goats. Data and literatures were gathered,
collated and analysed from general references (indexes, reviews and
abstract), primary sources (researchers found on published journals),
and secondary sources (publications where authors cite the works of
others). After exhaustive gathering and analyzing of data, the researches
proved that goat production systems worldwide are significantly
constrained by gastrointestinal (GI) parasites, reducing meat, milk, and
fiber production. Chemical anthelmintic treatment is the most cost
effective current control method in many farm enterprises. However,
Anthelmintic Resistance (AR), which is the ability of parasites to quickly
develop resistance to these compounds became a major issue among the
livestock sector due to its global effect on the goat industry. The spread
of AR is due to the last decade misuse of drugs for the control of GI
parasites infections in ruminants, leading to the development of new
parasite populations which are resistant to various classes of
anthelmintic. The sustainable control of GI parasites requires a holistic
approach and requires detailed knowledge. Hence, the main aim of this
work is to present the cause of gastrointestinal parasitism, its effect on
the health of goats and the low cost solutions to this economically
important problem.

INTRODUCTION

Livestock play an important role in the rural livelihood and

economy of developing and several developed countries. They are
providers of nourishment for billions of rural and urban households as
well as income and employment for producers and others working in
simple and sometimes complex value chains.
In rural areas of developing countries, the contribution of goats is
highly valued and has an important role in feeding the populations, an
item that is often not adequately recognized when comparing goats with

1
sheep and cattle. In fact, goats are extremely intelligent animals, very
agile, and independent, with a high level of resistance to diseases, much
better than other ruminant species (Aziz, 2010).
Goat production holds an important niche for sustainable
agriculture and supports a variety of socioeconomic functions
throughout the world. In Southeast Asia, small ruminants are the vital
part in mixed farming systems adopted by smallholder farmers
(Solaiman, 2010). In most low-input/output smallholder farming systems
they serve as household assets with multiple livelihood functions,
providing food, income and important non-market services (Ruto et al.,
2008). In fact, goat farming in the Philippines is considered the sunrise
industry, with a 14% growth in 2017, due to low capital investment and
high rates of return and thus provides livelihood to about 15 million
Filipinos (Cosadio, Hebron and Ellacer, 2011). Dominating the industry
are about 50 commercial farms primarily located in Luzon, Mindanao,
and Visayas provinces (Alo, Rosario, Balbin and Nayga, 2018).
Backyard goat production in the Philippines accounts for more
than 99% of the animal inventory. Goat is a popular farm animal among
rural folks because it requires simple management and low-cost
production inputs as compared to swine and poultry. Goat subsists on
crop residues, agro-industrial by-products or any locally available forage
sources (Alcedo, Ito and Maeda, 2015).
Livestock programs funded by the Philippines government
targeting the remote rural areas of the country focused more on goat
dispersal and production improvement to augment the income of many
impoverish farmers. However, goat health problems remain the major
impediment to goat production, suppressing the success of some
government funded projects related to goat farming. Although mortality
and morbidity rates in the herd vary depending on the causal agents,
parasitism still ranks among the top three constraints in the Philippines
(Fernandez et al., 2013). The problems associated with gastrointestinal
parasitism are often classified as production disease which results in
feed intake reduction and alteration of gastrointestinal motility leading to
diarrhea. Gastrointestinal parasites change the host metabolism
accounting for much of the reduced protein and energy retention, and
disturbed mineral and water balance. Therefore, the economic losses are
attributed to low production, high cost of prevention and treatment, and
death of infected animals (Solaiman, 2010).
This situation happens not only in the Philippines but also
rampant in most African countries, where the environmental conditions

2
are conducive to nematode growth and transmission. In general, GINs
reduce productivity of small ruminants due to lowering fertility,
reduction in milk production and loss of weight when feed intake is
reduced (Worku, Kiros, Asgedom, Tadesse, 2017, Pezzanite, Neary,
Hutchens, Scharko).
Control strategies worldwide are based on the use of anthelmintic
drugs, which have often been associated with cases of multiple drug
resistant parasites and drug residues in the food and environment.
However, most small ruminant farmers are resource-constrained, and do
not have access to either anthelmintics or land management practices to
mitigate the influence of gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN). Therefore,
there is a need for alternative methods of parasite control in these
farming systems, with genetic improvement offering a more sustainable
option (Zvinorova et al., 2016, Roeber et al, 2013).

3
DISCUSSION
1. GASTROINTESTINAL (GI) NEMATODE EPIDEMIOLOGY
The development of parasite within the host, or through the free-
living stage is dependent on many different risk factors and these can be
divided into 3 groups:
1.1. Animal Factors
1.1.1. Age Related Immunity
Unlike sheep and cattle goats do not develop age-related
immunity.
Young animals in their first grazing season are most
susceptible to GI Nematodes and then as they reach about 12 – 18
months they often develop strong immunity, although the immune
response varies according to the worm species, and levels of
exposure to the parasite.
The relative importance of the different GI nematodes differs
with host age because of acquired immunity. The immune
response to GI nematodes is directed at different stages of the
parasite development and is a complex interaction of humoral and
cellular immunity (Farm Health Online.Com).
1.1.2. Genetics
Animals that withstand a heavy parasite burden and shed
lots of eggs in their feces but continue to grow and perform are
known as resilient animals. These animals have the ability to resist
the pathogen and grow well regardless of worm burden often
coping well without treatment. However, the danger with these
animals is they are contaminating the pasture for the less-resilient
animals.
Contrastingly, genetically resistant animals are those that
are able to tolerate a pathogen by maintaining low worm burdens
irrespective of infection pressures because they have enhanced
immune responses which prevent adult worms establishing in
their gut. The drawback is the strong immune response requires
energy and can cause local gut mucosal changes resulting in
weight loss and scours, affecting performance. Attempts are being
made to identify the genes that encode parasite resistance, with
the aim of identifying and selecting animals with superior parasite

4
resistance or – controversially – even being able to develop
transgenic animals with genes for parasite resistance, and
economically productive traits.
The genetic basis of both resilience and resistance is
complicated and depends on the fate of the animal as to which
best suits a particular farming system. If breeding stock are
resistant, they will be slower growing, but not infecting the pasture
for their progeny. It could be beneficial for finishing stock to be
resilient as they will continue to grow and perform well regardless
of worm burden (Farm Health Online.Com).
1.1.3. Pregnancy
Peri-parturient rise (PPR) also known as spring rise, or post-
parturient rise, is the name given to a large increase in fecal egg
counts that occurs about 2 weeks before birth, and for about 6
weeks afterwards. It occurs mainly in ewes, goats, sows and to a
lesser degree in cattle. It is thought to be due to the relaxation of
the immune system in late pregnancy, allowing for parasite
infection, or hypobiotic larvae to mature.
The late stages of pregnancy and lactation in ruminants
necessitate an increase in their nutrient requirement. The grass
quality around lambing is often poor and the inability of the ewe to
meet nutritional requirements exacerbates PPR. Fecal egg counts
during the spring rise are higher in animals bearing twins and
triplets, compared to those with singles.
PPR is important in parasite survival as the large numbers of
eggs passed onto the pasture at the same time as the numbers of
new susceptible hosts also increases (Farm Health Online.Com).
1.1.4. Nutritional Status
GI nematodes influence nutrient availability in one of two
ways, they suppress the host’s appetite reducing feed intake, or
the worms damage the gut epithelium increasing the pH, which
consequently reduces the breakdown and absorption of proteins
and other nutrients negatively affecting the feed conversion
efficiency (Farm Health Online.Com).
1.1.5. Hypobiosis
This is sometimes referred to as arrested development. The
infective L3 (Third Larval Stage) are ingested by the host where

5
 they migrate to tissues and cease to develop until they are re-
activated by a stimulus. The nature of this stimulus is still
uncertain.
Hypobiosis is linked to pregnancy and the PPR and is
significant in terms of parasite survival. In temperate climates the
infective L3 usually undergo arrested development over the winter
period, then re-activate around spring. Hypobiosis enables the
nematodes to survive the winters and re-emerge in spring where
they mature to adults and then contaminate the pasture with eggs
(Farm Health Online.Com).
1.2. Environmental Factors
The free-living stages of GI nematode development are often
overlooked by farmers yet they are imperative to enable parasitic
infection. The free living stages can be sub-divided into 2 stages both of
which are largely dictated by climate; The first stage is egg development
to infective third stage larva (L3) and the second stage is L3 survival.
Climate influences development and survival of larva on the
pasture, and the distribution and migratory behavior during the free-
living stages. The main factors are temperature and humidity but also
sunlight (UV light) can increase mortality.
Extreme heat and cold are detrimental to development and
survival, but are tolerable within certain limits. As temperature
increases, so does the rate at which the eggs develop into infective L3.
Increasing warmth not only accelerates development it also increases the
rate of L3 mortality. This is to some extent due to the inability of infective
L3 to feed (only the pre-infective stages of L1 and L2 feed, and the
increased metabolic demand due to increased temperature causing them
to perish quicker at higher temperatures.
Moisture from humidity, rainfall, the soil or the fecal pat is
required for L3 development and survival and to enable the L3 to migrate
out of the fecal pat but is not needed for onward migration onto grass.
The effect of rainfall on larval dispersal is also important as a drop may
transport larvae as far as 35″ from the dung pat. Eggs and Larva rarely
survive in arid climates.
Sunlight and UV rays increase L3 mortality. Under natural
sunlight more L3 survived, but the L3 in the shade survived twice as
long.

6
 All of these climatic factors combined make up the seasonal
patterns, hence, most clinical cases of nematode infection occur in
growing stock in the second half of the grazing season when there is
gradual build-up of infective L3 on the pasture (Farm Health
Online.Com).
1.3. Farm Management Factors
The grazing system and pasture management impacts on levels of
pasture contamination, and therefore worm burden in stock. Different
grazing management strategies can be used to minimize larval challenge
by targeting, or avoiding the obligatory free-living stage on the herbage to
provide ‘safer’ pasture for the stock to graze.
Mixed grazing: Mixed grazing is a diluting strategy in which
susceptible animals are grazed with nonsusceptible animals. The non-
susceptible animals can either be older stock of the same species or
stock of a different host species. The common mixed grazing species are
cattle and sheep or sheep and horses. The theory behind mixed grazing
relies on either older stock previously being exposed to parasites and
having sufficient immunity or on the parasite species being host specific
– i.e., cattle parasites only being pathogenic to cattle.
Mixed grazing is not recommended for sheep and goats, as many
parasites jump between those species, intensifying the problem.
An example of mixed grazing is cattle grazing with post-weaned
lambs, the cattle will by default be ingesting some of the L3 infective to
the lambs, thus reducing the risk to the lambs. Mixed grazing will also
reduce the rate of pasture contamination by worm eggs as susceptible
animals grazed with non-susceptible animals in comparison to the field
being stocked with the same number of just susceptible animals.
Alternating stock: Much like mixed grazing, sequential or alternate
grazing is a control strategy that exploits host-specificity, by which
parasites pathogenic to one species do not infect alternative hosts, or are
less pathogenic. The alternation of sheep and cattle in Wales, with cattle
grazing from May to July, then post weaned lambs from July to October
was most effective in reducing worm burden in both species and cattle
mixed grazing with ewes and lamb May to July, then just with post-
weaned lambs from July to October had the fastest growth rates of
lambs.

7
 This grazing strategy is not recommended for farms who suffer
from Haemonchus or Nematodirus as they can infect both sheep and
cattle.
Rotational and evasive grazing: Rotational grazing is management
intensive and involves increased capital costs due to fencing, labor and
water supply but it does allow farmers to match nutritional demands of
livestock with the availability of forage.
Rotational grazing is more suitable in tropical climates where larval
(pasture) development and survival times are short and is less achievable
in temperate climates as substantial declines in pasture infectivity may
take 3 – 9 months depending on the larval species. Rotational grazing
involves the sub-division of pasture into smaller paddocks and each
paddock is grazed for a short time, then rested. For instance, a whole
field may be sub-divided into 15 paddocks and each paddock is grazed
for one week, then rested for 14, making the rotation time 15 weeks.
The time animals spend in each paddock will be dictated by sward
height and grass cover.
In temperate climates farmers should be careful with rotational
grazing as under certain conditions it can intensify the problem. For
example, first season grazers shedding eggs into paddock 1 and
rotational graze on a weekly cycle around 4 paddocks (i.e., 1 week per
paddock), paddock 1 will be left untouched for 3 weeks during a warm
wet summer, these undisturbed eggs will likely have to developed into
infective L3 ready for when they return.
Rotational grazing is beneficial in tropical climates for controlling
worm burden, but it cannot be relied on in temperate climates. In fact, if
the rotation is too short, it can actually amplify the issue.
The sward may be compromised during rotational grazing so a
balance of pasture infectivity and productivity needs to be met. The
pasture resting period must be long enough to allow sufficient time for
pasture re-growth, and also for any infective larvae to die off. Different
worms die at different rates depending on seasonal influences so it is
useful to understand which parasite species are present on your farm if
considering rotational grazing. In theory the longer the resting period the
better as the L3 will starve and die, however if the rotation is too long,
the sward may become unfit for grazing.
Evasive grazing is avoiding high risk pastures at critical times.
Herbage larval levels are highest during the second half of the grazing

8
season, so avoiding highest risk pastures at these times is an evasive
method to reduce larval challenge in susceptible stock.
Extensive grazing and stocking density: Extensive grazing is often
carried out in the uplands and is one that simulates nomadic livestock
systems. Animals have access to one area of grassland and are set
stocked throughout the whole grazing season. Extensively grazed
grassland creates a diverse sward structure rich in plant and
invertebrate biodiversity, and due to the size of the pasture stocking
densities are low and there is more opportunity for animals selectively
graze. Increasing stocking density leads to increased parasitism in
livestock and this has been demonstrated in a number of studies
because the animals are forced to graze closer to fecal pats.
Cutting and reseeding: A group of researchers in Sweden showed
that efficient and sustainable parasite control of first season grazing
cattle was possible to achieve without the use of anthelmintics by using
turnout pastures that the previous year had been grazed by older cattle.
The older stock should hoover up the infective larvae, then the aftermath
provides animals with a pasture that is free of fecal contamination.
The rationale for re-seeding lies mainly in the notion that larvae
live on herbage or within the fecal pat (depending on their development
stage), and by plowing them in to the soil, they would perish. However, it
is difficult to find research to support this theory, even though there is a
lot of studies that ‘clean’ pastures for parasite research by a complete
plow and re-seed, and pasture infection with Nematodirus spp survived
plowing and reseeding, though in very small numbers. Nevertheless,
tillage has shown to reduce the levels of free-living larvae and soil-
dwelling nematodes so it is reasonable that this concept can be applied
for GI nematode larval survival.

Pasture composition: Livestock living on pasture-based systems are

at greater risk of exposure to pasture-borne parasites. However, the
sward composition can influence the exposure to parasites. Birdsfoot
trefoil, lotus, sulla and sainfoin contain condensed tannins while, chicory
contains sesquiterpene lactones, both have been shown to have potential
anthelmintic properties (Farm Health Online.Com).
2. CLASSIFICATION AND IMPACT OF GASTROINTESTINAL
PARASITES ON GOAT’S HEALTH
Goats are generally more susceptible to internal parasites than
sheep. The groups most susceptible to parasitism are young animals,
lactating ewes and does, and those in late gestation or around the time of

9
parturition. The animals least susceptible to parasites are mature, dry
ewes (Pezzanite et al.).
GI nematodes or gut roundworms are major contributors to
reduced productivity in cattle, sheep and goats all over the world.
Parasitic Gastroenteritis (PGE) is the condition caused by large numbers
of gastrointestinal nematodes that reside in the gut (abomasum and
intestines) of the ruminant host.
2.1. Abomasal Worms
2.1.1. Barber Pole or Large Stomach Worm (Haemonchus
contortus)
Barber’s pole worm,
is the most dangerous
parasite affecting sheep and
goats. This worm sucks
blood from the wall of the
abomasum. Kids, lambs, &
stressed animals usually
succumb to infection
(Kitayan, 2019, Pezzanite et
al.).
Haemonchus contortus is a blood- feeding worm and gets its
name from the barber- pole appearance consisting of the white
ovaries that twist around the red blood- filled gut. This worm is
rather large compared to other stomach and intestinal worms of
goats, measuring up to 2 cm (3/4 inch) and has an anterior stylet
that is used to disrupt tissue allowing blood flow. When large
numbers are present, worms can readily be seen on the abomasal
mucosal surface. Female worms are prolific egg layers and can
contaminate the forage with a very large number of eggs. These
worms thrive under hot and moist environmental conditions,
which are conducive for survival and development of the free-
living stages. Generally speaking, H. contortus transmission and
infection are at the lowest level during the winter. Transmission
and infection increase with the warmer temperatures (Solaiman,
2010).
2.1.2. Brown or Middle Stomach worm (Telodorsagia
Ostertagia)
The other abomasal (circumcincta) worm of importance is
Telodorsagia circumcincta, which is smaller than H. contortus.

10
These worms feed mostly on nutrients in mucous and do not feed
on blood, per se, but can ingest blood if present. Female worms do
not produce as many eggs as H. contortus. Infection causes direct
damage to the abomasal mucosa thereby interfering with digestion
and appetite. Infection is usually considered a production disease
because animals do not grow very well, but death can occur under
very high infection conditions. This worm thrives in cooler wet
environmental conditions, which are encountered in the more
temperate regions. Hypobiosis occurs when environmental
conditions are too cold or too dry (Solaiman, 2010).
2.2. Small Intestinal Worms
2.2.1. Bankrupt Worm ( Trichostrongylus Colubriformis )
Trichostrongylus colubriformis is a very small threadlike
worm and is the most predominant small intestinal worm. It
thrives better under more cool and wet conditions similar to T.
circumcincta. This worm feeds on nutrients in mucus and
interferes with digestive function, resulting in diarrhea. It is called
the bankrupt worm because death is seldom the end result, and
animals just become poor doers leading to loss of production and
income (Solaiman, 2010).
2.2.2. Long-necked Bankrupt Worm (Nematodes Spp.)
Nematodirus spp. are relatively large worms (easily seen) and
are usually found in rather small numbers. If heavy infection
occurs, production and income losses will result (similar to that of
T. colubriformis). Eggs are large and football shaped (Solaiman,
2010).
2.3. Large Intestinal Worms
2.3.1. Nodular Worms (Oesophagostomum Spp.)
Oesophagostomum spp. are relatively large (easily seen)
worms and are usually found in rather small numbers. These
worms feed on blood and can contribute to the overall anemia in
conjunction with H. contortus. Although this worm resides in the
large intestine, the larvae are found in the mucosa of both the
small and large intestine where they form nodules, thus the name
nodular worm. Larvae leave these nodules and migrate to the large
intestine where they become adults (Solaiman, 2010).
2.3.2. Whipworm (Trichuris Spp.)

11
 Trichuris spp. are usually found in small numbers. The
posterior end of the worm is rather large and can readily be seen.
The anterior end of the worm is thread like, thus the name
whipworm. These worms are also blood feeders and, like
Oesophagostomum, contribute to the overall blood loss. Female
worms produce characteristic football shaped eggs with protruding
plugs at each end (Solaiman, 2010).
2.4. Other Intestinal worms
2.4.1. Tapeworm/Cestodes (Monienzia expanza et
benedini)
A tapeworm infection
can be diagnosed by
yellowish-white segments in
the feces. Lambs and kids
become resistant to
tapeworms quickly, so
infections are most common
in animals younger than four
or five months of age
(Kitayan, 2019, Pezzanite et
al.). Adult tapeworms reside in
the small intestine and feed by absorbing nutrients from digested
feed. They cause very little damage. Tapeworm eggs and segments
are passed in the feces. Eggs are ingested by field mites and
develop into the infective form. Animals grazing summer pasture
ingest these mites along with forage. Many producers are
concerned about tapeworms because they can see the moving
white rice grainlike segments in freshly deposited feces (Solaiman,
2010).
2.4.2. Liver flukes/Trematodes (Fasciola gigantica et
hepatica)
Liver flukes are flat, leaf-
shape worm that is found in the
liver that suck blood causing
extensive damage to the liver
tissue (Kitayan, 2019, Pezzanite
et al.). Liver flukes burrow
tunnels in the liver, causing
scarring as the body tries to
repair the damage. Because scar

12
tissue is not functional, the liver loses part of its normal function,
which includes filtering the blood of toxins and waste products.
The accumulation of these toxins in the animal’s blood can
severely damage other organs, including the brain. Therefore, a
common sign of liver fluke infestation is depression or stupor
(Villaroel, 2013). Treatment to control flukes can be divided into
two periods— o ne period when immature and adult flukes are
present and another when adults only are present. Clorsulon and
albendazole are effective against adult flukes. Therefore, selection
of either of these depends on the time of year. Another liver fluke,
the deer fluke (Fascioloides magna), can kill goats by destroying
the liver. Infection is rare but should be considered where deer
have access to pastures. Control is difficult (Solaiman, 2010).
2.4.3. Lungworms ( Dictyocaulus filaria, Muellerius,
Protostrongylus )
Adult lungworms live in the bronchi or tissue of lungs. The
life cycle is direct with larva (not eggs) being passed in the feces
where they develop to infective larvae. Grazing animals ingest the
infective larvae, and after extensive migration through the body,
they reach the lungs and mature to adults. Infection results in
respiratory distress (chronic coughing), unthriftiness, and
sometimes death. Because larvae are found in feces, diagnosis is
by using the Baermann procedure, which extracts the larvae from
feces. Infection can be controlled with albendazole, fenbendazole,
ivermectin, or oxfendazole. There are two other minor lungworms
(Muellerius capillaris and Protostrongylus spp.) whose life cycles are
indirect requiring land snails/slugs as intermediate hosts. Control
is not as easy and fortunately pathology is minor (Solaiman, 2010).
2.4.4. Meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis )
The meningeal worm, also known as the deer worm or
meningeal deer worm, frequently infects llamas, alpacas, and
sometimes goats. White - tailed deer are the natural host, so goats
are at potential risk everywhere that white- tailed deer are found.
Small ground dwelling slugs and snails are intermediate hosts.
Goats, which are not normal hosts, can ingest the slugs/snails
that harbor the infective form, and the larvae migrate into places
where they don’t normally reside in the deer. Migration is up the
spinal nerves to the spinal cord, but then they seem to get lost,
and the larvae can migrate to the brain. This causes damage to the
central nervous system, which may be severe enough to result in

13
death. Infected animals will show a wide variety of symptoms,
which may include rear leg weakness and ataxia, paralysis,
hypermetria, circling, abnormal head position, blindness, and
gradual weight loss. Generally, animals with more severe
symptoms have a worse prognosis. Diagnosis is difficult in the live
animal and is usually made when animals die and the larvae are
found on examining the spinal cord and brain microscopically. The
use of ivermectin at monthly intervals during the transmission
season has been used in attempts to prevent infection, but this
strategy has not been proven. However, this frequent
administration interval most likely will have an effect on the
development of resistance by the other resident worms (Solaiman,
2010).
2.4.5. Coccidia (Eimeria Sp)
Coccidia is transmitted through
ingestion of sporulated oocysts. It
lives in the lining of the intestines
and destroy the crypts that the
animals need to absorb nutrients.
Therefore, the most common sign of
coccidian infestation is diarrhea
(detected by dirty hind ends), and
failure to thrive or weight loss
(Kitayan, 2019, Villaroel, 2013).
Coccidia are usually found in animals in confinement or
intensive grazing systems, as a result of poor sanitation,
overcrowding, and stress. Animals between one and six months of
age in feedlots or intensive grazing systems are at highest risk for
coccidiosis (Kitayan, 2019, Pezzanite et al.).
Devastating losses can occur quickly because of the asexual
process and usually are a problem at weaning when kids are
stressed. Preventing and/or controlling coccidiosis can be achieved
by providing an anticoccidial product in the feed or water. There
are several effective products on the market, such as amprolium,
decoquinate, lasalosid, and monensin. Individual clinical cases can
be treated with sulfa products. Secondary bacterial infection is
common, so antibiotics may be needed. In order to reestablish
healthy intestinal flora after recovery, probiotics are advised. There
is no vaccine for coccidiosis. Fortunately, a solid immunity

14
 develops subsequent to infection; however, if infection was severe,
stunting usually results (Solaiman, 2010).
2.5. Mode of Transmission and Life Cycle of Parasites
Most GI nematodes have a simple direct lifecycle, although there is
species-specific variability in development rates and predilection site. The
lifecycle has two distinct phases; 1) within the host, and 2) the free-living
stage where the parasite is developing in the environment. The basic
parasitic gut worm lifecycle follows the steps below:
1. Unembryonated eggs are passed from the host in feces*
2. The eggs embryonate and develop into first stage larva (L1)
3. The L1 undergo two more molts (L2 and L3), and hatch out of the egg
shell and migrate out of the fecal pat onto the pasture as L3
4. The L3 are infective at this stage and need to survive on the pasture
until ingested by the ruminant host
5. Once consumed the L3 migrate to the gut** and borrow into the gut
lining
6. Here they undergo two more molts (as L4 and L5) before emerging***
and maturing into adult worms
7. The male and female worms reproduce
8. The female worms lay eggs which are passed out in the feces
*Fecal samples can be collected and the number of eggs can be counted –
this is called a Fecal Egg Count. These can be used to monitor worm
burden and make treatment decisions. However FECs do have their
limitations especially in cattle.
**Exact predilection site depends on worm species (e.g., abomasum or
small intestine)
***This is where the pathogenesis occurs

2.5.1. Life Cycle of Nematodes

15
2.5.2. Life Cycle of Flukes

16
2.5.3. Life Cycle of Coccidia

17
2.6. Signs and Symptoms of Gastrointestinal Parasitism in
Goats
2.6.1. Clinical signs of roundworm infestation
 Rough coat
 Severe weakness
 Anemia
 Hypoproteinemia
 Submandibular
edema/ “Bottle
jaw”
 Death
 NO diarrhea

2.6.2. Clinical Signs of

Tapeworm infestation
 Mild unthriftiness
 GI disturbance
 Weight loss

2.6.3. Clinical signs of Liver Fluke

 Weakness
 Stunted growth
 Emaciation
 “Bottle jaw” & pallor of mucous
membrane
 Death

2.6.4. Clinical signs of Coccidia

Infestation:
 Diarrhea (foul smelling & mucoid)

18
  Anemia
 Dehydration
 poor growth

3. DIAGNOSTIC METHODS IN DETECTING GASTROINTESTINAL

INFESTATION
Parasitized animals can show many signs of infection depending
on the parasites present. The general signs include rough hair coat,
diarrhea, depression, weight loss (or reduced weight gain), bottle jaw,
and anorexia (off feed). Laboratory diagnostic findings may include
anemia, increased fecal egg count (FEC), and loss of plasma protein.
3.1. Fecal Egg Count (FEC): FEC is used to evaluate infection
level and is reported as the number of eggs per gram (EPG) of feces.
While this is the best method for use with live animals, there are some
difficulties associated with measurement including egg production does
not always reflect the number of worms present (depends on the species);
eggs cannot be completely identified by species and are grouped in
various categories; how long infection has persisted; level of host
immunity; fecal consistency (solid – diarrhea); and some methodologies
used for EPG determination may be less precise than others. The FEC
can serve as an indicator of seasonal changes in level of infection. It is
important to note that if heavy infection occurs over a short period of
time (1 – 2 weeks) with H. contortus , animals may lose substantial
amounts of blood without having very many eggs in the feces because
late - stage larvae also are blood feeders. The two common methods for
determining FEC are the McMaster and centrifugation flotation methods
(Solaiman, 2010).
3.2. Blood Packed Cell Volume (PCV): Nematode parasites can
affect an animal’s ability to maintain erythropoiesis (making red blood
cells). The PCV is the percent of the blood that is red blood cells, and
normal blood is usually above 30%. When PCV drops below 20%,
symptoms of anemia (lethargy, anorexia, etc.) usually start to appear.
Haemonchus contortus is the primary nematode parasite that causes
anemia and can lead to substantial acute blood loss and death. Anemia
is used to support other infection response criteria, and is not
necessarily a “stand - alone” diagnostic tool. The most common method
for determining PCV is the use of a micro hematocrit centrifuge
(Solaiman, 2010)

19
 3.3. Anemia and FAMACHA: Level of anemia can be roughly
evaluated by observing the color of mucous - membrane areas filled with
capillaries close to the surface so that tissue color reflects blood color.
Such areas are inside the lower eyelid, the gums (only where
pigmentation is not present), and inside the vulva. The FAMACHA eye
color chart system was developed
in South Africa to help producers
monitor and evaluate level of
anemia without having to rely on
laboratory testing. In this
method, the lower eyelid mucous
membranes are examined and
compared to a laminated chart
showing five colors that
represent different levels of
anemia: 1 (red, non - anemic); 2
(red - pink, non - anemic); 3 (pink, mild anemic); 4 (pink - white,
anemic); 5 (white, severely anemic). Since anemia is the primary
pathologic effect from infection with H. contortus, this system can be an
effective tool for identifying those animals that require treatment. It has
been shown that a majority of the animals may not require treatment
based on FAMACHA scores (Solaiman, 2010).
3.4. Worm Count and Identification: The most absolute and
direct method for documenting the number of worms present in an
animal is to perform a necropsy and collect, identify, and count the
worms present. This should be done by a properly trained veterinarian or
other professional, and it might be very expensive. One can get an idea of
the magnitude of H. contortus infection by looking for the worms that are
visible on the abomasal mucosa. It should be noted that the longer the
animal has been dead, the more the worms will move down the gut and
won’t be seen, thus giving the false impression that worms were not the
problem. It is important to also note that Telodorsagia and
Trichostrongylus are too small to see except under a microscope
(Solaiman, 2010).

4. ANTHELMINTICS FOR GOAT

Anthelmintics are drugs that either kill egg-laying adults or kill
larvae before they grow into adults and become capable of laying eggs.
An anthelmintic is normally administered as an oral drench, a thick

20
liquid suspension deposited at the back of the animal’s tongue (Pezzanite
et al.).

Effective worm control cannot always be achieved by drugs alone;

however, anthelmintics play an important role. They may be used to
reduce pasture contamination, particularly at times when seeding of the
pasture with parasite eggs is a prerequisite for development of an
infective challenge necessary to cause clinical parasitism.

The “ideal” anthelmintic should be safe, highly effective against

adult and immature stages (including inhibited larvae) of the important
worms, available in convenient formulations, economical, and
compatible with other commonly used compounds.

4.1. Broad-spectrum Anthelmintic

4.1.1. Benzimidazoles (white drenches)

The benzimidazoles include thiabendazole, the forerunner of

modern broad-spectrum anthelmintics, which set a new standard in
efficacy and is still widely used today.

Thiabendazole's ineffectiveness against

inhibited Ostertagia larvae in cattle and one or two specific worm
species led to the development of other benzimidazoles (such as
fenbendazole, oxfendazole, and albendazole) and the
probenzimidazoles (thiophanate, febantel, and netobimin). These
compounds are effective against most of the major GI parasites of
ruminants and have varying levels of activity against inhibited
larvae.

4.1.2. Imidazothiazoles (yellow drenches)

The imidazothiazoles include levamisole, morantel, and

pyrantel, which also are highly effective, safe, broad-spectrum
anthelmintics but have little activity against inhibited larvae in
cattle.

4.1.3. Macrocyclic lactones (clear drenches)

The macrocyclic lactones, which include the avermectins

and milbemycins, often administered as pour-on products or by

21
 injection, are highly effective against adult and larval stages,
including inhibited larvae of all the common GI nematodes of
ruminants and some of the important ectoparasites. The latter group
may persist in some ruminant species for several weeks after a single
subcutaneous or topical administration and confer protection
against reinfection during this period. Moxidectin is also persistent
after oral administration. Unlike many other anthelmintics,
eprinomectin may also be used in lactating cows without the need
for a milk withdrawal period.

4.1.4. Amino-acetonitrile derivatives and spiroindoles.

The amino-acetonitrile derivatives (monepantel) and the

spiroindoles (derquantel) are given as oral drenches in sheep, the
latter in combination with abamectin in New Zealand. Both of these
drugs have been used in the control of multiresistant GI nematode
populations, although they require careful administration if their
useful life is to be preserved (Roeber et al. 2013).

5. ANTHELMINTIC RESISTANCE IN GOATS

Anthelmintic drugs are chemotherapeutic agents commonly used
either for prophylactic purposes, in which the timing of treatment is
based on a knowledge of the epidemiology, or for therapeutic purposes to
treat existing infections or clinical outbreaks. Various groups of drugs
have been shown to be successful (almost 100%) in eliminating most
species of nematodes and trematodes during their early periods of
utilization, and some still remain effective in different parts of the world.
However, there are several evidences to show that resistance has already
been developed or emerging against most of the anthelmintic groups by
many species of nematodes. Their long term utilization, inappropriate
handling and under dosage may be some of the reasons for their reduced
efficacy and for the increasing development of drug resistance.
Development of anthelmintic resistance begins with the loss of
efficacy of the drug on the nematodes which on later stages renders the
expensive drug useless (Roeber et al. 2013). Anthelmintic resistance is a
threat to agricultural incomes because parasitic gastrointestinal infection
rates only escalate and as a result heavy production losses will remain a
major problem to livestock. Benzimidazole, imidazothiazole and
ivermectin all leave residues in meat, milk and their products. On the
other hand, ivermectin is excreted in faeces in sufficient quantity to have

22
a detrimental effect on invertebrates that usually degrade dung heaps,
and hence on organisms higher up the food chain. Anthelmintic
Resistance is the ability of parasites to survive doses of drugs that would
normally kill parasites of the same species and stage (Geary et al., 2012
as cited by European Medicines Agency, 2017). Resistance is inherited
and selected for during treatment, as resistant helminths escape the
effect of treatment and pass resistance to the next generation. The
resistance genes that occur through mutation are initially rare in the
population but, as selection continues, their relative proportion in the
population increases and consequently the proportion of resistant
parasites increases too. Cross resistance describes resistance between
chemical classes (Dargatz et al.,2000 cited by European Medicines
Agency, 2017).
5.1. Factors Affecting the Development of Anthelmintic
Resistance
5.1.1. Treatment frequency
It has been observed that frequent usage of the same group of
anthelmintic may result in the development of AR. There is evidence
that resistance develops more rapidly in regions where animals are
dewormed regularly. Anthelmintic resistance in H. contortus has been
reported in some humid tropical areas where 10 to 15 treatments per
year were used to control this parasite in small ruminants. Drug
resistance, however, can also be selected at lower treatment
frequencies, especially when the same drug is used over many years
(Shalaby, 2012).

5.1.2. Anthelmintics underdosing

Underdosing is generally considered an important factor in the
development of AR because sub therapeutic doses might allow the
survival of heterozygous resistant worms. Several laboratory
experiments have shown that underdosing contributes to the selection
of resistant or tolerant strains. Moreover, variation in bioavailability in
different host species also is crucial for making a decision about correct
dose. Some indirect field evidence further supports this conclusion. For
an example, the bioavailability of benzimidazole and levamisole is much
lower in goats than in sheep, resultantly those goats should be treated
with dosages 1.5 to 2 times higher (the single dose is much less inferior
than “sub-optimal”, it is rather near half the dose necessary for goats)
than those given to sheep. For many years, however, sheep and goats

23
were given the same anthelmintic doses. The fact that AR is very
frequent and widespread in goats may be a direct consequence of
difference in metabolism of drugs. To reduce the costs of anthelmintic
treatment in developing countries, the use of lower dosages than the
recommended therapeutic ones has been advocated. Such practices
should clearly be avoided. Most of the currently applied anthelmintics
are in fact subcurative in at least part of the population. Additionally,
there are a number of species of nematodes which are present as mixed
infection in animals throughout the world which respond to different
groups of anthelmintics differently due to the irregular susceptibility of
these species to a given anthelmintic. This is considered acceptable for
morbidity control, but in the long run such strategies may contribute to
the development of AR as well.

5.1.3. Mass treatment

Prophylactic mass treatments of domestic animals have
contributed to the widespread development of AR in helminths.
Computer models indicate that the development of resistance is delayed
when 20% of the flock is left untreated but it needs confirmation
through experimentation. This approach would ensure that the progeny
of the worms surviving treatment will not consist only of resistant
worms. Leaving a part of the group untreated; especially the members
carrying the lowest worm burdens should not necessarily reduce the
overall impact of the treatment. In worm control in livestock, regular
moving of the flocks to clean pastures after mass treatment and/or
planning to administer treatment in the dry seasons is a common
practice to reduce rapid reinfection. However, these actions result in the
next helminth generation that consists almost completely of worms that
survived therapy and, therefore, might contribute to the development of
AR.

5.1.4. Single - drug regimens

Frequent and continuous use of a single drug leads to the
development of resistance. For example, a single drug, which is usually
very effective in the first years, is continuously used until it no longer
works. In a survey of sheep farmers in Tennessee, found that one out of
every two flocks was dosed with a single anthelmintic until it failed.
Long-term use of levamisole in cattle also led to the development of
resistance, although the annual treatment frequency was low and cattle

24
helminthes seemed to develop resistance less easily than do worms in
small ruminants. Frequent use of ivermectin without alternation with
other drugs has also been reported as the reason for the fast
development of resistance in H. contortus in South Africa and New
Zealand.

5.2. Transmission of Anthelmintic Resistance

Studies examining changes in the prevalence of anthelmintic
resistance have suggested that initially “on farm” selection is the crucial
process. However, as resistant parasite populations become more
common, animal movement is one of the key factors that account for
the rapid changes that occur during the last stages of the development
process. There have been several well-documented examples of
international transmission of resistance in sheep and goats.

5.3. Management Strategies to Delay the Development of

Anthelmintic Resistance
5.3.1. Correct use of anthelmintics
The prudent use recommendations currently established
have the overall aim to target treatment in the best possible way
so as to reduce unnecessary exposure and thus limit the risk for
resistance.
Recommendations for prudent use of anthelmintics are
generally based on an in-depth understanding of the helminth
epidemiology. It is stressed that deworming is based on the
confirmation of worm burden and that treatment with a relevant
product is applied at the right time in relation to the life cycle of
the parasite so as to obtain sufficient effect without unnecessary
exposure.
It has been demonstrated that underdosing and/or a too
frequent use of anthelmintics belonging to the same class will
increase the risk for selection of resistance. Furthermore, from a
theoretical point of view it could be assumed that long-acting
drugs (e.g. long acting boluses) and pour-on formulations pose a
particular risk. An extended exposure period and sub-therapeutic
tail concentrations could promote the selection of resistant
strains and may also have implications for the refugia situation. It
is recommended by experts that long-acting anthelmintics are
applied only in situations when the grazing season is considerably

25
longer than the duration of the effect (i.e. that these formulations
are applied at the start of the grazing). Pour-on formulations may
be associated with substantial variation in drug exposure, i.e.
there may be the risk of suboptimal treatment due to grooming
behaviour, dirty coat or weather conditions.
To avoid unnecessary exposure, it is prudent to limit the
use of broad-spectrum (combined) products (e.g. with nematocidal
and flukicidal activity) only when all substances included in the
product are necessary to effectively treat the animal.
The limited number of anthelmintics authorised for minor
species (e.g. fish, goats, alpacas and donkeys) leads to significant
off-label use. Dosing strategies may then have insufficient
scientific support which could cause, for example, unintentional
under dosing.
Although there is a lack of scientific evidence, rotation of
anthelmintic classes is often recommended to delay the
development of resistance. Rotation of drugs was originally
suggested based on the hypothesis that reversion to susceptibility
might occur if resistant worms were less fit than susceptible
worms, and counter selection was applied via treatment with a
drug from a distinct chemical class. However, evidence that
resistant worms are any less fit or that true reversion occurs in
the field is scant.
Routine deworming which is still often practised, leads to
unnecessary treatment and, thus, an increase of the selection
pressure. This is of particular concern when used in farm animals
in situations when environmental refugia (i.e. susceptible
helminth population) is low. One example of routine use of
anthelmintics on farms is the “dose -and- move” practice, which
may provide a survival advantage for resistant parasites
(European Medicines Agency, 2017).

5.3.2. Refugia
Resistance spread is promoted if parasites carrying
mutations that bring about reduced susceptibility to
anthelmintics are provided with a survival advantage in the
population. The refugia concept aims to keep the proportion of
resistant worms within the population at a low level and it is thus
advocated as a tool to slow the progress of anthelmintic

26
resistance. Parasites in refugia are those that have not been
exposed to an anthelmintic, including those present as free-living
stages in the environment, those in untreated individuals, and
those in any lifecycle stages in the host that are not affected by
the anthelmintic. Appropriate treatment strategies and pasture
management need to be implemented to maintain.
The value of maintaining a population of parasites in
refugia to slow down the development of anthelmintic resistance
has been demonstrated in a bioeconomic model for sheep. In this
model, besides the number of flock treatments, the proportion of
the worm population in refugia had a significant influence on the
rate of development of anthelmintic resistanc. The success of
refugia (dilution) strategies relies on maintaining a sufficiently
large susceptible population of worms. To be successful, the early
implementation of helminth control strategies according to the
refugia concept is regarded necessary, i.e. acting when resistant
allele frequency in the parasite population is still low. It is also
likely that implementation of control strategies according to this
concept will be beneficial in regions or on individual farms where
resistance is not currently a major concern (European Medicines
Agency, 2017).

5.3.3. Use of multiactive anthelmintic products

It is currently under discussion whether combination
products that contain two or more active substances targeting the
same helminth but through different mode of actions (so called
multiactive anthelmintic products) could be advantageous with
respect to delaying the emergence of resistance. Modelling studies
and some field data have indicated that such products may delay
the development of resistance to new active substances, or delay
development of anthelmintic resistance to existing anthelmintic
classes. However, the use of multiactive anthelmintics might
select for multiple resistance to different anthelmintic classes.
Whether multi-actives offer a benefit with regard to resistance
development that would outweigh any risk for promoting multiple
resistance needs to be further substantiated. This is important to
determine before formulating any recommendation on the use of
such products (European Medicines Agency, 2017).

27
 5.3.4. Other options
Other measures to control helminth infestation in animals
are different pasture management routines, e.g. removal of faeces
from pasture to reduce the level of infective larvae, reducing
stocking densities, preventing high degree of infestation or
improving drainage of pastures to decrease the risk of liver fluke
infestations. To be effective, such measures would have to be
tailored according to the specific epidemiology situation on the
individual farm. Appropriate quarantine protocols are also
recommended as a useful measure to prevent introduction of
resistant helminths.
In addition to this, other biological control methods are
currently under development, e.g. vaccines and the selection for
livestock that is genetically less susceptible to helminth
infestation. The latter approach has been tested in sheep
(European Medicines Agency, 2017).

5.4. Methods of detecting resistance

There are various in vivo and in vitro methods available to assess

the efficacy of anthelmintics. In this context it should be considered
that identification of parasites (e.g. worm eggs) cannot always be
performed in the field at species level, but sometimes only at genus or
family level.

5.4.1. Nematodes Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test

Reduced efficacy, that may reflect the development of resistance,
can be detected by using the Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test (FECRT).
This test estimates the anthelmintic efficacy by comparing the number
of worm eggs in faeces of infected animals before and after treatment.
This test can be used for all anthelmintic classes, which is a great
advantage compared to other tests.
The appropriate study design for efficacy evaluation by use of
FECRT and the thresholds for interpretation of efficacy depend on
which anthelmintics and target species are to be evaluated. For small
ruminants, according to the WAAVP guideline, resistance is confirmed
when the percentage of reduction in egg count (arithmetic mean) is less
than 95% and when the 95% confidence level is less than 90%. If only
one of the two criteria is met, resistance is only suspected.

28
 The usefulness of the FECRT as a tool to identify resistance is
limited by its lack of sensitivity. Another disadvantage is that it is not
species-specific; eggs of different nematode species cannot be
differentiated within the test. Moreover, the interpretation of the test
depends upon various factors including the detection limit of the
method, the number of animals per group, the host species, and the
level of egg excretion by the helminths.

5.4.2. Egg Reappearance Period Test

Egg reappearance period (ERP) is defined as the time interval
between the last anthelmintic treatment and the resumption of
significant helminth egg shedding (Coles et al., 2006). To evaluate
potential occurrence of resistance, the ERP after dosing should be
compared with the historical ERP of the veterinary medicinal product.
The ERP is a more sensitive method for detecting a reduction in efficacy
than the FECRT for some helminth species.

5.4.3. Molecular Assays

Molecular techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or
pyrosequencing, can reveal mutations in helminth genes responsible for
resistance to a certain anthelmintic class. Currently, only resistance to
benzimidazoles can be detected by PCR.
These methods are useful when resistance is caused by a single
gene mutation (i.e. SNP), or by a small number of such mutations.
Whether an observed mutation corresponds to detectable resistance to a
certain anthelmintic would have to be substantiated by controlled
laboratory studies, field studies or documented in literature.

5.4.4. Other Methods

Other methods potentially useful for the detection of resistance
are the egg hatch assay (EHA) and the microagar larval development
assay (LDA). These methods have been developed for detection of
resistance to benzimidazoles or levamisole in horses, pigs or small
ruminants. Coles et al. (2006) have described these assays and how to
interpret the results. Yet another novel method for detection of drug
resistant helminths is based on a digitalised evaluation of worm
motility. Maintained motility of nematodes after administration of an
anthelmintic that should lead to paralysis of the parasite could indicate
a lack of efficacy. This method has been described for larval

29
Haemonchus contortus, Strongyloides ratti, adult hookworms and blood
flukes (Smout et al., 2010).

6. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL METHODS AS ALTERNATIVE

SOLUTION TO GASTROINTESTINAL NEMATODE INFESTATION
IN GOATS
In the last two decades, there has been a resurgence of interest in
traditional health-care practices all over the world. These traditional
practices involve diagnostics, herd grazing and pasture management as
well as manipulation and treatment. The incidence of AR has simply
forced veterinarians/producers to adopt alternative control strategies.
Plants have been used from ancient times to cure diseases of man and
animals. This system of therapy is commonly referred as ‘unani, folk,
eastern, or indigenous’ medicine. The plant kingdom is known to provide
a rich source of botanical anthelmintics, antibacterials and insecticides
(Shalaby, 2012).
Since the time immemorial, our traditional system of medicine and
folklore claiming that medicinal plants as a whole or their parts are being
used in all types of disease successfully including anthelmintics. Plant-
based drugs are believed to be less toxic to the host and end-users. They
are easily available, biodegradable, cheaper and ecofriendly. Moreover,
the people have used them for generations. Rural folk, tribes, ethnic
groups and nomads have found several plants very effective for their day-
to-day problems of health care. In livestock, medicinal plants are
important in veterinary practice worldwide.
Therefore, Phytomedicines in veterinary practice have great
potential as alternative medicine. Unlike synthetic anthelmintics, Herbal
medicines with different mode of action could be of value in preventing
the development of the resistance.
6.1. Betel Nut
According to Tangalin (2010),
processed mature betel nut
possessed Anthelmintic effects in
goat and sheep. Basing on his
study, the use of 30g betel
nut/kilogram body weight is
effective in expelling eggs and
adults of roundworms as compared

30
to his treatment of commercial dewormer (albendazole) which expelled
only adult roundworms.

6.2. Moringa Oliefera

Moringa oleifera is one of the
important plants in the Philippines
utilized for food and traditional
medicine. Previous studies revealed
the array of its bioactive compounds
with nutritive and medicinal values
present in the leaves, seeds, roots,
barks, and flowers. In addition, this
plant was utilized in the treatment of
malaria, leishmaniasis,
trypanosomiasis, schistosomiasis,
dracunculiasis, and filariasis thus suggesting its inherent antiparasitic
property. This property was further supported by few studies utilizing the
leaf and seed extracts against the gastrointestinal parasites of the
ruminant.
The study conducted by Cabardo and Portugaliza (2017) evaluated
the anthelmintic potential of Moringa oleifera seed ethanolic and
aqueous extracts against H. contortus eggs and infective stage larvae
(L3s). According to the results, the ovicidal activity of 15.6 mg/mL
ethanolic extract was comparable with that of albendazole and the
larvicidal activity of 7.8 mg/mL aqueous extract was similar statistically
with that of ivermectin. The secondary metabolites detected were tannins
in ethanolic extract and saponins in aqueous extract. Both extracts
inhibited larvae formation inside the eggs and rendered the L3s
immobile. Therefore, M. oleifera seed extracts contained plant bioactive
compounds with anthelmintic property
against the eggs and L3s of H. contortus.

6.3. Panyawan/Makabuhay
(Tinospora rumphii Boerl.)
Panyawan is a vine found
throughout the Philippines. It contains a
bitter principle, colombine (2.22%),
traces of alkaloids, and a glucoside. The
two alkaloids present are tinosporine

31
and tinosporidine. It also contains an amorphous bitter principle,
picroretine and traces of berberine. It is considered febrifuge, vulnerary,
tonic, antimalarial, parasiticide, and insecticidal.
The aqueous stem extracts were found to contain tannins,
saponins, flavonoids, alkaloids, steroids and phenols. PE had the highest
number of parasites expelled when given at 3.5 mL/10 kg BW and
exposed within 10-14 days. Comparing goats treated with various
concentrations of PE and albendazole and distilled water, % FECRT
shows that efficacy of 3.5 mL PE/10 kg BW and albendazole were
effective among the different treatments at 10 and 14 days post-
treatment. This observation shows that the anthelmintic activity of goats
treated with increasing amount of PE is having similar response between
goats treated with albendazole. Indicating that the two concentrations
were equally effective in controlling gastrointernal helminths of goats
(Ramada et al., 2018).

6.4. Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and Flemingia

(Flemingia macrophylla)

32
 In the study conducted by Orden et al. (2017),
the results suggested that Leucaena and
Flemingia could be potential sources of
anthelmintics when consumed by goats as
shown by the presence of condensed tannin.
Other studies reported that leguminous crops
which are rich in condensed tannins exert
vermifuge effects and tend to reduce
gastrointestinal
nematodes in grazing
animals. Therefore, the
relatively high TCT
present in Flemingia
makes the fodder a cheap source of control against
nematodes in goats. Condensed tannins from
forages can enhance tannin-nematode interactions
that effectively reduce the larvae survival of several
nematodes or react directly by interfering with the
parasite egg hatching and development to infective larvae stage in goats).
Although Flemingia had a very low rumen degradability, it can be an
effective feed for a sustainable parasite control among goat raised under
complete confinement.

6.5. Star Apple/Caimito, Makahiya and Makabuhay

Fernandez et
al. (2013) concluded
in his study that
Crude Ethanolic
Extract mixture of
makahiya + caimito
+ makabuhay
(MCM) could be
used as a dewormer
for goats against H. contortus at dosage level of
3.5 mL/kg BW, provided this should be kept
within 1 month at 26 C-28 C (ambient
temperature) or 4 C (fridge).

33
 6.6. Lagundi (Vitex negundo) and
Bannaba (Lagerstroemia speciosa)
Tadeo (2011) tested and evaluated the
efficacy of lagundi and bannaba fresh leaves
extract against gastrointestinal parasites of
goats. He
concluded in
his study that
the leaf
extract
treatments
are indeed
effective against Haemonchus spp.,
Cooperia spp. and Monieza spp.

6.7. Indigofera tinctoria

The study conducted by
Meenakshisundaram, Harikrishnan
and Anna (2015) proved that the
ethanolic extract of I. tinctoria
demonstrated significant (p<0.01)
inhibition on egg hatching at
concentrations of 40 mg/ml and 80
mg/ml. In in vivo assay, the ethanolic
extract of I. tinctoria reduced the fecal
egg count ranging between 30.82%
and 47.78% at various doses (125, 250 and 500 mg/kg). They further
concluded that based on the results obtained by in vitro and in vivo
assay, the ethanolic extract of I. tinctoria possesses anthelmintic activity
and could replace the chemical anthelmintics used presently.
CONCLUSION
Goat production holds an important niche for sustainable
agriculture in developing countries and supports a variety of
socioeconomic functions throughout the world. In Southeast Asia, small
ruminants are the vital part in mixed farming systems adopted by
smallholder farmers. In fact, goat farming in the Philippines is
considered the sunrise industry due to low capital investment and high
rates of return and thus provides livelihood to about 15 million Filipinos.

34
 The control of infestations of small ruminants by internal parasites
(especially nematodes) is the most serious problem that challenges the
goat industry today. Infestations of these parasites can cause major
economic losses to producers because of the cost of treatment,
production loss, and death of heavily infested animals.
Proper and effective management of internal parasites is extremely
important for the survivability of the small ruminant industry. The ability
to detect the clinical signs of a major worm infestation, to properly treat
the infected animals, and to effectively reduce the herd’s exposure to
these parasites are all very important for effective internal parasite
management.
Worms that infect small ruminants have developed resistance
against most of the available and widely used anthelmintics (dewormers).
This is an alarming issue among goat raisers worldwide. Frequent usage
of the same group of anthelmintic; use of anthelmintics in sub-optimal
doses, prophylactic mass treatment of domestic animals and frequent
and continuous use of a single drug have contributed to the widespread
development of anthelmintic resistance in helminthes.
Preventive measures such as low stocking rate, pasture rotation,
and proper nutrition were proven to reduce the level and the effects of
infestation by these parasites. Various studies were conducted that
proved the efficacy of botanical plants as alternative anthelmintic. These
prevention strategies effectively reduced the need for anthelmintics and
decrease parasitic infestations.

35
 LITERATURE CITED

ALCEDO, M. J., ITO, K., & MAEDA, K. 2015. Stockmanship competence

and its relation to productivity and economic profitability: the
context of backyard goat production in the Philippines. As ian-
Australasian journal of animal sciences, 28(3), 428–434.
doi:10.5713/ajas.14.0693

ALO, A.M.P., ROSARIO, N.A.D., BALBIN, A.J.M., NAYGA, J.N. Country

Report: Dairy Goat Production in the Philippines. In:
Proceedings of the 4th International AsianAustralasian Dairy
Goat Conference; 2018 Oct 1719: TraVinh, Vietnam. pp.
8394.

AZIZ, M.A. 2010. Present Status of the World Goat Populations and
their Productivity. Lohmann information international.
[Internet]. Vol. 45, Lohmann Information. Cuxhaven: Lohmann
Animal Health GmbH & Co. KG; 2010. 42‐52 p. Available from:
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20103348322

CABARDO, D.E.J. & PORTUGALIZA, H.P. 2017. Anthelmintic Activity of

Moringa Oleifera Seed Aqueous and Ethanolic Extracts Against
Haemonchus Contortus Eggs and Third Stage Larvae,
International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine, 5:1,
30-34, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijvsm.2017.02.001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijvsm.2017.02.001

COLES, G.C., JACKSON, F., POMROY, W.E., PRICHARD, R.K., SAMSON-

HIMMELSTJERNA, G., SILVESTRE, A., TAYLOR, M.A., VERCRUYSEE, J.
(2006). The Detection of Anthelmintic Resistance in Nematodes of
Veterinary Importance. Veterinary Parasitology 136 (2006) 167–185168.
doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.11.019

COSADIO, A.L., HEBRON, I.U. and ELLACER, R. 2011. Assessment of

Backyard Goat Raising in Claveria, Misamis Oriental,
Philippines. Mindanao J. Sci. Technol., 9(1): 73-86. 5.

EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY. 2017. Reflection Paper on

Anthelmintic Resistance. EMA/CVMP/EWP/573536/2013.
United Kingdom

FARM HEALTH ONLINE.COM (N.D.). Parasitic Gastroenteritis in

Ruminants. Retrieved on November 10, 2019 from
https://www.farmhealthonline.com/farmhealthonline.com/US/

36
 disease-management/cattle-diseases/parasitic-gastroenteritis-
in-ruminants/

FERNANDEZ, T. J., PORTUGALIZA, H., BRAGA, F., VASQUEZ, E.,

ACABAL, A., DIVINA, B., PEDERE, W. 2013. Effective Dose (ED)
and Quality Control Studies of the Crude Ethanolic Extract (CEE)
Mixture of Makabuhay, Caimito and Makahiya (MCM) as
Dewormer for Goats against Haemonchus contortus. Asian
Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences. 4. 28-35

KITAYAN, R. (2019). Common Diseases of Small Ruminants. Presentation

during the Animal Health and Forum, July 10-13, 2019, Baguio City,
Philippines

MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, A., HARIKRISHNAN, T. J., & ANNA, T. (2016).

Anthelmintic activity of Indigofera tinctoria against
gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. Veterinary world, 9(1), 101–
106. doi:10.14202/vetworld.2016.101-106

ORDEN, E.A., DEL ROSARIO, N.E., ORDEN, M.M., FUJIHARA, T. (2017).

Nutritive Value and Anthelmintic Properties of Selected
Leguminous Shrubs and Trees for Goats
http://dx.doi.org/10.22137/ijst.2017.v2n2.04

PEZZANITE L., NEARY M., HUTCHENS T., SCHARKO, P. (2013). Common

Diseases and Health Problems in Sheep and Goats. Purdue University
Cooperative Extension service AS-595-W

RAMADA J. M. S., SORIANO M. L. L., ABELLA J. A. C. (2018) Anthelmintic

Properties of Panyawan (Tinospora rumphii Boerl.) Crude Aqueous Stem
Extracts Against Gastrointestinal Helminths of Naturally Infected
Upgraded Goats (Capra hircus). ABAH Bioflux 10(1):9-17.
http://www.abah.bioflux.com.ro/

ROEBER, F., JEX, A.R. & GASSER, R.B. 2013. Impact of Gastrointestinal
Parasitic Nematodes of Sheep, and the Role of Advanced
Molecular Tools for Exploring Epidemiology and Drug Resistance
- an Australian Perspective. Parasites Vectors 6, 153.
doi:10.1186/1756-3305-6-153

RUTO, E., GARROD, G., SCARPA, R. 2008. Valuing Animal Genetic

Resources: A Choice Modeling Application to Indigenous Cattle in
Kenya. Agric. Econ. 38, 89–98.Retrieed on December 1, 2019.
from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574- 0862.2007.00284.x

37
SHALABY H. A. 2013. Anthelmintics Resistance; How to Overcome
it? Iranian journal of parasitology, 8(1), 18–32.

SMOUT, M.J., KOTZE, A.C., MCCARTHY, J.S., LOUKAS, A. (2010) A

Novel High Throughput Assay for Anthelmintic Drug Screening
and Resistance Diagnosis by Real-Time Monitoring of Parasite
Motility. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 4(11):
e885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000885

SOLAIMAN, S.G.2010. Goat Science and Production.Singapore: Wiley-

Blackwell, Singapore. p3-4. 2.

TADEO, N. N. (2011). Anthelmintic Efficacy of Lagundi (Vitex negundo

Linn) and Banaba (Langrostroemia Linn) Extracts on the Gastro-
Intestinal Parasites of Goat. ISU-Cabagan Journal of Research,
20(1). Retrieved on December 30, 2019 from
http://ejournals.ph/form/cite.php?id=7577

TANGALIN, M. G. (2010). Anthelmintic Effects of Processed Mature Betel

Nut as Dewormer to Native Chicken and Small Ruminants (Sheep and
Goats). Asian Journal of Health Basic Research Section. Vol. 1 No. 1
January 2011 ISSN: 2094-9243 pp. 230-243 International Peer
Reviewed Journal doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7828/ajoh.v1i1.166

VILLAROEL, A. (2013). Internal Parasites on Sheep and Goats. Oregon

State University Extension service

WORKU, E., KIROS, A., ASGEDOM, H., TADESSE, B. (2017) Alternative

Control Methods of Gastrointestinal Nematode Infections in Small
Ruminants: Biological Method and Use of Medicinal Plant Extracts. ARC
Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2017; 3(2):11-27. doi:
dx.doi.org/ 10.20431/24552518.0302002.

ZVINOROVA, P. I., HALIMANI, T. E., MUCHADEYI, F. C., MATIKA, O.,

RIGGIO, V., & DZAMA, K. 2016. Prevalence and Risk Factors of
Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in Goats in Low-input Low-
output Farming Systems in Zimbabwe. Small ruminant research:
the journal of the International Goat Association, 143, 75–83.
doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2016.09.005

38