Submitted:
29 July 2026
Posted:
30 July 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Study Period
2.2. Methodological Approach and Study Design
2.3. Study Population, Unit of Analysis, and Unit of Observation
2.3.1. Study Population
2.3.2. Unit of Analysis and Unit of Observation
2.4. Sample Size Calculation
2.5. Farm Selection and Sampling Procedure
| Sector | Farms code | Animals sampled |
|---|---|---|
| Centro de Guanujo | CGa | 6 |
| Centro de Guanujo | CGb | 4 |
| Nuevo Guanujo | NGa | 4 |
| Nuevo Guanujo | NGb | 4 |
| Ibisgagua | Ib | 5 |
| Quinoa Corral | QCa | 5 |
| Quinoa Corral | QCb | 4 |
| Callanayacu | CAa | 5 |
| Callanayacu | CAb | 4 |
| Llullundongo | SjLa | 8 |
| Llullundongo | SjLb | 4 |
| La Moya | LMo | 5 |
| Rumipungo | RUa | 6 |
| Rumipungo | RUb | 6 |
| Total | 14 | 70 |
2.6. Characteristics of the Study Population
2.7. Farm Management Characteristics
2.8. Fecal Sample Collection, Preservation, and Transport
2.9. Coproparasitological Analysis
2.10. Data Collection and Study Variables
2.10.1. Data Collection
2.10.2. Dependent Variable
2.10.3. Independent Variables
2.11. Statistical Analysis
2.12. Research Hypothesis
2.13. Ethical Approval and Animal Welfare
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Study Population
| Variable | Category | n | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Lambs | 17 | 24.3 |
| Juveniles | 35 | 50.0 | |
| Adults | 18 | 25.7 | |
| Sex | Female | 45 | 64.3 |
| Male | 25 | 35.7 | |
| Physiological status | Growing | 35 | 50.0 |
| Lactating | 17 | 24.3 | |
| Non-pregnant | 11 | 15.7 | |
| Pregnant | 7 | 10.0 |
| Variable | Category | Number of farms | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production System | Extensive | 7 | 50.0 |
| Semi-intensive | 5 | 35.7 | |
| Intensive | 2 | 14.3 | |
| Deworming Frequency | <1 time/year | 10 | 71.4 |
| 1–2 times/year | 2 | 14.3 | |
| >2 times/year | 2 | 14.3 | |
| Pasture Rotation | Yes | 5 | 35.7 |
| No | 9 | 64.3 | |
| Stocking Rate | High | 8 | 57.1 |
| Low-medium | 6 | 42.9 |
3.2. Prevalence of the Strongyle-Type Eggs

3.3. Parasite Burden
| Infestation Level | Frequency (%) | Average EPG |
|---|---|---|
| Mild <500 EPG | 42 | 300 |
| Moderate 500–1500 | 34 | 1000 |
| Severe >1500 | 24 | 2600 |
3.4. Factors Associated with Positivity

| Variable | Categoría | Prevalence (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Lambs | 57.1 | ||
| Juveniles | 68.4 | 0.035 | ||
| Adults | 41.7 | |||
| Physiological status | Lactating | 70.0 | ||
| Pregnant | — | |||
| Non-pregnant | — | |||
| Growing | 58.0 | 0.015 | ||
| Production system | Extensive | 61.9 | ||
| Semi-intensive | 48.0 | |||
| Intensive | 33.0 | 0.022 | ||
| Deworming frequency | <1 time/year | 72.0 | ||
| 1–2 times/year | 46.0 | |||
| >2 times/year | 28.0 | 0.009 | ||
| Pasture rotation | yes | 39.0 | ||
| No | 63.0 | 0.025 | ||
| Stocking density | High | 69.0 | ||
| Low-moderate | 38.0 | 0.006 | ||
3.5. Univariate Analysis
3.6. Multivariable Logistic Regression
| Variable | Comparison | OR ajusted | 95% inferior CI | 95% superior CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Lambs vs. adults | 4.818 | 1.137 | 20.421 | 0.033 |
| Age | Juveniles vs adults | 8.721 | 1.998 | 38.074 | 0.004 |
| Sex | Males vs females | 1.988 | 0.585 | 6.759 | 0.271 |
| System | Extensive vs intensive | 4.604 | 1.615 | 13.120 | 0.004 |
| System | Semi-intensive vs intensive | 4.085 | 1.127 | 14.809 | 0.032 |
| Deworming | 1–2 times/year vs >2 times/year | 0.580 | 0.122 | 2.756 | 0.493 |
| Deworming | <1 time/year vs >2 times/year | 0.337 | 0.129 | 0.883 | 0.027 |
| Rotation | No vs Yes | 0.869 | 0.241 | 3.140 | 0.830 |
| Density | High vs low | 5.149 | 1.425 | 18.598 | 0.012 |
4. Discussion
4.1. Prevalence of Strongyle-Type Gastrointestinal Nematodes
4.2. Parasite Burden
4.3. Risk Factors Associated with Infection
4.4. Variables Not Independently Associated with Infection
4.5. Implications for Parasite Control
5. Study Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Financial Support
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tachack EB, Oviedo-Socarrás T, Pastrana MO, Pérez-Cogollo LC, Benavides YH, Pinto CR, Garay OV. Status of gastrointestinal nematode infections and associated epidemiological factors in sheep from Córdoba, Colombia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022 Apr 26;54(3):171. PMID: 35471467; PMCID: PMC9042984. [CrossRef]
- Macedo IF, de Oliveira LB, Ribeiro WC, Dos Santos JM, Silva KC, Filho JA, Bevilaqua CM. Anthelmintic activity of Cymbopogon citratus against Haemonchus contortus. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology. 2015; 24(3): 268–275. [CrossRef]
- do Nascimento JM, Brito SV, Teixeira AA, Guimarães R, Rodrigues AA, do Nascimento J, Sousa F, Leme da Cunha IA. Potential distribution modelling for Haemonchus contortus (Nematoda: Trichostrongylidae) in South America. Parasitol Res. 2024; 123, 227. [CrossRef]
- Sallé G, Doyle SR, Cortet J, Cabaret J, Berriman M, Holroyd N, Cotton JA. The global diversity of Haemonchus contortus is shaped by human intervention and climate. Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 4811. [CrossRef]
- Parvin S, Dey AR, Shohana NN, Anisuzzaman, Talukder, MH, & Alam MZ. Haemonchus contortus, an obligatory haematophagus worm infection in small ruminants: Population genetics and genetic diversity. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2024; 31(8): 104030. [CrossRef]
- Abosse JS, Terefe G, & Teshale BM. Comparative study on pathological changes in sheep and goats experimentally infected with Haemonchus contortus. Surgical and Experimental Pathology. 2022; 5(14): 1–12. [CrossRef]
- Escribano CS. Evaluación inmunológica de ovinos resistentes y susceptibles a la infestación por el nemátodo Haemonchus contortus. Thesis master, Universidad de la República, Facultad de Ciencias, Montevideo. 2022; Uruguay. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332974430_Evaluacion_inmunologica_de_ovinos_resistentes_y_susceptibles_a_la_infestacion_por_el_nematodo_Haemonchus_contortus.
- Solís-Carrasco J, Gaxiola-Camacho S, Enríquez-Verdugo I, Portillo-Loera J, López-Valencia G, & Castro-del-Campo N. Factores ambientales asociados a la prevalencia de Haemonchus spp. en corderos de la zona centro de Sinaloa. Abanico Veterinario. 2021; 11: 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Mohamed MO, Yasin AM, & Jama NA. Assessment of the prevalence and risk factors of Haemonchus contortus infection of sheep and goats in Afgooye district, Somalia. Research Square. 2024; [CrossRef]
- Babják M, Königová A, Komáromyová M, Kuzmina T, Nosal P, Várady M. Multidrug resistance in Haemonchus contortus in sheep – can it be overcome? Journal of Veterinary Research. 2023; 67: 575–581. [CrossRef]
- Qamar W, & Alkheraije KA. Anthelmintic resistance in Haemonchus contortus of sheep and goats from Asia – A review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 2023; 43(3): 376–387. [CrossRef]
- Sajovitz-Grohmann F, Adduci I, Werling D, Wiedermann S, Wortha LN, Prole B, Lichtmannsperger K. Safety and efficacy of a novel glycoengineered recombinant vaccine candidate against Haemonchus contortus in sheep. NPJ Vaccines. 2025; 10:190: . [CrossRef]
- Ali R, Rooman M, Mussarat S, Norin S, Ali S, Adnan M, & Khan S N. A systematic review on comparative analysis, toxicology, and pharmacology of medicinal plants against Haemonchus contortus. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2021; 12: 644027. [CrossRef]
- Pilataxi Simbaña JD. Elaboración y aplicación de antígeno parasitario (Haemonchus) en Ovinos. Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi. Latacunga. 2021; 72 p. http://repositorio.utc.edu.ec/handle/27000/7938.
- Rojas-Hernández S, Gutiérrez-Segura I, Olivares-Pérez J, & Valencia-Almazán MT. Prevalencia de nemátodos gastrointestinales en ovinos en pastoreo en la parte alta del municipio de Cuetzala del Progreso, Guerrero-México. REDVET Revista electrónica de Veterinaria, 2007; 8(9): 1–7. http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/redvet/n090907/090714.pdf.
- Demessie TS, Nigussie DR, Biru TM, Ambaw YG. Prevalence, Associated Risk Factors of Haemonchosis and Burden of Strongyle Nematode of Small Ruminants in Bishoftu, Oromia, Central Ethiopia. Journal of Parasitology Research. 2025; 10:2025:4417948. [CrossRef]
- Gebresilassie L, & Tadele B. Prevalence of Ovine Haemonchosis in Wukro, Ethiopia. Journal of Parasitology Research, 2015; 22: 635703. [CrossRef]
- Brik K, Hassouni T, Elkharrim K, Belghyti D. A survey of Haemonchus contortus parasite of sheep from Gharb plain, Morocco. Parasite Epidemiology and Control, 2019;3: e00094. [CrossRef]
- Boukhari MI, Elfadil AAM, Omer FA, Shuaib YA. Prevalence and risk factors of Haemonchus contortus in sheep in Khartoum State, Sudan. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 2016; 9 (2): 77–83. [CrossRef]
- Mohamed SA, Dyab AK, Raya-Álvarez E, Abdel-Aziz FM, Osman F, Gareh A, ... & Elmahallawy EK. Molecular identification of Haemonchus contortus in sheep from Upper Egypt. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024; 10: 1327424. [CrossRef]
- Ahmad N, Khan SA, Majid HA, Ali R, Ullah R, Bari A, Akbar NU, Majid A. Epidemiology and phylogeny of Haemonchus contortus through internal transcribed spacer 2 gene in small ruminants. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024; 11: 1380203. [CrossRef]
| Variable | Comparison | OR crude | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deworming frequency | <1 time/year vs >2 times/year | 3.42 | 1.32–8.86 | 0.009 | |
| Pasture rotation | Without rotation vs With rotation | 2.51 | 1.11–5.68 | 0.025 | |
| Production system | Extensive vs Intensive | 2.78 | 1.12–6.91 | 0.022 | |
| Animal density | High vs Low/Moderate | 3.65 | 1.42–9.01 | 0.006 | |
| Age | Juveniles vs Adults | 2.14 | 1.06–4.35 | 0.035 | |
| Physiological state | Lactating vs No-lactating | 2.96 | 1.23–7.12 | 0.015 | |
| Sex | Males vs females | 1.18 | 0.61–2.29 | 0.421 | |
| Breed | Local breed vs. Crossbreed | 1.09 | 0.54–2.18 | 0.537 | |
| Coexistence with other species | Yes vs No | 1.41 | 0.75–2.67 | 0.288 | |
| Presence of wetlands | Yes vs No | 1.87 | 0.86–4.03 | 0.114 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).