RESUMO
The present study explored the frequency of hair-sheep farms with gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) resistant to albendazole sulfoxide (AS), ivermectin (IVM) and levamisole (LEV) in the Yucatán peninsula, México, using the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT), and compared the frequency of farms diagnosed with resistance using three different formulae. The survey included farms from the states of Campeche (9) and Yucatán (14) (2016-2019). Collaborating farms had >100 grazing ewes. Animals in the FECRT were > 12 months old, received no anthelmintic for >8 weeks and had ≥150 GIN eggs per gramme of faeces (EPG). Animals were distributed to respective groups: untreated controls, AS (5 mg/kg BW), IVM (0.2 mg/kg BW), and LEV (7.5 mg/kg BW). Due to low EPG, some farms only included one or two AH groups. Second faecal samples were obtained on day 14 post-treatment to estimate the percentage reduction (%R) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Criteria to declare resistance were those proposed by the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology. Three formulae were used to estimate resistance frequency: The RESO© and eggCounts-T:C, which considered treated and control EPG means post-treatment, but differed in their 95%CI estimation, while the eggCounts-T:T only considered pre- and post-treatment EPG means with 95%CI. The RESO© and eggCounts-T:C formulae resulted in the same frequency of IVM resistant farms for Campeche (100%; 9/9) and Yucatán (92.9%; 13/14), while, the eggCount-T:T formula resulted in a frequency of 85.7% (12/14) IVM resistance in Yucatán. The three formulae estimated the same frequency of AS resistant farms in Campeche (100%; 9/9) and Yucatán (87.5%; 7/8). The RESO© and the eggCounts-T:C formulae resulted in the same frequency of LEV resistant farms for Campeche (44.4%; 4/9), and Yucatán (60.0%; 6/10), but the eggCounts-T:T formula resulted in a frequency of 40.0% (4/10) LEV resistance in Yucatán. The FECRT using RESO© or eggCounts-T:C formulae are stricter than the eggCounts-T:T as the latter cannot identify what proportion of the %R cannot be attributed to the AH. The untreated control group helped adjusting the %R calculation and seemed more adequate considering the propensity of hair-sheep to reduce their EPG on their own. .