Abstracts for the 11th International Sheep Veterinary Congress, 2025
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anthelmintic resistance in sheep nematodes has been prevalent in Australia for many years, and compilations of FECRT results indicate the current status of anthelmintic actives against different worm species, as the basis of drench choice recommendations.Research objective: To collate the results of a large series of recent Faecal Egg Count Reduction Tests (FECRTs) as an indication of the prevalence and severity of anthelmintic resistance in sheep nematodes in Australia.Methods: A series of 80 FECRTs conducted on sheep properties in several states of Australia from 2021 to 2024 were analysed to indicate the relative efficacy of anthelmintics against mixed-species worm populations and the individual nematodes Haemonchus contortus, Teladorsagia circumcincta and Trichostrongylus species.Results: Reductions of worm egg counts for any of the genera Haemonchus, Teladorsagia or Trichostrongylus were less than 95% in 96%, 88%, 91% and 84% of tests for the benzimidazoles, levamisole, abamectin and moxidectin, respectively.For benzimidazolelevamisole-abamectin combinations, a reduction of less than 95% occurred in 66% of tests, and for both newer anthelmintic groups, monepantel and a derquantel-abamectin combination, in 23% of tests.For individual worm species, resistance in Teladorsagia circumcincta was common and often severe to the benzimidazoles, levamisole and macrocyclic lactones; in Haemonchus contortus to the benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones; and in Trichostrongylus mostly to the benzimidazoles and levamisole.For H.contortus resistance to closantel was found in 60% of tests, but was less prevalent for levamisole and naphthalophos (21% and 31%, respectively).Conclusion: The figures provide a basis for general drench choice recommendations but confirm the necessity for individual-property drench testing.Strategies to minimise the further development of anthelmintic resistance are urgently required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.501 | 0.293 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".