The Veterinary Record Link to Vetlife website
HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKellar, Q.
Right arrow Articles by Marriner, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McKellar, Q.
Right arrow Articles by Marriner, S.
The Veterinary Record, Vol 120, Issue 16, 383-386
Copyright © 1987 by British Veterinary Association


Papers & Articles

Comparison of the anthelmintic efficacy of oxfendazole or ivermectin administered orally and ivermectin administered subcutaneously to sheep during the periparturient period

QA McKellar and SE Marriner

The suppression of nematode egg output in faeces was measured in ewes treated just before lambing with either oxfendazole or ivermectin by oral drench or with ivermectin by subcutaneous injection. Ivermectin and oxfendazole given orally were similarly effective, whereas ivermectin given by subcutaneous injection extended the period of suppressed egg output by about one week. The more persistent anthelmintic effect of ivermectin given subcutaneously was probably due to its extended half-life in the plasma of treated sheep. Plasma pepsinogen activity was less in the sheep given anthelmintic than in the untreated controls. Ivermectin caused a significantly greater reduction in pepsinogen activity than oxfendazole and was more effective when given subcutaneously than when given orally.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Vet Rec.Home page
D. J. Wilson, N. D. Sargison, P. R. Scott, and C. D. Penny
Epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematode parasitism in a commercial sheep flock and its implications for control programmes
Vet Rec., April 26, 2008; 162(17): 546 - 550.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME CURRENT ISSUE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHIVE SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS JOBS FEEDBACK HELP
Copyright © 1987 British Veterinary Association