Comparison between methods for measuring fecal egg count and estimating genetic parameters for gastrointestinal parasite resistance traits in sheep

Abstract

Abstract Fecal egg count (FEC) is an indicative measurement for parasite infection in sheep. Different FEC methods may show inconsistent results. Not accounting for inconsistencies can be problematic when integrating measurements from different FEC methods for genetic evaluation. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the difference in means and variances between two fecal egg counting methods used in sheep—the Modified McMaster (LMMR) and the Triple Chamber McMaster (LTCM); to estimate variance components for the two FEC methods, treating them as two different traits; and to integrate FEC data from the two different methods and estimate genetic parameters for FEC and other gastrointestinal parasite resistance traits. Fecal samples were collected from a commercial Rideau-Arcott sheep farm in Ontario. Fecal egg counting was performed using both LMMR and the LTCM methods. Other parasite resistance trait records were collected from the same farm including eye score (FAMACHA), body condition score (BCS), and body weight (WT). The two FEC methods were highly genetically (0.94) and phenotypically (0.88) correlated. However, the mean and variance between the two FEC methods were significantly different (P < 0.0001). Therefore, re-scaling is required prior to integrating data from the different methods. For the multiple trait analysis, data from the two fecal egg counting methods were integrated (LFEC) by using records for the LMMR when available and replacing missing records with re-standardized LTCM records converted to the same mean and variance of LMMR. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.04, 0.07 ± 0.05, 0.17 ± 0.06, and 0.24 ± 0.07 for LFEC egg count, FAMACHA, BCS, and WT, respectively. The estimated genetic correlations between FEC and the other parasite resistance traits were low and not significant (P > 0.05) for FAMACHA (r = 0.24 ± 0.32) and WT (r = 0.22 ± 0.19), and essentially zero for BCS (r = −0.03 ± 0.25), suggesting little to no benefit of using such traits as indicators for LFEC.