Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2023 Jul 18;9(5):2107–2117. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1206

Survey of intestinal parasites in swine farms raised in Western Nepal

Barshat Chaudhary 1, Rajendra Prasad Parajuli 1, Pitambar Dhakal 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10508489  PMID: 37463607

Abstract

Background

Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), an important domestic livestock, are generally affected by helminth and protozoan parasites. Rearing pigs in rural regions in Nepal is a common practice for subsistence farming. A cross‐sectional survey was conducted to determine the occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites (GIPs) in pigs raised in Western Nepal.

Methods

A total of 200 faecal samples from commercial and smallholder farms were examined by wet mounts, flotation, sedimentation and staining techniques.

Results

The results revealed that overall 86.5% of samples were found shedding oocysts or eggs of one or more GIPs. Three species of protozoa [Eimeria sp. (26%), Entamoeba coli (25.5%) and Coccidia (29%)] and nine species of helminths parasites (Ascaris suum (32.5%), Trichuris suis (30%), strongyle‐type nematode (27.5%), hookworm (26%), Fasciola sp. (17.5%), Physaloptera sp. (17.5%), Strongyloides sp. (17.5%), Metastrongylus sp. (8%) and Oesophagostomum sp. (5.5%)] were identified. Female pigs were found to have higher protozoan infection than males, but such a difference was not noticed with regard to helminth parasites. Strongyles and Oesophagostomum infection were higher in commercial farms compared to smallholder farms, whereas the prevalences of E. coli and other protozoans were higher in smallholder farms. Among the contextual factors evaluated for association, weight and gender of pigs, and annual income and gender of managers/caretakers were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with the prevalence of GIPs in pigs. The overall prevalence of certain helminths such as strongyle‐type nematode and A. suum was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with the weight of pigs after adjusting other contextual factors.

Conclusions

This study detected relatively high prevalence of intestinal parasites in domestic pig facilities. Molecular epidemiological studies are essential to verify the exact zoonotic potential of parasites carried by pigs in the region. An effective periodic monitoring of GIPs of pigs needs to be carried out to minimize their further dissemination.

Keywords: gastrointestinal parasites, Nepal, prevalence, swine farms

High prevalence of intestinal parasites was recorded in the commercial and smallholder pig farms in Western Nepal. Risk factors like the age, gender and weight of the host, types of farms and awareness of the caretakers were incriminated to the parasite burden.

graphic file with name VMS3-9-2107-g003.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Pigs, also called hogs or swine, are ungulates which have been domesticated as a source of food, leather and similar products since ancient times. More recently they have been used in biochemical research and treatment (Pam et al., 2013). Pigs are reared in most parts of the world for the provision of biomedical raw material and pork. Pork contributes about 44% of the global meat consumption (FAO, 2015). The main purpose for keeping pigs in Nepal includes the provision of protein/meat and manure for fertilizing the soil.

Pigs have short generation intervals, high fecundity rate and grow faster resulting in quick generation of cash for farmers. Farmers prefer keeping pigs as it does not require more physical labour in management (ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), 2011), has the advantages of economy of space, ease of marketability and guarantees the speedy returns on the investment in swine industry (Nwanta et al., 2011). Several pathogenic protozoan parasites such as Balantidium coli, Entamoeba coli and Cryptosporidium sp., which affect health and swine production, might also be shared by humans involved in backyard swine farms (Solaymani‐Mohammadi & Petri, 2006). These protozoans are disseminated through faecal–oral means between humans and animals, most often by ingestion of contaminated food and water (Zheng et al., 2019). Pigs could carry many gastrointestinal parasites (GIPs) which would hinder growth of pigs, leading to significant economic loss to the livestock industries (Joachim et al., 2001). Some commonly encountered intestinal helminth parasites in pigs include Hyostrongylus rubidus, Strongyloides ransomi, Trichostrongylus sp., Ascaris suum, Metastrongylus sp., Oesophagostomum dentatum, Trichuris suis and Macracanthorhynchus hirudinaceus (Nansen & Roepstorff, 1999; Kouam & Ngueguim, 2022).

In our study area, most of the pigs are kept in unhygienic conditions due to the traditional smallholder system which increases the chances of parasitic invasion. However, for the resource‐limited farmers, the traditional pig production system is attractive, because it requires much less space (Phiri et al., 2003). Infection of pig with GIPs is widely reported from all corners of the world and shown to be influenced by the type of pig management under practice (Pettersson et al., 2021) and their effect depends on the parasite burden and host response (Kipper et al., 2011). Pigs are reservoirs of Taenia solium, and almost 50% people who rear pigs were found infected by taeniasis in Nepal (Rajshekhar et al., 2003). Mild or even heavy infections may give rise to malnutrition, diarrhoea, dysentery, abdominal pain, emesis, in‐appetence, thriftiness, general malaise, tiredness and impaired cognitive development and growth retardation in pigs (Ajibo et al., 2020).

Pigs are the most popular livestock in Tikapur Municipality, Kailali, Nepal, which have traditional, religious and economic value. Most of the people in this region do not have latrines, they defecate in open fields, or nearby areas around their house. Pigs are commonly kept in sheds almost adjacent to houses or near the houses where younger piglets are seen wandering along with human children. This close association among pigs, children and dogs poses a risk of cross‐infection with a range of parasites to occur (Nansen & Roepstorff, 1999). In contrast, few commercial farms are being operated in the area with larger numbers of pigs in captivity. The people involved in swine industry are always at high risk because they get exposed with the pigs and their faecal matter (Djurković‐Djaković et al., 2013).

To our information, there are no studies on the prevalence and associated factors of GIPs in pigs in the Western region of Nepal. This study was carried out to find out the comparative prevalence and associated risk factors of intestinal parasites (IPs) in pigs reared under commercial farms and smallholder farms in Tikapur Municipality, Kailali, Nepal.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study area

This study was carried out in Tikapur municipality located in Sudurpaschim Province, Nepal (Figure 1). It lies in the Terai region at 205 masl and extends within 28.50995° N, 81.1086° E with an area of 122.12 km2. It is situated 14 km south from Mahendra highway and 14 km North from India. Divided into nine wards, this municipality is surrounded by Karnali River in East, Janaki Rural Municipality in North, India in South and Bhajani Municipality in West. Agriculture is the main occupation of the inhabitants of this region, and it includes animal rearing (pig, goat and buffalo), floriculture and apiculture.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Location map of the study area, Tikapur Municipality, Kailali. Here, “n” represents the number of samples collected from the study wards.

2.2. Study design and sample collection

Prior written consent was taken from each farm manager/caretaker, and they were informed in detail regarding the aims and importance of the study before questionnaire survey. Likewise, the study permission was obtained from the municipal authority. None of the animals were harmed in the process of sampling. In a preliminary field visit, the approximate population of pigs in the survey site was estimated to be 900. As shown in the location map of the study area, 12 samples each from smallholder and commercial farms of ward number three, and 11 samples each from rest of the eight wards were collected to make it 100 samples each from smallholder and commercial pig farms during September–November 2021. Therefore, a total of 200 samples (male, n = 77 and female, n = 123) represented 22% of the total estimated pig population of the survey area. Opportunistic random sampling method was used for the collection of stool samples from pigs. Fresh faecal samples were collected from the ground (i.e. avoiding soil contamination) immediately after defecation using a sterile wooden spatula. The individual sample was kept in sterile container and preserved in 2.5% potassium dichromate solution until laboratory analysis. The samples were collected in the morning, generally from 8:00 to 10:00 am when the farm managers/caretakers were cleaning the animal farms. All the faecal samples were macroscopically examined for their consistency and to see if any adult worms were present. All the sampled animals were visually inspected for any abnormal clinical sign and symptoms. In total, 123 male and 77 female pigs of various ages (1–30 months) were included in this study. The body weight of the individual pig was recorded with the help of a digital weighing machine.

2.3. Questionnaire survey

During preliminary field visit and sample collection, questionnaire survey, group discussion and personal interview were conducted with all the farm managers/caretakers involved in pig farms to obtain socio‐demographic, socio‐economic data, personal hygienic measures, types of pig feed, feeding practice, farm management, veterinary care and deworming treatment as knowledge, attitudes and practices surveys provide crucial information to explore risk factors (Moutos et al., 2022).

2.4. Examination of faecal samples

All the faecal samples were processed through direct wet mount (saline and iodine), floatation, sedimentation and modified Ziehl–Neelsen method followed by microscopic examination (Zajac & Conboy, 2012).

2.4.1. Saline and iodine mounts

Saline wet mounts were prepared by mixing a small portion of faecal specimen with a drop of physiological saline on a clean glass slide. Similarly, a portion of faecal specimen was mixed with a drop of 1% Lugol's iodine on a clean glass slide to stain and screen the nuclear structures of protozoan parasites.

2.4.2. Concentration technique

To concentrate the parasites, faecal floatation and sedimentation was carried out as described by Foreyt (2001) with slight modification. From each sample container, about 1 g of faeces was separately mixed with 15 mL saline water in two separate beakers (one for flotation and another for sedimentation), strained through double gauge cloth and poured in to 15 mL falcon tubes.

2.4.3. Flotation technique

The content in falcon tube was centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 min and the supernatant was decanted. The falcon tube was filled with flotation solution (saturated sodium chloride, specific gravity 1.18–1.2) up to the rim, a clean cover slip was placed on top of each tube, it was allowed to stand undisturbed for half an hour and the cover slip was gently transferred to a glass slide and examined under higher power (×400).

2.4.4. Formal‐ether sedimentation technique

In this method, the faecal suspension was centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 10 min, supernatant was discarded, added with saline water and again centrifuged for 5 min. Supernatant was discarded, mixed with 10 mL 10% formalin and allowed to stand for 10 min, 3 mL ether added, stopper applied and shaken vigorously, centrifuged for 5 min, debris removed from top of the tube, supernatant decanted, and a drop of the sediment placed on a microscope slide and examined under high power (×400) magnification.

2.4.5. Staining

Each sample was processed through modified acid‐fast stain after concentration process to stain coccidian oocysts. The faecal specimen was smeared on a glass slide, allowed to air dry, heat fixed, and stained with carbol fuchsin for 5 min and rinsed with water. After draining the water, the slides were decolorized using mixture of dilute acid‐alcohol until the disappearance of carbol fuchsin stain. The slides were then counterstained with methylene blue for 1 min, rinsed with water and air dried. The stained preparations were examined under oil immersion objective to detect the presence of coccidian oocysts (Wormser & Stratton, 2008).

2.4.6. Parasite identification

Each slide was screened under low power and high power, and identified on the basis of morphological characters (Foreyt, 2001; Parija, 2009; Zajac & Conboy, 2012) (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Identified protozoan and helminth intestinal parasites in domestic pigs.

2.4.7. Statistical analysis

Tables with mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentages were used to illustrate the findings. Prevalence of GIPs among pigs was evaluated among different groups according to managers/caregivers’ age, gender and other socio‐economic, socio‐demographic and behavioural factors using t test or Chi square test. Bivariate and multivariate linear regression was used to evaluate the association between prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections, and associated factors. At a p value of 0.05 or below with a 95% confidence interval (CI), the test was regarded statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software.

3. RESULTS

The characteristic features of the pig managers/caretakers and pigs have been depicted in Table 1. Most of the farm managers/caretakers were male (56.5%) with the mean age of 34.64 years, and their education level ranges from illiterate to high school graduates (Table 1) and their mean monthly income was about NRs 40,000. Similarly, most of the pigs under study were female (61.5%) while their age ranged from 1 to 30 months with mean weight of 47 kg.

TABLE 1.

Characteristic features of the pig managers/caretakers and pigs (n = 200).

Features Number (%) Range
Gender of managers/caretakers
Male 113 (56.5%
Female 87 (43.5%)
Rearing style
Commercial farms 100 (50%)
Smallholder farms 100 (50%)
Gender of pigs
Male 77 (38.5%)
Female 123 (61.5%)
Mean (SD)
Age of managers/caretakers (years) 34.64 (7.84) 19–56
Managers/caretakers’ education (years) 5.49 (5.03) 0–13
Annual income of managers/caretakers (NRs) 38,735 (22,293.04) 12,000–1,00,000
Age of pigs (months) 7.91 (5.35) 1–30
Weight of pigs (kg) 47 (29.3) 5–120
Open in a new tab

Table 2 shows the difference in characteristic between commercial farms and smallholders farms. As per the socio‐economic and socio‐demographic characteristics, there was no difference in age and gender of pig or their managers/caretakers between different styles of pig rearing (Table 2). Yet, managers/caretakers of the commercial pig farms were more educated with higher annual income than the managers/caretakers of smallholders farms.

TABLE 2.

Difference in characteristic between commercial farms and smallholders farms (n = 200).

Characteristics Commercial farms Smallholder farms p‐Value
Gender of managers/caretakers 0.318 a
Male 60 (60%) 53 (53%)
Female 40 (40%) 47 (47%)
Gender of pigs 0.309 a
Male 42 (42%) 35 (35%)
Female 58 (58%) 65 (65%)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age of managers/caretakers (years) 34.1 (6.31) 35.18 (9.12) 0.332 b
Managers/caretakers’ education (years) 6.9 (4.97) 4.07 (4.70) 0.000b
Annual income (NRs) 565,000 (18,535.79) 20,970 (4210.26) 0.000b
Age of pigs (months) 7.8 (5.47) 8.03 (5.25) 0.757 b
Open in a new tab
a

Chi‐square test

b

Independent t test.

Table 3 shows the prevalence of GIPs by style of rearing. A total of 173 faecal samples (86.5%) were found shedding one or more species of GIPs (Table 3). Of the 12 species of parasites identified, 3 species belong to protozoa, 8 species to nematodes and 1 species to trematodes. Overall, A. suum has higher prevalence (32.5%) followed by T. suis (30%), coccidia (29%), strongyle‐type nematodes (27.5%), hookworm (26%), Eimeria sp. (26%), E. coli (25.5%), Fasciola sp. (17.5%), Physaloptera sp. (17.5%), Strongyloides sp. (17.5%), Metastrongylus sp.(8%) and Oesophagostomum sp. (5.5%). Style of rearing like commercial farm or smallholder farm contributed significantly to the prevalence of IPs. For example, strongyle infection was higher in pigs of commercial farms compared to smallholder farms (Chi square p < 0.05) (Table 3). Similarly, Oesophagostomum prevalence was higher in pigs reared in commercial farm (Chi square p < 0.05). Yet, pigs of smallholder farms exhibited slightly higher prevalence of E. coli than commercial farm (Chi square p < 0.05).

TABLE 3.

Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites based on the style of rearing pigs (n = 200).

Parasite groups Parasite species Parasite prevalence (%) p Value a
Commercial farms Smallholders farms
Amoeba Entamoeba coli 18 33 0.015
Coccidia Eimeria 20 32 0.053
Coccidia (in stained film) 28 30 0.755
Nematodes Strongyle‐type 34 21 0.040
Strongyloides 17 18 0.852
Metastrongylus 7 9 0.602
Oesophagostomum 9 2 0.030
Physaloptera 14 21 0.193
Ascaris suum 31 34 0.651
Hookworm 26 26 1.000
Trichuris suis 28 32 0.573
Trematodes Fasciola 17 28 0.063
Total infection 2.49 2.86 0.077
Any infection 84 89 0.301
Any protozoan 51 64 0.063
No of protozoans 0.66 0.95 0.013
Any helminth 83 89 0.753
No of helminths 1.83 1.91 0.573
Open in a new tab
a

Chi‐square test.

Table 4 shows the prevalence of GIPs in pigs by style of rearing and gender of pigs. There was no statistical difference in prevalence of most of the GIPs in relation to the styles of rearing like commercial farm or smallholder farms by gender (Table 4). Only statistical significance difference has been recorded in any protozoan infection between male and female (p = 0.032). However, the prevalence of Fasciola sp. was higher among pigs raised by female managers/caretakers (p = 0.002) and not associated with income or weight of pig. Regarding overall infection, presence, or burden (number of helminth) of parasitic infections or helminthiasis was negatively associated with weight of pigs after adjusting age of managers/caretakers, gender of managers/caretakers, managers/caretakers’ education and family annual income, age of pigs, gender of pigs rearing practice. As expected, the presence or burden of IPs was associated with reduced weight of pigs after adjustment with contextual factors and covariates like managers’/caretakers’ education, family annual income, age of pigs, gender of pigs and rearing practice.

TABLE 4.

Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites (GIPs) in pigs based on the style of rearing and gender of pigs (n = 200).

Parasite groups Parasite species Commercial farms (n = 100) p‐Value Smallholder farms (n = 100) p‐Value Total (n = 200) p‐Value a
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Amoeba Entamoeba coli 6 12 0.41 10 23 0.48 16 35 0.22
Coccidia Eimeria 8 12 0.83 9 23 0.32 17 35 0.31
Coccidia (in stained smear) 14 14 0.31 10 20 0.81 24 34 0.59
Nematodes Strongyle‐type 14 20 0.30 5 16 0.22 19 36 0.49
Strongyloides 8 9 0.64 7 11 0.70 15 20 0.56
Metastrongylus 4 3 0.40 2 7 0.40 6 10 0.93
Oesophagostomum 2 7 0.20 0 2 0.29 2 9 0.15
Physaloptera 7 7 0.51 11 10 0.06 18 17 0.08
Ascaris suum 14 17 0.66 10 24 0.40 24 41 0.50
Hookworm 7 19 0.07 11 15 0.36 18 34 0.50
Trichuris suis 11 17 0.73 14 18 0.20 25 35 0.54
Trematode Fasciola 6 11 0.53 11 17 0.57 17 18 0.91
Total infection b 35 49 0.123 31 58 0.107 2.61 2.72 0.63
Any infection 35 49 0.877 31 58 0.920 66 107 0.797
Any protozoan 19 32 0.327 18 46 0.055 37 78 0.032
Number of protozoans b 19 32 0.106 18 45 0.185 0.74 0.58 0.41
Any helminth 34 49 0.643 31 58 0.920 65 107 0.609
Number of helminths b 34 49 0.350 31 58 0.290 1.87 1.77 0.99
Open in a new tab
a

Chi‐square test

b

Independent t test.

The association between parasitic infections and related factors has been depicted in Table 5. Presence of any protozoan infection was higher in female pigs than in male pigs. This study indicates that the prevalence of A. suum was significantly high among pigs reared by male managers/caretakers (p < 0.05), but prevalence was lower among family with higher annual income (p < 0.05). Further, the prevalence of A. suum in pig was inversely associated with weight of pig (p < 0.001).

TABLE 5.

Factors associated with gastrointestinal parasites (GIPs) (n = 200).

Categories Model
Adjusted R 2 p‐Value ß 95% CI p‐Value
Total infection Weight of pigs 0.189 0.000 −0.456 −0.041 to −0.005 0.011
Any infection Weight of pigs 0.105 0.000 −0.558 −0.011 to −0.002 0.003
Any protozoan Gender of pigs 0.046 0.030 0.176 0.032 to 0.327 0.018
Any helminth Weight of pigs 0.098 0.000 −0.542 −0.011 to −0.002 0.004
No. of helminths Weight of pigs 0.235 0.000 −0.577 −0.031 to −0.008 0.001
Ascaris suum Gender of managers/caretakers 0.388 0.000 −0.153 −0.265 to −0.025 0.018
Annual income −0.219 0.000 to 0.000 0.046
Weight of pigs −0.686 −0.016 to −0.006 0.000
Fasciola sp. Gender of managers/caretakers 0.084 0.002 0.248 0.078 to 0.340 0.002
Open in a new tab

Note: Only significantly associated factors are shown. Model adjusted for age of managers/caretakers, gender of managers/caretakers, managers/caretakers’ education and family annual income, age of pigs, gender of pigs, rearing practice and weight of pigs as indicator of nutritional status.

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

Table 6 shows factors associated with the weight of pig after adjusting covariates. The weight of pigs was significantly associated with the overall prevalence and burden of parasitic infection and helminth infection. For example, total number of infections, any infection, any helminth infection, number of helminths infection, strongyle‐type nematode and A. suum infestations were associated with weight of the pigs after adjusting age of pigs, gender of pigs and rearing practices in the model.

TABLE 6.

Factors associated with the weight of pigs (n = 200).

Categories Model
Adjusted R 2 p‐Value ß 95% CI p‐Value
Total number of parasites in pigs 0.871 0.000 −0.074 −2.566 to −0.360 0.010
Any infection presents in pigs 0.872 0.000 −0.082 −11.516 to −2.518 0.002
Any helminths present in pigs 0.872 0.000 −0.078 −11.020 to −2.152 0.004
Number of helminth parasites in pigs 0.873 0.000 −0.095 −4.422 to −1.145 0.001
Prevalence of strongyles 0.869 0.000 −0.055 −6.993 to −0.77 0.034
Prevalence of Ascaris suum 0.877 0.000 −0.127 −11.67 to −4.173 0.000
Open in a new tab

Note: Only significantly associated results are shown. Model adjusted for age of pigs, gender of pigs and rearing practice. All other parasites were evaluated for the association and were not significantly associated with weight of pig in adjusted model.

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

4. DISCUSSION

This study investigated the prevalence GIPs among pigs reared in smallholder (home) and commercial farms in Tikapur Municipality, Kailali, Nepal. Prevalence of GIPs in our study (86.5%) is relatively higher and comparable with the data provided by Subedi and Khanal (2020) (88.57%; 93/105) and Adhikari et al. (2021) (91%; 91/100) from Nepal, and Widisuputri et al. (2020) (100%; 100/100) from Indonesia. In contrast, prevalence observed in our study is higher than documented by Murthy et al. (2016) (64.6%; 97/150), Kaur et al. (2017) (49.4%; 131/265), Pradella et al. (2020) (51.86%; 209/403) and Yadav et al. (2021) (56.65%; 438/769). Such a discrepancy in the prevalence of GIPs might be due to the difference in the climatic conditions and breeds (Subedi & Khanal, 2020), and rearing condition and different levels of awareness of farmers (Adhikari et al., 2021). High prevalence of GIPs in our study animals may be partially attributed to the practice of open defecation with easy access of pig to the waste of pigs and/or humans together, the way pigs are raised in our survey sites with easy access to intermediate hosts at banks of stream, together with faecal‐oral life cycles, and poorly managed pig housing (based on personal observation) like rearing pigs of different ages together, infrequent removal of excreta, non‐disinfection of equipment and lack of routine deworming program. The pattern and severity of parasitic infection can be attributed to the environment and conditions in which animals are kept (Maganga et al., 2019), and poor routine treatment (Omoruyi & Agbinone, 2020).

Most of the GIPs were detected in almost equal proportions among male and female pigs, and with different rearing styles (Table 3) which is similar to other reports (Amadi et al., 2018; Patra et al., 2019; Subedi & Khanal, 2020). Yet, female pigs indicated higher protozoan infection than the male pigs. In contrary, rearing style did not alter such parasitic burden. Several factors such as hormonal imbalance, parturition, lactation and stress usually alter the physiologic state of female pigs leading to suppressed immunity (Fourie et al., 2019). As mentioned in the previous study (Sah, 2018), in most of the farms female pigs were found kept much longer for breeding purpose which may dwindle their immunity during gestation period (Okita et al., 2021). This may explain such discrepancy in infection, but further study needs to be conducted to confirm this association.

Parasite prevalence in our study was associated with rearing style of pig (Table 4). Interestingly, strongyle‐type nematodes and Oesophagostomum infestations were higher in commercial farms compared to smallholder farms, whereas E. coli and other protozoan parasites were higher in smallholder farms than in commercial farms. Differences in educational status and annual income between managers/caretakers of smallholder farms and commercial farms may explain such differences. Mostly pigs from commercial farms remained in captivity, whereas pigs from smallholder farms were reared semi‐intensively and/or free range. Further, pigs of commercial farms were better managed in terms of provision of water, food and periodic treatment. The smallholder farms were operated by farmers with lower financial ability, lower level of education and awareness, and the pigs were most often provided with mostly kitchen waste and garbage. Moreover, the lack of clean drinking water supply might have contributed to higher E. coli as well as other protozoans. Although difference in prevalence did not achieve statistical significance, and most of the identified parasites were higher in home farms compared to commercial farms. Yet, commercial pig farms indicated a high prevalence of strongyles and Oesophagostomum infection, which is very difficult to explain. One possible explanation may be that pigs in commercial farms were kept in large number and they shared shelter and food which might increase the chance of transmission of parasite like larva of strongyles and Oesophagostomum by cross contamination. However, further research is needed to confirm this association.

Regarding helminths, A. suum was reported among 32.5% of the samples under investigation. The prevalence rate was lower than documented by Adhikari et al. (2021) (45%) in South‐Central Nepal, and Yadav et al. (2021) (59.7%) in India. The prevalence rate in this study is higher than those documented by Abonyi and Njoga (2020) (0.7%) in South Nigeria, (Widisuputri et al., 2020) (20%) in Indonesia and Symeonidou et al. (2020) (3.7%) in Greece. Our findings show that the prevalence of A. suum was lower in the case of pigs reared by female managers/caretakers, which might partly be attributed to the sensitivity of females towards the sanitation of pigsties, and mostly females were usually engaged in feeding the pigs and cleaning pigsties. Further, as shown by multiple regression adjusted for age of managers/caretakers, gender of managers/caretakers, managers/caretakers’ education, age of pigs, gender of pigs, rearing practice, expected family annual income, weight of pigs as indicator of nutritional status were negatively associated with prevalence of A. suum which is obvious as better income (resource), or nutritional (immunity) status can downplay possibilities of helminth infections.

In this study, a greater number of males were found engaged in pig rearing than females though there was no statistical significance (p = 0.318). In both types of farms, the role of gender was seen in terms of the manager/caretakership, which was dominated by men. Women were taking part in particular works, such as cleaning pigsty and feeding as illustrated by Saragih and Iyai (2015). Compared to smallholder farms, the commercial farms indicated better medication practice in this study. At least pigs were treated when any disease symptoms were manifested in pigs. Generally, managers/caretakers of commercial farms call the veterinarian and treat only those pigs which display symptoms.

The weight and gender of pigs as well as gender and annual income of pig managers/caretakers were significantly associated with the prevalence of GIPs in pigs. Wight of pig (proxy indicator of nutritional as well as better immunity) was consistently associated with our most of the outcome variables (different or as a whole parasitic prevalence or burden) considered in multivariate model even adjusted for age and gender of pigs, and rearing practices. It may be due to the weak immune system of pig associated with low weight (Sharma et al., 2020). Another possible explanation maybe, piglets were mostly left free ranging in home as well as in commercial farms. Such free range of young animals increases the chance of infection via exposure with sewage, poor environmental sanitation around the study area or other infected animal and fomites (Conteh & Gogra, 2019; Maganga et al., 2019).

The prevalence of trematode (17.5%) with reference to Fasciola spp. in this study was higher than those reported by Adhikari et al. (2021) (9%) and Geresu et al. (2015) (11.18%) in Ethiopia but lower than that of Yadav et al. (2016) (66.27%) in Bangladesh and Patra et al. (2019) (20.55%) in North‐East India. The pigs consuming aquatic plants can acquire more Fasciola infection. In our findings, the infection of Fasciola sp. was higher in the pigs reared by female managers/caretakers. Authors observed consistent practice in the study area. Most often the female managers/caretakers provided their pigs with the aquatic plant and grasses as food compared to male managers/caretakers (author's field observation) which may facilitate transmission of trematode parasites like Fasciola sp. However, future research is warranted to verify such a scenario and to explore other possibilities.

In case of protozoan parasites, coccidian oocysts were reported in 29% of the faecal samples which was lower than observed by Fourie et al. (2019) (72.7%) in South Africa and higher than documented by Symeonidou et al. (2020) (6%) in Greece and Kalkal and Vohra (2021) (14%) in India. Similarly, 26% of samples were infected from Eimeria sp. which was lower than finding from Subedi and Khanal (2020) (42.8%) in Nepal and Widisuputri et al. (2020) (78%) in Indonesia and higher than finding from Sowemimo et al. (2012) (3%) in Nigeria. E. coli (25.5%) were the least prevalent parasite in our study. Yet the prevalence rate of E. coli was higher than prevalence reported by Amadi et al. (2018) (0.7%) and Nathaniel et al. (2017) (3%). Adhikari et al. (2021) and Widisuputri et al. (2020) respectively reported 47% and 99% prevalence rate of E. coli. Such a variation might be due to water supply system, climatic condition, different husbandry management practices and general health status of the sampled pigs and pig breeds.

Strongyles and A. suum infection were also associated with weight of the pigs after the age of pigs, gender of pigs and rearing practices being adjusted in the model. Other parasites did not indicate a significant association in this type of analysis. However, it indicates that farmers lose income as the infected pigs are under weight as a consequence of parasitic infection. Though this finding is limited to a small study area, it has obviously documented the importance of rearing practices and associated risk factors to be considered for economic growth of pig farms.

Cross‐sectional design and smaller sample size limit us to generalize our findings. Necropsy is a valid method to identify the adult worms to the species level and to verify their burden in the individual specimen; however, it was not possible in this study as the slaughterhouse owner did not allow permission. However, this study has provided the parasite profile in the selected pig farms, evaluated associated factors with IPs in different rearing systems and documented the effect of IPs (mainly helminthiasis) in weight gain of pigs.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Socio‐economic and socio‐demographic factors together with existing pig‐rearing practices were determining factors to the prevalence of IPs in pigs in commercial and smallholder pig farms. This study has provided a concrete picture regarding the diversity of IPs in pigs and some of them have zoonotic potential. There is a need of awareness to the farmers to monitor parasitic infection and their burden in the pig farms.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; methodology; writing – original draft: Barshat Chaudhary. Conceptualization; data curation; methodology; software; writing – review and editing: Rajendra Prasad Parajuli. Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; supervision; writing – review and editing: Pitambar Dhakal.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.

ETHICAL STATEMENT

The consent was taken from the individual farm owners prior to sample collection. As this research was conducted by non‐invasive sampling methods, none of the farm animals was harmed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors would like to thank the farm owners and workers for providing support in sample collection, and Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University for providing laboratory facilities.

Chaudhary, B. , Parajuli, R. P. , & Dhakal, P. (2023). Survey of intestinal parasites in swine farms raised in Western Nepal. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 9, 2107–2117. 10.1002/vms3.1206

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Abonyi, F. O. , & Njoga, E. O. (2020). Prevalence and determinants of gastrointestinal parasite infection in intensively managed pigs in Nsukka agricultural zone, Southeast, Nigeria. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 44(1), 31–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adhikari, R. B. , Adhikari Dhakal, M. , Thapa, S. , & Ghimire, T. R. (2021). Gastrointestinal parasites of indigenous pigs (Sus domesticus) in south‐central Nepal. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 7(5), 1820–1830. 10.1002/vms3.536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajibo, F. E. , Njoga, E. O. , Azor, N. , Idika, I. K. , & Nwanta, J. A. (2020). Epidemiology of infections with zoonotic pig parasites in Enugu State, Nigeria. Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, 20, 100397. 10.1016/j.vprsr.2020.100397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Amadi, A. N. , Ubiaru, P. C. , Ugagu, G. M. , Ibediugha, B. N. , Obeagu, I. A. , & Njikeonye, A. (2018). Preliminary study on the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites of pigs managed and slaughtered in Umuahia North Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Animal Research International, 15(2), 3013–3019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Conteh, A. M. , & Gogra, B. (2019). Indigenous pig farming in rural areas of Sierra Leone: Practices, constraints and impact on livelihood. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 4(4), 135–144. [Google Scholar]
  6. Djurković‐Djaković, O. , Bobić, B. , Nikolić, A. , Klun, I. , & Dupouy‐Camet, J. (2013). Pork as a source of human parasitic infection. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 19(7), 586–594. 10.1111/1469-0691.12162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. FAO . (2015). Statistical Pocketbook Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome Italy . (Accessed July 22 2017). Retrieved from www.fao.org
  8. Foreyt, W. J. (2001). Veterinary parasitology reference manual (5th ed.). Wiley‐Blackwell Publication. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fourie, P. , Roberts, H. , & Nwafor, I. C. (2019). Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths and parasites in smallholder pigs reared in the central Free State Province. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 86(1), e1–e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Geresu, M. A. , Hailemariam, Z. , Mamo, G. , Tafa, M. , & Megersa, M. (2015). Prevalence and associated risk factors of major gastrointestinal parasites of pig slaughtered at Addis Ababa Abattoirs Enterprise, Ethiopia. Veterinary Science & Technology, 6(4), 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  11. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) . (2011). The smallholder pig value chain: an opportunity for growth and poverty reduction. Report of a stakeholder meeting, Kampala, Uganda, 14 June 2011 . CGSpace. LRI (International Livestock Research Institute). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/4049 [Google Scholar]
  12. Joachim, A. , Dülmer, N. , Daugschies, A. , & Roepstorff, A. (2001). Occurrence of helminths in pig fattening units with different management systems in Northern Germany. Veterinary Parasitology, 96(2), 135–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kalkal, H. , & Vohra, S. (2021). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasite in pigs of Hisar city, Haryana. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 10(5S), 476–478. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaur, M. , Singh, B. B. , Sharma, R. , & Gill, J. P. S. (2017). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in pigs in Punjab, India. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 41(2), 483–486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kipper, M. , Andretta, I. , Monteiro, S. G. , Lovatto, P. A. , & Lehnen, C. R. (2011). Meta‐analysis of the effects of endoparasites on pig performance. Veterinary Parasitology, 181(2–4), 316–320. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.04.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kouam, M. K. , & Ngueguim, F. D. (2022). Prevalence, intensity, and risk factors for helminth infections in pigs in Menoua, Western Highlands of Cameroon, with some data on protozoa. Journal of Parasitology Research, 2022, 9151294. 10.1155/2022/9151294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Maganga, G. D. , Kombila, L. B. , Boundenga, L. , Kinga, I. C. M. , Obame‐Nkoghe, J. , Tchoffo, H. , Gbati, O. B. , & Awah‐Ndukum, J. (2019). Diversity and prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in farmed pigs in Southeast Gabon, Central Africa. Veterinary World, 12(12), 1888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Moutos, A. , Doxani, C. , Stefanidis, I. , Zintzaras, E. , & Rachiotis, G. (2022). Knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of ruminant livestock farmers related to zoonotic diseases in Elassona Municipality, Greece. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(3), 269–280. 10.3390/ejihpe12030019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Murthy, K. , Ananda, K. , Adeppa, J. , & Satheesha, M. (2016). Studies on gastrointestinal parasites of pigs in Shimoga region of Karnataka. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 40(3), 885–889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Nansen, P. , & Roepstorff, A. (1999). Parasitic helminths of the pig: Factors influencing transmission and infection levels. International Journal Parasitology, 29(6), 877–91. 10.1016/s0020-7519(99)00048-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Nathaniel, A. O. , Anyika, K. C. , Frank, M. C. , & Jatau, J. D. (2017). Prevalence of gastro‐intestinal parasites in pigs in Jos South Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria. Haya: The Saudi Journal of Life Sciences, 2(5), 140–142. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nwanta, J. A. , Shoyinka, S. V. O. , Chah, K. F. , Onunkwo, J. I. , Onyenwe, I. W. , Eze, J. I. , Iheagwam, C. N. , Njoga, E. O. , Onyema, I. , Ogbu, K. I. , Mbegbu, E. C. , Nnadozie, P. N. , Ibe, E. C. , & Oladimeji, K. T. (2011). Production characteristics, disease prevalence, and herd‐health management of pigs in Southeast Nigeria. Journal of Swine Health and Production, 19(6), 331–339. [Google Scholar]
  23. Okita, F. , Idu, M. , Omudu, E. , Audu, N. , Gaji, J. , & Chehen, H. (2021). Prevalence of gastrointestinal and haemoparasites of pigs slaughtered in some abattoirs in Makurdi, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Scientific Research, 20(5), 438–445. [Google Scholar]
  24. Omoruyi, Z. , & Agbinone, I. (2020). Gastrointestinal parasites among swine bred in Edo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Clinical and Experimental Microbiology, 21(4), 349–353. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pam, V. A. , Daniel, L. N. , Batas, I. R. , Udokaninyene, A. D. , Hassan, A. B. , Kemza, S. Y. , Igeh, C. P. , & Ogbu, K. I. (2013). An investigation of haemo and gastrointestinal parasites of pigs in some parts of Langtang North local government area of Plateau State. Journal of Veterinary Advances, 3, 79–86. 10.5455/JVA.20130228033941 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Parija, S. C. (2009). Textbook of medical parasitology: Protozoology and helminthology (pp. 360–70). All India Publishers and Distributors. [Google Scholar]
  27. Patra, G. , Al‐abodi, H. , Sahara, A. , Ghosh, S. , Borthakur, S. K. , Polley, S. , Behera, P. , & Deka, A. (2019). Prevalence of parasitic fauna of pigs in North‐Eastern region of India. Biological Rhythm Research, 51, 1298–1315. 10.1080/09291016.2019.1573460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pettersson, E. , Sjölund, M. , Wallgren, T. , Lind, E. O. , Höglund, J. , & Wallgren, P. (2021). Management practices related to the control of gastrointestinal parasites on Swedish pig farms. Porcine Health Management, 7(1), 12. 10.1186/s40813-021-00193-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Phiri, I. K. , Ngowi, H. , Afonso, S. , Matenga, E. , Boa, M. , Mukaratirwa, S. , Githigia, S. , Saimo, M. , Sikasunge, C. , Maingi, N. , Lubega, G. W. , Kassuku, A. , Michael, L. , Siziya, S. , Krecek, R. C. , Noormahomed, E. , Vilhena, M. , Dorny, P. , & Willingham, A. L. 3rd (2003). The emergence of Taenia solium cysticercosis in Eastern and Southern Africa as a serious agricultural problem and public health risk. Acta Tropica, 87(1), 13–23. 10.1016/s0001-706x(03)00051-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pradella, B. , Molosse, K. F. , Menin, M. , Matzembacker, B. , Biondo, N. , Vanazzi, D. L. , Baldasso, N. , Bennemann, P. E. , Prestes, A. , & Camillo, G. (2020). Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasitic diseases of swine in different production phases in commercial pig farms from the State of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, 72, 1683–1690. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rajshekhar, V. , Joshi, D. D. , Doanh, N. Q. , van De, N. , & Xiaonong, Z. (2003). Taenia solium taeniosis/cysticercosis in Asia: Epidemiology, impact and issues. Acta Tropica, 87(1), 53–60. 10.1016/s0001-706x(03)00055-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Solaymani‐Mohammadi, P. , & Petri, W. A. Jr (2006). Zoonotic implications of the swine‐transmitted protozoal infections. Veterinary Parasitology, 140(3‐4), 189–203. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sah, R. (2018). Prevalence of common gastrointestinal nematode parasites in pigs based on different altitudes and seasons in Dhankuta and Sunsari districts of Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 16, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  34. Saragih, D. T. R. , & Iyai, D. A. (2015). Performances comparison between urban and rural pig farming systems in Manokwari, West Papua Province Indonesia. Buletin Peternakan, 29, 212–218. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sharma, D. , Singh, N. , Singh, H. , & Rath, S. (2020). Copro‐prevalence and risk factor assessment of gastrointestinal parasitism in Indian domestic pigs. Helminthologia, 57(1), 28–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sowemimo, O. , Asaolu, S. , Adegoke, F. , & Ayanniyi, O. (2012). Epidemiological survey of gastrointestinal parasites of pigs in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 4(10), 294–298. [Google Scholar]
  37. Subedi, J. R. , & Khanal, M. (2020). Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in pigs (Sus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758) of Chandragiri Municipality Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 5, 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  38. Symeonidou, I. , Tassis, P. , Gelasakis, A. Ι. , Tzika, E. D. , & Papadopoulos, E. (2020). Prevalence and risk factors of intestinal parasite infections in Greek swine farrow‐to‐finish farms. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 9(7), 556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Widisuputri, N. K. A. , Suwanti, L. T. , & Plumeriastuti, H. (2020). A Survey for zoonotic and other gastrointestinal parasites in pig in Bali Province, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Tropical and Infectious Disease, 8(1), 54–65. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wormser, G. P. , & Stratton, C. (2008). Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 9th Edition Edited by Patrick R. Murray, Ellen Jo Baron, James H. Jorgensen, Marie Louise Landry, and Michael A. Pfaller Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2007 2488 pp., illustrated. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 46(1), 153. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yadav, S. , Gupta, A. , Choudhary, P. , Pilania, P. , & Joshi, S. (2021). Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths and assessment of associated risk factors in pigs from Rajasthan districts, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 9(1), 1418–1423. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yadav, S. , Sarker, S. , Begum, N. , Dey, A. , Roy, P. , & Hussain, M. (2016). Prevalence of endoparasites in pig in Chittagong, Bangladesh. International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 3(1), 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zajac, A. M. , & Conboy, G. A. (2012). Veterinary clinical parasitology (8th ed.). Wiley‐Blackwell Publication. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zheng, S. , Li, D. , Zhou, C. , Zhang, S. , Wu, Y. , Chang, Y. , Chen, Y. , Huang, J. , Ning, C. , Zhang, G. , & Zhang, L. (2019). Molecular identification and epidemiological comparison of Cryptosporidium spp. among different pig breeds in Tibet and Henan, China. BMC Veterinary Research, 15(1), 101. 10.1186/s12917-019-1847-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES