Table 2. Efficacy of parasiticides in sheep against gastrointestinal strongylates.
| No | Groupofanimals | Samples of parasiticides for tests | Dose, mg of AS /kg of b/w | Number of sheep in group | Geometric mean number of eggs/gm feces | Efficacy (Ef), % | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tests of preparation based on FBZ | |||||||
| 1 | Control | Placebo | – | 20 | 2.90 | – | – |
| 2 | Treatment | FIP | Iver – 0.2, FBZ – 3.0 |
10 | 0 | 100 | NAa |
| 3 | Treatment | FP | FBZ – 2.0 | 10 | 1.08 | 62.8 | < 0.001 |
| 4 | Treatment | FP | FBZ – 3.0 | 10 | 0.23 | 92.1 | < 0.001 |
| 5 | Treatment | FBZ- substance | FBZ – 3.0 | 10 | 2.40 | 17.3 | > 0.05 |
| Tests of preparation based on TBZ | |||||||
| 6 | Control | Placebo | – | 20 | 2.69 | – | – |
| 7 | Treatment | TIP | Iver – 0.2, TBZ – 3.0 |
10 | 0.12 | 95.6 | < 0.001 |
| 8 | Treatment | TP | TBZ – 2.0 | 10 | 2.65 | 0 | NA |
| 9 | Treatment | TP | TBZ – 3.0 | 10 | 2.70 | 0 | NA |
| 10 | Treatment | TBZ-substance | TBZ – 3.0 | 10 | 2.70 | 0 | NA |
NA = not analyzed.