Sensitivity and specificity of the FAMACHA© system in growing lambs.

The FAMACHA© system is used for targeted selective treatment (TST) of small ruminants for the control of haemonchosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of this system in growing lambs. Between 2015 and 2016, lambs aged 60-210 days on two sheep farms were evaluated at 15-day intervals using the FAMACHA© system (F1-F5), with analysis of hematocrit (Ht), counting of eggs per gram of feces, and larval culture. The sensitivity and specificity of the system were calculated according to two criteria: criterion 1, lambs classified as F4 or F5 were considered anemic (positive test) and those classified as F1, F2, or F3 were considered not anemic (negative test); and criterion 2, lambs classified as F3, F4, or F5 were considered anemic (positive test) and those classified as F1 and F2 were considered not anemic (negative test). Three gold standard Ht cutoff values were used to diagnose anemia, i.e., ≤22%, ≤18%, and ≤15%. In total, 1591 assessments were analyzed. The highest percentage of larvae in the fecal cultures was for Haemonchus spp., with an average of 78.5%. The sensitivity values found when F3 lambs were considered anemic were 13.9%, 30.8%, and 66.7%, respectively, for Ht cutoff values of ≤22%, ≤18%, and ≤15%. When F3 lambs were excluded, the maximum sensitivity was 14.9% and the specificity was 100% for all degrees of anemia using criterion 1. The FAMACHA© system had low sensitivity in growing lambs and should not be used alone for control of haemonchosis in young animals.

FAMACHA© system assessment by previously trained sheep and goat farmers in Brazil.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of adoption and the correct use of the FAMACHA© system amongst sheep and goat farmers trained in a previous hands-on course. A survey was carried out with 1375 people who received FAMACHA© training from July 2009 to May 2011 in Paraná State, Brazil. The survey was conducted from March 2012 to May 2013. Firstly, a questionnaire was applied with specific questions for farmers about their anthelmintic (AH) treatment practices before and after the FAMACHA© training. In a second step, eight of the questionnaire respondents classified as sheep or goat farmers were contacted for an in loco visit during which the application of the FAMACHA© system was evaluated in the respective farms and blood samples were collected from 20 animals to calculate sensitivity and specificity. A total of 124 farmers responded the questionnaire (9% of project participants). Farmers accounted for 48.4% of total responses. Half of these farmers (51.6%) reported losses related to parasites in their property before the training. Antiparasitic treatments, at fixed intervals, were responsible for 93.1% of deworming practices before the training project. FAMACHA© was unknown for 51.7% of the respondents, and 31% knew the chart, but did not use it. After the project, 69% had adopted the system and 83% assessed the animals at regular intervals. However, 18.9% did not evaluate all animals. During the in loco visits, problems reported included the incorrect exposure of the ocular mucosa (50% of farmers) and not using the chart (87.5%). Also, 62.5% did not keep records of the FAMACHA© assessment history of the flock. However, sensitivity was 100%, with 0% false negatives. We conclude that, amongst farmers who adopted the system, despite some methodological errors regarding its use, the objectives were met in terms of reducing the number of anthelmintic treatments and providing anemic animals with AH treatment. Trained farmers seemed to require technical guidance post-training to promote effective use of the FAMACHA© system.