Next Article in Journal
Haemonchus contortus Parasitism in Intensively Managed Cross-Limousin Beef Calves: Effects on Feed Conversion and Carcass Characteristics and Potential Associations with Climatic Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Mycobacterium abscessus Mutants with a Compromised Functional Link between the Type VII ESX-3 System and an Iron Uptake Mechanism Reliant on an Unusual Mycobactin Siderophore
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Two Free-Range Farms from Nord-West Region of Romania

Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Mănăştur Street 3-5, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Mănăştur Street 3-5, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Agricultural Research and Development Station of Turda, Agriculturii Street 27, 401100 Turda, Romania
Laboratory of Microbiology and Parasitology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences Gheorghe Ionescu-Siseşti (A.S.A.S.), Mărăști Boulevard 61, 011464 Bucharest, Romania
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2022, 11(9), 954;
Received: 24 July 2022 / Revised: 16 August 2022 / Accepted: 17 August 2022 / Published: 23 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Parasitic Pathogens)


Parasitic diseases cause significant economic losses in swine, including free-range swine farms, the number of which in Romania has increased in the last decades. The current study aimed to identify the parasitic profile of swine raised on two free-range (low-input) farms from Transylvania. Nine hundred sixty samples collected from weaners, fatteners, and sows were investigated by flotation, centrifugal sedimentation, modified Ziehl-Neelsen stained fecal smear, modified Blagg technique, and oocyst/egg cultures. The number of oocysts (OPG), cysts (CPG), and eggs (EPG) were counted per gram of fecal matter. The examination revealed parasitic infections with Balantidium coli, Eimeria spp., Ascaris suum, Trichuris suis, Oesophagostomum spp., Strongyloides ransomi and Cryptosporidium spp. Prevalence (P) and the mean intensity (MI) of the infections varied according to age, swine category, farm, and season. The overall prevalence in both free-range farms according to the age category was 63.2%—Eimeria spp., 70.31%—B. coli, 9.38%—Oesophagostomum spp., 3.75% S. ransomi, and 18.12% Cryptosporidium spp. in weaners. In fatteners Eimeria spp. revealed a prevalence of 50.93%, B. coli—72.5 %, A. suum—63.13%, T. suis—39.06%, and in sows Eimeria spp.—39.06%, B. coli—62.19%, A. suum—34.06%, Oesophagostomum spp.—27.19%, S. ransomi—1.56% and Cryptosporidium spp.—9.38%. The study revealed statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between age groups, seasons, and farms for all diagnosed parasites. Further research is required to better understand the epidemiology of these infections in swine from Transylvania.

1. Introduction

The cost-effectiveness of raising pigs primarily depends on the health of the farmed animals. Swine diseases pose a significant economic problem throughout the world, with losses from parasitic diseases being substantial compared to those caused by bacterial and viral infections [1]. Parasites precede bacterial and viral diseases, exacerbated by the deteriorating condition of pigs [2]. Parasitic infections cause significant economic losses on swine farms by decreased production and reproduction, and also by augmented morbidity and mortality [3]. Intestinal malabsorption, impaired fertility, delayed or incomplete immunity subsequent to vaccinations, negative effects on the meat quality are all consequences such conditions can cause [4]. Pigs may subclinically harbor numerous intestinal parasites, most commonly protozoa (Balantidium coli, Entamoeba spp., Cryptosporidium spp.) and nematodes (Ascaris suum, Trichuris suis) [5].
The vast majority of swine in Romania, are raised on low input farms, the number of which has been registered as increasing in the last decades [6]. Organic farming depends on the ecological factors focusing on environment protection, plant health, animal health, food safety, and consumer health [7]. The free-range raising system is a type of farming where the animals, for at least part of the day, can roam freely outdoors rather than being confined in an enclosure for 24 h each day. On most farms, the outdoor areas are fenced, thus creating an enclosure. However, free-range systems usually offer the animals the opportunity for extensive locomotion and sunlight, prevented by the indoor housing systems [8].
Swine infections with gastrointestinal parasites are widely reported worldwide and are influenced by the type of swine management practices [9]. The raising of free-range pigs is common in rural areas of numerous developing countries despite its shortcomings such as poor food conversion, high mortality rates, and inferior products [10,11]. Moreover, the domestic pig is an important epizootic reservoir of parasites, exposing other animals and humans to health risks [2]. Most of the time, the course of such parasitic infections is subclinical, but symptomatic infections may occur, particularly in younger pigs [12]. The most frequent mistakes made by pig owners for parasitic infection control include the lack of fecal sample testing of animals in order to reveal particular parasite problems on the farm, the improper administration of anti-parasitic drugs, and ineffective disinfection of the premises [13].
Therefore, the identification of parasitic profiles typical to different environmental conditions, studies on parasites’ pathogenicity and subsequent development of programs to prevent/limit the spread and invasiveness of parasites are essential. Parasitological analysis of pig herds depending on the farming system is also vital for preventing the infection [2]. The current study aimed at identifying the parasitic profile of swine raised on two free-range farms in Transylvania included in three age categories. Romania has a temperate-continental climate of transitional type, with four clearly defined seasons [14], therefore systematic sampling over a year would also allow the investigation of possible seasonal trends of the identified parasitic infections.

2. Results

The coproparasitological examination revealed co-infections with several species of parasites, respectively, Eimeria spp. (Figure 1), Balantidium coli (Figure 2), Ascaris suum (Figure 3), Trichuris suis (Figure 4), Oesophagostomum spp. (Figure 5), Strongyloides ransomi (Figure 6) and Cryptosporidium spp. (Figure 7). L3 belonging to Oesophagostomum genus developed in the cultured fecal samples containing strongylid eggs. All the oocysts developed in the cultured samples belonged to the Eimeria genus.
All samples were negative by sedimentation and Blagg methods. The flotation, oocysts/egg culture, and McMaster methods showed that the prevalence and the average intensity of infections varied according to age, swine category, season, and farm.
In the weaners from farm 2 (F2), only B. coli, Eimeria spp., and Cryptosporidium spp. were found, while on farm 1 (F1), Oesophagostomum spp. and S. ransomi were additionally identified (Table 1). The broadest spectrum of parasites on F1 was identified during the autumn season.
In the fatteners, B. coli, Eimeria spp., A. suum, and T. suis were diagnosed on both farms (Table 2). As opposed to F1 where the most prevalent parasite infections were recorded in winter, the autumn season was that of maximal parasitic infection on F2.
In sows, B. coli, Eimeria spp., A. suum, Oesophagostomum spp., and Cryptosporidium spp were identified; in addition, S. ransomi was diagnosed on F1 (Table 3), where the broadest spectrum of parasitic infections was recorded in the farm 1.
Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 provide a comparison of parasitic infections on farm 1 and farm 2, depending on age categories, parasite species, season, and the statistical significance of the differences.

3. Discussion

The aim of this extensive study was to evaluate the prevalence and intensity of parasites in pigs raised on free-range farms in Romania. Overall, all three age groups, weaners, growers, and sows, were almost equally parasitized by coccidia and nematodes. Similar studies, emphasizing parasitic loads in swine raised on free-range farms, were conducted in several European [3,15,16,17], African [10,18], and Asian [12,19,20,21,22,23] countries and revealed results more or less comparable with the current study.
The zoonotic protozoan B. coli was the most frequent parasite in all categories, with the highest prevalence (72.5%) in fattening pigs, while in weaners and sows the values were somewhat lower (70.31% and 62.19%, respectively. Similar infection rates were diagnosed in Kenya (69.6% in sows, 69.2% in fatteners and 66.7% in sows) and Greece (13.5% in weaners, 54.3% in fatteners, 81.3% in sows) [10,11,12,13,15]. In other countries, the prevalences were lower, e.g., China (18.2% in sows, 38.8% in sows, 5.7% in sows), Malaysia (22%), India (6.6–48%), Bangladesh (28.6% in weaners, 52.4% in fatteners, 38.5% in sows) and Germany (0.7% in weaners) [16,19,20,21,22,23]. The differences in prevalence could be due to some extrinsic factors such as the detection procedures, sampling sizes, farm management, climate differences, geographical separation, and intrinsic ones such as the breed, immune status, or other intercurrent diseases [22].
Eimeria spp. was the second most prevalent genus in all age categories recording a prevalence of 63.2% in weaners, 50.9% in fatteners, and 39.0% in sows. The infection rate was similarly recorded in all age groups of pigs in Poland but revealed a lower level of prevalence of 31.4% in weaners, 7.1% in fatteners, and 17.1% in sows, respectively [3]. In South Africa, the prevalence of coccidia infection was 88% in weaners, 75 % in fatteners, and 43.8% in sows [18]. A study performed in three African countries, South Africa, Ethiopia, and Rwanda, recorded a prevalence of Eimeria spp. infection varying between 5.6–88% in all categories, being the most prevalent in weaners, followed by fatteners and sows [18,24,25]. Eimeria spp. was identified in fattening pigs in India and China at a prevalence of 5% and 6.35%, respectively [21,26]. Another study performed in the Netherlands reported the prevalence of 50% in weaners, 7.1% in fatteners, and 87.5% in sows, respectively [17]. Various chemoprophylaxis strategies and climatic conditions that influence the resistance and embryogenesis of Eimeria oocysts in the environment seemed to be the main causes of the prevalence variability in the mentioned studies.
Cryptosporidium species were also identified on both farms, being more prevalent in weaners (18.12%) than in sows (9.38%), and absent in fatteners. Pigs are the primary host for C. suis and C. scrofarum, but C. parvum and C. muris have also been identified on some farms [27]. The worldwide prevalence differs from country to country, such as in Canada (39% in weaners and 9% in sows), China (8.7–47.9%), Argentina (9% in weaners), the Czech Republic (12%), and Ireland (15% in weaners and 13.3% in sows) [28,29,30,31,32,33]. These differences are primarily due to the examination method and sampling strategies, the differences in management systems, and the age category of the examined pigs, suckling piglets and weaners being more susceptible to Cryptosporidium spp. infection than adults.
Regarding helminths, T. suis, A. suum, Oesophagostomum spp., and Strongyloides ransomi, species with global distribution, were detected.
Trichuris suis was diagnosed in the current study only in fatteners with a prevalence of 39.06%. In Europe, the prevalence of this ceccum nematode varied between 2.9 and 11.2% in fatteners in Poland and up to 14.3% in the Netherlands [2,3,17]. In African countries (South Africa, Nigeria, and Uganda), the reported prevalence was higher compared to Europe, the values ranging from 7 to 63.9% [18,34,35,36]. The lack of anthelmintic chemoprophylaxis and the existence of an abundant infection source on the pastures shared with the African wild pigs could have been the reasons for the higher prevalence recorded in African countries. T. suis is widespread amongst pigs being influenced by the housing system; as such, it is more specific to the free-range farms than intensive systems [8].
Ascariasis is the major digestive parasitic infection that causes the most significant economic losses worldwide in farmed pigs, mainly on free-range farms, while its prevalence differs from one country to another. Ascaris suum recorded a prevalence of 63.13% in fatteners, being the second most prevalent species in this age group, and 34.06% in sows, representing the third prevailing species in the present study. An older study performed in 20 Danish herds revealed the prevalence of 15.5% in fatteners and 7.4% in sows [37]. More recently, A. suum showed a variable prevalence of 10% and 33% on two Danish farms, respectively [38]. A subsequent study reported A. suum infection in all organic farms, averaging across farm and season 48, 64, 28, and 15 % in starters, finishers, dry, and lactating sows, respectively [39]. A later study in Denmark indicated a much lower prevalence of only 28% [40]. The prevalence of milk spots in slaughterhouses in Great Britain varied between 3.29–6.85% in fatteners and 2.35–6.83% in sows [41]. The average prevalence in some free-range farms in the Netherland was 42.9% in fatteners [17]. In Albania, A. suum was the most common digestive parasite with a prevalence of 83.68% in weaners, 78.96 % in fatteners, and ranging from 47.02 to 53.73% in sows, with 17.65% in boars [42]. Other studies were conducted in African countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Rwanda, where the prevalence of A. suum infection varied between 5.08–63.9%, with a lower prevalence in sows when compared to fatteners [2,18,24,25,34,35,36,43]. In South Africa, a study performed in 2019 showed a prevalence of 63.9% in fattening pigs [18]. Following the studies conducted in China and Greece, it was concluded that the A. suum infection prevalence is lower on commercial farms (0.9–16.5%) compared to free-range farms [15,26].
Species belonging to the Oesophagostomum genus were recorded on both farms, being more prevalent in sows (27.19%) than weaners (9.38%) and absent in fatteners. Similar values were recorded in Greece (sows—5.2%), Netherlands (weaners—12.5%, sows—37.5%), Poland (3.44—20.8%), South Africa (weaners—8%, S—43.8%), and Ethiopia (6.75%) [2,15,17,18,24,44]. Higher prevalence was found in some African countries (Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda), varying from 54.6 to 89%, and, in Sweden, of 88% [25,34,43,45].
Strongyloides ransomi was rarely identified, being recorded only on F1, with a prevalence of 3.75% in weaners and 1.61% in sows. Similar results were obtained in Poland and China, where the prevalence was of 1.61%, and 6.49%, respectively [2,26]. Higher prevalence rates were diagnosed in African countries, ranging from 14% in Zimbabwe to 78.3% in Kenya [27,43]. A recent study from Cameroon also indicated a high prevalence of 34.5% [46]. The widespread use of anthelmintic programs associated with high levels of hygiene and the environmental requirements of the parasite that restrict its spread may be the reason for lower incidence in developed countries [47].
The economic losses caused by parasitic infections on swine raising generate a low interest from the research community when compared to the effort required to successfully manage and reduce their impact on swine breeding systems. However, the present study allows us to accept the hypothesis that the parasitic fauna is more affluent and contains a broader diversity of species in pigs raised on free-range farms, the prevalence and intensity being higher in such pigs than in those raised in large industrial farms. The presented results reflect the effects of rearing conditions on the susceptibility of pigs to parasitic infection as well as parasite seasonality.

4. Materials and Methods

The samples were collected from two free-range farms Figure 1 and Figure 2, both raising Mangalița and Bazna local swine breeds, where in 2021, Figure 1 had a pig herd of 350 animals while Figure 2 had 200 animals. The farms were located in Cluj County, a hilly area defined by abundant pastures and forests; the specific temperate-continental climate of the region is characterized by an average annual temperature between 7.5 to less than 10.0 °C and effective precipitation ranging from less than 500–600 mm/yr [48]. Drinking water for the animals was provided from a local fresh water source. The shelters were periodically cleaned throughout the year. The animals had access to outdoor areas at all times.
Three age groups were defined in each of the studied pig herds, namely weaners aged between 8 and 12 weeks, fatteners between 4 and 6 months, and sows aged from 1 to 5 years. Feces were collected from forty, randomly selected pigs from each age group during each season, this resulting in 120 samples per season and 480 feces samples during the year from one farm, respectively. A total of 960 fecal samples from the two farms were collected and examined during the experiment.
The feces samples, weighing approximately 10 g each, were collected individually from ten animals in each pen during defecation, placed in clean containers, macroscopically examined for the presence of visible parasites, then numbered and stored at 2–8 °C between 24 and 48 h, until testing.
Collected samples were examined by centrifugal sedimentation [49], flotation—Willis method, fecal smear stained by modified Ziehl-Neelsen technique [50], Blagg method, McMaster egg counting technique, and fecal cultures [51].
The morphological identification and differentiation of cultured larvae were based on several criteria such as the body size, number, shape, and arrangement of intestinal cells, type of esophagus, and length of the tail, according to the identification keys [52,53].
The individual intensity was calculated using the quantitative fecal flotation technique McMaster. In contrast, the mean intensity was determined as the arithmetic means of the number of individuals (eggs, cysts, or oocysts) of a particular parasite species per infected host in a sample.
Statistical analyses—prevalence and at least the 95% confidence interval of parasite infection were calculated for each group, season, and farm. Student’s t-test was used to analyze the differences among groups, seasons and farms by use of Excel program. The average and standard deviation of the mean were calculated for the number of oocysts, cysts, and eggs per gram of feces. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant (Table 4 and Table 5).
The ontologies of pathogens and diseases are described in Table A1 (Appendix A), in accordance with the PILLOW project data management plan.

5. Conclusions

This study provides essential information on Transylvania’s distribution of gastrointestinal parasites in pigs. It was demonstrated that different species of gastrointestinal parasites are present in most pigs reared in free-range farms in the study area. The current information has great value to farmers, policymakers, and researchers alike, that should contribute to safer and healthier pork production for public consumption. Specifically, control strategies are needed to raise awareness among pig farmers about the negative impact of these parasites on the productivity and health of pigs and, in some cases, on human health (certain pig parasites are zoonotic).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.-H.B. and V.C.; methodology, M.-H.B., Z.B. and C.M.G.; validation, M.-H.B., Z.B. and C.M.G.; formal analysis, M.S. and V.C.; investigation, M.-H.B., Z.B. and C.M.G.; resources, A.M. and S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.-H.B.; writing—review and editing, C.M.G., M.L.; supervision, M.S. and V.C.; project administration, V.C.; funding acquisition, V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was supported by University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca (USAMV Cluj-Napoca), and by the project PPILOW. The project PPILOW has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N°816172.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


We thank the European Horizon 2020 research program and the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine for their financial and logistical support in carrying out this research. Anne Collin (INRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, 37380 Nouzilly, France) is acknowledged for advice on ontologies (ATOL, AHOL, and OPL references).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Ontologies of pathogens and diseases observed in swine (Sus scrofa).
Table A1. Ontologies of pathogens and diseases observed in swine (Sus scrofa).
TraitsATOL *, AHOL ** and OPL *** References
Parasite load traits
Parasite Oocysts (OPG)Oocyst Stage
Parasite Eggs (EPG)Egg Stage
Parasites detected
Eimeria spp.AHOL_0004070
Balantidium coliAHOL_0004016
Ascaris suumAHOL_0004179
Trichuris suisAHOL_0004186
Oesophagostomum spp.AHOL_0004181
Strongyloides ransomiAHOL_0004178
Cryptosporidium spp.AHOL_0004175
Diseases description
* Traits in reference to the ontology ATOL: (accessed on 23 July 2022). ** Traits in reference to the ontology AHOL: (accessed on 23 July 2022). *** Ontology for Parasite Life cycle: (accessed on 23 July 2022).


  1. Thomas, L.F.; de Glanville, W.A.; Cook, E.A.; Fèvre, E.M. The spatial ecology of free-ranging domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) in western Kenya. BMC Vet. Res. 2013, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Popiołek, M.; Knecht, D.; Boruta, O.; Kot, M. Effect of breeding conditions, phenology, and age on the occurrence of helminths in pigs. A preliminary study. Bull. Vet. Inst. Pulawy 2009, 53, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kochanowski, M.; Karamon, J.; Dąbrowska, J.; Dors, A.; Czyżewska-Dors, E.; Cencek, T. Occurrence of intestinal parasites in pigs in Poland-the influence of factors related to the production system. J. Vet. Res. 2017, 61, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lai, M.; Zhou, R.Q.; Huang, H.C.; Hu, S.J. Prevalence and risk factors associated with intestinal parasites in pigs in Chongqing, China. Res. Vet. Sci. 2011, 91, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Joachim, A.; Dülmer, N.; Daugschies, A.; Roepstorff, A. Occurrence of helminthes in pig fattening units with different management systems in Northern Germany. Vet. Parasitol. 2001, 96, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ichim, O. An overview of organic pig farming in Romania. Porc. Res. 2012, 2, 50–65. [Google Scholar]
  7. Şuteu, M. Porcine milk protein polymorphisms. Porc. Res. 2011, 1, 1–112. [Google Scholar]
  8. Constantin, F. Economic Performance of Organic Farming in Romania and European Union. Econ. Ser. Manag. 2012, 15, 108–119. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nansen, P.; Roepstorff, A. Parasitic helminths of the pig: Factors influencing transmission and infection levels. Int. J. Parasitol. 1999, 29, 877–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kagira, J.M.; Githigia, S.M.; Nganga, J.C.; Kanyari, P.W.N.; Maingi, N.; Gachohi, J.M. Prevalence of gastrointestinal protozoa and association with risk factors in free-range pigs in Kenya. J. Protozool. Res. 2010, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Greve, J.H. Internal parasites: Helminths. In Diseases of Swine, 10th ed.; Zimmerman, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 912–913. [Google Scholar]
  12. Weng, Y.B.; Hu, Y.J.; Li, Y.; Li, B.S.; Lin, R.Q.; Xie, D.H.; Gasser, R.B.; Zhu, X.Q. Survey of intestinal parasites in pigs from intensive farms in Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 127, 333–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Balicka-Ramisz, A.; Wiśniewski, J.; Stadnytska, O. Extensity and intensity of intestinal parasite infections in pigs in different types of farm organization. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech. 2020, 18, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Trușcă, V.; Alecu, M. Romania General Facts. In Romania’s Third National Communication on Climate Change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Grue & Hornstrup: Holstebro, Denmark, 2005; pp. 21–67. [Google Scholar]
  15. Symeonidou, I.; Tassis, P.; Gelasakis, A.Ι.; Tzika, E.D.; Papadopoulos, E. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Intestinal Parasite Infections in Greek Swine Farrow-To-Finish Farms. Pathogens 2020, 9, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wieler, L.H.; Ilieff, A.; Herbst, W.; Bauer, C.; Vieler, E.; Bauerfeind, R.; Failing, K.; Klös, H.; Wengert, D.; Baljer, G.; et al. Prevalence of enteropathogens in suckling and weaned piglets with diarrhoea in southern Germany. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 2001, 48, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eijck, I.A.J.M.; Borgsteede, F.H.M. A survey of gastrointestinal pig parasites on free-range, organic and conventional pig farms in The Netherlands. Vet. Res. Commun. 2005, 29, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nwafor, I.C.; Roberts, H.; Fourie, P. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths and parasites in smallholder pigs reared in the central Free State Province. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2019, 86, a1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dey, T.R.; Dey, A.R.; Begum, N.; Akther, S.; Barmon, B.C. Prevalence of endo parasites of pig at Mymensingh, Bangladesh. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2014, 7, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tan, T.; Low, V.; Lee, S.; Chandrawathani, P.; Premaalatha, B.; Yvonne, A. Gastro-intestinal parasitism among two swine populations in Malaysia: Highlighting the zoonotic transmissible protozoan Balantidium coli infections. Malays. J. Vet. Res. 2014, 5, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  21. Murthy, K.; Ananda, K.J.; Adeppa, J.; Satheesha, M.G. Studies on gastrointestinal parasites of pigs in Shimoga region of Karnataka. J. Parasit. Dis 2016, 40, 885–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.H.; Yao, Q.; Dong, H.P.; Wang, S.S.; Chen, R.R.; Song, J.K.; Yan, W.C.; Zhao, G.H. Molecular characterization of Balantioides coli in pigs from Shaanxi province, northwestern China. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 3075–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vohra, H.K.S. Prevalence of gastrointestinal parasite in pigs of Hisar city, Haryana. Pharma Innov. J. 2021, 10, 476–478. [Google Scholar]
  24. Abdu, S.; Gashaw, A. Production system dynamism and parasitic interaction of swine in and around Holetta, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J. 2010, 14, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tumusiime, M.; Ntampaka, P.; Niragire, F.; Sindikubwabo, T.; Habineza, F. Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Nyagatare District, Rwanda. J. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 2020, 8814136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lin, Q.; Wang, X.Y.; Cong, M.M.; Ren, W.X.; Hu, B.; Cheng, W.Y.; Li, H.M.; Yu, S.K.; Zhao, G.H. Epidemiological investigation on swine intestinal parasites in Shaanxi province, China. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 7, 4251–4256. [Google Scholar]
  27. Robertson, L.J.; Björkman, C.; Axén, C.; Fayer, R. Cryptosporidiosis in farmed animals. In Cryptosporidium: Parasite and Disease; Cacciò, S.M., Widmer, G., Eds.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2014; pp. 149–235. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zintl, A.; Neville, D.; Maguire, D.; Fanning, S.; Mulcahy, G.; Smith, H.V.; De Waal, T. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium species in intensively farmed pigs in Ireland. Parasitology 2007, 134, 1575–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yin, J.; Shen, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Lu, W.; Xu, Y.; Cao, J. Prevalence of the Cryptosporidium pig genotype II in pigs from the Yangtze River Delta, China. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e20738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Budu-Amoako, E.; Greenwood, S.J.; Dixon, B.R.; Barkema, H.W.; Hurnik, D.; Estey, C.; McClure, J.T. Occurrence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in pigs on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 184, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Němejc, K.; Sak, B.; Květoňová, D.; Kernerová, N.; Rost, M.; Cama, V.A.; Kváč, M. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium suis and Cryptosporidium scrofarum on commercial swine farms in the Czech Republic and its associations with age and husbandry practices. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 1143–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Felice, L.A.; Moré, G.; Cappuccio, J.; Venturini, M.C.; Unzaga, J.M. Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. from domestic pigs in Argentina. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2020, 22, 100473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, W.; Gong, Q.L.; Zeng, A.; Li, M.H.; Zhao, Q.; Ni, H.B. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium in pigs in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2021, 68, 1400–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nissen, S.; Poulsen, I.H.; Nejsum, P.; Olsen, A.; Roepstorff, A.; Rubaire-Akiiki, C.; Thamsborg, S.M. Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in growing pigs in Kabale District in Uganda. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sowemimo, O.A.; Asaolu, S.O.; Adegoke, F.O.; Ayanniyi, O.O. Epidemiological survey of gastrointestinal parasites of pigs in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria. J. Public Health Epidemiol. 2012, 4, 294–298. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aiyedun, J.O.; Oludairo, O.O. Prevalence of intestinal parasitism of swine in a North Central State of Nigeria. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2016, 3, 278–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Roepstorff, A. Natural Ascaris suum infections in swine diagnosed by coprological and serological (ELISA) methods. Parasitol. Res. 1998, 84, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boes, J.; Kanora, A.; Havn, K.T.; Christiansen, S.; Vestergaard-Nielsen, K.; Jacobs, J.; Alban, L. Effect of Ascaris suum infection on performance of fattening pigs. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 172, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Katakam, K.K.; Thamsborg, S.M.; Dalsgaard, A.; Kyvsgaard, N.C.; Mejer, H. Environmental contamination and transmission of Ascaris suum in Danish organic pig farms. Parasites Vectors 2016, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pietrosemoli, S.; Tang, C. Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review. Agriculture 2020, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sanchez-Vazquez, M.J.; Smith, R.P.; Kang, S.; Lewis, F.; Nielen, M.; Gunn, G.J.; Edwards, S.A. Identification of factors influencing the occurrence of milk spot livers in slaughtered pigs: A novel approach to understanding Ascaris suum epidemiology in British farmed pigs. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 173, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Çani, Y.M.; Bizhga, B. Ascaris suum Infection Estimate. Anglisticum 2016, 5, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  43. Marufu, M.C.; Chanayiwa, P.; Chimonyo, M.; Bhebhe, E. Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in Mukota pigs in a communal area of Zimbabwe. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 3, 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  44. Knecht, D.; Popiołek, M.; Zaleśny, G. Does meatiness of pigs depend on the level of gastro-intestinal parasites infection? Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 99, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kagira, J.M.; Kanyari, P.N.; Githigia, S.M.; Maingi, N.; Nganga, J.C.; Gachohi, J.M. Risk factors associated with occurrence of nematodes in free range pigs in Busia District, Kenya. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kouam, M.K.; Ngueguim, F.D. Prevalence, Intensity, and Risk Factors for Helminth Infections in Pigs in Menoua, Western Highlands of Cameroon, with Some Data on Protozoa. J. Parasitol. Res. 2022, 2022, 9151294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Thamsborg, S.M.; Ketzis, J.; Horii, Y.; Matthews, J.B. Strongyloides spp. infections of veterinary importance. Parasitology 2017, 144, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Török, I.; Croitoru, A.E.; Man, T.C. A new approach to assess the impact of extreme temperature conditions on social vulnerability. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2021, 45, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  49. Manser, M.M.; Saez, A.C.; Chiodini, P.L. Faecal Parasitology: Concentration Methodology Needs to be Better Standardised. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Henriksen, S.A.; Pohlenz, J.F. Staining of cryptosporidia by a modified Ziehl-Neelsen technique. Acta Vet. Scand. 1981, 22, 594–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mircean, V.; Cozma, V.; Gyorke, A. Diagnostic Coproscopic in Bolile Parazitare la Animale, (Coproparasitological Diagnostic in Parasitic Diseases in Animals); Risoprint: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2011; pp. 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lukyanova, G.A.; Yagenich, L.V.; Pasechnik, A.A. Morphometric parameters of egg-shells and thirdstage juveniles as diagnostic features of Oesophagostomum dentatum and O. quadrispinulatum (Strongyloidea: Chabertiidae). Russ. J. Nematol. 2020, 28, 41–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Honer, M.R. The Routine Differentiation of the Ova and Larvae of Two Parasites of Swine, Hyostrongylus rubidus (Hassall et Stiles, 1892) and Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rud., 1803). Z. Für Parasitenkd. 1967, 29, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Embryonated Eimeria spp. oocyst.
Figure 1. Embryonated Eimeria spp. oocyst.
Pathogens 11 00954 g001
Figure 2. Balantidium coli cyst.
Figure 2. Balantidium coli cyst.
Pathogens 11 00954 g002
Figure 3. Ascaris suum egg.
Figure 3. Ascaris suum egg.
Pathogens 11 00954 g003
Figure 4. Trichuris suis egg.
Figure 4. Trichuris suis egg.
Pathogens 11 00954 g004
Figure 5. Oesophagostomum spp. egg.
Figure 5. Oesophagostomum spp. egg.
Pathogens 11 00954 g005
Figure 6. Strongyloides ransomi females.
Figure 6. Strongyloides ransomi females.
Pathogens 11 00954 g006
Figure 7. Cryptosporidium spp. oocyst.
Figure 7. Cryptosporidium spp. oocyst.
Pathogens 11 00954 g007
Table 1. The frequency (F), prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in weaners; n = number of samples.
Table 1. The frequency (F), prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in weaners; n = number of samples.
Spring (n = 40)Summer (n = 40)Autumn (n = 40)Winter (n = 40)
ParasiteFP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)
Eimeria spp.1845.0155 (±158)3280.01016 (±730)1025.0300 (±351)3177.5762 (±439)
B. coli2972.51367 (±692)3075.0427 (±371)2665.0723 (±638)3895.01151 (±590)
Oesophagostomum spp.717.5114 (±80)410.088 (±77)612.5380 (±480)1435.0457 (±199)
S. ransomi------1230.0817 (±501)---
Cryptosporidium spp.922.5-1025.0-410.0-820.0-
Eimeria spp.2255.01261 (±808)2357.59883 (±12563)3997.59974 (±43366)2767.52252 (±2184)
B. coli3280.01575 (±893)2870.01114 (±624)2357.51220 (±702)1947.5963 (±603)
Cryptosporidium spp.615.0-820.0-717.5-615.0-
Table 2. The frequency (F) prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in fatteners; n = number of samples.
Table 2. The frequency (F) prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in fatteners; n = number of samples.
Spring (n = 40)Summer (n = 40)Autumn (n = 40)Winter (n = 40)
ParasiteFP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)FP%MI (±SD)
Eimeria spp.1537.5137 (±126)1640.0356 (±298)820.0156 (±192)1435.0354 (±251)
B. coli3895.01126 (±576)1845.0261 (±215)3077.5848 (±629)3895.01258 (±443)
A. suum1332.5881 (±423)1230.0458 (±372)1640.02681 (±3963)3485.01265 (±453)
T. suis1127.5209 (±111)1640.0181 (±129)1025.0130 (±118)2152.5379 (±245)
Eimeria spp.2460.0679 (±524)1640.0278 (±255)401004075 (±4079)3075.02693 (±2220)
B. coli3382.5948 (±669)3077.5853 (±453)2357.51008 (±758)2050.0850 (±676)
A. suum3587.52890 (±2382)3077.52494 (±1645)3792.53973 (±2337)2460.03475 (±1964)
T. suis1845.0847 (±580)615.0208 (±111)2460.0788 (±596)1947.5574 (±447)
Table 3. The frequency (F), prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in sows; n = number of samples.
Table 3. The frequency (F), prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI) and standard deviation of the mean (SD) in sows; n = number of samples.
Spring (n = 40)Summer (n = 40)Autumn (n = 40)Winter (n = 40)
Eimeria spp.1332.5127 (±133)1230.088 (±68)820.01050 (±1165)1640.0404 (±200)
B. coli2460.01108 (±534)2460.0244 (±270)3075.0823 (±619)3895.0859 (±508)
A. suum410.088 (±75)1230.0100 (±74)1230.0683 (±744)1640.0472 (±310)
Oesophagostomum spp.410.0125 (±87)1127.5182 (±129)1230.0171 (±329)1537.5187 (±109)
S. ransomi---37.5467 (±115)25.0125 (±106)---
Cryptosporidium spp410.0-615.0-25.0-615.0-
Eimeria spp.2665.05900 (±4287)1537.5282 (±305)1947.5560 (±365)1640.0516 (±381)
B. coli2357.5985 (±703)922.5782 (±430)3072.5767 (±611)2255.0857 (±602)
A. suum1640.01013 (±492)1845.0469 (±382)1742.5741 (±468)1435.0643 (±361)
Oesophagostomum spp.410.0125 (±87)1332.5219 (±180)1742.5874 (±479)1127.5623 (±376)
Cryptosporidium spp.12.5-410.0-410.0-37.5-
Table 4. The statistical significance of the differences in parasitic load by season and farm (p value); F = farm, Sp = spring, Su = summer, A = autumn, W = winter; ssv = statistically significant value (p < 0.05).
Table 4. The statistical significance of the differences in parasitic load by season and farm (p value); F = farm, Sp = spring, Su = summer, A = autumn, W = winter; ssv = statistically significant value (p < 0.05).
B. coli
A. suumT. suis
Oesophagostomumspp.S. ransomi
Table 5. The overall prevalence (%) and frequency (F) according to age category; n = number of samples.
Table 5. The overall prevalence (%) and frequency (F) according to age category; n = number of samples.
ParasiteWeaners (n = 320)Fatteners (n = 320)Sows (n = 320)
Eimeria spp.20363.416350.912539.0
B. coli22570.323272.519962.1
A. suum--20263.110934.0
T. suis--12539.0--
Oesophagostomum spp.309.3--8727.1
S. ransomi123.7--51.5
Cryptosporidium spp.5818.1--309.3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Băieş, M.-H.; Boros, Z.; Gherman, C.M.; Spînu, M.; Mathe, A.; Pataky, S.; Lefkaditis, M.; Cozma, V. Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Two Free-Range Farms from Nord-West Region of Romania. Pathogens 2022, 11, 954.

AMA Style

Băieş M-H, Boros Z, Gherman CM, Spînu M, Mathe A, Pataky S, Lefkaditis M, Cozma V. Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Two Free-Range Farms from Nord-West Region of Romania. Pathogens. 2022; 11(9):954.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Băieş, Mihai-Horia, Zsolt Boros, Călin Mircea Gherman, Marina Spînu, Attila Mathe, Stefan Pataky, Menelaos Lefkaditis, and Vasile Cozma. 2022. "Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Two Free-Range Farms from Nord-West Region of Romania" Pathogens 11, no. 9: 954.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop