This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Page 1 BCS response, and liveweight responses were inconsistent. A relatively greater BCS 24 response to treatment was observed in ewes in low BCS pre-lambing compared to better-25

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. The model was run with variable proportions of the flock untreated (0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50%), with ewes selected at random so that reductions in the mean worm burden or egg count were proportional to the treated section of the flock. Treatments to ewes were given either in summer (December; low refugia potential, hence highly selective) or autumn (March; less selective due to a greater refugia potential), and the use of different anthelmintics was simulated to indicate the difference between active ingredients of different efficacy. Each model scenario was run for two environments, specifically a lower rainfall area (more selective) and a higher rainfall area (less selective) within a Mediterranean climatic zone, characterised by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Univariate general linear models with least square difference post-hoc tests were used to examine differences between means of factors. The results confirmed that leaving a proportion of sheep in a flock untreated was effective in delaying the development of anthelmintic resistance, with as low as 10% of a flock untreated sufficient to significantly delay resistance, although this strategy was associated with a small reduction in worm control. Administering anthelmintics in autumn rather than summer was also effective in delaying the development of anthelmintic resistance in the lower rainfall environment where all sheep were treated, although the effect of treatment timing on worm control effectiveness varied between the environments and the proportion of ewes left untreated. The use of anthelmintics with higher efficacy delayed the development of resistance, but the initial worm egg count or number of annual treatments had no effect on either the time to resistance development or worm control effectiveness. In conclusion, the modelling study suggests that leaving a small proportion of ewes untreated, or changing the time of treatment, can delay the onset of anthelmintic resistance in a highly selective environment.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractThis study aimed to establish whether sheep flock production losses due to nematode (worm)infections are typically greater in mature sheep selected for anthelmintic treatment at random compared to sheep selected for treatment based on low (poorer) body condition score (BCS).The study also examined the proportion of sheep in flocks that could be left untreated before production losses became evident, and projected worm egg pasture contamination. Sheep were monitored at two experimental sites in Western Australia (Mediterranean climate).Sheep were stratified for BCS, liveweight and faecal worm egg count (WEC) and allocated into treatment groups (treated or untreated), with equal numbers for each. Liveweight, BCSand WEC measurements were taken on 6 occasions at Farm A and 10 occasions at Farm B.Comparisons of sheep production (liveweight and BCS change) and pasture contamination potential (WEC) were conducted by generating "virtual flocks" of varying proportions sheep untreated (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% untreated). For the comparison of the selection mode of sheep for treatment, the untreated sheep were either selected at random, or as the highest BCS animals at the commencement of observations. Univariate general linear models with least square difference post-hoc tests were used to examine differences between flocks for liveweight, BCS and WEC, and regression analysis was used to examine relationships between BCS and WEC, and liveweight and WEC. No difference in body weights was observed between flocks with varying proportions of ewes notionally left untreated at Farm B, and until more than 30% were left untreated at Farm A. There was no difference in BCS between flocks with varying proportions of ewes left untreated at either site. At no point were there differences in cumulative liveweight change or BCS between selection methods (BCS versus random) where the same proportion of sheep in virtual flocks were left untreated, suggesting that effort committed to individual BCS assessment would be of no benefit under these circumstances except for identifying low BCS sheep at risk of falling below critical 3 limits associated with health or welfare risks. No consistent relationship between WEC and BCS or bodyweight was observed, indicating that BCS selection would have no lesser or greater impact on worm pasture contamination compared to random selection. Summer treatments based on a random selection index (with a minimum BCS limit), with up to 30% of adult sheep untreated can be expected to delay the development of anthelmintic resistance, with mini...

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.