Vol.18, No.

5 May 1996

Continuing Education Article

Prevalence of Canine
FOCAL POINT
Parasites Based on
★It is vital to monitor dogs for
intestinal parasites and to treat
Fecal Flotation
infected dogs promptly with
effective parasiticides.
Auburn University Ciba Animal Health
Byron L. Blagburn, PhD Greensboro, North Carolina
KEY FACTS David S. Lindsay, PhD Randy C. Lynn, DVM, MS
Joy L. Vaughan, BS William J. Kelch, DVM, MAS,
■ Intestinal nematodes and Natasha S. Rippey, BS MS, MMAS
coccidial parasites remain James C. Wright, DVM, PhD G. C. Ritchie, DVM
common parasites of dogs in the Douglas I. Hepler, PhD
United States, particularly dogs
that have not received regular

G
veterinary care.
astrointestinal parasites are among the most common infectious
agents that companion animal veterinarians must manage.1,2 To de-
■ Nationally, and in each region
velop and implement effective diagnostic and control strategies for
of the United States, Toxocara
canine parasites and parasitic diseases, veterinarians and parasitologists must
canis, Ancylostoma caninum,
be aware of the prevalences of parasites in their regions. Prior surveys of
and Trichuris vulpis were more
canine parasites were limited to specific geographic locations3–32 and often
common than other parasites
used different sampling methods and recovery detection techniques. For ex-
observed in this prevalence
ample, both fecal3–11,14–18,20,23–25,30 and necropsy12,13,19,21,22,26–29,31,32 procedures
survey.
have been used to examine parasite prevalences. The use of different techniques
and procedures can lead to differing results12 and makes comparison of studies
■ Parasites were present in
from different regions of the country difficult.
dogs from all age groups; this
A comprehensive national survey, conducted in an epidemiologically sound
indicates that attention must be
manner and using a sensitive and accurate flotation method, would provide
paid to the control of parasites
helpful information on national and regional prevalences of canine gastroin-
throughout the life of a pet.
testinal parasites. This article reports the results of a national survey in which
fecal specimens collected in a consistent manner from dogs housed in animal
■ The high prevalence of
shelters throughout the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii were
Ancylostoma species and
examined for parasites via a sensitive fecal flotation procedure.
Toxocara canis indicates the
necessity of continual monitoring
SURVEY FINDINGS
of dogs for parasites of zoonotic
The results of this national parasite prevalence survey demonstrate several
significance.
points of interest to practicing veterinarians. First, results indicate that intesti-
nal nematode and coccidial parasites remain common in dogs in the United
States, particularly in dogs that have not received regular veterinary care (which
includes the use of dewormers or other parasiticidal medications). Certain par-
asites that are important as disease agents in dogs or as potential disease agents
Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

in humans were (2,322) of all dogs

common throughout sampled—and 52%
the United States. (1,011) of dogs that
For example, preva- were sampled from
lences of Toxocara ca- the Southeast United
nis, Ancylostoma can- States—harbored T.
inum, and Trichuris canis, A. caninum, or
vulpis exceeded those T. vulpis. Surprising-
of other parasites for ly, 90 dogs (1.39% of
the nation as a whole all those sampled)
and for each region harbored all three
(Northeast, South- major intestinal ne-
east, Midwest, and matode species. The
West). finding that Unci-
Based on the re- naria stenocephala
sults of this survey, Figure 1—Numbers of fecal specimens collected from states and geographic and Toxascaris leoni-
the likelihood that regions of the United States. na were observed in-
untreated dogs har- frequently was unex-
bor at least one of pected, as was the
these major intestinal parasites is high. Almost 36% comparatively high frequency of T. vulpis.

TABLE I
Prevalence of Common Canine Intestinal Nematodes Based on
Centrifugal Sucrose Flotation Examination of Fecal Specimens
Nationa Northeast Southeast Midwest West
Parasites (n = 6,458) (n = 1,480) (n = 1,941) (n = 1,525) (n = 1,512)

Toxocara canis 939b (14.54)c 187 (12.64) 344 (17.72)d 241 (15.80) 167 (11.04)

Toxascaris leonina 48 (0.74) 10 (0.68) 3 (0.15) 7 (0.46) 28 (1.85)d

Ancylostoma caninum 1,239 (19.19) 176 (11.89) 709 (36.53)d 315 (20.66) 39 (2.58)

Uncinaria stenocephala 66 (1.02) 8 (0.54) 42 (2.16)d 11 (0.72) 5 (0.33)

Trichuris vulpis 923 (14.29) 220 (14.86) 386 (19.89)d 250 (16.39)d 67 (4.43)

T. canis + A. caninum 294 (4.55) 35 (2.36) 185 (9.53)d 73 (4.79) 1 (0.07)

T. canis + T. vulpis 207 (3.21) 48 (3.24) 83 (4.28)d 64 (4.20) 12 (0.79)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 368 (5.70) 49 (3.31) 212 (10.92)d 96 (6.30) 11 (0.73)

T. canis + A. caninum + 90 (1.39) 13 (0.88) 52 (2.68)d 25 (1.64) 0 (0.0)

T. vulpis

Either T. canis, 2,322 (35.96) 464 (31.35) 1,011 (52.09)d 598 (39.21)d 249 (16.47)
A. caninum, or T. vulpis
a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Number of positive fecal specimens.
c
Percentage positive.
d
Indicates regions and parasites in which dogs were at significantly increased risk for infection compared with the nation as a whole.
Evaluated using 95% confidence intervals on odds ratios and the chi-square test for independence (P ≤ 0.05).

MAJOR INTESTINAL PARASITES ■ HARBORING NEMATODE SPECIES

The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

TABLE II
Prevalence of Miscellaneous Canine Helminths Based on
Centrifugal Sucrose Flotation Examination of Fecal Specimens
Nationa Northeast Southeast Midwest West
Parasites (n = 6,458) (n = 1,480) (n = 1,941) (n = 1,525) (n = 1,512)

Nematodes
Capillariab species 25c (0.39)d 6 (0.41) 14 (0.72) 4 (0.26) 1 (0.07)

Physaloptera species 3 (0.05) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.10) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.07)

Trematodes
Paragonimus kellicotti 1 (0.02) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.07) 0 (0.0)

Alaria canis 5 (0.08) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.33) 0 (0.0)

Cestodese
Dipylidium caninum 6 (0.09) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.15) 1 (0.07) 2 (0.13)

Mestocestoides species 2 (0.03) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.07)

Taeniidaef 39 (0.6) 6 (0.41) 14 (0.72) 10 (0.66) 9 (0.60)

a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Most eggs were those of the nasal capillarid, Capillaria boehmi.
c
Number of positive fecal specimens.
d
Percentage positive.
e
Examination of feces for cestode eggs using fecal flotation results in underestimation of prevalence.
f
May include eggs of Taenia and Echinococcus, which cannot be differentiated via fecal flotation.

TABLE III
Prevalence of Canine Protozoan Parasites Based on
Centrifugal Sucrose Flotation Examination of Fecal Specimens
Nationa Northeast Southeast Midwest West
Parasites (n = 6,458) (n = 1,480) (n = 1,941) (n = 1,525) (n = 1,512)

Giardia lambliab 40c (0.62)d 10 (0.68) 13 (0.67) 12 (0.79) 5 (0.33)

Hammondia heydorni 4 (0.06) 2 (0.14) 2 (0.10) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Isosporae species 311 (4.82) 71 (4.80) 111 (5.72) 65 (4.26) 64 (4.23)

Sarcocystis speciesf 53 (0.82) 8 (0.54) 24 (1.24) 9 (0.59) 12 (0.79)

a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Methods used in this survey probably resulted in underestimation of the prevalence of G. lamblia.
c
Number of positive fecal specimens.
d
Percentage positive.
e
Oocysts resembling Isospora canis and I.ohioensis.
f
Dogs are definitive hosts for at least six species of Sarcocystis. Differentiation of the sporocysts of the various species based on size and
structure is not possible.
Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TA
Prevalence of Selected Par

Nationa Northeast
<6 6–12 1–3 3–7 >7 <6 6–12 1–3 3–7 >7 <6
Parasites Months Months Years Years Years Months Months Years Years Years Months

Toxocara canis 370b 244 200 82 14 56 36 53 24 4 153

(30.23)c (12.12) (10.09) (10.58) (6.09) (25.69) (8.57) (10.95) (11.88) (5.63) (34.23)

Toxascaris leonina 6 26 12 3 1 0 5 3 2 0 1
(0.49) (1.29) (0.61) (0.39) (0.43) (0.0) (1.19) (0.62) (0.99) (0.0) (0.22)

Ancylostoma caninum 225 395 386 159 34 18 46 63 25 10 144

(18.38) (19.61) (19.47) (20.52) (14.78) (8.26) (10.95) (13.02) (12.38) (14.08) (32.21)

Uncinaria stenocephala 8 23 23 5 4 1 0 4 2 0 6
(0.65) (1.14) (1.16) (0.65) (1.74) (0.46) (0.0) (0.83) (0.99) (0.0) (1.34)

Trichuris vulpis 96 339 305 120 27 13 82 72 30 9 53

(7.84) (16.83) (15.38) (15.48) (11.74) (5.96) (19.52) (14.88) (14.85) (12.68) (11.86)

T. canis + A. caninum 116 78 61 30 5 9 5 13 3 2 77

(9.48) (3.87) (3.08) (3.87) (2.17) (4.13) (1.19) (2.69) (1.49) (2.82) (17.23)

T. canis + T. vulpis 33 73 64 26 5 4 14 17 7 4 16
(2.70) (3.62) (3.23) (3.35) (2.17) (1.83) (3.33) (3.51) (3.47) (5.63) (3.58)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 36 136 118 54 13 1 18 17 7 4 27

(2.94) (6.75) (5.95) (6.97) (5.65) (0.46) (4.29) (3.51) (3.47) (5.63) (6.04)

T. canis + A. caninum 17 29 27 11 4 0 3 6 7 4 13
+ T. vulpis (1.39) (1.44) (1.36) (1.42) (1.74) (0.0) (0.71) (1.24) (0.50) (2.82) (2.91)

T. canis, A. caninum, 523 720 675 262 56 73 130 147 62 17 243

or T. vulpis (42.73) (35.75) (34.04) (33.81) (24.35) (33.49) (30.95) (30.37) (30.69) (23.94) (54.36)

Isospora species 95 109 70 16 2 15 26 15 4 1 41

(7.76) (5.41) (3.53) (2.06) (0.87) (6.88) (6.19) (3.10) (1.98) (1.41) (9.17)

Total number of dogs 1,224 2,014 1,983 775 230 218 420 484 202 71 447
per age group
a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Number of positive fecal specimens.
c
Percentage positive.

Trends in prevalences of parasites in dogs of different
ages were consistent with previous reports and reflect-
ed elements of the life cycles of parasites and/or animal
housing and care. The presence of parasites in dogs
from all age groups suggests that attention should be
paid to control of parasites throughout the life of a
pet.
Shedding of parasites in feces can create heavily
contaminated environments, increasing the probability
of reinfection of existing pets or infection of newly
acquired pets. Of perhaps greater importance is the
growing concern about human infection with canine
parasites, particularly Ancylostoma species and T. canis.
The high prevalence of these parasites recorded in this
study indicates a need to continually monitor dogs for
parasites of zoonotic significance and, if necessary, to
treat periodically to remove the parasites.
The actual number of parasitized dogs probably ex-
ceeds the number reported here. Our results were based
on a single fecal examination. Multiple examinations

PREVALENCE TRENDS ■ HUMAN INFECTION WITH CANINE PARASITES

 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

BLE IV
asites in Dogs According to Age

Southeast Midwest West

6–12 1–3 3–7 >7 <6 6–12 1–3 3–7 >7 <6 6–12 1–3 3–7 >7
Months Years Years Years Months Months Years Years Years Months Months Years Years Years
86 66 30 7 99 73 48 14 2 62 49 33 14 1
(13.01) (11.40) (15.79) (17.95) (31.94) (16.33) (10.32) (8.38) (3.08) (24.90) (10.08) (7.25) (6.48) (1.82)
0 2 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 4 17 5 1 1
(0.0) (0.35) (0.0) (0.0) (0.32) (0.89) (0.43) (0.0) (0.0) (1.61) (3.50) (1.10) (0.46) (1.82)
241 202 98 12 55 95 113 33 10 8 13 8 3 2
(36.46) (34.89) (51.58) (30.77) (17.74) (21.25) (24.30) (19.76) (15.38) (3.21) (2.67) (1.76) (1.39) (3.64)
13 17 2 3 0 6 2 1 1 1 4 0 0 0
(1.97) (2.94) (1.05) (7.69) (0.0) (1.34) (0.43) (0.60) (1.54) (0.40) (0.82) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
153 116 47 8 26 78 94 32 8 4 26 23 11 2
(23.15) (20.03) (24.74) (20.51) (8.39) (17.45) (20.22) (19.16) (12.31) (1.61) (5.35) (5.05) (5.09) (3.64)
49 34 22 2 30 23 14 5 1 0 1 0 0 0
(7.41) (5.87) (11.58) (5.13) (9.68) (5.15) (3.01) (2.99) (1.54) (0.0) (0.21) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
29 25 10 2 12 25 19 5 1 1 5 3 3 0
(4.39) (4.32) (5.26) (5.13) (3.87) (5.59) (4.09) (2.99) (1.54) (0.40) (1.03) (0.66) (1.39) (0.0)
81 59 33 6 7 32 38 14 3 1 5 4 0 0
(12.25) (10.19) (17.37) (15.38) (2.26) (7.16) (8.17) (8.38) (4.62) (0.40) (1.03) (0.88) (0.0) (0.0)
14 14 8 2 4 12 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
(2.12) (2.42) (4.21) (5.13) (1.29) (2.68) (1.51) (1.20) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
335 280 118 19 135 178 191 57 15 72 77 57 25 5
(50.68) (48.36) (62.11) (48.72) (43.55) (39.82) (41.08) (34.13) (23.08) (28.92) (15.84) (12.53) (11.57) (9.09)
38 23 7 0 25 22 12 1 0 14 23 20 4 1
(5.75) (3.97) (3.68) (0.0) (8.06) (4.92) (2.58) (.60) (0.0) (5.62) (4.73) (4.40) (1.85) (1.82)
661 579 190 39 310 447 465 167 65 249 486 455 216 55

would probably have identified additional parasites not
yet shedding fecal stages or parasites shedding fecal
stages sporadically.21 In addition, surveys that are based
on necropsy rather than fecal flotation techniques often
yield higher parasite prevalences.21
SURVEY METHODS
Fecal specimens were collected by shelter personnel
from dogs housed in animal shelters throughout the
United States. Selection of sample sites, sampling of dogs,
and examination of feces were conducted as follows. Sam-
pling was based on the 1990 census, assuming that the
canine population correlates closely with the human pop-
ulation. For example, Alabama is home to 1.62% of the
human population of the United States; 1.62% of the
canine population thus is likely to be found in Alabama.
Presuming a base of 5,000 samples, 81 specimens
(1.62%) were obtained from Alabama. The number of
samples from each state was rounded upward to the near-
est 50 specimens. When possible, 50 fecal specimens were

SHEDDING FECAL STAGES ■ SELECTION OF SAMPLE SITES

Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TA
Prevalence of Selected Parasites in

Nationa Northeast
b c
Parasites F FS Md MC e F FS M MC

Toxocara canis 359f 35 494 33 58 9 106 13

(15.17)g (6.34) (17.87) (5.22) (11.86) (4.74) (18.09) (6.47)

Toxascaris leonina 13 5 26 3 2 3 4 1
(0.55) (0.91) (0.94) (0.47) (0.41) (1.58) (0.68) (0.50)

Ancylostoma caninum 474 53 621 68 62 9 90 14

(20.03) (9.60) (22.47) (10.47) (12.68) (4.74) (15.36) (6.97)

Uncinaria stenocephala 30 1 31 1 3 0 5 0
(1.27) (0.18) (1.12) (0.16) (0.61) (0.0) (0.85) (0.0)

Trichuris vulpis 372 47 427 49 92 11 109 7

(15.72) (8.51) (15.45) (7.75) (18.81) (5.79) (18.60) (3.48)

T. canis + A. caninum 123 9 150 8 11 1 21 2

(5.20) (1.63) (5.43) (1.27) (2.25) (0.53) (3.58) (1.0)

T. canis + T. vulpis 75 6 114 10 16 0 29 3

(3.17) (1.09) (4.12) (1.58) (3.27) (0.0) (4.95) (1.49)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 156 13 173 16 21 0 26 2

(6.59) (2.36) (6.26) (2.53) (4.29) (0.0) (4.44) (1.0)

T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 37 2 45 5 5 0 7 1

(1.56) (0.36) (1.63) (0.79) (1.02) (0.0) (1.19) (0.50)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 888 109 1150 121 169 28 236 28

(37.52) (19.75) (41.61) (19.15) (34.56) (14.74) (40.27) (13.93)

Isospora species 133 23 125 22 33 7 23 8

(5.62) (4.17) (4.52) (3.48) (6.75) (3.68) (3.92) (3.98)

Total number of dogs per group 2,367 552 2,764 632 489 190 586 201
a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Intact female or reproductive status unknown.
c
Female spayed.
d
Male intact.
e
Male castrated.
f
Number of positive specimens.
g
Percentage positive.

collected from each animal shelter.
In each state, shelters were selected from the most
populous cities. Consequently, 100 specimens were
requested from Alabama: 50 specimens from a shelter
in Birmingham, and 50 from a shelter in Mobile.
These procedures were used to collect specimens from
the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.
Shelter personnel were instructed to sample only dogs
that, to the best of their knowledge, had not been
treated with parasiticidal medications. Fresh speci-
mens were placed in 120-milliliter plastic specimen
cups with screw-cap lids. Specimen cups were placed
in foam shipping boxes that contained artificial ice
and were shipped to Dr. Blagburn’s laboratory via
overnight courier.
The following information was requested for each

SPECIMEN COLLECTION PROCEDURES ■ PERSONNEL INSTRUCTIONS

 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

BLE V
Dogs According to Reproductive Status

Southeast Midwest West

F FS M MC F FS M MC F FS M MC

150 15 166 8 88 9 129 7 63 2 93 5

(19.13) (12.0) (19.28) (5.97) (16.48) (7.03) (20.0) (4.32) (11.25) (1.83) (13.84) (3.70)

1 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 6 2 17 2
(0.13) (0.0) (0.23) (0.0) (0.75) (0.0) (0.47) (0.0) (1.07) (1.83) (2.53) (1.48)

293 24 351 24 109 17 157 27 10 3 23 3

(37.37) (19.20) (40.77) (17.91) (20.41) (13.28) (24.34) (16.67) (1.79) (2.75) (3.42) (2.22)

21 1 18 0 4 0 6 0 2 0 2 1
(2.68) (0.80) (2.09) (0.0) (0.75) (0.0) (0.93) (0.0) (0.36) (0.0) (0.30) (0.74)

161 17 168 20 94 14 119 16 25 5 31 6

(20.54) (13.60) (19.51) (14.93) (17.60) (10.94) (18.45) (9.88) (4.46) (4.59) (4.61) (4.44)

84 7 86 5 28 1 42 1 0 0 1 0
(10.71) (5.60) (9.99) (3.73) (5.24) (0.78) (6.51) (0.62) (0.0) (0.0) (0.15) (0.0)

32 3 43 4 22 3 35 3 5 0 7 0
(4.08) (2.40) (4.99) (2.99) (4.12) (2.34) (5.43) (1.85) (0.89) (0.0) (1.04) (0.0)

92 5 96 9 41 5 45 5 2 3 6 0
(11.73) (4.0) (11.15) (6.72) (7.68) (3.91) (6.98) (3.09) (0.36) (2.75) (0.89) (0.0)

22 2 24 3 10 0 14 1 0 0 0 0
(2.81) (1.60) (2.79) (2.24) (1.87) (0.0) (2.17) (0.62) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

418 43 484 37 210 31 297 42 91 7 133 14

(53.32) (34.40) (56.21) (27.61) (39.33) (24.22) (46.05) (25.93) (16.25) (6.42) (19.79) (10.37)

49 7 47 7 25 4 26 4 26 5 29 3
(6.25) (5.60) (5.46) (5.22) (4.68) (3.13) (4.03) (2.47) (4.64) (4.59) (4.32) (2.22)

784 125 861 134 534 128 645 162 560 109 672 135

dog from which a specimen was obtained: approxi-
mate age, breed, gender, and reproductive status (i.e.,
intact, neutered, or unknown). Specimens were stored
at 4°C until they were examined via the centrifugal
sucrose flotation procedure.33 All fecal stages of para-
sites were identified by genus or genus and species us-
ing established structural and morphometric crite-
ria.33–36 Particular attention was paid to differentiation
of eggs of A. caninum and U. stenocephala. Most eggs
produced by these two hookworms can be distin-
guished by size.37 We did not attempt to differentiate
eggs of A. braziliense (because of their reported sim-
ilarity in size and shape to those of A. caninum) or
oocysts of Cryptosporidium parvum (because of their
small size and the number of specimens to be pre-
pared and examined).

CENTRIFUGAL SUCROSE FLOTATION PROCEDURE ■ DIFFERENTIATING EGGS

Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TA
Prevalences of Selected Para

German Labrador Mixed Pit Cocker

Parasites Shepherd Retriever Breed Chow Bull Spaniel Beagle

Nationa
Toxocara canis 189b 126 142 78 42 23 23
(15.76)c (14.45) (16.84) (19.16) (14.89) (10.90) (10.95)

Toxascaris leonina 12 8 4 3 6 2 2
(1.0) (0.92) (0.47) (0.74) (2.13) (0.95) (0.95)

Ancylostoma caninum 246 147 206 96 63 33 46

(20.52) (16.86) (24.44) (23.59) (22.34) (15.64) (21.9)

Uncinaria stenocephala 10 4 7 11 6 0 6
(0.83) (0.46) (0.83) (2.70) (2.13) (0.0) (2.86)

Trichuris vulpis 190 108 131 70 36 19 36

(15.85) (12.39) (15.54) (17.20) (12.77) (9.0) (17.14)

T. canis + A. caninum 56 39 66 24 11 6 6
(4.67) (4.47) (7.83) (5.90) (3.90) (2.84) (2.86)

T. canis + T. vulpis 49 26 32 15 5 5 9
(4.09) (2.98) (3.80) (3.69) (1.77) (2.37) (4.29)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 67 43 64 32 16 7 12
(5.59) (4.93) (7.59) (7.86) (5.67) (3.32) (5.71)

T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 17 12 19 6 2 2 1

(1.42) (1.38) (2.25) (1.47) (0.71) (0.95) (0.48)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 470 285 336 179 111 59 79

(39.20) (32.68) (39.86) (43.98) (39.36) (27.96) (37.62)

Isospora species 58 32 50 20 17 10 10
(4.84) (3.67) (5.93) (4.91) (6.03) (4.74) (4.76)

Total number of dogs per group 1,199 872 843 407 282 211 210

Northeast
Toxocara canis 46 24 28 4 7 2 5
(12.40) (12.63) (14.51) (13.33) (11.29) (9.09) (7.35)

Toxascaris leonina 0 1 1 0 2 0 2
(0.0) (0.53) (0.52) (0.0) (3.23) (0.0) (2.94)

Ancylostoma caninum 55 17 27 2 16 1 6
(14.82) (8.95) (13.99) (6.67) (25.81) (4.55) (8.82)

Uncinaria stenocephala 2 1 0 0 1 0 2
(0.54) (0.53) (0.0) (0.0) (1.61) (0.0) (2.94)

Trichuris vulpis 65 29 24 5 13 2 9
(17.52) (15.26) (12.44) (16.67) (20.97) (9.09) (13.24)
a
See Figure 1 for definition of regions.
b
Number of positive specimens.
c
Percentage positive.
 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

BLE VI
sites in Dogs According to Breed

Doberman Australian Golden

Rottweiler Collie Husky Pinscher Shepherd Poodle Retriever Boxer Chihuahua Other

20 32 23 21 23 10 11 14 11 130
(9.95) (17.78) (13.07) (12.96) (23.71) (10.64) (14.86) (19.72) (15.71) (11.28)

0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
(0.0) (1.67) (0.57) (0.0) (1.03) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.52)

52 34 29 33 12 10 15 13 7 167
(25.87) (18.89) (16.48) (20.37) (12.37) (10.64) (20.27) (18.31) (10.0) (14.50)

1 3 2 2 3 0 0 1 0 7
(0.50) (1.67) (1.14) (1.23) (3.09) (0.0) (0.0) (1.41) (0.0) (0.61)

36 32 34 32 9 13 9 6 5 131
(17.91) (17.78) (19.32) (19.75) (9.28) (13.83) (12.16) (8.45) (7.14) (11.37)

7 8 4 5 1 2 4 4 6 38
(3.48) (4.44) (2.27) (3.09) (1.03) (2.13) (5.41) (5.63) (8.57) (3.30)

5 7 4 5 3 4 1 1 2 29
(2.49) (3.89) (2.27) (3.09) (3.09) (4.26) (1.35) (1.41) (2.86) (2.52)

17 7 13 14 4 4 3 0 3 47
(8.46) (3.89) (7.39) (8.64) (4.12) (4.26) (4.05) (0.0) (4.29) (4.08)

3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 14
(1.49) (1.11) (1.14) (1.23) (1.03) (1.06) (0.0) (0.0) (2.86) (1.22)

82 78 67 64 37 24 27 28 14 328
(40.80) (43.33) (38.07) (39.51) (38.14) (25.53) (36.49) (39.44) (20.0) (28.47)

8 13 7 8 4 6 4 3 2 50
(3.98) (7.22) (3.98) (4.94) (4.12) (6.38) (5.41) (4.23) (2.86) (4.34)

201 180 176 162 97 94 74 71 70 1,152

5 8 10 7 2 3 5 3 2 24
(10.20) (17.02) (18.52) (12.28) (40.0) (13.04) (23.81) (30.0) (9.09) (9.92)

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
(0.0) (4.26) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.83)

4 5 4 6 0 2 3 0 1 24
(8.16) (10.64) (7.41) (10.53) (0.0) (8.70) (14.29) (0.0) (4.55) (9.92)

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
(0.0) (2.13) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.41)

9 9 11 13 1 2 2 1 1 23
(18.37) (19.15) (20.37) (22.81) (20.0) (8.70) (9.52) (10.0) (4.55) (9.50)
Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TABLE VI

German Labrador Mixed Pit Cocker

Parasites Shepherd Retriever Breed Chow Bull Spaniel Beagle

Northeast (continued)
T. canis + A. caninum 8 3 8 0 5 1 0
(2.16) (1.58) (4.15) (0.0) (8.06) (4.55) (0.0)

T. canis + T. vulpis 15 8 6 0 2 1 3
(4.04) (4.21) (3.11) (0.0) (3.23) (4.55) (4.41)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 14 5 8 1 3 1 2
(3.77) (2.63) (4.15) (3.33) (4.84) (4.55) (2.94)

T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 3 2 3 0 1 1 0

(0.81) (1.05) (1.55) (0.0) (1.61) (4.55) (0.0)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 132 56 60 10 27 3 15

(35.58) (29.47) (31.09) (33.33) (43.55) (13.64) (22.06)

Isospora species 17 5 6 1 4 1 3
(4.58) (2.63) (3.11) (3.33) (6.45) (4.55) (4.41)

Total number of dogs per group 371 190 193 30 62 22 68

Southeast
Toxocara canis 55 46 72 49 12 7 11
(17.57) (17.29) (22.78) (24.02) (16.67) (10.94) (17.74)

Toxascaris leonina 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
(0.64) (0.0) (0.0) (0.49) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Ancylostoma caninum 116 88 142 77 32 18 21

(37.06) (33.08) (44.94) (37.75) (44.44) (28.13) (33.87)

Uncinaria stenocephala 4 2 6 10 4 0 3
(1.28) (0.75) (1.90) (4.90) (5.56) (0.0) (4.84)

Trichuris vulpis 66 42 69 51 12 9 13
(21.09) (15.79) (21.84) (25.0) (16.67) (14.06) (20.97)
T. canis + A. caninum 30 25 46 22 4 4 5
(9.58) (9.40) (14.56) (10.78) (5.56) (6.25) (8.06)

T. canis + T. vulpis 13 9 17 11 1 2 2
(4.15) (3.38) (5.38) (5.39) (1.39) (3.13) (3.23)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 33 24 40 25 7 5 0
(10.54) (9.02) (12.66) (12.25) (9.72) (7.81) (0.0)

T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 7 6 10 6 1 1 0

(2.24) (2.26) (3.16) (2.94) (1.39) (1.56) (0.0)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 168 124 190 125 45 24 34

(53.67) (46.62) (60.13) (61.27) (62.50) (37.50) (54.84)

Isospora species 20 9 2 10 6 4 5
(6.39) (3.38) (8.23) (4.90) (8.33) (6.25) (8.06)

Total number of dogs per group 313 266 316 204 72 64 62

 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

(continued)

Doberman Australian Golden

Rottweiler Collie Husky Pinscher Shepherd Poodle Retriever Boxer Chihuahua Other

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4
(2.04) (2.13) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.35) (4.76) (0.0) (4.55) (9.5)

2 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 3
(4.08) (4.26) (1.85) (3.51) (20.0) (0.0) (4.76) (0.0) (4.55) (1.24)

2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 7
(4.08) (0.0) (3.70) (3.51) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.55) (2.89)

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
(2.04) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.55) (0.41)

14 19 22 22 2 6 8 4 2 58
(28.57) (40.43) (40.74) (38.60) (40.0) (26.09) (38.10) (40.0) (9.09) (23.97)

4 4 4 3 1 2 2 1 0 13
(8.16) (8.51) (7.41) (5.26) (20.0) (8.70) (9.52) (10.0) (0.0) (5.37)

49 47 54 57 5 23 21 10 22 242

7 8 4 5 4 3 3 7 7 35
(9.72) (16.33) (10.0) (13.51) (19.05) (15.0) (15.0) (26.92) (38.89) (11.82)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

34 17 18 15 9 5 8 9 6 75
(47.22) (34.69) (45.0) (40.54) (42.86) (25.0) (40.0) (34.62) (33.33) (25.34)

1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 6
(1.39) (0.0) (2.50) (2.70) (4.76) (0.0) (0.0) (3.85) (0.0) (2.03)

16 11 14 8 3 4 5 1 4 44
(22.22) (22.45) (35.0) (21.62) (14.29) (20.0) (25.0) (3.85) (22.22) (14.86)

5 4 2 3 1 1 2 4 5 17
(6.94) (8.16) (5.0) (8.11) (4.76) (5.0) (10.0) (15.38) (27.78) (5.74)

2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 14
(2.78) (4.08) (2.50) (2.70) (4.76) (5.0) (0.0) (3.85) (5.56) (4.73)

11 4 9 4 2 4 3 0 2 22
(15.28) (8.16) (22.50) (10.81) (9.52) (20.0) (15.0) (0.0) (11.11) (7.43)

2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9
(2.78) (2.04) (2.50) (2.70) (4.76) (5.0) (0.0) (0.0) (5.56) (3.04)

41 27 25 21 13 7 11 12 10 110
(56.94) (55.10) (62.50) (56.76) (61.90) (35.0) (55.0) (46.15) (55.56) (37.16)

2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 21 17
(2.78) (2.04) (5.0) (5.41) (4.76) (5.0) (5.0) (3.85) (5.56) (5.74)

72 49 40 37 21 20 20 26 18 296
Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TABLE VI

German Labrador Mixed Pit Cocker

Parasites Shepherd Retriever Breed Chow Bull Spaniel Beagle
Midwest
Toxocara canis 53 37 28 13 8 6 5
(20.0) (17.05) (17.18) (16.46) (22.22) (8.57) (7.35)

Toxascaris leonina 1 2 2 1 0 0 0
(0.38) (0.92) (1.23) (1.27) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Ancylostoma caninum 70 38 34 13 11 13 19
(26.42) (17.51) (20.86) (16.46) (30.56) (18.57) (27.94)

Uncinaria stenocephala 2 1 1 1 1 0 1
(0.75) (0.46) (0.61) (1.27) (2.78) (0.0) (1.47)

Trichuris vulpis 51 32 31 12 6 8 11
(19.25) (14.75) (19.02) (15.19) (16.67) (11.43) (16.18)

T. canis + A. caninum 18 11 12 2 2 1 1
(6.79) (5.07) (7.36) (2.53) (5.56) (1.43) (1.47)

T. canis + T. vulpis 19 9 7 3 2 2 4
(7.17) (4.15) (4.29) (3.80) (5.56) (2.86) (5.88)

A. caninum + T. vulpis 20 13 16 5 3 1 6
(7.55) (5.99) (9.82) (6.33) (8.33) (1.43) (8.82)

T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 7 4 6 0 0 0 1

(2.64) (1.84) (3.68) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.47)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 124 78 64 28 18 23 25

(46.79) (35.94) (39.26) (35.44) (50.0) (32.86) (36.76)

Isospora species 8 8 12 4 0 3 2
(3.02) (3.69) (7.36) (5.06) (0.0) (4.29) (2.94)

Total number of dogs per group 265 217 163 79 36 70 68

West
Toxocara canis 35 19 14 12 15 8 2
(14.0) (9.55) (8.19) (12.77) (13.39) (14.55) (16.67)
Toxascaris leonina 9 5 1 1 4 2 0
(3.60) (2.51) (0.58) (1.06) (3.57) (3.64) (0.0)
Ancylostoma caninum 5 4 3 4 4 1 0
(2.0) (2.01) (1.75) (4.26) (3.57) (1.82) (0.0)
Uncinaria stenocephala 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.80) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
Trichuris vulpis 8 5 7 2 5 0 3
(3.20) (2.51) (4.09) (2.13) (4.46) (0.0) (25.0)
T. canis + A. caninum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
T. canis + T. vulpis 2 0 2 1 0 0 0
(0.80) (0.0) (1.17) (1.06) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
A. caninum + T. vulpis 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.50) (0.0) (1.06) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

(continued)

Doberman Australian Golden

Rottweiler Collie Husky Pinscher Shepherd Poodle Retriever Boxer Chihuahua Other

3 12 3 7 6 0 2 1 1 51
(8.57) (21.43) (7.69) (20.59) (35.29) (0.0) (13.33) (5.56) (6.67) (16.56)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.32)

11 11 5 11 1 2 4 4 0 60
(31.43) (19.64) (12.82) (32.35) (5.88) (7.14) (26.67) (22.22) (0.0) (19.48)

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (2.56) (2.94) (5.88) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

7 10 8 11 3 2 1 2 0 44
(20.0) (17.86) (20.51) (32.35) (17.65) (7.14) (6.67) (11.11) (0.0) (14.29)

1 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 17
(2.86) (5.36) (2.56) (5.88) (0.0) (0.0) (6.67) (0.0) (0.0) (5.52)

0 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 9
(0.0) (5.36) (5.13) (5.88) (5.88) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.92)

3 2 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 15
(8.57) (3.57) (5.13) (23.53) (5.88) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.87)

0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
(0.0) (1.79) (2.56) (2.94) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.30)

17 26 12 18 8 4 6 7 1 118
(48.57) (46.43) (30.77) (52.94) (47.06) (14.29) (40.0) (38.89) (6.67) (38.31)

1 6 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 7
(2.86) (10.71) (2.56) (5.88) (11.76) (7.14) (6.67) (0.0) (0.0) (2.27)

35 56 39 34 17 28 15 18 15 308

5 4 6 2 11 4 1 3 1 20
(11.11) (14.29) (13.95) (5.88) (20.37) (17.39) (5.56) (17.65) (6.67) (6.54)
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
(0.0) (3.57) (2.33) (0.0) (1.85) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.98)
3 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 8
(6.67) (3.57) (4.65) (2.94) (3.70) (4.35) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.61)
0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (7.14) (0.0) (0.0) (1.85) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
4 2 1 0 2 5 1 2 0 20
(8.89) (7.14) (2.33) (0.0) (3.70) (21.74) (5.56) (11.76) (0.0) (6.54)
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (2.33) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
(2.22) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (13.04) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.98)
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
(2.22) (3.57) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.98)
Small Animal The Compendium May 1996

TABLE VI

German Labrador Mixed Pit Cocker

Parasites Shepherd Retriever Breed Chow Bull Spaniel Beagle

West (continued)
T. canis + A. caninum + T. vulpis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

T. canis, A. caninum, or T. vulpis 46 27 22 16 21 9 5

(18.40) (13.57) (12.87) (17.02) (18.75) (16.36) (41.67)

Isospora species 13 10 6 5 7 2 0
(5.20) (5.03) (3.51) (5.32) (6.25) (3.64) (0.0)

Total number of dogs per group 250 199 171 94 112 55 12

Host signalment information and results of fecal
flotation were entered into a data management software
program for summary and analysis. To facilitate the
presentation of data, states were grouped into four arbi-
trary geographic regions: Northeast, Southeast, Mid-
west, and West (Figure 1).
Most specimens in the survey were collected and
shipped during the period of December 1993 through
May 1994. Specimens were examined during the peri-
od of January 1994 through October 1994. To ensure
that parasites did not degrade during storage to an ex-
tent that might affect recovery and identity of fecal
stages, periodic fecal flotations were performed on
samples stored during the entire study period. Sta-
tistical analysis of risk of common nematode infection
in dogs in the four geographic regions was perform-
ed using 95% confidence intervals on odds ratios and
the chi-square test for independence.39 In each instance,
a probability level of ≤0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 6,458 fecal specimens was received from
the animal shelters. The number of samples from the
various regions and states is illustrated in Figure 1. For
all but a few states, the number of specimens received
equaled the number of specimens requested. National
and regional prevalences of single and multiple intesti-
nal nematode infections are presented in Table I. Eggs
of the canine hookworm A. caninum were observed
with greatest frequency (19.19%) in dogs from the
nation as a whole. Eggs of the common roundworm T.
canis (14.54%) and the whipworm T. vulpis (14.3%)
were observed often and with similar frequencies in the
nation as a whole and in three of the four geographic
regions.
Surprisingly, almost 36% (2,322) of all dogs sam-
pled—and 52% (1,011) of dogs sampled from the
southeastern United States—harbored at least one of
these major intestinal nematode parasites. Also surpris-
ing was the number of dogs harboring combinations of
parasites. Dogs concurrently infected with A. caninum
and T. vulpis were most common (5.7%), followed
by T. canis and A. caninum (4.55%), and T. canis and
T. vulpis (3.21%). Surveys conducted in Louisiana,10
Missouri,15 and Indiana12 reported that A. caninum and
T. vulpis occurred as mixed infections more often than
did other parasite combinations. In the study, 90 dogs
(1.39% of those sampled) harbored all three major in-
testinal nematode species.
The low national prevalence of T. leonina (0.74%)
and U. stenocephala (1.02%) observed in this study was
unanticipated. Data from several previous surveys using
fecal17 or necropsy 12,13,19–22,25 examinations indicated
higher prevalences of these parasites. Occasionally, the
prevalences of T. leonina or U. stenocephala were lower
than reported here.4,17
Prevalences of nematodes in individual regions gener-
ally mirrored trends observed nationally (Table I). Ex-
ceptions were the Southeast (where prevalences of nem-
atode parasites were considerably higher than those
observed nationally) and the West (where prevalences
were somewhat lower). These results are consistent with
those reported previously.9,10 Differences can be at-
tributed to factors related to the environment (e.g., soil
type and elevation), the climate (i.e., ambient tempera-
ture and relative humidity), the nature of the pet popu-
lation (i.e., predominantly urban or rural), and the na-
ture of care (i.e., well-cared-for dogs or poorly-cared-for
dogs).18,24,25
Statistical analysis demonstrated that dogs in the

DATA PRESENTATION ■ PERIODIC FECAL FLOTATIONS ■ LOW PREVALENCE

 The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

(continued)

Doberman Australian Golden

Rottweiler Collie Husky Pinscher Shepherd Poodle Retriever Boxer Chihuahua Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)

10 6 8 3 14 7 2 5 1 42
(22.22) (21.43) (18.60) (8.82) (25.93) (30.43) (11.11) (29.41) (6.67) (13.73)

1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 13
(2.22) (7.14) (0.0) (2.94) (0.0) (4.35) (0.0) (5.88) (6.67) (4.25)

45 28 43 34 54 23 18 17 15 306

southeastern United States were at significantly in-
creased risk of infection with all major intestinal nem-
atodes or combinations except T. leonina (P ≤ 0.05;
Table I). Dogs in the Southeast and Midwest are at in-
creased risk of infection with at least one of the major
intestinal nematodes, and dogs in the Midwest are at
increased risk of T. vulpis infection. The risk of infec-
tion with T. leonina is increased in the West.
Prevalences of miscellaneous helminth eggs observed
during the study are presented in Table II. Eggs of Cap-
illaria species were observed with greatest frequency.
Most were those of the nasal capillarid C. boehmi.36 The
remainder were C. aerophila. These observations are
similar to those of Jordan and coworkers,4 who also re-
ported that most capillarid eggs surveyed were C. boeh-
mi. Other helminths (i.e., Physaloptera species, Alaria
canis, and Paragonimus kellicotti ) were observed infre-
quently and were generally restricted to one or two geo-
graphic regions.
Eggs of tapeworms were not recovered often in the
survey. This was expected because of the nature of the
fecal examination procedure. Fecal flotation is not a
consistently reliable method of recovering eggs of most
tapeworm species. Certain tapeworms (e.g., Diphyl-
lobothrium and Spirometra species) shed eggs that are
usually recovered by fecal flotation. The more common
tapeworms of dogs (e.g., Taenia species, Echinococcus
species, and Dipylidium caninum) usually shed de-
tached proglottids. Unless proglottids are damaged dur-
ing transit through the bowel or are macerated during
the flotation procedure, eggs generally are not seen.
Most of the eggs observed in fecal flotations were those
of Taenia species or Echinococcus species. We elected to
report them as Taeniidae because of the inability to dis-
tinguish individual eggs of the two genera.34
Results of recovery and identification of canine pro-
tozoal parasites are presented in Table III. Coccidial
oocysts of Isospora canis are large and easily identified in
fecal flotation. The smaller oocysts of I. ohioensis, I.
burrowsi, and I. neorivolta are almost identical struc-
turally and thus indistinguishable via fecal flotation.
We chose to combine these species and to refer to them
as I. ohioensis–like oocysts. For ease of presentation, we
also have combined the prevalences of I. canis and I.
ohioensis–like oocysts and displayed them as Isospora
species.
Oocysts of Isospora species were observed in the feces
of 4.8% of the dogs sampled nationally. Regional
prevalences of Isospora species are similar to one another
and to the national prevalence, illustrating that coccidia
are common and widely distributed canine parasites.
Similar prevalence studies conducted in California,9
Georgia,7 Missouri,15 and Pennsylvania3 corroborate the
prevalences of coccidia reported here.
Sporocysts of Sarcocystis species were observed in
0.82% of all fecal samples. The prevalence was greatest
in the Southeast, probably due in part to the large deer
population. White-tailed deer serve as intermediate
hosts for one or more species of canine Sarcocystis.
Oocysts of Hammondia heydorni,40 a Toxoplasma-like
parasite of dogs, were recovered from the feces of four
dogs.
Cysts of Giardia lamblia were seen in the feces of
only 40 (0.62%) dogs sampled. We believe that this
greatly underestimates the actual prevalence of Giardia
in the canine population. Our results are not surpris-
ing, however, in light of the fact that sucrose solution
was used to conduct the fecal flotation procedures.
Consistent recovery of Giardia cysts from feces is best
achieved via zinc sulfate solution or formalin–ethyl

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ■ TAPEWORM EGGS ■ OOCYSTS

The Compendium May 1996 Small Animal

acetate sedimentation.41 When these techniques were
used, prevalences of Giardia were substantially greater
than reported here.3,6,7 A prevalence of Giardia similar
to what we observed was reported by others (34 of
4,058 [0.8%])10 when sodium nitrate solution was used
as the flotation solution, further substantiating the im-
portance of the selection of reagents when examining
feces for Giardia cysts.
The prevalence of single and multiple infections of
dogs with selected parasites is presented in Table IV ac-
cording to the ages of the dogs sampled. The data indi-
cate that, at the national and regional levels, eggs of T.
canis were recovered with more frequency from dogs
less than 6 months of age. Thereafter, prevalences di-
minished as dogs aged; however, eggs were still demon-
strable in dogs older than 7 years of age. It is also ap-
parent that infections with A. caninum occurred with
similar frequency in dogs of all ages.
Eggs of the canine whipworm T. vulpis were observed
with greatest frequency in dogs older than 6 months of
age. Like A. caninum, T. vulpis remained prevalent in
all dogs older than 6 months of age. Increased pre-
valence of T. canis in young dogs (younger than 6
months) and comparably lower prevalence in dogs old-
er than 6 months was expected because of (1) the para-
site’s proclivity for transplacental infection of the fetus42
and (2) documented evidence of age-associated immu-
nity in adult dogs.43 Similar trends in the prevalences
of T. canis in dogs of various ages have been report-
ed.6,9,10,14,15,18
Despite reports of age resistance to the canine hook-
worm A. caninum 44 or reduced prevalence in older
recovery of oocysts from younger dogs. Increased preva-
lence of coccidia in very young dogs often reflects over-
crowding and unsanitary conditions. Prevalences of
oocysts of Isospora species in feces of dogs 7 years of age
and older were appreciably reduced.
The influence of reproductive status on parasite
prevalences is presented in Table V. For tabulation of
data, we elected to combine intact female dogs with
female dogs of unknown reproductive status. Intact
female and male dogs were infected with T. canis, A.
caninum, and T. vulpis or combinations of these para-
sites with greater frequency than were spayed female or
neutered male dogs.
Although this trend was present for coccidia, it was
less evident than for nematode parasites. Reduced
prevalence of parasites in animals after gonadectomy
has been reported in numerous published surveys.6,10,14,15
There is considerable debate as to why this occurs.
Some researchers believe that gonadectomy reflects a
higher degree of owner stewardship or responsibility for
pets.15 Pets that have been submitted for spaying or
neutering are thus more likely to be examined for para-
sites or to receive parasiticidal medications, or they may
be maintained in environments that decrease contact
with parasites. Other researchers suggest that hormonal
Your Animal Health Collection
Isn’t Complete Without
CE CREDIT FROM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Volume 21 Number 9 September 2000

dogs,14,15 striking reductions in the prevalence of hook- Veterinary Breathing Easy

(page 509)

worm infections were not observed in old dogs in this Technician

The Complete Journal for the Veterinary Hospital Staff
®

and other prevalence studies.6,9 The decreased preva- 504

HOTLINE HEROES
at the NAPCC
New

lence of T. vulpis in dogs younger than 6 months com-

Column!
506
TOXICOLOGY BRIEF:
Permethrin in Cats

pared with older dogs is easily explained by this para- 12 issues only $38
508
Not Networking?
Join VETTEAM

518
site’s 3-month prepatent period.34 Generally, there is Get a Handle
on HIRING

526

agreement between prevalences of whipworm infections The Golden Years—

A Roundtable on
SENIOR CARE
Check out TechMart.

in dogs of various ages reported in this survey and See page 541.

Dana Farbman, CVT

National Animal Poison
Control Center

prevalences published previously.6,9,10,15 There have been

reports of decreased prevalence of whipworm infections
as dogs age, however.14
Prevalences of combinations of nematode infections
were determined by the characteristics of individual
parasites. For example, increased prevalences of combi-
nations of T. canis and A. caninum in young dogs re-
flect the propensity of these parasites to infect young
dogs. By contrast, combinations of T. canis and T.
vulpis, and A. caninum and T. vulpis reflect the de-
creased prevalence of T. vulpis in young dogs. Although
coccidial infections (Isospora species) were reported in
dogs from all age groups, there was a clear trend toward
The Most Widely Read
Journal in Its Field
■ The technician’s right hand—the source they reach for first
■ Articles of interest to animal health professionals of all kinds:
breeders, caretakers, trainers…
■ Medical and management articles of interest to the dedicated
pet owner
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
CALL 800-426-9119
Veterinary Technician is published by Veterinary Learning
Systems, 275 Phillips Blvd., Trenton, NJ 08618-1496.
Price is in US dollars and is subject to change.

SINGLE AND MULTIPLE INFECTIONS ■ AGE RESISTANCE ■ REPRODUCTIVE STATUS

Small Animal
factors may play a role in parasite infections,6 citing
that hormones are known to affect the consequences of
some parasitic infections in other hosts.45
Reactivation and maturation of sequestered somatic
larvae of T. canis and A. caninum (as might occur dur-
ing pregnancy in intact female dogs) is one source of
these parasites that is not likely to affect spayed female
dogs. Most researchers agree that behavior associated
with gender or mating (e.g., roaming) can increase the
likelihood of contact with environmental stages of par-
asites.6,15
Prevalence of parasites according canine breed is pre-
sented in Table VI. We include specific data for 15
pure breeds and a category that the respondents re-
ferred to as mixed breed on the survey form. These 16
breeds are those for which the largest number of sam-
ples was obtained from the nation as a whole. The re-
maining breeds were placed in a category that we re-
ferred to as other. Examination of the data failed to
demonstrate consistent correlations between breed and
prevalence of parasitism, except to suggest that some
small breeds (e.g., poodles, cocker spaniels, and Chi-
huahuas) may harbor fewer of certain nematode para-
sites than do large breeds (e.g., German shepherds and
Labrador retrievers). If these differences exist, they
probably reflect habitat and environment (e.g., urban
versus rural and indoor versus outdoor) rather than
breed-associated susceptibility to parasites.
In prior surveys, when other factors (e.g., locality,
gender, and age) were controlled, the researchers failed
to demonstrate an association between breed and para-
sitism.6 Suggestion of differences in parasite prevalences
between small and large breeds apparently does not
pertain to coccidia. In most cases, prevalences of Isospo-
ra species are consistent regardless of host breed.
The population of dogs sampled in this survey prob-
ably included a combination of strays and pets that
were lost, abandoned, or relinquished by owners. Para-
site prevalences probably would have been somewhat
lower in a population of well-cared-for dogs3–6,10,14,15,18,25
and somewhat greater in strays or poorly-cared-for
dogs.9,19,22,24,26,30 Even dogs that receive a high level of
care are known to harbor internal parasites.6,10,14,15,18
CONCLUSION
Most researchers would agree that the results of this
survey reinforce the need to monitor dogs for intestinal
parasites and to treat infected animals promptly with
effective parasiticides. The results also indicate that it
may be advantageous to consider a preventive (rather
than therapeutic) approach to parasite control, in light
of the current availability of safe and effective broad-
spectrum deworming agents. Prevention is an attractive
SMALL CANINE BREEDS ■ HABITAT AND ENVIRONMENT ■ PREVENTION
The Compendium May 1996
option; several of these broad-spectrum agents provide
protection against heartworms.
About the Authors
Dr. Blagburn, Dr. Lindsay, Ms. Vaughan, Ms. Rippey, and
Dr. Wright are affiliated with the Department of Pathobiol-
ogy, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama. Drs. Lynn, Kelch, Ritchie, and Hepler
are affiliated with Ciba Animal Health in Greensboro,
North Carolina.
REFERENCES
1. Lindsay DS, Blagburn BL: Practical treatment and control
of infections caused by canine gastrointestinal parasites. Vet
Med 90:441–455, 1995.
2. Hendrix GM: Helminthic infections of the feline small and
large intestines. Vet Med 90:456–472, 1995.
3. Nolan TJ, Smith G: Time series analysis of the prevalence of
endoparasitic infections in cats and dogs presented to a vet-
erinary teaching hospital. Vet Parasitol 59:87–96, 1995.
4. Jordan HE, Mullins ST, Stebbins ME: Endoparasitism
in dogs: 21,583 cases (1981–1990). JAVMA 203:547–549,
1993.
5. Greve JH, O’Brien SE: Prevalence of intestinal parasites in
Iowa dogs—A comparison between 1965–68 and 1988.
Iowa State Vet 51:24–25, 1989.
6. Kirkpatrick CE: Epizootiology of endoparasitic infections
in pet dogs presented to a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet
Parasitol 30:113–124, 1988.
7. Stehr-Green JK, Murray G, Schantz PM, et al: Intestinal
parasites in pet store puppies in Atlanta. Am J Publ Health
77:345–346, 1987.
8. Stewart GL, Shebani M, Crutchfield J: Ova of canine in-
testinal helminth parasites in fecal samples recovered from
suburban parks. Southwest Vet 37:37–39, 1986.
9. Baker DG, Strombeck DR: Intestinal parasitism in dogs
from a Placer County, California animal control facility.
Calif Vet:32–36, July–August 1985.
10. Hoskins JD, Malone JB, Smith PH, et al: Prevalence of par-
asitism diagnosed by fecal examination in Louisiana dogs.
Am J Vet Res 43:1106–1109, 1982.
11. Marron JA, Schroeder RJ: Survey of Toxocara canis infection
rate in impounded dogs in Los Angeles County. JAVMA
172:713, 1978.
12. Kazacos KR: Gastrointestinal helminths in dogs from a hu-
mane shelter in Indiana. JAVMA 173:995–997, 1978.
13. Palmieri JR, Thurman JB, Andersen FL: Helminth parasites
of dogs in Utah. J Parasitol 64:1149–1150, 1978.
14. Lightner L, Christensen BM, Beran GW: Epidemiologic
findings on canine and feline intestinal nematode infections
from records of the Iowa State University veterinary clinic.
JAVMA 172:564–567, 1978.
15. Visco RJ, Corwin RM, Selby LA: Effect of age and sex on
the prevalence of intestinal parasitism in dogs. JAVMA
170:835–837, 1977.
16. Arambulo PV, Steele JH: Urban dogs in Houston, Texas—
Parasitic infection and environmental health impact. Int J
Zoon 3:114–144, 1976.
The Compendium May 1996
17. Anvik JO, Hague AE, Rahaman A: A method of estimating
urban dog populations and its application to the assessment
of canine fecal pollution and endoparasitism in Saskatch-
ewan. Can Vet J 15:219–223, 1974.
18. Jaskowski BJ: Intestinal parasites of well-cared-for dogs. Am
J Trop Med Hyg 20:441–444, 1971.
19. Costa JO, Galvin TJ, Bell RR, et al: Survey of helminth par-
asites of dogs from Brazos County, Texas. Southwest Vet
24:305–306, 1971.
20. Hathaway RP: A survey of intestinal helminths in dogs from
Albuquerque, New Mexico. J Parasitol 53:1240, 1967.
21. Lillis WG: Helminth survey of dogs and cats in New Jersey.
J Parasitol 53:1082–1084, 1967.
22. Worley DE: Helminth parasites of dogs in southeastern
Michigan. JAVMA 144:42–46, 1964.
23. Braun JL, Thayer CB: A survey for intestinal parasites in
Iowa dogs. JAVMA 141:1049–1050, 1962.
24. Vaughn JB, Murphy WS: Intestinal nematodes in pound
dogs. JAVMA 141:484–485, 1962.
25. Vaughn J, Jordan R: Intestinal nematodes in well-cared-for
dogs. Am J Trop Med Hyg 9:29–31, 1960.
26. Cross SX, Allen RW: Incidence of intestinal helminths and
trichinae in dogs and cats in Chicago. North Am Vet 29:27–
30, 1958.
27. Ciordia H, Jones AW: The incidence of intestinal helminths
in dogs and cats in Knoxville, Tennessee. JAVMA 128:139,
1956.
28. Rubin R: A survey of internal parasites of 100 dogs in Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma. JAVMA 121:30–33, 1952.
29. Cooperrider DE: Gastrointestinal parasites of dogs—A sur-
vey. JAVMA 120:389–391, 1952.
30. Butler JM, Grundmann AW: Fecal examination of 200 dogs
from Salt Lake City for intestinal helminths. JAVMA
118:396–398, 1951.
31. Cameron TWM, Parnell IW, Lyster LL: The helminth para-
sites of sledge dogs in northern Canada and Newfoundland.
Small Animal
Can J Res 18:325–332, 1940.
32. Wright WH: The incidence of internal parasites in dogs at
Washington, DC. JAVMA 76:794–803, 1930.
33. Sloss MW, Kemp RL, Zajac AM: Veterinary Clinical Para-
sitology, ed 6. Ames, IA, Iowa State University Press, 1994,
pp 6–7.
34. Bowman DD: Georgi’s Parasitology for Veterinarians, ed 6.
Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 1995.
35. Lindsay DS, Blagburn BL: Coccidial parasites of cats and
dogs. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 13(5):759–765, 1991.
36. Campbell BG: Trichuris and other trichinelloid nematodes
of dogs and cats in the United States. Compend Contin Educ
Pract Vet 13(5):769–778, 1991.
37. Georgi JR, McCulloch CE: Diagnostic morphometry: Iden-
tification of helminth eggs by discriminant analysis of mor-
phometric data. Proc Helminthol Soc Wash 56:44, 1989.
38. Georgi JR, Georgi ME: Canine Clinical Parasitology. Phila-
delphia, Lea & Febiger, 1992, p 174.
39. Zar JH: Biostatistical Analysis, ed 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice–Hall, 1984.
40. Blagburn BL, Lindsay DS, Swango LJ, et al: Further charac-
terization of the biology of Hammondia heydorni. Vet Para-
sitol 27:193–198, 1989.
41. Truant AL, Elliot SH, Kelly MT, et al: Comparison of for-
malin-ethyl ether sedimentation, ethyl acetate sedimenta-
tion, and zinc sulfate flotation techniques for detection of in-
testinal parasites. J Clin Microbiol 13:882–884, 1981.
42. Glickman LT, Schantz PM: Epidemiology and pathogenesis
of zoonotic toxocariasis. Epidemiol Rev 3:230–250, 1981.
43. Greve JH: Age resistance to Toxocara canis in ascarid-free
dogs. Am J Vet Res 32:1185–1192, 1971.
44. Miller TA: Influence of age and sex on susceptibility of dogs
to primary infection with Ancylostoma caninum. J Parasitol
51:701–704, 1965.
45. Solomon GB: Host hormones and parasitic infection. Int
Rev Trop Med 3:103–158, 1969.