Evaluation of Endectocides and Conventional Acaricides in the Control of the <i>Boophilus microplus</i> on Field-Kept Dairy Cattle in the State of Pernambuco-Brazil

doi:10.4236/ojvm.2012.23021

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 2012, 2, 124-128

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2012.23021 Published Online September 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojvm)

Evaluation of Endectocides and Conventional Acaricides in

the Control of the Boophilus microplus on Field-Kept Dairy

Cattle in the State of Pernambuco-Brazil

Vania Lucia Assis Santana1, Maria Aparecida Da Gloria Faustino2, Erika Korinfsky Vanderley2,

Marilene Maria Lima3, Leucio Camara Alves2

1Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, National Laboratory of Animal and Plant,

Rua Dom Manoel de Medeiros, Recife, Brazil

2Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

3Academic Unit of Serra Talhada, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Received July 2, 2012; revised July 30, 2012; accepted August 10, 2012

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to evaluate different acaricide treatments for the control of Boophilus microplus on

field-kept dairy cattle in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil. The first phase of the experiment consisted of collecting the

ingurgitated female Boo philus microplus directly from the hosts for attainment of larvae. After the attainment of larvae,

the artificial infestation procedure began on the cattle, with larvae ages ranging from 7 to 14 days. On Day 0, animals

were separated into 12 groups to receive the corresponding treatment: Abamectin; Ivermectin; Ivermectin LA; Amitraz;

Amitraz + Ivermectin; Amitraz + Ivermectin LA; Amitraz + Abamectin; Association (Cypermethrin + Chlorpyrifos +

Citronella); Association + Ivermectin; Association + Ivermectin LA; Association + Abamectin; and Control. Subse-

quent evaluations were made on post-treatment days +7, +14, +21, +28, +35, +42, +49, +56 and +63. Analyzing the

post-treatment effectiveness per day, indices revealed considerable variation ranging from 0% to 96.63%. Such indices

demonstrate the significant reduction in the number of ticks on the animals in some groups, especially in the Abamectin

group. The analysis of the results demonstrates that the use of different avermectines can assist in the development of

Boophilus microplus control programs, thereby reducing the number of acaricide applications and production costs re-

lated to ticks.

Keywords: Boophilus microplus; Tick; Carrapaticide; Efficiency; Resistance

1. Introduction

The control of the tick Boophilus microplus includes the

systematic use of acaricide products on cattle, which has

had diverse consequences for the animal as well as for

livestock farmers and the tick itself. Jonsson [1] states

that even when losses are controlled, there are costs in-

volving chemicals, labor and equipment as well as pro-

duction losses associated to the treatment and the cost of

restricting access of the animals to determined areas.

While the effective control of the tick seems to be a so-

cioeconomic necessity for farmers, the environmental ef-

fects generated by such products are often not considered

and such effects on non-targeted organisms vary from

product to product [2].

Along with the problem of resistance, other factors

limit the effectiveness of acaricides, such as the method

of preparation and application of the product as well as

the time and frequency of treatment. Solution preparation

can be considered one of the most important phases in

the use of products aimed at killing ticks [1,3].

The use of endectocides thus becomes in an additional

alternative for controlling resistant ticks along with for-

mularizations of prolonged action, which have recently

been launched in the market [4]. The aim of the present

work was to evaluate different acaricide treatments for

the control of Boophilus microplus on field-kept dairy

cattle in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study was carried out on the farm of the Ex-

perimental Station of the Agriculture and Livestock Re-

search Institute, located in the city of São Bento of Una,

Pernambuco, using Holstein cattle. Female cattle in the re-

productive phase were used, weighing an average of 600

kg and totaling 66 animals. The animals fed on grass

(grass native and Brachiaria), also receiving a mineral sup-

V. L. A. SANTANA ET AL. 125

plement twice a day, mesquite and the fodder plant Pen-

nisetum purpureum with palm leaves and sugarcane leaves.

The first phase of the experiment consisted of collect-

ing the ingurgitated female Boophilus microplus directly

from the hosts for attainment of larvae. Specimens were

sent to the Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases in Domesti-

cated Animals of the Department of Medicine Veterinary

at the UFRPE, where they were cleaned, placed in Petri

dishes and kept at room temperature (25˚C to 31˚C; rela-

tive humidity above 70%) in the laboratory. After the

attainment of larvae, the artificial infestation procedure

began on the cattle, with larvae ages ranging from 7 to 14

days. For such, the animals were duly contained and the

larvae deposited along the dorsal line, placing about 2500

larvae per animal 21 days prior to treatment (Day −21);

the procedure was repeated on Day −14 and Day −7.

On Day 0 (day of treatment), the animals were sepa-

rated into groups, each composed of 04 (four) to 08

(eight) animals under the same sanitary and feeding con-

ditions, selected non-probabilistically by convenience for

the formation of the following experimental groups:

Group I: Abamectin1 (08 animals)

Group II: Ivermectin1 (08 animals)

Group III: Ivermectin LA1 (08 animals)

Group IV: Amitraz (05 animals)

Group V: Amitraz + Ivermectin (06 animals)

Group VI: Amitraz +Ivermectin LA (04 animals)

Group VII: Amitraz + Abamectin (05 animals)

Group VIII: Association2 (04 animals)

Group IX: Association + Ivermectin (04 animals)

Group X: Association + Ivermectin LA (04 animals)

Group XI: Association + Abamectin (05 animals)

Group XII: Control (04 animals)

The initial degree of infestation of the animals was

measured, counting the number of females with a diame-

ter ≥4 mm [5] on the left side of the animal and recording

the results.

The experimental groups then received the corresponding

treatment. Products were applied following the manufac-

turers’ instructions. For the control group, the only proce-

dure carried out was the tick count. Subsequent evalua-

tions were made on post-treatment Days +7, +14, +21,

+28, +35, +42, +49, +56 and +63.

The final effectiveness of the treatments was calcu-

lated by post-treatment Day 56, using the following equ-

ation [6]:

100





treatment groups, the F test (ANOVA) was used and

3. Results and Discussion

ll tick instars was evi-

tudy of the animals revealed differ-

effectiveness on

of treatment. The administration of abamectin together

where

E = Therapeutic effectiveness

a = Average number of ticks in the group control

b = Average number of ticks in the treated group

For the determination of statistical differences between

paired comparisons were evaluated using the Tukey test.

The level of statistical significance was set at 5.0%. The

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 11) was

used for the calculations.

On Day 0, high infestation for a

denced, with a predominance of females. The arithmetic

average of the number of ticks ranged from 136 to

370.75, oscillating in all groups treated in the period

from 7 to 63 days following treatment. Table 1 displays

the average number and standard deviation of the number

of ticks per day analyzed. With the exception of the

groups treated with the Association and the group control,

there was a reduction in counts from Day 0 to Day +7.

On Day +7, the lowest averages of ticks occurr

ong the Amitraz + Abamectin (33.00), Abamectin

(30.13), Amitraz + Ivermectin (41.33) and Amitraz +

Ivermectin LA (46.25) groups. The Tukey test for paired

comparisons revealed significant differences between

treatments, except on Days 0 and 63. The analysis of the

effectiveness of the groups per post-treatment day (Table

2) revealed that indices obtained a great variation (0% -

96.63%), reaching considerable values of effectiveness.

Such indices revealed the reduction in the number of

ticks on the animals. However, the effectiveness of the

treatments can better be evaluated by analyzing the ani-

mals individually.

The individual s

ces in the behavior of the infestations by the tick; some

animals exhibited more or less parasites than others in

the same treatment group, demonstrating the resistance

of the host to tick attacks, consisting of the optimum

method of non-chemical control of the tick, as cited by

Jonsson et al. [7]. Animals with a predominantly white

hide exhibited greater resistance to ticks that those with a

predominance of black; this fact was previously reported

by Oliveira and Alencar [8] and Teodoro et al. [9]. The

control group exhibited increasing levels of tick infesta-

tion and was submitted to treatment on Day +56. Lacking

a control group thereafter, the effectiveness of the other

groups was not calculated on Day +63.

Abamectin presented good levels of

ays +7, +14 and +21, with average indices of 88.78%,

79% and 84.01%, respectively, which were higher than

the indices of standard ivermectin and ivermectin LA.

Constancy in the effectiveness of treatments on the ani-

mals in the abamectin group is evident and the animals

from this group were the only ones that did not undergo a

repetition of the treatment on Day +28. When abamectin

was associated jointly with amitraz, there was consider-

able effectiveness on Days +7, +14 and +21, but tick

counts were higher on Day +28, which led to a repetition

V. L. A. SANTANA ET AL.

126

philus microplus ticks per treatment group and respective

station.

Table 1. Average and standard deviation of number of Boo

post-treatment days in field-kept cattle at the IPA experimental

Statistic Treatment 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63

Average Abamectin 370.30.78.102.188.378.71.75 13 40.25 29.50 88 78.38 75 38 3838

Ivermectin

ermectin LA

309.00

270.63

247. 185. 109. 159. 194.

Iv211. 184. 203. 283.155.

150.

Amitraz + LA 101.

138.

243. 102.

Association

288. 131.

191.279. 342.

(p <0. <0.

Standard Abam

Deviation Iectin 186.217.

v 129.

Amitraz ctin LA

210. 213.

Association 118.103.

Association . LA103.33.

105.

106. 142.

183.57

115.57 83.

117.71 79.

43 134.

79.43 242.

Amitraz 227.40 172.4066.60 67.60 162.7590.25 44.50 45.25 2586.25

itraz ectin + Iverm

Ivermectina

260.83

213.25

41.33 62.

46.25 68.

50 78.

75 51.

47.83 77.

63.75 49.

67 60.

33 41.

28.33

31.00 65.

144.00

123.33

Amitraz + Abamectin 153.60 33.00 38.40 36.60 8036.00 64.80 19.25 213.00114.00

Association

225.60

253.25

85.25 61.

75 51.

62.40

253.60

72.50 48.

52.20

00 99.

80.00

17.40

82.25

197.60

175.50

103.40

22.50 + Ivermectin

Association + Iverm. LA

Association + Abam.

206.50 60.

282.00 87.

60 104.

67.00 106.

59.60

121.25

85.50

44.80

39.75

93.20

41.75 130.

14.25 225.

65.00

Control 136.00 175.0025 184.50 261.755000 373.75 441.5076.75

-value 11)

ectin

0.363

175.44

001

32.27 43.

*0.043

71 11.

*<0.001

*0.004

141.79

*<0.001

72.47 99.

*<0.001

*001 <0.

170.01

*001

168.50

*0.346

24.41

verm14 142.44110.6242.45 114.92146.0650.60 52.33 38.50 76

ermectin LA

Amitraz

149.26

144.48

101.88

64.24 60.

134.43

27 35.

153.77

83.18 23.

83.09

67 24.

47.57

25.61

26.59 90.

121.99

86 25.

148.90

itraz ectin + Iverm

+ Iverme

137.48

99.54

30.45 53.

15.02 45.

77 45.

33 71.

56.18 49.

65.76 44.

40 35.

29 36.

41.63

32.14

132.62

9.17

211.45

36.12

Amitraz + Abamectin 118.14 13.10 28.98 41.62 88.70 25.52 40.12 10.37 102.8884.63

Association

+ Ivermectin

183.18

109.13

12.09 40.

65.53 48.

47 15.

27.79 20.

28.90 84.

9.34 175.

92.02 12.

67.96

+ Iverm92.63 35.42 81.55 04137.0554.18 30.77 29 59.90 64.50

Association + Abam.

Control

149.13

70.22

68.60 53.

64 31.

134.79

109.34

79.37 71.

32.56 25.

20 31.

14.17

24.96 83.

48 49.

78.53

(*)—Snificant differen; (1)—F tesA

to field-kept cattle at the IPA experimental station per post-treatment day.

igce of 5.0%t (ANOV).

Table 2. Effectiveness of acaridides applied

7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

Abamectin 8 7 8 6 7 6 4 1 8.789.004.019.861.969.969.604.30

Ivermectin 0 2.81 40.79 39.20 30.28 66.21 77.64 82.01

65. 37.

Association 0

Am. 76.81.

Association + I.

Association + I

Association + Abam. 49.94 45.20 67.70 0 83.97 72.75 96.63 48.86

ermectin LA 0 3.33 0.00 0.00 34.32 65.58 78.75 69.57

Amitraz 1.49 18 63.36 82 67.71 86.99 77.89 72,03

46.46 66.18 3.11 81.32 76.61 95.34 55.24

itraz + Iverm38 67.32 57.45 73 72.21 82.26 92.42 67.38

itraz + Iverm LA 73.57 64.05 71.95 75.65 82.35 87.92 91.71 85.28

Amitraz + Abam. 81.14 79.92 80.16 46.97 87.12 81.05 94.82 43.71

verm51.29 67.71 66.53 72.30 82.83 70.98 77.99 60.25

verm. LA65.29 64.97 42.55 53.68 69.41 88.38 88.83 70.44

V. L. A. SANTANA ET AL. 127

withciatio anophus/pyr

throidproduce the goolts as

e ots contbamectin and re

also demonstrated

s infesting

esults were achieved

tronella, a greater reduction effect in infestations was

obtaIt can rmethistocidbits

long-term effectiveness anoulded irol

projectng contionalcidings. Toma et

is amidine can be used if tick control is

d production costs related to ticks infesta-

REFERENCES

f Cattle Ticks (Boophilus mi-

tment of Cattle on the

Structure of Dung Beetle Communities,” Agriculture

Ecosystems an5, No. 4, 2005, pp.

649-656.

co,

the chemical asson orgosphore-

/citronel failed to

her two treatment

e sam

aining a

d resu

th -

quired further treatment on Day +28.

The good performance of abamectin corroborates the

results of Bridi et al. [10], who, in comparing the appli-

cation of abamectin with ivermectin,

gher degrees of effectiveness with abamectin, which

performed better than ivermectin, as in the present study.

Comparing the action of four endectocides on Boophilus

microplus infestations, Alves-Branco et al. [11] found

considerable degrees of effectiveness with abamectin of

74.30% by the 35th day, obtaining the highest rate on Day

+21. However, these authors obtained a “knock down”

effect on Day 4, with a rate of 85.80%, superior to the

other endectocides tested. Thus, abamectin can be rec-

ommended for the control of the Boophilus microplus in

naturally infected cattle during periods of intense para-

sitic infestation, allowing animal handlers to obtain ade-

quate levels of protection for their animals.

Ivermectin only exhibited a certain level of effective-

ness on Day +21 (40.79%), which was not sufficient for

a significant reduction in the number of tick

e animals and a further application of this endectocide

was required on Day +28. However, in the individual

analysis of the animals from this group, a satisfactory

degree of effectiveness was observed in two animals

(78.98% and 96.17%) on Day +28. The indices found in

the present study for ivermectin differ from those found

by Marques et al. [12], who obtained 100% effectiveness

on Day +8. In associating ivermectin with conventional

acaricides, better effectiveness of the treatments was

evidenced. The data presented here may reveal the de-

velopment of resistance to this endectocide in the Boophi-

lus microplus sample. Confirmative “in vitro” tests are

necessary to determine this. The resistance of this ixodi-

dae to ivermectin has been described by Martins & Fur-

long [13] and Sabatini et al. [14].

Bovines medicated with ivermectin LA also exhibited

wide variation in effectiveness, requiring repetition of

treatment on Day +28, as no effective r

ainst Boophilus microplus. The degree of effectiveness

from Day +7 to Day +42 was less than 70%, thereby dif-

fering from results found by Silva and Marra [15] in the

state of Minas Gerais, who obtained levels above 90% on

post-treatment Days 7, 14 and 21. In the city of Candiota,

RS, Alves-Branco et al. [16] obtained an 86.18% degree

of effectiveness on Day +4, with a therapeutic average of

94.8% from Day +7 to Day +28. Carvalho et al. [17],

however, obtained lower tick counts from Day +14 to

Day +84 using this product. When ivermectin LA was

associated to acaricide baths with amitraz or the synthetic

chemical association organophosphorus/pyrethroid/ci-

al. [18] suggest a strategic spraying program with the

application of endectocides on properties with a high

degree of infestation. The authors also state that the tick

control program should be adapted to each case, increas-

Emb

ined. be affid that endece exhi

d sh

acari

be us

e spray

n cont

s usiven

ing the intervals between treatments as the parasitic load

diminishes.

It is important to verify the results with the use of ami-

traz, as there was a significant reduction of the number of

ticks on Day +7 and the treatment became more effective

as the study elapsed, especially when associated with the

endectocides. Post-treatment effectiveness ranged from

0% to 93.85% in the different animals. The treatment

revealed that th

plemented adequately, thereby prolonging the effec-

tive life of this acaricide.

The association group only produced satisfactory re-

sults after a second application of the treatment on Day

+28. A reduction in infestation was observed on Day +35,

with degrees of effectiveness above 81.32%. This treat-

ment had a better performance when associated with en-

dectocides.

Conclusion

The analysis of the results from the present study de-

monstrates that the use of different avermectines can

assist in the development of Boophilus microplus control

programs, thereby reducing the number of acaricide ap-

plications an

tions.

5. Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Institute of Research in Animal and

Plant of Pernambuco, Brazil, for providing the study fa-

cilities to complete this research.

[1] N. N. Jonsson, “Control o

croplus) on Queensland Dairy Farms,” Australian Ve-

terinary Journal, Vol. 75, No. 11, 1997, pp. 802-807.

[2] U. Kryger, C. Deschodt and C. H. Sholtz, “Effects of

Fluazuron and Ivermectin Trea

d Environment, Vol. 10

[3] J. Furlong, “Control of the Tick of Bovine from Southeast

Brazil,” In: T. P. Charles and J. Furlong, Eds., Doenças

Parasitárias dos Bovinos de Leite, Coronel Pache

rapa, Cnpgl, 1992, 134 p.

[4] F. de P. J. Alves-Branco, I. F. Correa, M. de F. M. Sapper,

et al., “Economic Impact of Health-Fluazuron in Control

V. L. A. SANTANA ET AL.

128

of Boophilus microplus in Beef Cattle from Rio Grande

do Sul,” A Hora Veterinária, Vol. 129, No. 22, 2002, pp.

ssessment of Tick Num

19-26.

[5] R. H. Wharton and R. B. W. Utech, “The Relation be-

tween Engorgement and Dropping of Boophilus microplus

(Canestrini) (Ixodidade) to the A-

bers on Cattle,” Australian Journal of Entomology, Vol. 9,

No. 3, 1970, pp. 171-182.

doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.1970.tb00788.x

[6] N. K. Amaral, L. F. S. Monmany and L. A. F. Carvalho,

“Acaricida AC 84, 63: First Trials for Control of Boophi-

s),” Veterinary Parasitology

lus microplus,” Journal of Economy Entomology, Vol. 67,

No. 3, 1974, pp. 387-389.

[7] N. N. Jonsson, A. L. Matschoss, P. Pepper, et al., “Resis-

tance of Holtein-Friesian Cows to Infestation by Cattle

Tick (Boophilus microplu

Vol. 89, No. 4, 2000, pp. 297-305.

doi:10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00213-2

[8] G. P. Oliveira and M. M. Alencar, “The Resistance of the

Cattle Tick Boophilus microplus I Artificial Infestation,”

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1987

Sociedade Bras

a, 2004.

rinária, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 35-40.

tion

and

, “Tests to

95, No.1, 2001, pp.

pp. 433-438.

[9] R. L. Teodoro, M. L. Martinez, M. V. G. B. Silva, et al.,

“Resistance to the Cattle Tick Boophilus microplus: The

Brazilian Experience,” Simpósio da

de Melhoramento Animal, Pirassunung

ileira

[10] A. A. Bridi, L. A. F. Carvalho, L. G. Cramer, et al.,

“Efficacy of Abamectin against the Cattle Tick Boophilus

microplus Acarina, Ixodidae,” Revista Brasileira de Para-

sitologia Vete

[11] F. P. J. Alves-branco, “Efficacy of Four Endectocidas on

Natural Infestation in Cattle for Boophilus microplus,” A

Ho r a Veterinária, Vol. 111, No. 19, 1999, pp. 41-44.

[12] A. O. Marques, G. J. Arantes and C. R. Silva, “Evalua

of the Efficacy of Ivermectin to 1% (Injectable Solution)

in the Treatment of Cattle Naturally Infected for Tick

Boophilus microplus (Can., 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae)

Kept in Pasture,” Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia

Veterinaria, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1995, pp. 117-119.

[13] J. R. Martins and J. Furlong, “Avermectin Resistance of

Cattle Tick Boophilus microplus in Brazil,” Veterinary

Record, Vol. 149, No. 2, 2001, p. 64.

[14] G. A. Sabatini, D. H. Kemp, S. Hughes, et al.

Determine LC50 and Discrimitation Doses for Macrocyc-

lic Lactones against the Cattle Tick, Boophilus micro-

plus,” Veterinary Parasitology, Vol.

53-62. doi:10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00406-4

[15] C. R. Silva and A. O. M. Marra, “Activity of the Acari-

cide Ranger LA (LA Ivermectin 1%) in the Control of

Boophilus microplus in Cattle Naturally Infested,” A Hora

Veterinária, Vol. 140, No. 24, 2004, pp. 46-48.

roplus in

. 18, 1998, pp. 53-58.

[16] F. P. de J. Alves-Branco, M. F. M. Sapper and J. C. B.

Franco, “Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Formulation of

Ivermectin to 1.13% W/V Injectable Front of Natural In-

festation of Cattle with Natural Boophilus mic

Bage, Rio Grande do Sul,” A Hora Veterinária, Vol. 137,

No. 23, 2004, pp. 69-71.

[17] L. A. F. Carvalho, I. Bianchin, A. A. BridI, et al., “Con-

trol Antiparasitic in Beef Cattle with Long-Acting En-

dectocide Compared to Conventional Product,” A Hora

Veterinária, Vol. 106, No

[18] S. B. Toma, F. A. Marson and H. Lorenzoni, “Current

Considerations on the Main Infestation of Dairy Cattle,”

A H o ra Veterinária, Vol. 131, No. 22, 2003, pp. 21-25.