Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T22:18:02.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical control of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Can.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. J. Roulston  and
J. T. Wilson
W. J. Roulston
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
J. T. Wilson
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effectiveness of ten acaricides against Boophilus microplus (Can.) on cattle in southern Queensland, Australia, was investigated in 1960–63. Of infested cattle dipped in or sprayed with each acaricide, some were kept in stalls so that observations on ticks that survived treatment could be made, and others were grazed in tick-infested pastures in order to find the period of protection against reinvasion by larvae. Untreated cattle were also kept in the stalls to indicate the numbers of ticks occurring in the absence of treatment. The reproductive capacity, in terms of eggs and larvae produced, of ticks surviving treatment was compared with that of untreated ticks, and, for aldrin, dieldrin and the last four compounds mentioned below, the protective period in the field was compared with deposits of acaricide on the hair of the cattle as indicated by chemical and biological tests. For the last four acaricides, the effect on toxicity of artificially fouling the dip fluid was investigated, and also the relative toxicity of clean and artificially fouled fluids to ticks dipped in them under laboratory conditions.

The acaricides tested, and (in brackets) the concentrations used, were aldrin (0·05 & 0·1%), dieldrin (0·1%), carbaryl (0·2%), Boots' ED 12308 (0·2%), ethion (0·1%), Ciodrin (0·1%), coumaphos (0·02%), diazinon (0·05%), carbophenothion (0·086%) and dioxathion (0·075%). All were emulsion formulations except carbaryl and diazinon, which were used in wettable-powder form.

Daily collections of engorged adult ticks that fell from the stalled cattle provided clear-cut, though not quantitative, assessments of the effects of the acaricides. All the compounds tested gave a very high level of control, the only exception being the lower concentration of aldrin, and the reproductive capacity of ticks that survived treatment was negligible. With some of the acaricides, large numbers of surviving ticks fell in the first day or two after treatment, and some laid eggs; but the viability of the latter was invariably low. These observations emphasise the need to consider the reproductive capacity as well as the direct kill of parasitic ticks when assessing the value of acaricides. At the concentrations tested, nearly all the compounds allowed a few ticks to survive that were in the engorged-nymph stage at the time of treatment; these dropped off the cattle from the tenth day onwards and laid viable eggs.

The mean protective periods of the chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphorus compounds ranged from three to six days, but on individual animals periods from three to eight days were recorded. Amongst the carbamates, a mean protective period of seven days was recorded for carbaryl in summer, whereas the mean protective period of RD12308 in winter, when such periods are longer, was 12 days. In come cases, protection appeared to continue when deposits of the original acaricide could no longer be detected on hair samples, and reasons for this are discussed.

The influence of various factors, other than concentration, on the effectiveness of acaricidal fluids and on the results of tests was examined. Chemical and biological tests of hair samples showed that the acaricides persisted longer on stalled than on pastured cattle. Formulations affected the amount of toxicant deposited on the hair, and there was an indication that fouling of the dip fluid with soil and dung may, under certain circumstances, increase the amount of toxicant deposited.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , May 1965 , pp. 617 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1962). Amendment to regulation 27—Dipping and treating of stock.— Govt Gaz. (Qd) (Mar. 24). (Apr. 14).Google Scholar
Addison, C. C. & Furmidge, C. G. L. (1952). Physicochemical studies on the application of insecticides to sheep fleece. II. The action of dilute solutions of cationic wetting agents on fleece.—J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3 pp. 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. M. (1949). Tick control measures. Assessment of the value of chemical tickicides for Boophilus (Margoropus) annulatus var. microplus in Jamaica.—Vet. Rec. 61 pp. 198–201, 212–217.Google Scholar
Billings, S. C. (1963). Consolidated list of approved common names of insecticides and certain other pesticides.—Bull. ent. Soc. Amer. 9 pp. 189–197.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1944). Hereditary heartwater-resistant characters in cattle.— Fmg in S. Afr. 19 pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, R. P. (1962). Field tests with some newer insecticides for the control of the one-host cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canes.).— Indian vet. J. 39 pp. 420–428.Google Scholar
Cook, J. W. (1955). Paper chromatography of some organic phosphate insecticides. V. Conversion of organic phosphates to in vitro cholinesterase inhibitors by N-bromosuccinimide and ultra-violet light.—J. Ass. off. agric. Chem., Wash. 38 pp. 826–832.Google Scholar
Cooper, F. A. (1962). Delnav (2:3-p-dioxane S-bis-(O,O-diethyl dithiophosphate)) as an ixodicide.—Vet. Rec. 74 pp. 103–113.Google Scholar
Drummond, R. O., Graham, O. H., Meleney, W. P. & Diamant, G. (1964). Field tests in Mexico with new insecticides and arsenic for the control of Boophilus ticks on cattle.—J. econ. Ent. 57 pp. 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, O. G. H. & Veldman, F. J. (1957). Asuntol, a new insecticidal compound capable of controlling all South African cattle ticks.—J. S. Aft. vet. med. Ass. 28 pp. 249–253.Google Scholar
Hackman, R. H. (1947). The persistence of DDT on cattle.—J. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust. 20 pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
Haynes, H. L., Lambrech, J. A. & Moorefield, H. H. (1957). Insecticidal properties and characteristics of 1-naphthyl N-methyl carbamate.— Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst. 18 pp. 507–513.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, L. F. (1955). Studies on the parasitic stages of the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Acarina-Ixodidae).—Aust. J. Zool. 3 pp. 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, L. F. & Mackerras, I. M. (1947). The use of DDT in dips to control cattle tick.—J. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust. 20 pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
Holz, J., Hutabarat, J. & Soejono, R. (1959). Untersuchungen über das Insektizid “Asuntol” (Bayer-werke).—Hemera Zoa 66 pp. 167–175.Google Scholar
Kitaoka, S. & Yajima, A. (1961). Comparison of effectiveness between pesticides against Boophilus microplus by topical application and spraying.–Nat. Inst. Anim. Hlth Quart. 1 pp. 41–52.Google Scholar
Legg, J. & Shanahan, G. J. (1954). The appearance of an arsenic resistant cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) in a small area of New South Wales.— Aust. vet. J. 30 pp. 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V., Morris, R. J. & Howard, B. (1956). Water economy of tropical merino sheep.—Nature, Lond. 178 pp. 304–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerras, I. M., Waterhouse, D. F., Maiden, A. C. B. & Edgar, G. (1961).The cattle tick problem in New South Wales.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. N.S.W. no. 78, 100 pp.Google Scholar
Mitchell, L. C. (1961). The effect of ultra-violet light (2537Å) on 141 pesticide chemicals by paper chromatography.—J. Ass. off. agric. Chem., Wash. 44 pp. 643–712.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R. (1947). The use of DDT for the control of the buffalo fly (Siphona exigua (de Meijere)).—J. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust. 20 pp. 25–42.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R. (1956).Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization research on cattle tick.—Aust. vet. J. 32 pp. 177–182.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R., Roulston, W. J. & Snowball, G. J. (1950). Observations on the control of the cattle tick with preparations of DDT and benzene hexachloride (BHC) in dips.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 1 pp. 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, J. C. & Mello, D. (1960). Emprêgo do 1-naftil-N-metilcarbamato no contrôle do Boophilus (Uroboophilus) microplus Can., 1888 (Ixodidae).— Arch. Inst. biol, S. Paulo 27 pp. 67–70.Google Scholar
Roulston, W. J. (1956). The effects of some chlorinated hydrocarbons as systemic acaricides against the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini).—Aust. J. agric. Res. 7 pp. 608–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, W. J. (1964). A study of the development of dieldrin-resistance in relation to acaricide pressure in a population of Boophilus microplus.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 15 pp. 490–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, W. J., Norris, K. R., Schnitzerling, H. J. & Meyers, R. A. J. (1958). Comparison of two formulations of DDT as dipping fluids for the control of the cattle tick.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 9 pp. 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villares, J. D. (1941). Climatologia zootechnica III. Contribução ao estudo da resistencia e susceptibilidade genetica dos bovinos ao Boophilus microplus.—Bol. Industr. anim. 4 pp. 60–80.Google Scholar
Whitnall, A. B. M., Thorburn, J. A., McHardy, W. M., Whitehead, G. B. & Meerholz, F. (1952). A BHC-resistant tick.—Bull. ent. Res. 43 pp. 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, P. R. (1955). Observations on infestations of undipped cattle of British breeds with the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini).— Aust. J. agric. Res. 6 pp. 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar