Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T02:04:11.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ivermectin and moxidectin on the insects of cattle dung

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

L. Strong  and
R. Wall
L. Strong*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK
R. Wall
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK
*
Dr L. Strong, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The numbers of insects colonizing the dung of cattle injected with the anthelmintics ivermectin or moxidectin were compared with the colonization of the dung from control animals given no treatment, in a blind field trial. Dung was collected 2, 7, 14, and 21 days after dosing and set out in a randomized grid of standard 2 kg pats. Pats were retrieved from each of the three groups group after 7, 14, 21 and 42 days in the field for analysis of insect fauna. There were no significant differences in the number of adult Aphodius spp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) found in the dung from the three treatment groups with either time of exposure in the field or time after treatment, showing that adult beetles were attracted to all pats equally. However, dung from animals treated with ivermectin prevented the development of larval Aphodius spp. for at least 7 days after treatment. In contrast, the dung from animals treated with moxidectin supported the development of Aphodius spp. at all stages after dosing, as did dung from control animals. There were no significant differences in the number of cyclorrhaphous Diptera larvae in dung from control or moxidectin-treated animals. In contrast, such larvae were largely absent from the dung collected from ivermectin-treated cattle for up to 14 days after dosing. The results show that moxidectin is less toxic to dung-inhabiting insects than ivermectin following standard injection treatment. The results are discussed in relation to the effects of anthelmintics on non-target pastureland insects.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 403 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Barth, D. (1993) Importance of methodology in the interpretation of factors affecting degradation of dung Veterinary Parasitology 48, 99–108Google Scholar
Barth, D., Heinze-Mutz, E.M., Roncalli, R.A., Schluter, D. & Gross, S.J. (1993) The degradation of dung produced by cattle treated with an ivermectin slow-release bolus. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chick, B., McDonald, D., Cobb, R., Kieran, P.J. & Wood, I. (1993) The efficacy of injectable and pour-on formulations of moxidectin against lice on cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 70, 212–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, T.M., Hatfield, J.A., Pankavich, J.A. and Wang, G.T. (1992) Efficacy of moxidectin against an ivermectin-resistant strain of Haemonchus contortus in sheep Veterinary Parasitology 41, 329–333.Google Scholar
Doherty, W.M., Stewart, N.P., Cobb, R.M. & Keiran, P.J. (1994) In-vitro comparison of the larvicidal activity of moxidectin and abamectin against Onthophagus gazella (F.) (Coleoptera. Scarabaeidae) and Haematobia irritans exigua De Meijere (Diptera: Muscidae) Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 33, 71–74.Google Scholar
Fincher, G.T. & Wang, G.T. (1992) Injectable moxidectin for cattle: effects on two species of dung burying beetles Southwestern Entomologist 17, 303–306.Google Scholar
Herd, R.P., Strong, L. & Wardhaugh, K. (1993) (Eds) Environmental impact of avermectin usage in livestock. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 1–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieran, P.J. (1994) Moxidectin against ivermectin-resistant nematodes—a global view. Australian Veterinary Journal 71, 18–20.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P., Galante, E., Lumbrearas, C., Mena, J., Bertrand, M., Bernal, J.L., Cooper, J.F., Kadiri, K. & Crowe, D. (1993) Field effects of ivermectin residues on dung beetles. Journal of Applied Ecology 30, 428–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, M., Overgaard Nelson, B., Holter, P., Pedersen, O.C., Brochner Jespersen, J., Vagn Jensen, K.-M., Nansen, P. & Grønvold, J. (1990) Treating cattle with ivermectin; effects on the fauna and decomposition of dung pats. Journal of Applied Ecology 27, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J.A., Oehler, D.D., Siebenaler, A.J. & Kunz, S.E. (1981) Larvicidal activity of Merck MK-933, an avermectin, against the horn fly, stable fly, face fly, and house fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 74, 608–611.Google Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (1988) Survival and reproduction of Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae) and a scarabaeine dung beetle in dung of cattle treated with avermectinB1. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 27, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaper, R. & Liebisch, A. (1991) Einflus eines systemisch wirkenden Antiparasitikums (Ivermectin) auf die Dungfauna und den Dungabbau der Rinder bei Weidhaltung. Tierarztliche Umschau 46, 12–18.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C.D. (1983) Activity of avermectin against selected insects in ageing manure. Environmental Entomology 12,455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, C., Steffansen, B., Overgaard Nielsen, B., Grønvold, J., Vagn Jensen, K.-M., Brøchner Jespersen, J., Springborg, J. & Nansen, P. (1992) Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection of pour-on treatment concentrations and impact on dung fauna. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 257–264.Google Scholar
Sommer, C., Grønvold, J., Holter, P. & Nansen, P. (1993) Effects of ivermectin on two afro tropical dung beetles, Onthophagus gazella and Diastellopalpus quinquedens (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Veterinary Parasitology 48, 171–180.Google Scholar
Steel, J.W. (1993) Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of avermectins in livestock. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 45–57.Google Scholar
Strong, L. (1992) Avermectins: a review of their impact on insects of cattle dung. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, L. (1993) The impact of avermectins on pastureland ecology. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, L. & James, S. (1993) Some effects of ivermectin on the yellow dung fly, Scataphaga stercoraria. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, L. & Wall, R. (1988) Ivermectin in cattle treatment:non-specific effects on pastureland ecology. Aspects of Applied Biology 17, 231–238.Google Scholar
Wall, R. & Strong, L. (1987) Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin. Nature 327, 418–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, K.G. & Rodriguez-Menendez, H. (1988) The effects of the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin, on the development & survival of the dung-breeding fly, Orthelia cornicia (F.) and the scarabaeine dung beetles, Copris hispanus L., Bubas bubalus (Oliver) and Onitis belial F. Journal of Applied Entomology 106, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, K.G., Mahon, R.J., Axelsen, A., Rowland, M.W. & Wanjura, W. (1993) Effects of ivermectin residues in sheep dung on the development and survival of the bushfly, Musca vetustissima Walker and a scarabaeine dung beetle, Euoniticellus fulvus Goeze. Veterinary Parasitology 48, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J.D., Burg, J.G. & Knapp, F.W. (1991) Moxidectin evalulation against Solenoptes capillatus (Anoplura: Linognathidae), Bovicola bovis (Mallophaga: Trichodectidae), and Musca autumnalis (Diptera: Muscidae) on cattle. Journal of Economic Entomology 84, 1266–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.C., Barras, S.A. & Wang, G.T. (1992) Efficacy of moxidectin against gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. Veterinary Record 131, 345–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed