Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio Pires [UNESP], Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP], Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP], Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP], Soares, Vando Edésio [UNESP], de Melo, Daniel Pacheco [UNESP], Cruz, Breno Cayero [UNESP], Rodrigues, Daniel de Castro, Ferreira, Lorena Lopes, Monteiro, Caio Marcio de Oliveira, Lopes, Welber Daniel Zanetti, da Costa, Alvimar José [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229973
Resumo: Ticks, flies, and gastrointestinal helminths (GINs) significantly affect cattle productivity; thus, ectoparasiticide, endoparasiticide, and endectocide drugs have commonly been used for their control. The study aimed to compare the technical (parasites counts), productive, and financial effects of a treatment protocol comprising ecto- + endoparasiticides formulations (T01: fluazuron 2.5 mg/kg + fipronil 1.25 mg/kg and fenbendazole 5 mg/kg; n = 15) to a treatment with one formulation of endectocide (T02: ivermectin 450 μg/kg + abamectin 250 μg/kg; n = 15) over 308 days under field conditions in crossbred cattle co-parasitized by Rhipicephalus microplus, Haematobia irritans, and GINs. Bovine weight gain and return on investment (ROI) were also evaluated. Bovines from T01 received four treatments against the cattle tick and two against two GINs. For T02, four treatments were performed. Animals from T01 gained 15.4 kg more than T02 and provided a comparative ROI of 15.8. In cattle co-parasitized with R. microplus, H. irritans, and GINs, the treatment protocol used in this study with ecto- + endoparasiticidal action formulations showed better technical results regarding parasite counts and productive and financial data than the strategic treatment protocol using only an endectocide formulation.
id UNSP_7adb142463cb8eb225ce2a4d35333399
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/229973
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?Gastro-intestinal nematodesHaematobia irritansReturn on investmentRhipicephalus microplusStrategic controlTicks, flies, and gastrointestinal helminths (GINs) significantly affect cattle productivity; thus, ectoparasiticide, endoparasiticide, and endectocide drugs have commonly been used for their control. The study aimed to compare the technical (parasites counts), productive, and financial effects of a treatment protocol comprising ecto- + endoparasiticides formulations (T01: fluazuron 2.5 mg/kg + fipronil 1.25 mg/kg and fenbendazole 5 mg/kg; n = 15) to a treatment with one formulation of endectocide (T02: ivermectin 450 μg/kg + abamectin 250 μg/kg; n = 15) over 308 days under field conditions in crossbred cattle co-parasitized by Rhipicephalus microplus, Haematobia irritans, and GINs. Bovine weight gain and return on investment (ROI) were also evaluated. Bovines from T01 received four treatments against the cattle tick and two against two GINs. For T02, four treatments were performed. Animals from T01 gained 15.4 kg more than T02 and provided a comparative ROI of 15.8. In cattle co-parasitized with R. microplus, H. irritans, and GINs, the treatment protocol used in this study with ecto- + endoparasiticidal action formulations showed better technical results regarding parasite counts and productive and financial data than the strategic treatment protocol using only an endectocide formulation.Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP/CPPARUniversidade BrasilCentro de Parasitologia Veterinária Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia Universidade Federal de GoiásDepartamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva Escola de Veterinária Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisDepartamento de Biociências e Tecnologia Instituto de Patologia Tropical e Saúde Pública Universidade Federal de GoiásFaculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP/CPPARUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Universidade BrasilUniversidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio Pires [UNESP]Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]Soares, Vando Edésio [UNESP]de Melo, Daniel Pacheco [UNESP]Cruz, Breno Cayero [UNESP]Rodrigues, Daniel de CastroFerreira, Lorena LopesMonteiro, Caio Marcio de OliveiraLopes, Welber Daniel Zanettida Costa, Alvimar José [UNESP]2022-04-29T08:36:52Z2022-04-29T08:36:52Z2022-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622Veterinary Parasitology, v. 301.1873-25500304-4017http://hdl.handle.net/11449/22997310.1016/j.vetpar.2021.1096222-s2.0-85120174392Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengVeterinary Parasitologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-04-12T13:07:00Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/229973Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-04-12T13:07Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
title Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
spellingShingle Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]
Gastro-intestinal nematodes
Haematobia irritans
Return on investment
Rhipicephalus microplus
Strategic control
title_short Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
title_full Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
title_fullStr Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
title_full_unstemmed Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
title_sort Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
author Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]
author_facet Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]
Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio Pires [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edésio [UNESP]
de Melo, Daniel Pacheco [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayero [UNESP]
Rodrigues, Daniel de Castro
Ferreira, Lorena Lopes
Monteiro, Caio Marcio de Oliveira
Lopes, Welber Daniel Zanetti
da Costa, Alvimar José [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio Pires [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edésio [UNESP]
de Melo, Daniel Pacheco [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayero [UNESP]
Rodrigues, Daniel de Castro
Ferreira, Lorena Lopes
Monteiro, Caio Marcio de Oliveira
Lopes, Welber Daniel Zanetti
da Costa, Alvimar José [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
Universidade Brasil
Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gomes, Lucas Vinicius Costa [UNESP]
Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio Pires [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edésio [UNESP]
de Melo, Daniel Pacheco [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayero [UNESP]
Rodrigues, Daniel de Castro
Ferreira, Lorena Lopes
Monteiro, Caio Marcio de Oliveira
Lopes, Welber Daniel Zanetti
da Costa, Alvimar José [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Gastro-intestinal nematodes
Haematobia irritans
Return on investment
Rhipicephalus microplus
Strategic control
topic Gastro-intestinal nematodes
Haematobia irritans
Return on investment
Rhipicephalus microplus
Strategic control
description Ticks, flies, and gastrointestinal helminths (GINs) significantly affect cattle productivity; thus, ectoparasiticide, endoparasiticide, and endectocide drugs have commonly been used for their control. The study aimed to compare the technical (parasites counts), productive, and financial effects of a treatment protocol comprising ecto- + endoparasiticides formulations (T01: fluazuron 2.5 mg/kg + fipronil 1.25 mg/kg and fenbendazole 5 mg/kg; n = 15) to a treatment with one formulation of endectocide (T02: ivermectin 450 μg/kg + abamectin 250 μg/kg; n = 15) over 308 days under field conditions in crossbred cattle co-parasitized by Rhipicephalus microplus, Haematobia irritans, and GINs. Bovine weight gain and return on investment (ROI) were also evaluated. Bovines from T01 received four treatments against the cattle tick and two against two GINs. For T02, four treatments were performed. Animals from T01 gained 15.4 kg more than T02 and provided a comparative ROI of 15.8. In cattle co-parasitized with R. microplus, H. irritans, and GINs, the treatment protocol used in this study with ecto- + endoparasiticidal action formulations showed better technical results regarding parasite counts and productive and financial data than the strategic treatment protocol using only an endectocide formulation.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-04-29T08:36:52Z
2022-04-29T08:36:52Z
2022-01-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622
Veterinary Parasitology, v. 301.
1873-2550
0304-4017
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229973
10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622
2-s2.0-85120174392
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229973
identifier_str_mv Veterinary Parasitology, v. 301.
1873-2550
0304-4017
10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109622
2-s2.0-85120174392
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Veterinary Parasitology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1797789697126170624