Strategic control of cattle co-parasitized by tick, fly and gastrointestinal nematodes: Is it better to use ecto + endoparasiticide or just endectocide formulations?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
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:29462024-08-05T17:35:41.045174Repositório 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_ |
1808128831240798208 |