Research Center for Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases Control, Department of Veterinary Pharmacy, Clinical and Comparative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda; College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda; National Research Center for Protozoan Diseases (NRCPD), Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Inada-Cho, Obihiro 080-8555, Hokkaido, Japan.
Research Center for Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases Control, Department of Veterinary Pharmacy, Clinical and Comparative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda; College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), Makerere University, P. O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2018 May;9(4):945-955. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.009. Epub 2018 Mar 15.
Tick acaricide failure is one of the leading challenges to cattle production in Uganda. To gain an understanding into the possible drivers of acaricide failure, this study characterized the current chemical tick control practices in the southwestern (Mbarara, Mitooma and Rukungiri districts) and northwestern (Adjumani district) regions of Uganda. A total of 85 farms participated in a survey that utilized a semi-structured questionnaire. Moreover, ticks were collected to determine the most common species on the farms. Tick acaricide failure was mainly encountered in the districts where 95% (60/63) of the farms reared exotic cattle (dairy cross-breeds) under a paddocking (fenced) system. In the northwestern region, local cattle were reared in communal grazing areas. All farms used chemical acaricides for tick control, predominantly amidine (amitraz) (48%, 41/85) and co-formulated organophosphates and pyrethroids (38%, 32/85). The spraying method was the most common (91%, 77/85) acaricide application technique, with cattle crush (81%, 69/85) as a common means of physical restraint. Less than optimal tick control practices encountered included use of substandard equipment for spraying, inappropriate dilutions, frequent interaction between animals in neighboring farms despite lack of synchronized chemical tick control and malpractices in acaricide rotation. Only Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and R. (Boophilus) decoloratus ticks were found in the southwestern region, where 51% (32/63) of the farmers used high acaricide concentrations above the manufacturers' recommendation. Farmers in the northwestern region used 2.2 times less acaricide volume per cattle than those in the southwestern region, and more diverse tick species were encountered. Toxic effects of acaricide to cattle and workers were reported by 13% (11/85) and 32% (27/85) of the respondents, respectively. All 27 cases of human acaricide toxicity reported were from the southwestern region. Overall, our findings may inform strategies for more prudent chemical tick control and safe acaricide handling to benefit animal welfare, food safety and public health.
ticks 驱虫剂失效是乌干达养牛业面临的主要挑战之一。为了了解驱虫剂失效的可能驱动因素，本研究对乌干达西南部（姆巴拉拉、米托马和鲁昆吉里地区）和西北部（阿朱马尼地区）的当前化学蜱虫控制实践进行了描述。共有 85 个农场参与了一项使用半结构化问卷的调查。此外，还收集了蜱虫以确定农场中最常见的物种。驱虫剂失效主要发生在 95%（60/63）的农场在围场（围栏）系统下饲养外来牛（奶牛杂交种）的地区。在西北部地区，当地的牛在公共放牧区饲养。所有农场都使用化学驱虫剂控制蜱虫，主要是脒（阿莫特拉唑）（48%，41/85）和组合有机磷和拟除虫菊酯（38%，32/85）。喷雾法是最常见的（91%，77/85）驱虫剂应用技术，牛压碎（81%，69/85）是常见的物理约束手段。遇到的不太理想的蜱虫控制做法包括使用不合标准的喷雾设备、不适当的稀释、尽管缺乏同步的化学蜱虫控制，但相邻农场的动物之间频繁互动以及驱虫剂轮换中的不当做法。在西南部地区仅发现了 Rhipicephalus appendiculatus 和 R.（Boophilus）decoloratus 蜱虫，其中 51%（32/63）的农民使用了高于制造商建议的高浓度驱虫剂。西北部地区的农民每头牛使用的驱虫剂体积比西南部地区少 2.2 倍，遇到的蜱虫种类也更多。13%（11/85）的受访者和 32%（27/85）的受访者分别报告了驱虫剂对牛和工人的毒性作用。报告的 27 例人类驱虫剂毒性病例均来自西南部地区。总的来说，我们的研究结果可能为更谨慎的化学蜱虫控制和安全驱虫剂处理提供策略，以造福动物福利、食品安全和公共卫生。
Zotero 插件