Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 117, Issue 12, pp 3993–4002 | Cite as

Economic viability of anthelmintic treatment in naturally infected beef cattle under different nutritional strategies after weaning

  • Fernanda Ramos
  • Camila Balconi Marques
  • Caroline Zamperete Reginato
  • Fernando de Souza Rodrigues
  • Luis Antônio Sangioni
  • Fernanda Silveira Flôres Vogel
  • Luciana Pötter
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of treatment with different anthelmintic compounds on the productivity of naturally infected calves and the economic viability of these treatments within extensive breeding systems employing different nutritional strategies after weaning. For this purpose, 4 farms with 42–60 calves naturally infected with gastrointestinal nematodes were selected. The calves were distributed into 6 groups (7–10 animals each) per farm and treated with ivermectin 1%, ivermectin 3.15%, eprinomectin 5%, levamisole 7.5%, albendazole 15%, and control group (no treatment). These animals were evaluated over an experimental period of 150 days. Levamisole 7.5% presented the best capacity for the reduction of eggs per gram (EPG) of feces in all herds evaluated, followed by albendazole 15% and eprinomectin 5%. Parasite resistance to multiple drugs was found in all herds, especially those of Cooperia, Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum, and Trichostrongylus. For farm 1, differences in weight gain and EPG reduction percentages led to a difference of US$285.06 between the levamisole and ivermectin 3.15% groups. Similar findings were noted for the levamisole and ivermectin 1% groups of farm 3, with a difference of US$399.37 because of the final weight gain in these groups. For farms 2 and 4, the ivermectin 3.15% and control groups, respectively, were the most profitable; these unexpected results were possibly influenced by variables not measured during the experimental period. This study suggested that anthelmintic treatments should always precede an efficacy test, once they are demonstrated to be most profitable under adequate breeding conditions, to ensure adequate control of gastrointestinal nematode infection.

Keywords

Anthelmintic resistance Cost-benefits Gastrointestinal nematodes Beef cattle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the availability and collaboration of producers and their employees who performed this work. We also thank Dr. Alfredo S. Cezar for collaborating with us on this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amarante AFT (2004) Controle integrado de helmintos de bovinos e ovinos. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 13:68–71Google Scholar
  2. Bianchin I, Catto JB, Kichel AN (2007) The effect of the control of endo- and ectoparasites on weight gains in crossbred cattle (Bos Taurus taurus×Bos taurus indicus) in the central region of Brazil. Trop Anim Health Prod 39:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges FA, Almeida GD, Heckler RP, Lemes RT, Onizuka MK, Borges DGL (2013) Anthelmintic resistance impact on tropical beef cattle productivity: effect on weight gain of weaned calves. Trop Anim Health Prod 45:723–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Candy PM, Waghorn TS, Miller CM, Ganesh S, Leathwick DM (2018) The effect on liveweight gain of using anthelmintics with incomplete efficacy against resistant Cooperia oncophora in cattle. Vet Parasitol 251:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cezar SA, Catto JB, Bianchin I (2008) Alternative control of the gastrointestinal nematodes of the ruminants: actuality and perspectives. Cienc Rural 38(7):2083–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cezar AS, Vogel FSF, Sangioni LA, Antonello AM, Camillo G, Toscan G, Araujo LO (2010) Anthelminthic action of different formulations of lactones macrocíclicas on resistant strains of nematodes of cattle. Pesqui Vet Bras 30:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coles GC, Bauer C, Borgsteede FH, Geerts S, Klei TR, Taylor MA, Waller PJ (1992) World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 44:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coles GC, Jackson F, Pomroy WE, Prichard RK, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Silvestre A, Taylor MA, Vercruysse J (2006) The detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 136:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Condi GK, Soutello RGV, Amarante AFT (2009) Moxidectin-resistant nematodes in cattle in Brasil. Vet Parasitol 161:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coop RL, Kyriazakis I (2001) Influence of host nutrition on the development and consequences of nematode parasitism in ruminants. Trends Parasitol 17:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig TM (2018) Gastrointestinal nematodes, diagnosis and control. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 34:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cristel S, Fiel C, Anziani O, Descarga C, Cetrá B, Romero J, Fernández S, Entrocasso C, Lloberasi M, Medus D, Steffan P (2017) Anthelmintic resistance in grazing beef cattle in central and northeastern areas of Argentina — an update. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports 9:25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demeler J, Van Zeveren AM, Kleinschmidt N, Vercruysse J, Höglund J, Koopmann R, Cabaret J, Claerebout E, Areskog M, Von Samson-Himmelstjerna G (2009) Monitoring the efficacy of ivermectin and albendazole against gastro intestinal nematodes of cattle in Northern Europe. Vet Parasitol 160:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fazzio LE, Sánchez RO, Streitenberger N, Galvan WR, Giudici CJ, Gimeno EJ (2014) The effect of anthelmintic resistance on the productivity infeedlot cattle. Vet Parasitol 206:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gasbarre LC (2014) Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in the US. Vet Parasitol 204:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grisi L, Leite RC, Martins JRDS, Barros ATMD, Andreotti R, Cançado PHD, León AAP, Villela HS (2014) Reassessment of the potential economic impact of cattle parasites in Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 23(2):150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins JA (1993) Economic benefits of parasite control in cattle. Vet Parasitol 46:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedrick HB, Thompson GB, Krause GF (1969) Comparison of feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of half-sib bullus, steers and heifers. J Anim Sci 29(5):687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. James CE, Hudson AL, Davey MW (2009) Drug resistance mechanisms in helminths: is it survival of the fittest? Trends Parasitol 25(7):328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lopes WDZ, Felippelli G, Pires Teixeira WF, Cruz BC, Maciel WG, Buzzulini C, Shigaki de Matos LV, Costa Gomes LV, Melo Pereira JC, Fávero FC, Oliveira GP, da Costa AJ (2014) Resistance of Haemonchus placei infection, Cooperia punctate and Oesophagostomum radiatum to ivermectin pour-on of 500 mcg kg_1 in cattle herds in Brazil. Cien Rural 44:847–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyndal-Murphy M, Swain AJ, Pepper PM (2014) Methods to determine resistance to anthelmintics when continuing larval development occurs. Vet Parasitol 199:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martínez-Valladares M, Geurden T, Bartram DJ, Martínez-Pérez JM, Robles-Pérez D, Bohórquez A, Florez E, Meana A, Rojovázquez FA (2015) Resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes to the most commonly used anthelmintics in sheep, cattle and horses in Spain. Vet Parasitol 211:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKenna PB (1998) The effect of previous cold storage on the subsequent recovery of infective third stage nematode larvae from sheep faeces. Vet Parasitol 80:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mello MHA, Depner R, Molento MB, Ferreira JJ (2006) Side-resistance to macrolactones in cattle nematodes. Arch Vet Sci 11(1):8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller CM, Waghorna TS, Leathwick DM, Candy PM, Olivera A-MB, Watson TG (2012) The production cost of anthelmintic resistance in lambs. Vet Parasitol 186:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson CJ, Moser LE (1994) Plant factors affecting forage quality. In: Fahey GC Jr (ed) Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Chap 3, Madison, pp 115–154Google Scholar
  27. Neves JHD, Carvalho N, Rinaldi L, Cringoli G, Amarante AFT (2014) 2014. Diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance in cattle in Brazil: a comparison of different methodologies. Vet Parasitol 206:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pathak AK (2017) Nutritional bases to control gastrointestinal parasites of livestock. Dairy and Vet Sci J 4:555632Google Scholar
  29. Pellegrini CB, Medeiros RB, Carlotto SB, Garcia RPA, Lisboa CV, Bruning G (2016) Nutritive value of a native pasture dominated by Eragrostis plana Nees and its relation with metabolic profile of primiparous cows supplemented from pregnancy to postpartum. Ci Anim Bras 17:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perry BD, Randolph TF, McDermott JJ, Sones KR, Thornton PK (2002) Investing in animal health research to alleviate poverty. ILRI, Nairobi 148ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Prichard RK (1980) The problem of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Aust Vet J 56:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  33. Ramos F, Portella LP, Rodrigues FS, Reginato CZ, Pötter L, Cezar AS, Sangioni LA, Vogel FSF (2016) Anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of beef cattle in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 6:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sargison ND, Wilson DJ, Penny CD, Bartley DJ (2010) Unexpected production loss caused by helminth parasites in weaned beef calves. Vet Rec 167:753–754Google Scholar
  35. Souza AP, Ramos CI, Bellato V, Sartor AA, Schelbauer CA (2008) Anthelmintics resistance of bovine gastrointestinal helminths in Santa Catarina Plateau. Cienc Rural 38(5):1363–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stotzer ES, Lopes LB, Eckstein C, Moraes MCMM, Rodrigues DS, Bastianetto E (2014) Impacto econômico das doenças parasitárias na pecuária. Rev bras hig sanid anim 8(3):198–221Google Scholar
  37. Sutherland IA, Leathwick DM (2011) Anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of cattle: a global issue? Trends Parasitol 27:176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sutherland IA, Scott I (2009) Anthelmintics. In Gastrointestinal Nematodes of Sheep and Cattle: Biology and Control. WileyBlackwell, Hoboken 256ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Torgerson PR, Paul M, Furrer R (2014) Evaluating faecal egg count reduction usinga specifically designed package “eggCounts” in R and a user friendly web interface. Int J Parasitol 44:299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Wyk JA, Mayhew E (2013) Morphological identification of parasitic nematode infective larvae of small ruminants and cattle: a practical lab guide. J Vet Res 80:1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernanda Ramos
    • 1
  • Camila Balconi Marques
    • 1
  • Caroline Zamperete Reginato
    • 1
  • Fernando de Souza Rodrigues
    • 1
  • Luis Antônio Sangioni
    • 1
  • Fernanda Silveira Flôres Vogel
    • 1
  • Luciana Pötter
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Medicina Veterinária Preventiva (DMVP), Centro de Ciências Rurais (CCR)Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)Santa MariaBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de ZootecniaUFSMSanta MariaBrazil

Personalised recommendations