Bio-Economic Impact of Amblyomma americanum in Beef Cattle Production Systems

  • D. R. Barnard
  • R. T. Ervin
  • F. M. Epplin

Summary

Amblyomma americanum (Linnaeus) (Acari: Ixodidae) is indigenous to North America. On beef cattle, these ticks suck blood, damage hides, and cause “tick worry”. Since beef production in the USA is a commodity based industry, each factor can affect producer profits.

Integrated pest management (IPM) offers a feasible decision-making framework for tick control on beef cattle. IPM is based on experimentally defined economic injury levels and requires the application of experience, empiricism, and modelling to determine if beef production and pasture management practices can be changed to comply with recommendations for tick control. A damage model fitted to data for daily rates of weight gain in tick infested nursing Bos taurus cattle shows that a functional relationship exists between calf growth rates and tick density. Based on this damage model, economic injury levels are 26-38 feeding female ticks per calf when acaricides are used for tick control. Economic injury levels vary with the cost and effectiveness of different acaricides and with the cost of labor for gathering livestock for treatment. The latter factor changes with the size and condition of the pasture. Economic injury levels for non-chemical control of A. americanum do not exist because we are unable to predict market value and management cost factors for these technologies relative to improved yield in beef cattle.

Bos indicus cattle may present an alternative to acaricides for tick control because Bos indicus cattle are not significantly compromised by tick infestation. Using a mathematical programming model, we found that a Bos indicus beef production system generated 19% more return per hectare on tick infested pasture than did a Bos taurus beef production system. The incorporation of Bos indicus genotypes into beef cattle breeding programs in the USA could raise the economic injury level for A. americanum.

Keywords

Burning Hydrochloride Expense Autocorrelation Lindane 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnard DR (1981) Amblyomma americanum: a comparison of populations of ticks free living on pastures and parasitic on cattle. Ann Entomol Soc Am 74:507–511Google Scholar
  2. Barnard DR (1985a) Injury thresholds and production loss functions for the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) on pastured preweaner beef cattle, Bos taurus. J Econ Entomol 78:852–855PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard DR (1985b) Density perturbation in populations of Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) in beef cattle forage areas in response to two regimens of vegetation modification. J Econ Entomol 79:122–129Google Scholar
  4. Barnard DR (1988) Habitat use by cattle affects contact with lone star ticks. J Econ Entomol 82:854–859Google Scholar
  5. Barnard DR, Jones BG (1981) Field efficacy of acaricides for control of the lone star tick on cattle in southeastern Oklahoma. J Econ Entomol 74:558–560Google Scholar
  6. Barnard DR, Ervin RT, Epplin FM (1986) Production system-based model for defining economic thresholds in preweaner beef cattle, Bos taurus ,infested with the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae). J Econ Entomol 79:141–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnard DR, Mount GA, Koch HG, Haile DG, Garris GI (1989) Management of the lone star tick in recreation areas. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. Agricultural Handbook 682. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloemer SR, Snoddy EL, Cooney JC, Fairbanks K (1986) Influence of deer exclusion on populations of lone star ticks and American dog ticks. J Econ Entomol 79:679–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolton RC, Frahm RR, Castree JW, Coleman SW (1987) Genotype × environment interactions involving proportion of Brahman breeding and season of birth. I. Calf growth to weaning. J Anim Sci 65:42–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartwright TC (1980) Prognosis of Zebu cattle: research and application. J Anim Sci 50:1221–1226Google Scholar
  11. Clymer BC, Howell DC, Hair JA (1970) Environmental alteration in recreational areas by mechanical and chemical treatment as a means of lone star tick control. J Econ Entomol 63:504–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooley RA, Kohls GM (1944) The genus Amblyomma in the United States. J Parasitol 30:77–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crockett JR, Koger M, Franke DE (1978a) Rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle: reproduction by generation. J Anim Sci 46:1163–1169Google Scholar
  14. Crockett JR, Koger M, Franke DE (1978b) Rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle: preweaning traits by generation. J Anim Sci 46:1170–1171Google Scholar
  15. Cundiff LV, Gregory KE, Koch RM (1975) Characterization of breeds representing diverse biological types: reproduction and maternal performance of F1 cows. ARS Techn Publ 42. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Drummond RO (1967) Seasonal activity of ticks (Acarina: Metastigmata) on cattle in southwestern Texas. Ann Entomol Soc Am 60:439–447Google Scholar
  17. Drummond RO, Lambert G, Smalley HE Jr, Terril CE (1981) Estimated losses of livestock to pests. In: Pimentel D (ed) CRC Handbook of pest management in agriculture, vol 1. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. Drummond RO, George JE, Kunz SE (1988) Control of arthropod pests. A review of technology. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. Epplin FM, Ervin RT (1988) Evaluating the use of an alternate breed type as a pest management strategy. North Cent J Agric Econ 10:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ervin RT, Epplin FM, Barnard DR (1985) Estimates of costs inflicted by the lone star tick on calves in eastern Oklahoma. Curr Farm Econ 58:9–14Google Scholar
  21. Ervin RT, Epplin FM, Byford RL, Hair JA (1987) Estimation and economic implications of lone star tick (Acari: Ixodidae) infestation on weight gain of cattle, Bos taurus and Bos taurus × Bos indicus. J Econ Entomol 80:443–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Frahm RR, Marshall DM (1986) Comparisons among two breed cow groups. I. Cow productivity and calf performance to weaning. J Anim Sci 61:844–855Google Scholar
  23. Frisch JE, Vercoe JE (1977) Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate, and efficiency of feed utilization in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Anim Prod 25:343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George JE, Osburn RL, Wikel SK (1985) Acquisition and expression of resistance by Bos indicus and Bos indicus × Bos taurus calves to Amblyomma americanum. J Parasitol 7:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory KE, Cundiff LV (1980) Crossbreeding in beef cattle: evaluation of systems. J Anim Sci 51:1224–1242Google Scholar
  26. Hair JA, Howell DE (1971) Lone star ticks: their biology and control in Ozark recreation areas. Okla Agric Exp Stn Bull 679Google Scholar
  27. Hoch AL, Barker RW, Hair JA (1971) Further observations on the control of lone star ticks (Acarina: Ixodidae) through integrated control procedures. J Med Entomol 8:731–734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes JG (1976) Short-term variation in animal liveweight and reduction of its effect on weighing. Anim Breed Abstr 44:111–118Google Scholar
  29. Johnston J (1984) Econometric methods. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lambert C, Corah L, Grunewald O (1983) Factors affecting processing of calves and yearlings in Kansas. Kansas State University Report MF-667 ManhattanGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer JA, Lancaster JL, Simco JS (1982) Comparison of habitat modification, animal control, and standard spraying for control of the lone star tick. J Econ Entomol 75:524–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Neumann AL (1977) Beef cattle. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. NRC (1984) National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Pedigo LP, Hutchins SH, Highley LG (1986) Economic injury levels in theory and practice. Annu Rev Entomol 31:341–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rechav Y, Zeederberg ME (1986) Tick populations on two breeds of cattle under field conditions, with a note on blood components related to host resistance. In: Sauer JR, Hair JA (eds) Morphology, physiology, and behavioral biology of ticks. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp 445–456Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute Inc. (1985) Statistical analysis system user’s guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith RF, van den Bosch R (1967) Integrated control. In: Kilgore WW, Doutt EL (eds) Pest control. Biological, physical, and selected chemical methods. Academic Press, New York, pp 295–324Google Scholar
  38. Stern VM, Smith RF, van den Bosch R, Hagen KS (1959) The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid. Part 1. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101Google Scholar
  39. Stone JD, Pedigo LP (1972) Development and economic injury levels of the green cloverworm on soybean in Iowa. J Econ Entomol 65:197–201Google Scholar
  40. Strother GR, Burns EC, Smart LI (1974) Resistance of purebred Brahman, Hereford, and Brahman × Hereford crossbred cattle to the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acarina: Ixodidae) J Med Entomol 11:559–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutherst RW, Utech KBW (1981) Controlling livestock parasites with host resistance. In: Pimentel D (ed) CRC Handbook of pest management in agriculture. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 385–407Google Scholar
  42. Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Bourne AS, Sutherland ID, Stegeman DA (1988) Ecology of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) in subtropical Australia. II. Resistance of different breeds of cattle. Aust J Agric Res 39:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. USDA (1978) U.S. Department of Agriculture germ plasm evaluation program. Prog Rep No 6, ARM-NC-2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. USDA (1988) Agricultural statistics. United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Utech KBW, Wharton RH, Kerr JD (1978) Resistance to Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) in different breeds of cattle. Aust J Agric Res 29:885–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilkinson PR (1957) The spelling of pastures in cattle tick control. Aust J Agric Res 8:414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkinson PR (1977) Effect of herbicidal killing of shrubs on abundance of adult Dermacentor ander soni (Acarina: Ixodidae) in British Columbia. J Med Entomol 13:713–718PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. R. Barnard
    • 1
  • R. T. Ervin
    • 2
  • F. M. Epplin
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical and Veterinary Entomology Research Laboratory, ARSUSDAGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural EconomicsOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations