Use of anti-tick drugs in dairy farms in the microregion of Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Nascimento, Ariane Flávia do; Natel, Andressa Santanna; Viana, Laís Maria; Melo, Caroline Lopes de; Lacerda, Yasmim Gonçalves; Lima, Melki Kolbert; Esteves, Gabriella Fuzzari

doi:10.1590/S1984-29612021016

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 30 (1) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612021016 copy

Use of anti-tick drugs in dairy farms in the microregion of Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Uso de carrapaticidas em fazendas leiteiras na microrregião de Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brasil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Ectoparasitic infestation in dairy cattle, the most common being Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, causes significant loss in production. The control of ectoparasites often occurs incorrectly, resulting in resistance to the active ingredients and residues in milk. To understand of acaricide use in the microregion of Alfenas, Minas Gerais (Brazil), questionnaires were applied to the owners of 100 dairy farms in the region and were selected randomly. Dairy farms were allocated according to production scale: up to 150 liters/day, 151-400 liters/day and more than 400 liters/day. The interviewees were asked about production characteristics, acaricide management and active ingredients. The interview answers were subjected to descriptive analysis. Results showed that all properties, independent of production-scale, used acaricides. The most cited was: Cypermethrin Chlorpyrifos Citronellal (31%), Fluazuron (18.6%) and Fipronil (17%). Among the interviewed, 41,1% use drugs that have restrictions that are not allowed in legislation for use in lactating dairy cows (fluazuron, fipronil, ivermectin). 15% affirmed they weren’t aware of the “withdrawal period” of medication and 73% change in the active ingredient used. In order to revert this antiparasitic drug’s resistance situation and contamination of milk with drug residues, it is necessary to focus on the awareness of milk producers and training of labor.

Keywords:
Cattle; ectoparasites; residues; resistance; Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus

Variable	Production Scale			Average	Median	DP	p-value
Variable	Small (n=39)	Medium (n=24)	Large (n=37)	Average	Median	DP	p-value
Total cows	66b	71b	292a	150.0	70	277.5	<0.01
Lactating Cows	8b	25b	109a	50.0	25	86.6	<0.01
Lactating Cows (%)	37.2	44.5	43.9	41.4	40	19.3	0.21
Production (L/dia)	58.1b	256.5b	2443.7a	973.7	225	2278.3	<0.01
Productivity (L/vaca/dia)	7.2b	10.7ab	20.9a	13.1	10	7.42	<0.01

Active Ingredient	Chemical Class	Production Scale ^ fa: Absolute frequency; fr: Relative frequency.						Total (n=129)		p-value
		Small (n=44)		Medium (n=28)		Large (n=57)		Total (n=129)
		fa	fr(%)	fa	fr (%)	Fa	fr (%)	fa	fr (%)
Amitraz	Amidines	3	6.8%	3	10.7%	8	14%	14	10.9%	0.161
Cypermethrin +Chlorpyrifos+Citronella	Pyrethroid+organophosphate	15	34.1%	13	46.4%	12	21.1%	40	31%
Cypermethrin	Pyrethroid	4	9.1%	1	3.6%	5	8.8%	10	7.8%
Deltamethrin	Pyrethroid	6	13.6%	1	3.6%	1	1.8%	8	6.2%
Diflubenzuron	Benzoylphenyl urea	1	2.3%		0%		0%	1	0.8%
Fluazuron	Benzoylphenyl urea	6	13.6%	2	7.1%	16	28.1%	24	18.6%
Fipronil	Phenylpyrazoles	5	11.4%	6	21.4%	11	19.3%	22	17.1%
Ivermectin	Macrocyclic lactones	3	6.8%		0%	4	7%	7	5.4%
Trichlorfon	Organochlorophosphate	1	2.3%	1	3.6%		0%	2	1.6%
Other			0%	1	3.6%		0%	1	0.8%

Variable		Production Scale ^* * fa: Absolute frequency; fr: Relative frequency.						Total (n=100)	p-value
		Small (n=39)		Medium (n=24)		Large (n=37)
		fa	fr	fa	fr	fa	fr
Choice of acaricide	Veterinary	18	46.2%	8	33.3%	27	73.0%	53%	0.021
	Friends/ relatives	8	20.5%	10	41.7%	5	13.5%	23%
	Cost	8	20.5%	2	8.3%	2	5.4%	12%
	Easy to buy	5	12.8%	4	16.7%	3	8.1%	12%
Period for the application	Infestation	19	48.7%	12	50.0%	16	43.2%	47%	0.385
	Scheme	7	18.0%	3	12.5%	13	35.1%	23%
	20/20 or 30/30	8	20.5%	5	20.8%	8	21.6%	21%
	Other	5	12.8%	4	16.7%	0	0.0%	9%
Treated Animals	All bathed	21	53.9%	12	50.0%	12	32.4%	19%	0.215
	Bathed in groups	13	33.3%	9	37.5%	14	37.8%	36%
	Infested	5	12.8%	3	12.5%	11	29.7%	19%
Region Treated	Whole body	19	48.7%	11	45.8%	16	43.2%	46%	0.497
	Pour-on	14	35.9%	11	45.8%	19	51.4%	44%
	Other	6	15.4%	2	8.3%	2	5.4%	20%
Problems with using	Resistance	16	41.0%	16	66.7%	29	78.4%	61%	0.017
	Poisoning	1	2.6%	0	0.0%	1	2.7%	2%
	None	22	56.4%	8	33.3%	7	18.9%	37%
Recommended dosage used?	Yes	31	79.5%	23	95.8%	37	100%	91%	0.026
Recommended dosage used?	No	8	20.5%	1	4.2%	0		9%	0.026
Use Personal Protective Equipment	Complete	6	15.4%	8	33.3%	14	37.8%	28%	0.016
	Incomplete	14	35.9%	9	37.5%	18	48.6%	41%
	None	19	48.7%	7	29.2%	5	13.5%	31%
Change of acaricide	Yes	24	61.5%	16	65.2%	33	89.2%	73%	0.017
Change of acaricide	No	15	38.5%	8	34.8%	4	10.8%	27%	0.017
Aware of the “withdrawal period	Yes	30	76.9%	20	83.3%	35	94.6%	85%	0.094
Aware of the “withdrawal period	No	9	23.1%	4	16.7%	2	5.4%	15%	0.094
Aware of other forms control	Yes	27	69.2%	20	83.3%	36	97.3%	83%	0.160
Aware of other forms control	No	12	30.8%	4	16.7%	1	2.7%	17%	0.160

Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária FCAV/UNESP - Departamento de Patologia Veterinária, Via de acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, Zona Rural, , 14884-900 Jaboticabal - SP, Brasil, Fone: (16) 3209-7100 RAMAL 7934 - Jaboticabal - SP - Brazil
E-mail: cbpv_rbpv.fcav@unesp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: Ariane Flávia do Nascimento. E-mail: ariane.nascimento@ifmg.edu.br