| Literature DB >> 29770229 |
Roland Eric Yessinou1, Camus Adoligbe1, Yao Akpo2, Justin Adinci1, Issaka Youssao Abdou Karim1, Souaïbou Farougou1.
Abstract
A study was carried out on the Opkara (Benin) cattle farm on 64 cattle of four different breeds (16 individuals per breed) from June to December 2016. During this study, three tick species were found in different numbers, Amblyomma variegatum (732), Rhipicephalus microplus (8079), and Hyalomma spp. (208), with parasitic intensity of 11.90, 126.23, and 3.25, respectively. The interracial comparison of the tick infestation between the cattle showed a significant difference (P < 0.001). However, Girolando was more infested than all the cattle breeds. Infestation of A. variegatum, R. microplus, and Hyalomma spp. on the Girolando was, respectively, 19.43 ± 2.71, 171.25 ± 23.50, and 7.12 ± 0.63, but the Borgou were less infested. Borgou breed females were more infested by A. variegatum (4.41 ± 1.14) than females Girolando (4.20 ± 0.90). The Crossbred and Azawak females were less infested (P < 0.01). The mean of A. variegatum on Borgou, Azawak, Crossbred, and Girolando calves was 1.29 ± 0.35, 0.66 ± 0.26, 1.37 ± 0.37, and 2.25 ± 0.48 (P < 0.01), respectively. The results of this study can be exploited to include genetic and nongenetic approaches to tick control.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29770229 PMCID: PMC5889886 DOI: 10.1155/2018/2570940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parasitol Res ISSN: 2090-0023
Figure 1The map of Benin showing the district (Okpara) where experiment on cattle breed was carried out.
Abundance and mean parasitic intensity for tick's species.
| Ticks species | Number of ticks | Abundance (%) | Mean parasitic intensity ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 762 | 8.42 | 11.90 |
|
| 8079 | 89.28 | 126.23 |
|
| 208 | 2.29 | 3.25 |
Mean parasitic intensity (I) corresponds to the ratio of the total number of individuals of a parasite species (n) in a sample of hosts on the number of infested hosts (N) in the sample. I = n/N.
Infestation index of the tick's species parasite of cattle.
| Cattle | Infestation index1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Borgou | 1.39 | 8.14 | 0.26 |
| Azawak | 0.93 | 12.82 | 0.13 |
| Crossbred | 0.87 | 13.20 | 0.22 |
| Girolando | 2.20 | 23.02 | 0.81 |
1Infestation of the animal/mean infestation of the herd.
Influence of breed cattle on tick different species infestation.
| Tick species | Borgou | Azawak | Crossbred | Girolando | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | ||
|
| 12.31 ± 3.30b | 8.25 ± 1.40b | 7.68 ± 1.10b | 19.43 ± 2.71a |
|
|
| 62.43 ± 13.15b | 98.81 ± 16.76b | 102.56 ± 9.11b | 171.25 ± 23.50a |
|
|
| 2.31 ± 0.47b | 1.18 ± 0.34b | 1.93 ± 0.30b | 7.12 ± 0.63a |
|
SE: standard error; P < 0.01; P < 0.001. a, b: means with the same letters within lines are not significantly different, P > 0.05 (averages of the same line, followed by the same letter, do not differ significantly at the 5% level).
Influence of cattle breed on infestation of different stasis of tick.
| Ticks species | Stasis | Borgou | Azawak | Crossbred | Girolando | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | |||
|
| Males | 1.96 ± 0.46a | 2.59 ± 0.79a | 1.53 ± 0.32a | 2.4 ± 0.46a | NS |
| Females | 2.93 ± 0.64b | 2.00 ± 0.32b | 2.06 ± 0.39b | 6.34 ± 1.30a |
| |
| Nymphs | 0.62 ± 0.23ab | 0.15 ± 0.07b | 0.25 ± 0.08b | 0.96 ± 0.25a |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Males | 2.00 ± 0.39a | 2.40 ± 0.44a | 2.18 ± 0.40a | 2.06 ± 0.36a | NS |
| Females | 32.37 ± 5.57b | 52.93 ± 9.50b | 55.84 ± 8.22b | 97.59 ± 13.47a |
| |
| Nymphs | 1.18 ± 0.37ab | 1.15 ± 0.31ab | 0.35 ± 0.11b | 2.06 ± 0.40a |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Males | 0.46 ± 0.14b | 0.28 ± 0.09b | 0.28 ± 0.08b | 1.15 ± 0.23a |
|
| Females | 0.59 ± 0.13b | 0.31 ± 0.09b | 0.46 ± 0.11b | 2.15 ± 0.41a |
| |
| Nymphs | 0.12 ± 0.05ab | 0.00 ± 0.00b | 0.21 ± 0.07ab | 0.25 ± 0.08a |
| |
SE: standard error; NSP > 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; P < 0.001. a, b, and ab: means with the same letters within lines are not significantly different, P > 0.05 (averages of the same line, followed by the same letter, do not differ significantly at the 5% level).
Infestation of anatomical regions of cattle by different tick species.
| Anatomical regions | Ticks species | Borgou | Azawak | Crossbred | Girolando | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | |||
| Head and neck |
| 1.37 ± 0.46a | 0.78 ± 0.16a | 0.71 ± 0.17a | 1.84 ± 0.36a | NS |
|
| 5.78 ± 1.08b | 7.81 ± 1.38b | 9.78 ± 1.61b | 16.09 ± 2.29a |
| |
|
| 0.12 ± 0.06ab | 0.06 ± 0.04b | 0.03 ± 0.03b | 0.28 ± 0.09a |
| |
|
| ||||||
| Ears |
| 1.00 ± 0.30ab | 0.65 ± 0.14b | 0.62 ± 0.16b | 1.68 ± 0.37a |
|
|
| 4.34 ± 0.81b | 8.46 ± 2.01b | 6.84 ± 1.29b | 17.34 ± 3.96a |
| |
|
| 0.15 ± 0.06a | 0.12 ± 0.05a | 0.15 ± 0.07a | 0.18 ± 0.08a | NS | |
|
| ||||||
| Back and croup |
| 0.93 ± 0.24a | 0.37 ± 0.08b | 0.31 ± 0.10b | 1.25 ± 0.26a |
|
|
| 4.21 ± 0.78b | 4.62 ± 0.98b | 5.34 ± 0.86ab | 7.84 ± 1.06b |
| |
|
| 0.28 ± 0.11b | 0.12 ± 0.05b | 0.28 ± 0.08b | 1.06 ± 0.22a |
| |
|
| ||||||
| Abdominal |
| 0.50 ± 0.24a | 0.46 ± 0.14a | 0.50 ± 0.14a | 1.03 ± 0.25a | NS |
|
| 4.18 ± 0.74b | 6.62 ± 1.03b | 5.15 ± 0.80b | 9.68 ± 1.16a |
| |
|
| 0.37 ± 0.13b | 0.12 ± 0.05b | 0.21 ± 0.09b | 1.06 ± 0.27a |
| |
|
| ||||||
| Ventrogenital |
| 1.28 ± 0.36ab | 1.06 ± 0.25ab | 0.90 ± 0.22b | 2.09 ± 0.39a |
|
|
| 9.78 ± 1.99b | 18.21 ± 3.73b | 18.28 ± 3.15b | 33.87 ± 6.70a |
| |
|
| 0.12 ± 0.05a | 0.06 ± 0.04a | 0.12 ± 0.05a | 0.18 ± 0.08a | NS | |
|
| ||||||
| Tail |
| 0.68 ± 0.17a | 0.56 ± 0.12a | 0.53 ± 0.12a | 1.21 ± 0.31a | NS |
|
| 4.96 ± 0.91b | 8.50 ± 1.76ab | 10.43 ± 2.01ab | 12.28 ± 2.09a |
| |
|
| 0.03 ± 0.03b | 0.03 ± 0.03b | 0.12 ± 0.08ab | 0.31 ± 0.09a |
| |
|
| ||||||
| Legs |
| 0.25 ± 0.10b | 0.18 ± 0.08b | 0.25 ± 0.07b | 0.62 ± 0.14a |
|
|
| 2.09 ± 0.46b | 2.65 ± 0.64b | 2.18 ± 0.51b | 5.00 ± 0.89a |
| |
|
| 0.06 ± 0.04b | 0.06 ± 0.04b | 0.03 ± 0.03b | 0.31 ± 0.11a |
| |
SE: standard error; NSP > 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; P < 0.001. a, b, and ab: means with the same letters within lines are not significantly different, P > 0.05 (averages of the same line, followed by the same letter, do not differ significantly at the 5% level).
Influence of sex of cattle on tick's infestation.
| Ticks species | Cattle | Borgou | Azawak | Crossbred | Girolando | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | Means ± SE | |||
|
| Bulls | 2.29 ± 0.54a | 2.50 ± 0.40a | 1.41 ± 0.60a | 4.75 ± 1.73a | NS |
| Cows | 4.41 ± 1.14a | 1.33 ± 0.38b | 1.79 ± 0.42ab | 4.20 ± 0.90a |
| |
| Calves | 1.29 ± 0.35ab | 0.66 ± 0.26b | 1.37 ± 0.37ab | 2.25 ± 0.48a |
| |
| Velles | 0.20 ± 0.08b | 1.00 ± 0.25b | 0.54 ± 0.24b | 1.75 ± 0.36a |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Bulls | 25.37 ± 6.84a | 38.62 ± 12.99a | 32.54 ± 10.57a | 54.79 ± 19.66a | NS |
| Cows | 17.79 ± 5.22a | 21.37 ± 6.74a | 21.87 ± 7.86a | 39.79 ± 13.38a | NS | |
| Calves | 2.95 ± 0.90a | 10.20 ± 4.19a | 11.91 ± 5.01a | 19.16 ± 5.75a | NS | |
| Velles | 1.29 ± 0.42b | 5.12 ± 1.85b | 11.50 ± 5.04ab | 21.87 ± 6.65a |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Bulls | 0.54 ± 0.15b | 0.12 ± 0.06b | 0.25 ± 0.09b | 1.16 ± 0.30a |
|
| Cows | 0.66 ± 0.14b | 0.25 ± 0.10b | 0.37 ± 0.11b | 1.58 ± 0.50a |
| |
| Calves | 0.20 ± 0.10b | 0.16 ± 0.07b | 0.20 ± 0.08b | 1.20 ± 0.35a |
| |
| Velles | 0.16 ± 0.13b | 0.25 ± 0.10b | 0.45 ± 0.13ab | 0.79 ± 0.21a |
| |
SE: standard error; NSP > 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; P < 0.001. a, b, and ab: means with the same letters within lines are not significantly different, P > 0.05 (averages of the same line, followed by the same letter, do not differ significantly at the 5% level).
Figure 2Relative attraction of cattle on ticks (Amblyomma variegatum, Rhipicephalus microplus, and Hyalomma spp.). Mean infestation = [log(tick counts + 1)]/number of animals of the breed.