The effect of parasite control on fertility in beef heifers

Reduced gastrointestinal worm burden following long term parasite control improves body condition and fertility in beef cows

The objective of this study was to compare effects of gastrointestinal parasite control over a long vs short term (PC-LT vs. PC-ST) on fecal parasite load, body condition and pregnancy in beef cows. On Day 0, fecal samples were collected from Angus cross cows (n = 1462) and they were assigned a body condition score (BCS: 1, emaciated; 9, Obese) and randomly divided into two groups (within location) to receive extended-release eprinomectin [PC-LT; n = 749; 50 mg/50 kg body weight (BW)] or pour-on ivermectin (PC-ST; n = 713; 25 mg/50 kg BW). All cows were synchronized with CO-Synch + CIDR [100 μg GnRH + progesterone vaginal insert (CIDR) application on Day 20, CIDR removal +25 mg PGF2a on Day 27, and artificial insemination +100 μg GnRH on Day 30 (66 h after CIDR removal)] protocol, artificially inseminated (AI; Day 30) and on Day 44, exposed to breeding bulls (1:40 bull to cow ratio) for the remainder of the 85 day breeding season. On Day 90, a second fecal sample was collected from all cows and the cows were examined to determine pregnancy/AI (P/AI). All cows were assigned a BCS on Day 180 and re-examined to determine pregnancy/breeding season (P/BS). Worm egg count per gram of feces (FEG) was determined by McMaster method. There were no differences (P > 0.1) between PC-LT and PC-ST groups on Day 0 for FEG (46.9 ± 13.1 vs 42.6 ± 15.2, respectively; mean ± SEM) or BCS (5.95 ± 0.12 vs 6.00 ± 0.20). The mean FEG (PC-LT, 12.3 ± 4.7 vs. PC-ST, 131.3 ± 10.9) on Day 90 and BCS (PC-LT, 6.04 ± 0.07 vs. PC-ST, 5.79 ± 0.13) on Day 180 differed (P < 0.05) between the two groups. Mean P/AI [PC-LT, 62.9 %; (471/749) vs PC-ST, 57.4 %; (409/713)] and P/BS [PC-LT, 92.9 % (696/749) vs PC-ST, 90.0 (642/713)] also differed (P < 0.05). Lower FEG at Day 90 resulted in moderate to good body condition at Day 180 and cows with moderate to good body condition at Day 180 had higher P/BS. In conclusion, lower worm burden with long-term parasite control reduced FEG and improved BCS, P/AI and P/BS.

Treatment of external and internal parasites of cattle

To control parasitic disease in cattle, one first has to determine what parasites he or she is trying to control--nuisance and biting flies in a milking parlor or ticks on range cattle? The determination may be based on geographic location, class of cattle, and their management. After determining what is there, then if the numbers are sufficient, justify treatment. Each livestock producer has a different array of parasites with which to deal, and in some circumstances, parasitic disease is below the economic threshold. Others may have occasional clinical disease associated with parasites, but most have situations in which the potential of economic loss is high enough to justify control.

Effect of strategic gastrointestinal nematode control on fertility and mortality of N'Dama cattle in The Gambia

A large-scale longitudinal study was undertaken to investigate the effects of a strategic treatment of gastrointestinal nematodes on the mortality and fertility of N'Dama cattle under village conditions. Initially, 1046 animals from 26 private N'Dama cattle herds, were monitored from October 1989 to December 1994. Each herd was stratified by age and the animals were randomly allocated to two groups with a similar average age. One group received a single anthelmintic treatment of fenbendazole (Panacur, 7.5 mg/kg BW, Hoechst Veterinä AG) in October 1989, whereas the other group remained untreated. In July 1990, the herds were subdivided into two different treatment schemes. In the herds of scheme 1, the treated animals (Treatment group I) were treated once (in August), whereas in the herds of scheme 2, the treated animals (Treatment group II) were treated twice (in July and September). The same treatment schedule was used in the subsequent rainy seasons until December 1994. One group in every herd of both schemes served as control (Treatment group 0) and received no anthelmintic treatment throughout the study. The average annual cumulative incidence mortality between 0-1 year was more than two times higher in treated animals compared to their controls (21% against 7.5%). No differences were found in older age categories. Survival analysis confirmed differences in mortality from 0-1 year, but were not significant in proportional hazard models. The 25% quantiles of age at first calving was used to quantify differences between twice treated animals (50.2 months) and its controls (58.3 months) which represents a decrease of 8 months in twice treated animals. Annual calving rates of twice treated animals were 52.2% compared to 43.6% in the control group (P < 0.001), which is an increase of 8.6% to the control rate. Possible causes of increased mortality in 0-1 year old treated calves are discussed. We can conclude that in the present epidemiological situation and the given parasite spectrum, gastro-intestinal nematodes mainly affect host fertility. Strategic control of gastro-intestinal nematodes is thus recommended for young heifers up to their age of first calving provided the overall financial analysis of the intervention is beneficial.

Economic benefits of parasite control in cattle

The economic losses often associated with parasitism in cattle are universally accepted. The degree of economic significance related to these losses, the burdens of parasites required to cause such losses, and the specific control measures needed to avoid these losses are, however, topics of serious debate and outright disagreement among parasitologists and veterinarians. This is because most cattle have parasite burdens that are truly subclinical, with no obvious signs of parasitism but significant losses in potential production. These losses are often very insidious in nature and often difficult to prove statistically in a consistent manner. This discussion focuses on the need to: (1) define the benefits related to parasite control in cattle; (2) develop clear and effective parasite control recommendations that will allow the producer to realize these benefits; (3) effectively transfer this information to the cattleman.