Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9460214

Control by management.

Abstract

It is currently possible to reduce significantly the number of anthelmintic treatments required by grazing ruminants by employing some relatively simple management procedures, enlightened by knowledge of the epidemiology of the parasites in the climatic region and production system in question. Some examples of these procedures, such as the Michel dose and move system for nematode control in cattle, strategic treatments at times of low larval availability for sheep and alternate grazing of sheep and cattle will be considered. While such procedures can have a major impact on frequency of anthelmintic treatment, they rarely have a commensurate effect on reducing selection for anthelmintic-resistant worms. Only in control systems that avoid the use of anthelmintics altogether is there any certainty of avoiding selection for resistance. The nearest approaches to this ideal goal are some alternate grazing schemes and rotational grazing systems currently being tested in tropical environments. Even if these anthelmintic-free production systems are successful, the worms are still being selected for attributes that may ultimately render these control procedures ineffective. Examples of this are the propensity for alternate grazing systems to select for reduced host specificity, or increased numbers of parasite species able to infect both host species. Similarly, rotational grazing systems could be subverted by selection for enhanced larval survival or faster development from egg to infective larva. Nevertheless, it is hoped that selection for such fundamental changes as those presumably required to affect survival, development or host specificity will be slower than selection for anthelmintic resistance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I Barger. 1997. Control by management.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4017(97)00113-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assay and purity control of tetracycline, chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline in animal feeds and premixes by TLC densitometry with fluorescence detection.

Methods using TLC densitometry with fluorescence detection are described for the assay and purity control of tetracycline (TC), chlortetracycline (CTC), and oxytetracycline (OTC) in animal feeds and premixes. With a silica gel layer previously sprayed with 10% (m/v) sodium EDTA solution adjusted to pH 8.0 or 9.0, all the major impurities were separated from the main components and from each other. The mobile phase consisted of dichloromethane, methanol, and water. After development, the plate was dipped in a 30% (v/v) solution of liquid paraffin in hexane. Quantitation was realized by fluorescence densitometry at 400 nm. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for tetracycline impurities is 0.8 microg/g, corresponding to 0.2% of the label claimed tetracycline (400 microg/g). The LOQ for impurities of tetracycline and chlortetracycline in premixes is 0.2% of the label-claimed TC (40 mg/g) and CTC (200 or 400 mg/g). The LOQ for impurities of oxytetracycline in a premix is 0.1% of the label claimed OTC (100 mg/g).

Animal Feed↗

Rapid pesticide analysis, in post-harvest plants used as animal feed, by low-pressure gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

A wide range of pesticides used to control pests in vegetables have been determined in agricultural plant waste from beans, watermelons, and melons grown in greenhouses located in a predominantly agricultural area in Southeast Spain (Almería). Analysis of the pesticides was carried out by low-pressure gas chromatography (LP-GC) with mass spectrometry in tandem (MS-MS) mode, after extraction of the lyophilized samples with dichloromethane. The influence of the sample matrix on the analysis was avoided by use of matrix-matched standards. Linearity, detection limit ( LOD), quantitation limit ( LOQ), recovery, and precision for each pesticide were calculated. The most frequently encountered pesticides were endosulfan (>73% of the analyzed samples) and buprofezin (>55% of the samples), followed by cypermethrin, pirimifos-methyl, bifentrin, and chlorpyrifos (>30% of the samples). The pesticide found at the highest concentration level was endosulfan (223.33 mg kg(-1)) in a watermelon sample.

Animal Feed↗

Feedstuffs as a vehicle of cattle exposure to Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica.

Feed has been reported as a vehicle for transmission of Salmonella enterica in cattle and several lines of evidence suggest that feed can be a vehicle for transmitting Escherichia coli O157:H7 as well. To show whether microbial contamination of feeds could contribute to the populations of S. enterica and E. coli O157:H7 on a farm, we compared isolates from feed samples to bovine fecal isolates from the same farm using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Four of 2365 component feed samples (0.2%) and 1 of 226 feed mill samples (0.4%) were positive for E. coli O157:H7. Twenty of 2405 (0.8%) component feed samples and none of 226 feed mill samples were positive for Salmonella. PFGE profiles from E. coli O157:H7 isolated from a component feed sample closely resembled that from a fecal isolate collected later from the same farm, and a similar observation was made of a Salmonella Tyhpimurium isolate from component feed on another farm. There were indistinguishable PFGE profiles from component feed Salmonella Tyhpimurium DT104 isolates and fecal isolates from the same farm. These results provide evidence for a role of cattle feed in transmission of E. coli O157:H7; S. enterica; cattle-bacteria.

Animal Feed↗