Prevalence of tick Prevalence of tick infestation on livestock infestation on livestock

animals in Pothwar, animals in Pothwar, PakistanPakistan

Majid Mahmood Majid Mahmood MajidMajid and Mazhar Qayyum and Mazhar QayyumDepartment of Zoology, PMAS Arid Agriculture University Department of Zoology, PMAS Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, PakistanRawalpindi, Pakistan

IntroductionIntroduction

Ticks:Ticks:

• Ectoparasites: blood suckingEctoparasites: blood sucking

• Affect the productive potential of Affect the productive potential of livestocklivestock

• Transmit protozoan parasites viz., Transmit protozoan parasites viz., Babesia Babesia spp. and spp. and Theileria Theileria sppspp..

• The information on ticks prevalence The information on ticks prevalence

is scanty in Pakistanis scanty in Pakistan

• No previous study in Pothwar No previous study in Pothwar

regionregion

Objective:Objective:

• To find out the prevalence of ticks To find out the prevalence of ticks

infestation pattern among different infestation pattern among different

livestock animals of Pothwar regionlivestock animals of Pothwar region

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Study PeriodStudy Period• October 2008 to August 2009October 2008 to August 2009

Study AreaStudy Area• The main study site: Barani The main study site: Barani

Livestock Production Research Livestock Production Research Institute Kherimurat (BLPRI), Institute Kherimurat (BLPRI), District AttockDistrict Attock

• Other livestock farms surveyed Other livestock farms surveyed – ChakwalChakwal– Kallar Kahaar Kallar Kahaar – Tala GangTala Gang– ChakriChakri– RawaatRawaat– Chak Baili Khan Chak Baili Khan – Kallar Sayyadan Kallar Sayyadan – National Agriculture Research Center National Agriculture Research Center

(NARC) Islamabad(NARC) Islamabad

Animal hosts screened Animal hosts screened 18041804

Sheep Sheep 481 481 Goats Goats 1015 1015

Cattle Cattle 214 214 Camels Camels 94 94

Ticks Ticks collectioncollection• All body parts of the animals were All body parts of the animals were

thoroughly inspectedthoroughly inspected• Picked with the help of rubber Picked with the help of rubber

coated forcepscoated forceps• Stored in 70% ethyl alcohol Stored in 70% ethyl alcohol • Properly labeled Properly labeled

Ticks processing for Ticks processing for identificationidentification

• Washed with distilled waterWashed with distilled water• Boiled in 10% KOH for 30 minutes Boiled in 10% KOH for 30 minutes • 10% glacial acetic acid for 5 minutes10% glacial acetic acid for 5 minutes• Washed with distilled waterWashed with distilled water• Stained with 10% acid fuchsin for 2 minutesStained with 10% acid fuchsin for 2 minutes• Washed with distilled waterWashed with distilled water• Dehydrated through 30%, 50%, 70%, 80%, Dehydrated through 30%, 50%, 70%, 80%,

90% and absolute alcohol90% and absolute alcohol• Cleared in clove oil Cleared in clove oil • Mounted in Canada balsam on glass slideMounted in Canada balsam on glass slide

IdentificationIdentification• Morphological examination under Morphological examination under

stereomicroscope stereomicroscope

• Identified according to the keys and Identified according to the keys and

descriptions given by Hoogstraal descriptions given by Hoogstraal

(1979) and Walker (1979) and Walker et alet al. (2003). (2003)

Results Results Total animals surveyed Total animals surveyed 18041804• Infested Infested 814 814 • Percentage prevalence Percentage prevalence 45.1 45.1

Infestation rate in different Infestation rate in different animal hostsanimal hosts

• Highest infestation rate: Highest infestation rate: Cattle (58.8%) Cattle (58.8%)• Camel (52%)Camel (52%)• Sheep (50.9%) Sheep (50.9%) • Goats (38.8%)Goats (38.8%)• Highest tick burden: Cattle (22.9 per Highest tick burden: Cattle (22.9 per

animal)animal)• Camel (18.8 per animal)Camel (18.8 per animal)• Sheep (10.9 per animal) Sheep (10.9 per animal) • Goats (10.5 per animal) Goats (10.5 per animal)

Comparison of tick infestation Comparison of tick infestation among different livestock animalsamong different livestock animals

AnimAnim

alalTotal Total

ExamineExamine

dd

Total Total

InfesteInfeste

dd

Percent Percent

InfestatioInfestatio

n n

Mean Mean tick tick

burdenburden

GoatGoat 10151015 394394 38.8%38.8% 10.510.5

SheepSheep 481481 245245 50.9%50.9% 10.910.9

CattleCattle 214214 126126 58.8%58.8% 22.922.9

CamelCamel 9494 4949 52.1%52.1% 18.818.8

TotalTotal 18041804 814814 45.1%45.1% 15.815.8

Tick Genera Tick Genera • Only 700 tick specimens were identified Only 700 tick specimens were identified

from sheep, goats and cattlefrom sheep, goats and cattle

• Six genera of ticks foundSix genera of ticks found– Haemophisalis = Haemophisalis = 28.1%28.1%

– Rhipicephalus Rhipicephalus = 24.8% = 24.8%

– IxodeIxode = 20.0% = 20.0%

– HyalommaHyalomma = 14.1% = 14.1%

– Boophilus Boophilus = 11.5%= 11.5%

– Dermacenter = Dermacenter = 1.3% 1.3%

• Haemophesalis:Haemophesalis: Most abundant on Most abundant on

sheepsheep

• Rhipicephalis:Rhipicephalis: Most abundant on Most abundant on

goats goats

• Ixode:Ixode: Most abundant on cattle Most abundant on cattle

Comparison of different tick Comparison of different tick genera on Sheep, Goats and Cattlegenera on Sheep, Goats and Cattle

Sheep Sheep

(n=291)(n=291)Goat Goat

(n=257)(n=257)Cattle Cattle

(n=152)(n=152)Total Total

(n=700)(n=700)

HaemophesaliHaemophesalis s sppspp 129 129

(44.3%)(44.3%) 38 38 (14.7%)(14.7%) 30 30

(19.7%)(19.7%) 197 197 (28.1%)(28.1%)

Rhipicephalus Rhipicephalus sppspp 83 (28.5%)83 (28.5%) 85 85

(33.0%)(33.0%) 6 (3.9%)6 (3.9%) 174 174 (24.8%)(24.8%)

Ixode Ixode sppspp 30 (10.3%)30 (10.3%) 63 63 (24.5%)(24.5%) 47 47

(30.9%)(30.9%) 140 140 (20.0%)(20.0%)

Hyalomma Hyalomma sppspp 40 (13.7%)40 (13.7%) 38 38

(14.7%)(14.7%) 21 21 (13.8%)(13.8%) 99 99

(14.1%)(14.1%)

Boophilus Boophilus sppspp 9 (3.1%)9 (3.1%) 33 33 (12.8%)(12.8%) 39 39

(25.6%)(25.6%) 81 81 (11.5%)(11.5%)

Dermacenter Dermacenter sppspp 0000 0000 9 (5.9%)9 (5.9%) 9 (1.3%)9 (1.3%)

Per month infestation and mean Per month infestation and mean tick burden tick burden

MonthMonth Animals Animals ExaminedExamined

Animals Animals

InfestedInfestedPercentPercent

infestedinfestedMean Tick Mean Tick Burden Burden

(per animal)(per animal)

OctOct 3434 66 17.617.6 5.25.2

NovNov 181181 1717 9.49.4 6.66.6

DecDec 137137 99 6.66.6 3.43.4

JanJan 221221 3131 14.014.0 7.77.7

FebFeb 190190 7575 39.539.5 9.39.3

MarchMarch 197197 7676 38.638.6 9.89.8

AprilApril 206206 124124 60.260.2 20.820.8

MayMay 170170 103103 60.660.6 18.918.9

JuneJune 223223 151151 67.767.7 20.820.8

JulyJuly 104104 9090 86.586.5 18.118.1

AugAug 141141 132132 93.693.6 25.925.9

TotalTotal 18041804 814814 45.145.1 15.815.8

Seasonal AbundanceSeasonal Abundance

Infestation rateInfestation rate was: was:

• Very high in August and JulyVery high in August and July

• High in February, March, April, May High in February, March, April, May

and June and June

• Low in October, November, Low in October, November,

December and January December and January

ConclusionsConclusions• Both infestation rate and average tick Both infestation rate and average tick

burden were very high in summer (rainy) as burden were very high in summer (rainy) as compared to wintercompared to winter

• Both were highest in AugustBoth were highest in August

• Lower in may and June as compared to July Lower in may and June as compared to July and Augustand August

• Ticks seem to prefer high humidity and Ticks seem to prefer high humidity and temperature but not dry-hot conditions temperature but not dry-hot conditions