• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Experimental
 Results
 Discussion
 Summary






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 682
Title: Management and chemicals for the control of gastro-intestinal parasites of cattle
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027523/00001
 Material Information
Title: Management and chemicals for the control of gastro-intestinal parasites of cattle
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 11 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Koger, Marvin, 1915-
Swanson, Leonard E., b. 1898
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1964
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Parasites -- Control   ( lcsh )
Helminths   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: M. Koger and L.E. Swanson.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027523
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929084
oclc - 18354555
notis - AEN9852

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Acknowledgement
        Page 2
    Experimental
        Page 3
        Site history and previous treatment of animals
            Page 3
            Page 4
        Experimental animals and management
            Page 5
        Treatments administered
            Page 6
    Results
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Discussion
        Page 9
    Summary
        Page 10
        Page 11
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





Bulletin 682
September 1964




Management and Chemicals

for the Control of
Gastro-Intestinal Parasites

of Cattle



M. Koger and L. E. Swanson


University of Florida, Gainesville
Agricultural Experiment Stations
J. R. Beckenbach, Director

















CONTENTS
Page

EXPERIMENTAL .... ............... .....-.... .......... -. --- ----.-- 3

Site History and Previous Treatment of Animals ....................-..-..... 3

Experimental Animals and Management ...........................-----.--- 5

Treatments Administered .............. -.. ------ -- ----.. --.. 6

RESULTS .-......---------------. --. -..........------- .---------- 7

DIscUssION ------...--.....---........------- ..--- ------------- 9

SUMMARY .....-.....-.......-.... --.. ------. ----------- ---------- ..--. 10















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the following for supplying
chemicals for this study:
Texas Phenothiazine Company
Atomic Basic Chemical Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Du Pont
Rhodia

















CONTENTS
Page

EXPERIMENTAL .... ............... .....-.... .......... -. --- ----.-- 3

Site History and Previous Treatment of Animals ....................-..-..... 3

Experimental Animals and Management ...........................-----.--- 5

Treatments Administered .............. -.. ------ -- ----.. --.. 6

RESULTS .-......---------------. --. -..........------- .---------- 7

DIscUssION ------...--.....---........------- ..--- ------------- 9

SUMMARY .....-.....-.......-.... --.. ------. ----------- ---------- ..--. 10















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the following for supplying
chemicals for this study:
Texas Phenothiazine Company
Atomic Basic Chemical Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Du Pont
Rhodia









MANAGEMENT AND CHEMICALS FOR THE
CONTROL OF GASTRO-INTESTINAL
PARASITES OF CATTLE

MARVIN KOGER AND L. E. SWANSON 1

It has long been known that good management and satisfac-
tory nutrition are essential for sustained control of gastro-in-
testinal parasites in beef cattle. Undesirable management prac-
tices such as failure to rotate pastures or extended overgrazing
result in the build-up of heavy parasite loads on pastures and
consequently heavy infection of cattle. Inadequate nutrition
lowers the resistance of animals, resulting in heavy parasite in-
fection, and the effects of parasitism are made more acute due
to the poor condition of the cattle.
Experimental results have not been recorded showing the
growth or production response when cattle maintained under
good management and adequate nutrition were given chemical
treatment to reduce parasitic infection. Parasite control prac-
tices differ in commercial operations under good management.
Probably the most widespread practice is to treat mature ani-
mals only when they show symptoms of parasitism or treatment
has been recommended by a veterinarian. Calves and growing
animals generally are treated routinely when placed on spring
or fall pastures. Numerous ranchers treat cattle of all ages
routinely as a precautionary measure against parasites.
The objective of this trial was to determine the growth and
production response in cattle of different ages maintained under
good management and feed conditions when treated with various
chemicals for the control of gastro-intestinal parasites.

EXPERIMENTAL

Site History and Previous Treatment of Animals
The trial was conducted at the Beef Research Unit 2 approx-
imately 15 miles northeast of Gainesville, Florida. The area

1Animal Geneticist, Animal Science Department, and Parasitologist,
Veterinary Science Department.
2 Grateful acknowledgement is made to the coordinating committee of
the Beef Research Unit for permission to utilize the cattle and facilities of
the unit for this study. Participation by the Department of Veterinary Sci-
ence in this study makes the sixth department to take part in the coordinated
approach to research at the Beef Research Unit.









MANAGEMENT AND CHEMICALS FOR THE
CONTROL OF GASTRO-INTESTINAL
PARASITES OF CATTLE

MARVIN KOGER AND L. E. SWANSON 1

It has long been known that good management and satisfac-
tory nutrition are essential for sustained control of gastro-in-
testinal parasites in beef cattle. Undesirable management prac-
tices such as failure to rotate pastures or extended overgrazing
result in the build-up of heavy parasite loads on pastures and
consequently heavy infection of cattle. Inadequate nutrition
lowers the resistance of animals, resulting in heavy parasite in-
fection, and the effects of parasitism are made more acute due
to the poor condition of the cattle.
Experimental results have not been recorded showing the
growth or production response when cattle maintained under
good management and adequate nutrition were given chemical
treatment to reduce parasitic infection. Parasite control prac-
tices differ in commercial operations under good management.
Probably the most widespread practice is to treat mature ani-
mals only when they show symptoms of parasitism or treatment
has been recommended by a veterinarian. Calves and growing
animals generally are treated routinely when placed on spring
or fall pastures. Numerous ranchers treat cattle of all ages
routinely as a precautionary measure against parasites.
The objective of this trial was to determine the growth and
production response in cattle of different ages maintained under
good management and feed conditions when treated with various
chemicals for the control of gastro-intestinal parasites.

EXPERIMENTAL

Site History and Previous Treatment of Animals
The trial was conducted at the Beef Research Unit 2 approx-
imately 15 miles northeast of Gainesville, Florida. The area

1Animal Geneticist, Animal Science Department, and Parasitologist,
Veterinary Science Department.
2 Grateful acknowledgement is made to the coordinating committee of
the Beef Research Unit for permission to utilize the cattle and facilities of
the unit for this study. Participation by the Department of Veterinary Sci-
ence in this study makes the sixth department to take part in the coordinated
approach to research at the Beef Research Unit.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


was of flatwoods type characterized by numerous shallow cypress
ponds. The major soil type was Leon fine sand which was mod-
erately to poorly drained. The low areas contained an abundance
of organic matter (7 to 8 percent) with the higher areas being
low in organic matter (1 to 2 percent). The average initial soil
pH in the native state was 4.9, but liming had raised the pH
to an average of 5.5. The pastures consisted mostly of clover
combined with bahiagrass, pangolagrass, or Coastal bermuda-
grass, with a part of the area being planted to all-grass pas-
tures.3 The area was considered to be one where heavy parasi-
tism ordinarily would occur under heavy stocking and poor
management.
Native area from which livestock had been excluded for a
number of years was cleared in 1951, and pastures were estab-
lished during the spring and summer of 1952. The pastures
were stocked in September of 1952 with 30-month-old Brahman-
native heifers which were thought to harbor only small numbers
of parasites. The heifers had been drenched at 18 months of
age with 10 grams each of phenothiazine and hexachloroethane
per 100 pounds of body weight on two dates 21 days apart. They
were treated similarly again during the spring of 1952 at 24
months at the ranch where they were purchased. The animals
were transferred immediately to the University, where they
were placed on pastures which had been clean-cultivated for a
number of years and which had not been stocked with livestock
during this time. The heifers were transferred from this area
to the experimental site in September of 1952, at which time
they were drenched again with 10 grams each of phenothiazine
and hexachloroethane per hundredweight. In 1953 all animals,
including the foundation females and their calves, were drenched
as described above during the month of October. The experi-
mental trial began in the fall of 1954 and continued through
August of 1959.
During 1953 and 1954 before the trial began occasional un-
thrifty cows showed clinical symptoms of parasitism. As an
example of these parasitic animals a six-year-old cow which was
autopsied was shown to harbor 49,000 small hairworms (Tri-
chostrongylus axei), 26,000 medium stomach worms (Ostertagia
ostertagi), and 60,000 unidentified larvae. The occurrence of

SKoger, M., W. G. Blue, G. B. Killinger, R. E. L. Greene, H. C. Harris,
J. M. Myers, A. C. Warnick, and N. Gammon, Jr. Beef production, soil and
forage analyses and economic returns from eight pasture programs in
North Central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 631. 1961.







Gastro-Intestinal Parasites of Cattle


these animals was one of the factors which led to initiation of
this trial.

Experimental Animals and Management
Three age classes of cattle were used in the trial: (1) the
breeding herd, which included all mature animals; (2) breeding-
age heifers from 19 to 31 months of age; and (3) heifers from
7 to 19 months of age. The animals included only foundation
females described in preceding section and animals born and
raised on the place. The animals were managed and fed in a
manner considered to be typical of well managed commercial
cattle operations. Except for a few days' emergency feeding
during extreme conditions, the cattle received all their roughage
from the pasture, and adequate roughage was nearly always
available. The cow herd received supplement only when needed
to avoid excessive weight loss. Except for short term emergen-
cies, cows on clover-grass pastures received all their feed from
the pasture. Cows on all-grass pastures received 1.5 pounds of
cottonseed pellets daily for a period of 90 to 120 days during the
winter months, and during two winters received a limited amount
of hay. The pastures were stocked at the rate of one cow per
1.3 acres on clover-grass pastures or 2.0 acres of all-grass pas-
ture.
Heifers from 18 to 30 months of age received from 0.5 to
2.0 pounds of supplement per day on pasture for an average of
120 days from November 1 to February 1.
Management of calves from 7 to 19 months of age varied
with sex and age. Steer calves were wintered to gain from 0 to
0.75 pound per day during the winter. The heifers were win-
tered to gain from 0.25 to 0.75 pound per day. Winter gain did
not affect the response to treatment; therefore, data from differ-
ent wintering levels were combined for ease of presentation. The
average gain from weaning until spring pasture became avail-
able was approximately 0.5 pound per day. Following the win-
tering period, part of the steers were fattened on clover pasture
and slaughtered in June. The remainder were grazed until 18
months of age.
Rotational grazing was practiced throughout the year. Peri-
odically, animals were off any given area from 3 to 12 weeks,
depending on growth rate of forage. Close grazing of pastures
was avoided to the extent possible and the cattle generally were
grazing forage with considerable height.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


In addition, deferred grazing was practiced. During the late
summer and fall months the cattle were withheld from approxi-
mately one-half of the area in order to accumulate forage for
winter grazing. The cattle were turned onto the deferred area
following frost after the area had been vacated for approximately
60 days. The area which had been grazed during the summer
and fall was free of cattle for approximately 90 days while the
cattle were grazing the deferred area.
These practices would be expected to keep the intake of para-
site larvae through the forage at the lowest level possible with
the heavy stocking rate in effect.

Treatments Administered
Three separate trials were conducted: the first from Septem-
ber 1954 through August 1956; the second from September 1956
through August 1959; and the third from September 1958
through August 1959. During the course of these trials the per-
formance of untreated control animals of four sex-age groups
(mature cows, 19 to 31-month heifers, 7 to 19-month heifers,
and 7 to 19-month steers) was compared with that of similar
groups which were treated with (1) purified phenothiazine, (2)
N.F. green phenothiazine, (3) N.F. green phenothiazine plus
piperazine, or (4) a combination of phenothiazine, piperazine,
and hexachloroethane. Dosages and the treatments adminis-
tered during the three trials are summarized in Table 1. Two
doses were given 21 days apart in October each year.

TABLE 1.-TREATMENTS ADMINISTERED IN GRAMS PER HUNDRED POUNDS
OF BODY WEIGHT.

Chemical
Trial and Purified N. F. Green Hexachloro-
group Phenothiazine Phenothiazine ethane Piperazine
Trial 1
controls
Group 2 10.0 -
Group 3 -10.0
Trial 2
controls
Group 2 10.0
Group 3 -10.0
Group 4 -10.0 7.2
Trial 3
controls
Group 2 10.0 7.2
Group 3 10.0 10.0 7.2







Gastro-Intestinal Parasites of Cattle


RESULTS
The results from the different trials are shown in Tables
2, 3, and 4. There was no significant difference in average growth
response of animals in the different groups in any of the three
trials. There was some indication in 1956-57 (Table 2) that gain
in young cattle was favorably affected by treatment, but this
trend was reversed during the following year. In both cases,
however, variations were within the range of experimental error.
There was no death loss in the control groups, and a total of
nine animals died in the treated groups, including two animals
which died as a result of inhaling phenothiazine at drenching.
Whether or not this difference in death loss was significant
could not be determined because of the low frequency of death
in all groups.

TABLE 2.-DEATH LOSS AND WEIGHT GAIN IN CATTLE DURING TRIAL 1.

Treatment
Purified N. F. Green
Group Control Phenothiazine Phenothiazine

Death Loss
(number of cows died/number in group)
Mature cows 0/81 2/80 1/82
19-31 month heifers 0/11 0/70 0/11
7-19 month heifers 0/21 0/21 0/20
Total 0/113 2/111 1/113
Average Weight Gain*
(pounds)
Mature cows 32 30 34
Calves nursing these cows 478 459 480
19-31 month heifers 228 244 224
7-19 month heifers 260 256 270
Average 250 247 252

The averages shown for mature cows are for two years. Those for heifers are for
one year only.

Considering the fact that there was no beneficial response
to any of the treatments administered and the general level of
animal performance, especially during the last two years of the
trial, it appears conclusive that the management practices and
nutrition level in effect during this trial resulted in a parasite
population that was not injurious to the cattle. All of the steers
used in the trial and occasional females were slaughtered at the
University Meats Laboratory or commercial packing plants.








8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 3.-DEATH LOSS AND WEIGHT GAINS DURING TRIAL 2.

Treatment
N. F. Green
Purified N. F. Green + Pipera-
Year and Group Control Pheno. Pheno. zine

Death Loss
(number of cows died/number of cows in group)
1956-57
7-19 month heifers 0/12 0/9 0/11 1/11
19-31 month heifers 0/6 0/5 0/6 0/6
7-12 month steers 0/8 0/8 0/7 0/9
1957-58
7-19 month heifers 0/12 0/14 0/13 1/10
19-31 month heifers 0/8 0/9 1/9 1/7
7-19 month steers 0/12 1/12 1/11 0/13
1958-59
19-31 month heifers 0/12 0/11 0/12 0/6
TOTAL 0/70 1/68 2/69 3/62
Weight Gain
(pounds)
1956-57
7-19 month heifers 141 161 159 156
19-31 month heifers 212 244 231 230
7-12 month steers 42 63 62 43
1957-58
7-19 month heifers 259 225 250 246
19-31 month heifers 285 283 283 252
7-19 month steers 278 250 291 275
1958-59
19-31 month heifers 246 228 197 258
Average, All groups 209 208 210 209



With the exception of a few unthrifty animals discussed below,
none of these animals showed indications of heavy parasite in-
fection. Thus, it is concluded that with the exceptions noted
injurious parasite infection did not occur in either treated or
untreated animals in this trial. Continued response of the cattle
since termination of this trial has confirmed this conclusion. None
of the cattle have been treated since 1959. During this time
pregnancy rate has been above 95 percent, weaning weight of
calves above 500 pounds, and fall weight of cows above 1100
pounds. These levels of performance would not be anticipated
in the presence of injurious parasite infection. Slaughter ani-







Gastro-Intestinal Parasites of Cattle


mals from the area likewise show no indications of injurious
parasite infection.
A few unthrifty animals were diagnosed as having clinical
parasitism during the trial. These animals occurred as fre-
quently in the treated groups as in the controls. This response
suggests that the individuality of the animal was as important
in warding off parasitism as the treatments administered.

TABLE 4.-DEATH LOSS AND WEIGHT GAIN DURING TRIAL 3.

Treatment*
N. F. Green
N. F. Green + Piperazine
Group Control + Piperazine + hex.

Death Loss
(number of cows died/number of cows in group)
7-19 month heifers 0/11 0/11 0/22
7-19 month steers 0/8 0/8 0/16
TOTAL 0/19 0/19 0/38

Weight Gain
(pounds)
7-19 month heifers 299 274 270
7-19 month steers 317 305 309
AVERAGE 308 290 290

Treatment differences were not significant.

DISCUSSION
The parasite load harbored by an animal is thought to be
dependent on (1) the rate of infection through feed and water
and (2) the resistance of the animal, which enables it to hold
parasites in check. This resistance is in turn governed by the
genetic potential of the animal, previous parasite challenge, and
nutritional status of the animal.
In view of these assumptions, how were the non-treated con-
trol animals in this trial able to perform at the same level as
animals which were treated? Three items would appear to be
important:

1. The intake of parasite larvae was kept at moderate levels
through rotation of pastures and ample forage supply
which resulted in a minimum of grazing forage close to
the ground.







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

2. All unthrifty animals were culled from the herd. It is
felt that this procedure was an important measure in re-
ducing the parasite load in the pastures. Post-mortem
examination showed that a majority of these unthrifty
animals were heavily parasitized. When such animals
are not culled and remain in the herd they infect the pas-
tures with large numbers of parasite ova.
3. The animals had maximum opportunity to develop physi-
ological mechanisms to deal with the parasites present.
The cattle were thrifty and had nutrition adequate to sup-
port normal growth. All animals used in the trial were
either born on the area or had been on the place for two
or more years. Under such conditions, animals would be
expected to build up resistance to the extent of their ge-
netic potential.
The question arises naturally as to the general applicability
of these results. There is no good basis for judging this, since
most parasite studies have used fecal egg count or worm count
rather than growth response in the animal as a measure of effi-
ciency of treatment. Trials should be repeated under varying
conditions to test this point. The results of this trial along with
the fact that a number of herds are known where good health
and performance are maintained without chemical treatment for
parasites, suggest that on many ranches with good nutrition and
management, chemical treatment for gastro-intestinal parasites
is not beneficial and may be an unnecessary cost. It is empha-
sized, however, that it should not be inferred from this test that
similar results necessarily would be obtained under all conditions
even under good management and with adequate nutrition.
Ranch operations that have been treating cattle routinely for
parasites should proceed carefully in reducing treatment in order
to cut expenses. Small numbers of untreated animals should be
observed for a year or more before attempting any large scale
reduction of treatment. Competent professional advice should
be sought before changing any program that has been successful
in control of parasites.

SUMMARY
Growth and production response of beef cattle were used to
determine the value of chemical treatments for the control of
gastro-intestinal parasites in animals under good management






Gastro-Intestinal Parasites of Cattle


practices. Pastures were rotated, and nutrition was adequate
to promote normal growth and production. Three trials ex-
tended over a period of 5 years and involved 243 brood cows and
437 growing animals. The performance of untreated animals
was compared with that of animals treated with (1) purified
phenothiazine (10 g/cwt.), (2) N.F. Green phenothiazine (10
g/cwt.), (3) phenothiazine (10 g/cwt.) plus piperazine (7.2
g/cwt.), or (4) a combination of 10 g phenothiazine, 7.2 g pipera-
zine and 10 g hexachloroethane per hundred pounds of body
weight. Two doses were given 21 days apart in October. With
the exception of foundation cows, all animals were born and
reared on the premises. Liver flukes were not present.
Animals of all groups appeared to remain relatively free of
parasites with the exception of a few unthrifty individuals which
were eliminated. None of the treatments resulted in any de-
tectable influence on weight gains, death loss, or production per-
formance. All groups achieved satisfactory growth and pro-
duction. It was concluded that under the management practices
used in this trial, injurious parasite infestation did not occur
in untreated animals; thus, treatment for parasite control was
not beneficial.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs