Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T18:00:03.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection or pour-on treatment: concentrations and impact on dung fauna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. Sommer ,
B. Steffansen ,
B. Overgaard Nielsen ,
J. Grønvold ,
K.-M. Vagn Jensen ,
J. Brøchner Jespersen ,
J. Springborg  and
P. Nansen
C. Sommer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, DK
B. Steffansen
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C, DK
B. Overgaard Nielsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Biology, University of Århus, C, DK
J. Grønvold
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Laboratory of Parasitology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C, DK
K.-M. Vagn Jensen
Affiliation:
Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Lyngby, DK
J. Brøchner Jespersen
Affiliation:
Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Lyngby, DK
J. Springborg
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C, DK
P. Nansen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Laboratory of Parasitology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C, DK
*
Dr C. Sommer, Institute of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, 15 Universitetsparken, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, DK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Heifers were treated with the recommended doses of ivermectin: 0.2 mg/ kg bw by subcutaneous injection or 0.5 mg/kg bw by pour-on. An analytic procedure is described and used for the detection of ivermectin residues excreted in dung. A large amount of the higher pour-on dose was excreted during the first five days after dosing due to a more rapid distribution to intestinal contents. Later faecal concentrations after the pour-on treatment were lower than those found after subcutaneous injection. No degradation of ivermectin was detected in pats exposed in the field for up to 45 days. Ivermectin excreted in dung voided 1–2 days after both treatments significantly reduced the number of dung inhabiting larvae of Aphodius spp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), but no effect was seen in dung deposited 13–14 days after treatments. Development of cyclorrhaphan larvae was inhibited in dung deposited up to 28–29 days after subcutaneous injection treatment, but only inhibited in dung deposited up to 13–14 days after pour-on treatment. The numbers of Nematocera larvae were not affected. In a laboratory bioassay the Diptera Musca autumnalis DeGeer and Haematobia irritans (Linnaeus) suffered higher mortality in dung from heifers treated by the subcutaneous injection 13–14 days earlier than in dung from heifers treated by pour-on at the same time. After subcutaneous injection, a significant reduction in the rate of decomposition was found in dung from heifers treated 1–2 days earlier, whereas pour-on led to a delayed decomposition in dung collected up to 13–14 days after treatment.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 257 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J.R., Merritt, R.W. & Loomis, E.C. (1984) The insect-free cattle dropping and its relationship to increased dung fouling of rangeland pastures. Journal of Economic Entomology 77, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arevad, K. (1988) Rearing of the face fly, Musca autumnalis. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Report 1987, 38–39.Google Scholar
Arevad, K. (1989) Rearing of the horn fly, Haematobia irritans. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Report 1988, 104–106.Google Scholar
Boyd, J.M. (1958) The ecology of earthworms in cattle-grazed machair in Tiree, Argyll. Journal of Animal Ecology 27, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, D.L., Ivie, G.W., MacConnell, J.G., Gruber, V.F., Ku, C.C., Arison, B.H., Stevenson, J.M. & VandenHeuve, W.J.A. (1984) Fate of avermectin B1a in soil and plants. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 32, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burg, R.W. & Stapley, E.O. (1989) Isolation and characterization of the producing organism. pp. 24–32in Campbell, W.C., (Ed.) Ivermectin and abamectin. New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Burg, R.W., Miller, B.M., Baker, E.E., Birnbaum, J., Currie, S.A., Hartman, R., Kong, Y.-L., Monaghan, L.R., Olson, G., Putter, I., Tunac, J.B., Wallick, H., Stapley, E.O., Oiwa, R. & Omura, S. (1979) Avermectins, new family of potent anthelmintic agents: producing organisms and fermentation. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 15, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, W.C. & Benz, G.W. (1984) Ivermectin: a review of efficacy and safety. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 7, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, W.C., Fisher, M.H., Stapley, E.O., Albers-Schönberg, G. & Jacob, T.A. (1983) Ivermectin: a potent new antiparasitic agent. Science 221, 823–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiu, L.S.-H., Green, M.L., Baylis, F.P., Eline, D., Rosegay, A., Meriwether, H. & Jacob, T.A. (1990) Absorption, tissue distribution, and excretion of tritium-labeled ivermectin in cattle, sheep, and rat. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 38, 2072–2078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, G.M. & Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (1990) The effect of avermectin B1 on developmental stability in the bush fly, Musca vetustissima, as measured by fluctuating asymmetry. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 54, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desière, M. (1973) Écologie des coléoptères coprophages. Annates de la Société royale Zoologique de Belgique 103, 135–145.Google Scholar
Dybas, R.A. (1989) Abamectin use in crop protection. pp. 287–310in Campbell, W.C. (Ed.) Ivermectin and abamectin. New York, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J.F.D. & Reid, G.W. (1968) The effects of grazing intensity on herbage consumption and animal production. III. Dairy cows grazed at two intensities on clean or contaminated pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science 71, 111–122.Google Scholar
Halley, B.A., Jacob, T.A. & Lu, A.Y.H. (1989a) The environmental impact of the use of ivermectin: environmental effects and fate. Chemosphere 18, 1543–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halley, B.A., Nessel, R.J., Lu, A.Y.H. & Roncalli, R.A. (1989b) The environmental safety of ivermectin: an overview. Chemosphere 18, 1565–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, P. (1941) Biological and ecological investigations of flies associated with pasturing cattle and their excrement. Videnskabelige Meddelelser, Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, København 105, 141–393.Google Scholar
Hendriksen, N.B. (1991) Consumption and utilization of dung by detritivorous and geophagous earthworms in a Danish pasture. Pedobiologia 35, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holter, P. (1977) An experiment on dung removal by Aphodius larvae (Scarabaeidae) and earthworms. Oikos 28, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holter, P. (1979) Effect of dung-beetles (Aphodius spp.) and earthworms on the disappearance of cattle dung. Oikos 32, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar