USDA Studies: Ivermectin for Tick Control http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8667385&dopt=Abstract Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Kerrville, TX 78028-9184, USA. Whole-kernel corn was treated with 10 mg ivermectin per 0.45 kg corn and fed at rate of approximately .45 kg/deer per day to white-tailed deer confined in the treatment pasture, whereas deer in an adjacent control pasture received a similar ration of untreated corn. Treatments were dispensed from February through September of 1992 and 1993, and free-living populations of lone star ticks. Amblyomma americanum (L.), were monitored in both pastures using dry-ice traps to quantify nymphs and adults and flip-cloths to assay the relative abundance of larval masses. Control values that were calculated for all ticks collected in both pastures during 1993 showed 83.4% fewer adults, 92.4% fewer nymphs and 100.0% fewer larval masses in the treatment versus control pasture. Serum ivermectin concentrations in treated deer averaged 21.7 and 28.3 ppb during 1992 and 1993, respectively. These values compared favorably with the goal concentration of 30.0 ppb which was anticipated under ideal conditions. This study demonstrates that a freely consumed, systemically active acaricidal bait ingested by white-tailed deer under nearly wild conditions can significantly reduce the abundance of all stages of free-living lone star ticks. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=115671 The effectiveness of the endectocide, ivermectin administered daily to cattle infested with all life stages of B. microplus was evaluated. Cattle were treated at dose rates of 25 and 50 mcg of ivermectin per kg of body weight for a period of 21 days. While both ivermectin treatment doses were highly effective (>99% control), the 50 mcg/kg/d dose was more effective than the 25 mcg/kg/d dose against all life stages of the tick. The presence of ivermectin in the blood of the cattle caused high mortality in the ticks, as well as producing dramatic adverse effects in the reproductive capability of the ticks that were able to survive and detach from the cattle. Based on the results of this study, the potential for use of ivermectin and other acaricides with similar chemistries is encouraging. The use of these types of acaricides applied by different delivery systems, such as long-term boluses or medicated feed systems has great promise for future applicability in the Boophilus eradication program.... ...overall control achieved at both doses of ivermectin was >99% against all parasitic stages, the 50 mcg/kg/d dose was more effective (P http://www.afpmb.org/pubs/misc/researchreview2004/4b-Pound.ppt http://live.psu.edu/story/19217 Deer-free areas may be haven for ticks, disease Wednesday, August 30, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- University Park, Pa. -- Excluding deer could be a counterproductive strategy for controlling tick-borne infections, because the absence of deer from small areas may lead to an increase in ticks, rapidly turning the area into a potential disease hotspot, according to a team of U.S. and Italian researchers. "Deer are referred to as dilution hosts or dead-end hosts," says Sarah Perkins, a postdoctoral researcher at Penn Stateâs Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. "They get bitten by ticks but never get infected with tick-borne pathogens, such as the bacteria causing Lyme disease." However, deer are critical to adult female ticks in the last stages of their three-part lifecycle. Ticks use them for a final blood meal before dropping off to produce thousands of eggs, Perkins explains. Currently, health officials believe that removing deer from the equation could disrupt the tick lifecycle and leave fewer ticks to feed on rodents, which, unlike deer, can transfer a range of tick-borne pathogens. Ultimately the tick-borne disease will fade out. However, previous field studies show that removing deer sometimes leads to higher tick densities and sometimes lower, and the outcome seems dependent on the size of area from which deer are excluded. "Very few studies have looked at how removing the deer affects the intensity of tick bites on rodents, and how it relates to the size of the area from where the deer are excluded," explains Perkins, whose findings are published in the current issue of the journal Ecology. Researchers first collected data from published information on tick densities in deer excluded areas ranging in size from roughly 2.5 acres to 18 acres. Next, over a six-month period, they captured rodents from a 2.5-acre deer excluded area in the Italian Alps in a known hotspot for tick-borne encephalitis -- a disease passed to humans through the bite of an infected tick. "From previous studies we found that tick densities decreased in (geographically) large areas and increased dramatically in smaller areas," suggesting that there is a threshold area - from where deer are excluded - for tick populations to either increase or decrease, notes the Penn State researcher. Statistical analyses of ticks on the captured rodents indicated that compared to the control areas, the deer-excluded areas hosted a significantly higher number of nymph and adult female ticks, as well as a high prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis. Because tick-borne encephalitis is transmitted only between ticks feeding on these rodents, the findings suggest how small deer-free areas could quickly turn into a disease hotspot. "This goes somewhat against conventional wisdom. When you remove deer, it does not always reduce the tick population," says Perkins. "If you were to exclude deer from hundreds of acres, tick numbers will fall. But in an area less than 2.5 acres, you are more likely to increase tick density and probably create tick-borne hotspots." Researchers say the study demonstrates how the strategy of keeping deer away may work only for large areas but is likely to amplify tick populations in smaller areas. Fragmented patches of forest and small parks that are off-limits to deer could also turn into a disease reservoir, they caution. "We need to be cautious about keeping deer away from small areas, even peopleâs backyards, as it might only lead to more ticks that are infected with tick-borne pathogens," says Perkins. She adds that forest areas deer consistently avoid also have the potential of turning into a haven for tick-borne disease. Other authors of the paper include Isabella M. Cattadori, postdoctoral scholar, and Peter J. Hudson, the Willaman Professor of Biology, both at Penn State University, and Valentina Tagliapietra and Annapaola P. Rizzoli, Centro di Ecologia Alpina, Italy. A grant from the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy, supported this work. The Penn State Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics is at http://www.cidd.psu.edu/. Contact Amit Avasthi axa47@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 Contact Vicki Fong vfong@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 The Pennsylvania State University © 2006 http://www.wildlifeprotein.com/index.cfm/fa/categories.main/parentcat/16705

It is not true that ticks live on animals, not plants. Ticks live in the environment and feed on animals, and then return to the environment to pupate. The larval stage, or the smallest ticks are no larger than the head of a pin, and they stay fairly low to the ground. They will climb to the end of a blade of grass, and quest for a host, usually mice or small mammals. They feed for a short time and drop off to use the protein from the bloodmeal to transform into nymphal ticks, slightly larger in size. The nymphs will climb a little higher to quest for a bloodmeal. They may end up on dogs, cats, or raccoons. After they fill, they drop off and overwinter until next year. As an adult (the next stage, about the size of a sesame seed)they will climb even higher in the weeds and grass to quest for one last blood meal to make and lay eggs. Adult ticks are usually found on white tailed deer, humans, dogs. After they fill, usually a few days, they will drop off and make eggs, and then die. Its important to remember not all ticks carry Lyme disease, and that there are other diseases ticks can carry. An adult female tick must usually feed for more than 2 days in order to transfer the bacteria that causes Lyme. If removed properly before she has had a chance to feed for more than 48 hours, the risk of Lyme is very low. There is a Tick Identification Service, part of the NYS dept of Health, that can ID any ticks you pull off your body. You can find them on the State website. Ticks are out there, and one ay to attempt to avoid them is to have a buffer zone between the active areas of your lawn and the woods, or weeds. Buffer zones are created by laying down 24 inch widths of gravel between the weeds, or woods, and your lawn. You an use wood chips if you prefer, but gravel or stone is great because it heats up in the sun, and ticks dont like to be dry. Wood chips can hold moisture during a wet year like this year. Other ways to avoid ticks are to do a body check every day, dont wear ripped clothing, tuck you pants into your socks, and wear light clothing so you can see them, and use the personal sprays that are approved to repel ticks. Remember, ticks do not jump, they quest by holding out their front legs and latching on to anything that passes by, then once they are on, they will crawl all over until they find a hole or gap in your clothing, like a ripped jean, above a sock, on your waist between your shirt and pants. You can also avoid them by avoiding brushing up to tall grasses, walking in the middle of paths when possible, and creating a buffer zone on your lawn. Children should also be taught to know what ticks look like, and notify an adult if they have one attached. The proper way to remove a tick is with tweezers. If you need more information, the New York State Health Dept website has a lot of good information.

To all who have wished me a speedy recovery: Thank You! I am feeling steadily better (1 month out), and expect to be back to full strength shortly. @Alisande, If you think you may have babeseosis at the moment, then insist on being tested. Same with anaplasmosis, both are less-difficult than Lyme to diagnose from blood smears, I believe. (The issue with the blood supply, aside from the traditional head-in-the-sand attitude of the blood industry, and of course the cost, is that there is no rapid-enough test for babeseosis -or possibly the other tick-borne diseases -to work with the need for fresh blood.) But as I mentioned, anaplasmosis has distinct, characteristic, changes in routine blood work that are almost diagnostic. I can check next time I am in the medical library if there are specific changes in the case of babeseosis. I may have that info for erlichiosis, if you'd like to know it. Anaplasmosis has distinctive mullberry shaped artifacts (morullae) in the disease-specific blood smears (as does erlichiosis, I believe). Babeseosis is different but unless you, like I, have had malaria it's pretty distinctive in the blood test for it. The tests aren't inexpensive (the unadjusted street price for them is $500-$1,000 -each- but my insurance company whacked both of them down considerably. Since you're on Medicare, you'd only pay a percentage of the CMS-negotiated cost which is likely to be as aggressively moderated as that of my own insurance company's contractual rate. Since all three are bacterial, not spirochete, -caused it doesn't require the complex analysis of PCR bands that Lyme does. But frankly if I was on my second continuous month of Lyme I would have pretty awful constitutional symptoms from that lengthy treatment alone. I can barely make it out the 30 days of a single course before I have disturbed sleep, night sweats, muscle aches and pains, etc. Part of my fierceness about discovering ticks early is to avoid the need for the lengthy course of anti-Lyme doxy. Since doxy won't really do anything for babeseosis - and other drugs will - why keep taking what may be the wrong cure? I don't think you would experience symptoms from babeseosis or anaplasmosis (or even Lyme) infection before locating the tick. The incubation time needed to get sick from a still-attached tick would have resulted in a deer tick as big as a green pea, a nasty pearly-grey tight blob. It's hard to imagine you wouldn't have noticed it well before getting sick if it was still attached. Don't you itch like mad when you have a tick attached for more than a few hours, not to mention days? I'd be wild! BTW, the tick-hours-of-bite measurement has a built in problem: the aging relies on analysis of stomach digestive contents. But that assumes, and it is not always true, that the bite the tick was discovered making is the only bite, not a second one. Also you mentioned you squashed the critter in removing it. You might want to consider beginning more intensive searches for ticks on your body twice a day in order to not miss one. I have hair so long I can sit on it so I do realize it can be hard to check your scalp and hair. I have also found attached ticks under my breasts, in my belly button, on various unmentionable parts of my bottom, and even larval ones between my toes and fingers. I usually keep my long hair tied up in pigtail outdoors. I tuck the pigtail down the back of my shirt to minimize the likelihood of ticks getting caught in my hair. Of course I always have a hat on outside for sun protection, so my head and scalp are less-common tick areas. I do tick-checks at least twice every day of the year, unless I am away from home overnight in the city. It's just like brushing your teeth. I'm not convinced that Lyme "lurks in your body" but given that it is caused by spirochete I suppose it's possible. (Another spirochete-caused illness, syphillis, has a proven habit of lingering on and re-occurring, often despite treatment.) I know, for certain, that I have had Lyme (from clearly positive blood tests), been treated successfuly and subsequently had lengthy periods of profound physiological, and mental stress, without Lyme popping back up and adding to the problems. And I still have one band for Lyme on the latest PCR, which indicates an old, resolved infection, so there's no question it's still visible in my blood, but not thankfully making a pest of itself. I also still have serological evidence of malaria in my blood and I haven't had any illness from it in more than fifty years! But the bacterial diseases (anaplasmosis, babeseosis and erlichiosis) seem extremely unlikely lurkers and later-pouncers, especially if treated. What I definitely think they can do, however, is damage other organs and systems resulting in consequential, long-term problems (like the poor fellow described above who lost his spleen as a result of a babeseosis infection.) Your description of high fevers, muscle aches and pains, etc., sound much more like anaplasmosis than Lyme. Did you have any "regular" blood tests done at the time? The average time from bite to onset of symptoms with anaplasmosis is 8 days. I could look that time up for erlichiosis and babseosis, if needed. I don't know enough about Fibro, but aren't night sweats and aches and pains part of that, too? You may not need to go to any doctor more specialized than your primary care doc to check for the bacterial tick-borne illnesses. And then you'll be able to know, and treat, any that are there. I didn't get any hint that the tests for them lead to confusing, or contradictory results, as I know the Lyme test can, because it is a different, and more complicated test.. If you test negative for them, including having normal routine blood results, you can cross them off your list of worries and look elsewhere. (And get off the wretched doxy!) HTH, L.

I agree your dog is not comfy, keep an eye on her, and take her to the vet if you see changes in eating behavior. PS - you might want to go get your pet some kitty grass, this might help her feel better if she can get some grass in there to either help her vomit or help whatever it is pass. Good luck, hope your pup is okay