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

3 of my favs also! I really like Tick Tock

yes.. i clearly knew it wasnt a blood sucking vampire bug ..... but beyond that.. no.. i didnt know.. and i wouldnt have offered an opinion on such.. to scare the bee-gee-bees out of the pool owner..... she isnt posting out of curiosity ... i would bet she is scared for the kiddos .... if he had no reason to know, as you suggest .. then he shouldnt have offered an opinion ... my point was if, based on his opinion.. he offered to add more chemicals or some such to her pool ... [and that would be an IPM nightmare ...] and if so ... then he was ripping her off ... [and that strikes at the heart of my hatred of wasting money and using unnecessary chems ....] ken PS: i mean really ... not knowing as you suggest .. and then telling her.. its a blood sucking, potentially life threatening bug .. i will repeat.. what an idiot ... as they say.. better to keep your mouth shut.. [the pool guy, not rhiz] .. and be thought an idiot... than to open it.. and remove all doubt ... pps: surprised he didnt proceed to lecture her on lyme disease ... after all.. he is 'the' POOL MAN .... [sounds like an adam sandler movie.. lol]

This is a bad year for ticks. So far I've sent 8 to the lab. Thank goodness testing is free in PA. Six of the 8 had bitten me, one bit my 11-year-old grandson, and one was just crawling on my neck. I don't have the results on the most recent tick, but one tested positive for Lyme, and one tested positive for babesiosis. The rest were negative for everything. When I was bitten by the Lyme-positive tick I had just come off doxycycline, so I hoped I still had enough in my system to take care of any new spirochetes. I'm all too familiar with babesiosis symptoms, and the treatement involves drugs that are risky for me, so I waited to see if any symptoms presented. None have. Something to keep in mind: Of the 65,135 ticks our lab has tested so far, 18,871 were infected and 46,267 were not. With all my many tick bites over the years, and infections, I've never seen a bull's-eye rash. I'm told they tend to be fleeting. The closest I came was this year, when I was bitten by my first dog tick. They don't carry Lyme, but they can carry other things. It tested negative, but it was so deeply and tenaciously embedded that I had to pull hard to get it out. It bled, had a scab for almost two weeks, and developed a bright red wide ring around it. My tick bites itch fiercely, but I'm grateful for that. Living alone, a suspicious itch is what motivates me to see if a tick bite is the cause. My favorite tweezers for tick removal have sharp slanted points. I have two pairs--one upstairs and one downstairs. Bought one at Target and one at Walmart. Cheap.