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

To quote the sage advice of the Springfield, MO band, "Big Smith": "If we didn't have those bugs attachin', we'd never know the joy of scratchin'" :) My job requires me to be miles in the wildnerness all day, nearly every day, all summer long. So, I just CAN'T use the poisons because I'd constantly be bathing in them. We just duct tape the bottom of our pant legs to our hiking boots, tuck in our shirts, and keep a roll of duct tape handy for seed ticks. Otherwise, we just enjoy the glorious feeling that comes from scratching those bites! Makes us know that it's truly summertime! Generally, we have between 1 and 1000 ticks on us by the time we get home, but we're happy and tired and know we're ALIVE! I know, I know, this isn't really helpful advice to most. But really, aside from the slim chance of a disease, there's really a lot of psychology involved in the desire to be rid of the "pests". Also, FWIW, I've heard that a tick must be attached 6-12 hours before a disease can be transmitted, presumably because the tick must be filled with some blood to have it sqeezed/regurgitated back into your body during removal. So, if you just keep up with picking them off....

Your sad situation really does hit a very raw nerve with me. I live in an area on the east coast where there are lots of white tailed deer, they carry the ticks that carry lyme. About five years ago I rescued a dog from West Virginia, where the situation is about the worst in the country for lyme. When I got the dog, she was completely skinny, she literally looked like a walking skeleton. She's a large dog, probably a cross between a Lab and Weimaraner. I couldn't figure out why if she was so thin and obviously hungry she wasn't eating any or all of her food. Then, two days after getting her, I petted her face and mouth area and she screamed in horrible pain. I rushed her to the vet, gave them the dogs history, and after an examination, they made the diagnosis of a brain tumor. Estimates about how to deal with it and when were in the works before I gave any type of authorization. I was completely horrified and didn't know what to do. I consulted a vet in WV, she told me to have a lyme disease test done. It came back positive, after meds, she was fine. I have vented before on this forum about this issue. I do realize that vets make mistakes, this is not the issue for me. It's that they sometimes refuse to listen to common sense, and expect the worst, and proceed with that thinking, which is probably going to cost big $. My current vet who I love and adore, always takes the "path of least resistance" which is completely my way of thinking. I'm on my 7th vet in 17 years (I think) and my feelings toward the profession would be completely different if they would have simply said that they were sorry for a mistake, that did cost me lots of money and frustration. One time I was so furious about a mis diagnosis that almost cost me my dogs life, I almost put my cell phone through a plate glass window. And I am considered a very calm person. I have also learned the hard way to question everything vet says and research every little speck of information I can find. This has saved me tons of time and money and my vet is on the same page with me on this one. The last time this issue came up, Meghan (bless this persons heart) pointed out that vets are not money planners, nor are they in business to become millionaires. With the amount of debt each vet incurs when studying not to mention start up costs for a practice, all of this is a huge issue. BUT, something in the profession has been lost, and a severe disconnect is in place between client and vet. I would like to know if there is a "code of conduct" for vets. If there is, it needs to be reviewed and revised. IF there is not, there needs to be one. We as pet owners are at the mercy, yes mercy, of vets when we have a sick pet. We simply do not know what is going on and the thing we want is to have our pet well again, or at least an honest diagnoses. We need pity from vets. Plain and simple. Honest pity. If we get this, the money will flow to the vet without question. Without it, the profession is in a dire situation. SG

Chisue, I wish I could live up to your vision! LOL I just wrote to my cousin: I look especially enchanting out in the garden today. IâÂÂm glad it isnâÂÂt hot today, because IâÂÂm in full doxycyline regalia: long floppy pants (sprayed with tick repellant, ditto socks), filthy sneakers, a cotton turtleneck, and a fleece winter hat. IâÂÂve got to find a better hat. I have one with a big brim, but itâÂÂs impractical for actually doing anything outside. In case anyone would like to try the tick repellant, here's the one I bought. ItâÂÂs a bit of a nuisance because you have to spray the clothes outdoors when you are not wearing them and let them dry for two hours before putting them on. But you can do a bunch of clothes and socks at once, and the sprayâÂÂs effectiveness lasts through six washings. I wish I had done this before I got the last tick bite.