Abstract

The prevention of tick-borne diseases is a major challenge for livestock production globally. Tick control strategies include the use of acaricides, but the prescribed strategies do not achieve the desired results in several countries, including Kenya. To better understand how tick treatment practices, contribute to reported tick treatment failures, we assessed livestock owners’ acaricide procurement, level of knowledge about acaricides and tick resistance, and how they apply acaricides. We also assessed the quality of the commonly available acaricides. We focused on three livestock systems in Laikipia County, Kenya: two private ranches; one community ranch whose members communally graze their cattle and acquire and apply acaricides; and individual livestock owners in two pastoral communities who individually graze their cattle and acquire and apply acaricides. Through interviews and focus group discussions we assessed; access to acaricides, livestock owners’ knowledge, and acaricide use practices; interview data were triangulated with participant observations (n = 107). We analysed nine commonly used acaricides to determine the active ingredient concentration and we determined the concentration of active ingredients in acaricide dilutions collected on farms. All livestock owners had access to and used chemical acaricides for tick control, predominantly amitraz-based. Private ranchers bought one amitraz-based acaricide in bulk directly from the manufacturer, while all other livestock owners bought from agrovet shops. The livestock owners acquired knowledge about acaricides from their own experiences and through experience-based recommendations from peers, but not from the technical information provided by the manufacturers and agrovet shops. All pastoral livestock frequently changed acaricide brand and active ingredient class. A large majority of pastoralists (86%) mixed acaricide brands within and across active ingredient classes; a smaller majority (56%) mixed acaricides with crop pesticides and insecticides. Our lab tests confirmed the content description on the labels bought from agrovet shops. However, on-farm acaricide dilutions from all three livestock systems deviated from the level recommended for effective treatment. If too diluted, the acaricide does not kill ticks, promoting resistance development. If too concentrated, this increases environmental contamination and raises public health concerns. Livestock owners lack a technical understanding of the functioning of acaricides, compromising their use and effectiveness. The widely adopted mixing of acaricides with insecticides and pesticides raises serious health concerns.

Highlights

  • Livestock farming plays an important role in providing food, income and cultural identity for the sustenance of many societies across the world (Ghosh et al, 2007; (Jongejan and Uilenberg, 2004))

  • Agrovet shops Data were obtained from two types of cooperating agrovet shops: (i) permanent shops (n = 4), located in major towns and shopping centres (Nanyuki, Ilpolei and Doldol), and (ii) mobile shops (n = 4), which move between towns to set up shop on market days in the region

  • The differentiating factor between permanent agrovet shops and mobile shops is that the permanent shops had better storage facil­ ities, while mobile agrovets had suboptimal storage and selling condi­ tions, exposing acaricides to weather elements such as direct sunlight, which can compromise the quality of the acaricides sold

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Livestock farming plays an important role in providing food, income and cultural identity for the sustenance of many societies across the world (Ghosh et al, 2007; (Jongejan and Uilenberg, 2004)). Ticks kill livestock through tick-borne diseases and cause livestock loss through their attachment to animal hides and blood feeding activity, leading to wounds that affect hide quality and damage the udder, leading to mastitis (Abbas et al, 2014; Vudriko et al, 2016) This reduces the productivity of livestock herds and negatively affects farmers’ livelihoods. The DVS tick control programme ensured that cattle dips were provided with acaricides, and continuous quality monitoring through supervision by dip attendants From this monitoring in areas (zones) where resistance had been reported, the DVS recommended the discontinuation of observed resistant active ingredients. Agrovet shops replaced the DVS as acar­ icide providers and were deemed the new source of technical acaricide knowledge

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call