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....

we are getting a mulcher/mower for next year. bought it from a friend of our's. most of the leaves that i gathered are not mulched, and i am not in the mood to drag them out of the garden to mulch. dragging bags of leaves is hard on my neck, but i did it. i got tired and just put the whole leaves around the plants too. gldno, kittens are so much fun. we have one that someone dumped at the park. she is growing fast and spent yeasterday out front with us while my husband was painting the house. she buried herself in the large pile of leaves in the flower bed, and my husband almost stepped on her. i said that we now have to watch where we step on the leaves. she got on my ladder to watch me paint, and when i move the ladder to paint the bottom of the windows she ran in the front door, climbed upon the cedar chest by that window and watched me from there. i didn't know cats were that smart.

Bon, Aren't they awful this year? And whatever species is around down here right now is huge. I mean, they aren't big like craneflies, but they are a lot bigger than the average mosquito. I understand that Dallas County, TX, where Tim and Chris work of course, already has confirmed 3 cases of West Nile Virus in mosquitoes trapped and tested as a means of early disease detection. They often detect the virus in trapped mosquitoes long before any human cases occur, but it still bothers me that they are detecting it so early there. That means it is only 80 miles SE of our county, if not closer. Nancy, I hope your luck with the mosquitoes holds. The population here seems to explode when we start hitting temperatures in the 80s and have had recent or fairly recent rainfall. Some years it surprises me how slow they are to show up, but we had them all winter long without ceasing, so I'm not surprised the population is high now. They may spray around the lake, but that only does so much good. At some point, they cannot spray enough to get them all, so enjoy it for however long it lasts! Yes, we have had both dogs and cats bitten by venomous snakes. Most survived. I am glad your dog did survive it. Only a couple of our pets were sick enough to require a trip to the vet. Cats are less likely to survive than large dogs. We have one cat, Shady, who was bitten by a copperhead about 12 or 13 years ago. He developed the copper-colored rash and the whole nine yards, and still has a scar where the rash appeared. Another cat, Ranger, was bitten in the face and partially paralyzed. We took her to the vet and ran up big bills to save her, and it was worth every nickle. Even after the vet finally took her off the IV and let her come home after about a week of his skilled intensive care, her eyes were paralyzed open for weeks, and he still wasn't sure if the paralysis would heal, though he thought it would. She slept by creeping into a dark corner of the closet and burying her head in the darkest spot she could find. She's fully back to normal now. Honestly, I did not expect her to survive. Our now-deceased cat, Spots, was bitten twice, several years apart. The vet was surprised she survived the first time and said a second venomous bite likely would kill her. It didn't. She died about a decade later of old-age related issues. Our Rottweiler-Terrier mix, Duke, who passed away last year at the age of 12, took a direct hit to the face from a timber rattler around 2008 and should not have survived that. Tim was at a wreck on the interstate and I sent him a frantic text message because it was a Sunday evening and I knew a vet wasn't a viable option. Duke started going into shock, so I sat on the ground and held him upright. Tim said if I let him go down on the ground, we'd likely lose him. As soon as Tim got home, he broke out the Benadryl tablets, crushed up a couple, dissolved them in water and forced them down Duke's throat with a syringe. By then, Duke was panting heavily and was glassy-eyed. Within maybe 30 minutes of receiving the Benadryl, the swelling in his face went down and he seemed fine, and I was finally able to let go of him after having held him upright (he weighed 110 lbs.) for about 90 minutes. Ever since then, we have kept a bottle of the Children's Benadryl in the medicine cabinet in case a dog needs it again. With Duke, the snake struck him on the side of his snout, near his nose, which is a fairly bony area, which may have saved Duke's life, as it may have kept some of the venom from making it into his bloodstream. People tend to have a very strong reaction to a bite from a timber rattler, so I didn't have high hopes when I saw that snake scurrying away from Duke and knew that was what had just bitten him. A lot of people think they'll just take the pet to the vet and he or she will give it antivenin and all will be well, which isn't really likely. Using antivenin is cost-prohibitive, and not even guaranteed to work. Sometimes, a reaction to it can be worse than the original snakebite, and you never know how someone, animal or human, will react to the antivenin. We have lost two cats to snakebites, both in our very early years here. Except for my garden and the chicken coop areas, we don't have as many snakes around the house as we used to, and we haven't had a cat or dog bitten by a snake now in several years. I hope our luck holds. In Duke's case, he was bitten near our front driveway gate. For several years after that, he would't walk near that gate. In fact, he'd make a big wide circle around if when he was on the leash and we were going for a walk. He had a very long memory of what happened to him there. In Duke's case, we had just returned from a walk and I took him off the leash to let him walk freely up the driveway. Apparently he stopped to pee on the gate, and the snake suddenly struck him. Neither he nor I saw the snake until it bit him. He didn't even like waterhoses after that, so I know he never forgot. When Spots was bitten the first time, we'd lived here only a few months and knew nothing about pets being snakebitten. We called our next door neighbor and he told us that his mother always saved snakebitten animals by feeding them a raw egg mixed with bacon grease. I tried that and Spots wouldn't eat it, so we took her to the vet, who basically said "either she'll make it or she won't" and explained about the use of antivenin, which he does not recommend. The second time we just called him and he said "either she'll make it or she won't". lol. These old country vets don't get as excited about snake bites as we humans do. Our current vet is a group practice which has a cat specialist on its staff and he is a miracle worker with snake bites. We really didn't think Ranger would make it, but he was willing to try to save her, so how could we say no to that? She's a very sweet cat and a perfect companion. We didn't see her get bitten so don't know how it happened, but all our cats seem to know to avoid snakes. I don't want to know how they learned that. Dawn