Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp 929–938 | Cite as

In vivo efficacy of a biotherapic and eugenol formulation against Rhipicephalus microplus

  • Paula Pimentel Valente
  • Gustavo Henrique Ferreira Abreu Moreira
  • Matheus Ferreira Serafini
  • Elias Jorge Facury-Filho
  • Antônio Último Carvalho
  • André Augusto Gomes Faraco
  • Rachel Oliveira Castilho
  • Múcio Flávio Barbosa RibeiroEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The control of Rhipicephalus microplus is essential to prevent cattle discomfort and economic losses. However, increased resistance and acaricides inefficiency lead producers to adopt strategies that could result in the accumulation of chemical residues in meat and milk with possibilities of poisoning in animals and people. This scenario demonstrates the necessity of research into the identification of novel, effective and environmentally safe therapeutic options for cattle tick control. The objectives of this study were to develop and assess the efficacy of R. microplus biotherapic and of 5% eugenol for the control of R. microplus in artificially infested calves. Eighteen male 6-month-old Holstein calves were divided into three groups of six animals. In Group 1, the animals did not receive medication (control group); in Group 2, the animals received 1 mL of R. microplus biotherapic at dilution 6CH (centesimal Hahnemannian), orally administered twice daily. And in Group 3, they received a single application of eugenol 5% in the pour-on formulation. The median efficacy for biotherapy and eugenol 5% was respectively 10.13 and 13.97%; however, upon analyzing reproductive efficiency, it is noteworthy that the biotherapic had 45.86% efficiency and was superior to the action of eugenol (12.03%) after 37 days of treatment. The ultrastructural study provided information about the effects of R. microplus biotherapic on the ovaries of engorged females and showed disorganization in the deposition of the oocyte exochorion. The results suggest hatchability inhibition of larvae, interference in R. microplus reproduction and future possibilities for eco-friendly control of R. microplus with biotherapic 6CH.

Keywords

Cattle tick Homeopathy Pour on Ultrastructure Eco-friendly control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs. Elizabeth Ribeiro and Roberta Carvalho Assunção for their assistance with the processing of transmission electron microscopy samples in the Center of Microscopy of UFMG.

We thank all persons who contributed directly or indirectly to this work.

We thank CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for providing aid through a scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

This project was authorized by the Ethics Committee on Animal Experimentation, CETEA-UFMG number 276/10.

References

  1. Almeida LAB (2004) Avaliação do tratamento alopático e homeopático de mastite bovina em animais inoculados com Staphylococcus aureus. Dissertação, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia da Universidade de São Paulo, 105 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral NK (1993) Guidelines for the evaluation of ixodidicides against the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini, 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae). Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 2:144–151Google Scholar
  3. Apel MA, Ribeiro VLS, Bordignon SAL, Henriques AT, Poser GV (2009) Chemical composition and toxicity of the essential oils from Cunila species (Lamiaceae) on the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Parasitol Res 105:863–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arenales MC (2000) Homeopatia em gado de corte. Anais II Seminário Brasileiro sobre homeopatia na agropecuária orgânica, Espírito Santo do Pinhal, São Paulo, p. 53–90Google Scholar
  5. Arenales MC (2002) Homeopatia em gado de corte. I Conferência Virtual Global sobre Produção Orgânica de Bovinos de Corte. http://www.cpap.embrapa.br/agencia/congressovirtual/02sumario.htm. Acessed 15 Apr 2011
  6. Bastide M, Doucet-Jaboeuf M, Daurat V (1985) Activity and chronopharmacology of very low doses of physiological immune inducers. Immunol Today 6:234–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere A, Ortolani R (2005) Immunology and homeopathy. 1. Historical background. Evid Based Compl Alt 2:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Conforti A (2006) Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models. Adv Access Publication 3:171–186Google Scholar
  9. Berchieri A Jr, Turco WCP, Paiva JB, Oliveira GH, Sterzo EV (2006) Evaluation of isopathic treatment of Salmonella enteritidis in poultry. Homeopathy 95:94–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Borges LMF, Ferri PH, Silva WJ, Silva WC, Silva JG (2003) In vitro efficacy of extracts of Melia azedarach against the tick Boophilus microplus. Med Vet Entomol 17:228–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Borges LMF, Sousa LAD, Barbosa CS (2011) Perspectives for the use of plants extracts to control the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 20:89–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown HA, Minott DA, Ingram CW, Williams LAD (1998) Biological activities of the extracts and constituents of pimento, Pimenta dioica L. against the southern cattle tick, Boophilus microplus. Insect Sci Appl 18:9–16Google Scholar
  13. Chagas ACS (2008) Metodologias in vitro para avaliação de fitoterápicos sobre parasitas e resultados de teste a campo. [CD-ROM]. Anais XV Congresso Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária, II Seminário de Parasitologia dos Países do Mercosul, Curitiba, Paraná, pp 13Google Scholar
  14. Chagas ACS, Passos WM, Prates HT, Leite RC, Furlong J, Fortes ICP (2002) Efeito acaricida de Eucalyptus em Boophilus microplus: óleos essenciais e concentrados emulsionáveis. Braz J Vet Res An Sci 39:247–253Google Scholar
  15. Chagas ACS, de Barros LD, Continguiba F, Furlan M, Giglioti R, Oliveira MCS, Bizzo HR (2012) In vitro efficacy of plant extracts and synthesized substances on Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol Res 110:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa-Júnior LM, Furlong J (2011) Efficiency of sulphur in garlic extract and non-sulphur homeopathy in the control of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Med Vet Entomol 25:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denardi SE, Bechara GH, de Oliveira PR, Mathias MIC (2011) Ultrastructural analysis of the oocytes of female Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille, 1806) (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks subjected to the action of Azadirachta indica A. Juss (Neem). Ultrastruct Pathol. doi: 10.3109/01913123.2011.588819 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Drummond RO, Ernst SE, Trevino JL, Gladney WJ, Grahan OH (1973) Boophilus annulatus and B. microplus: laboratory tests of inseticides. J Econ Entomol 1:130–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farmacopeia (2011) Farmacopeia Homeopática Brasileira. http://www.anvisa.gov.br/farmacopeiabrasileira/conteudo/3a_edicao.pdf. Accessed 7 Apr 2011
  20. Ferraz FN, Simoni GK, do Nascimento A, Melo CS, Aleixo DL, Gomes DL, Spack M, de Araújo SM (2011) Different forms of administration of biotherapy 7DH in mice experimentally infected by Trypanosoma cruzi produce different effects. Homeopathy 100:237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Furlong J (1993) Controle do carrapato dos bovinos na região Sudeste do Brasil. Caderno Técnico da Escola de Veterinária da UFMG, Belo Horizonte 8:49–61Google Scholar
  22. Furlong J, Martins JRS, Prata MCA (2007) O carrapato dos bovinos e a resistência: temos o que comemorar? Hora Vet 159:26–32Google Scholar
  23. Galun R (1975) Control de las plagas del ganado mediante reguladores del crecimiento del insecto. Anais Seminário sobre ectoparasitas: ecologia y control de los parasitos externos de importancia economica que afetan el ganado en America Latina, Cali, Colombia, 185–193Google Scholar
  24. Gazim ZC, Ferreira FBP, Silva AV, Bolognese KC, Merlin E, Messa V, Jesus RA, Coutinho CA, Silva LCM (2010) Efficiency of tick biotherapic on the control of infestation by Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in Dutch dairy cows. Int J High Dilution Res 9:156–164Google Scholar
  25. George JE, Pound JM, Davey RB (2004) Chemical control of ticks on cattle and the resistance of these parasites to acaricides. Parasitol 129:S353–S366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinton HE (1982) Biology of insects. In: Saito KC, Bechara GH, Nunes ET, Oliveira PR, Denardi SE, Camargo-Mathias MI (2005) Morphological, histological and ultrastructural studies of the ovary of the cattle-tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini, 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet Parasitol 129: 299–311Google Scholar
  27. Isman MB (2000) Plant essential oils for pest and disease management. Crop Protect 19:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonas WB (1999) Do homeopathic nosodes protect against infection? An experimental test. Altern Ther Health Med 5:36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonas WB, Dillner D (2000) Protection of mice from Tularemia infection with ultra-low, serial agitated dilutions prepared from Francisella tularensis-infected tissue. J Scient Explor 14:35–52Google Scholar
  30. Jonsson NN (2004) Integrated control programs for ticks on cattle: an examination of some possible components. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Australia. pp 51–58Google Scholar
  31. Kossak AR (2003) Homeopatia em 1000 conceitos, 2nd edn. Elcid, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  32. Leite RC, Labruna MB, Oliveira PR (1995) In vitro susceptibility of engorged females from different populations of Boophilus microplus to commercial acaricides. Ver Bras Parasitol Vet 4:283–294Google Scholar
  33. Lima AS, Souza Filho JGN, Pereira SG, Guillon GMSP, Santos LS, Costa Júnior LM (2014) Acaricide activity of different extracts from Piper tuberculatum fruits against Rhipicephalus microplus. Parasitol Res 113:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maia R, Brant PC (1980) Resíduos de pesticidas clorados em carne bovina. Arq Esc Vet Univ Fed Minas Gerais 32:271–276Google Scholar
  35. Mamede KP (2013) Estudo das propriedades biológicas de bioterápicos homeopáticos obtidos por diferente metodologias farmacotécnicas sobre Leishmania (Viannia) brasiliensis. Tese, Universidade Estadual de CampinasGoogle Scholar
  36. Marin Municipal Water District Vegetation Management Plan (2008) Herbicide risk assessment, http://www.marinwater.org/documents/Chap6_CloveOil_8_28_08.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2011
  37. Martinez-Velazquez M, Castilho-Herrera GA, Rosario-Cruz R, Flores-Fernandez JM, Lopez-Ramirez J, Hernandez-Gutierrez R, Lugo-Cervantes EC (2011) Acaricidal effect and chemical composition of essential oils extracted from Cuminum cyminum, Pimenta dioica and Ocimum basilicum against the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol Res 108:108–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitidiero AMA (2002) Potencial do uso de homeopatia, bioterápicos e fitoterapia como opção na bovinocultura leiteira: Avaliação dos aspectos sanitários e de produção. Dissertação, Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaGoogle Scholar
  39. Monteiro CM, Maturano R, Daemon E, Catunda-Junior FEA, Calmon F, Senra TS, Faza A, Carvalho MG (2012) Acaricidal activity of eugenol on Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) and Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae) larvae. Parasitol Res 111:1295–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mulla MS, Su T (1999) Activity and biological effects of neem products against arthropods of medical and veterinary importance. J Am Mosq Contr Assoc 15:133–152Google Scholar
  41. Nasi AMTT, Ribeiro RD, Lopes RA (1994) Ativação de macrófagos de camundongos com o emprego de Bioterápico. Pesqui Homeopática 9:3–4Google Scholar
  42. Nolan J (1990) Acaricide resistance in single and multi-host ticks and strategies for control. Parasitol 32:145–153Google Scholar
  43. Nolan J, Roulston WJ, Schnitzerling HJ (1979) The potential of some synthetic pyrethroids for control of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus. Aust Vet J 55:463–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliveira PR (1993) Controle estratégico do Boophilus microplus (Canestrini, 1887) em bovinos de propriedades rurais dos municípios de Lavras e Entre Rio de Minas, Dissertação de mestrado em Medicina Veterinária. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliveira TCG, Salcedo JHP, Massard CL (1986) Susceptibilidade de amostras de Boophilus microplus (Canestrini, 1887), do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, à carrapaticidas organofosforados. Arq Bras Med Vet Zoo 38:205–214Google Scholar
  46. Real CM (2008) Homeopatia populacional- Fundamentos para ruptura de um paradigma. Hora Vet 28:13–20Google Scholar
  47. Ribeiro RD, Lopes RA, Garcia TA, Rissato TA, Toldo AS, Alonso PR (1987) Estudo comparativo dos índices de cura de camundongos tratados com quimioterápicos e Trypanosominum TC D30. Pesqui Homeopática 3:45–49Google Scholar
  48. Ribeiro VLS, Avancini C, Gonçalves K, Toigo E, Von Poser GL (2008) Acaricidal activity of Calea serrata (Asteraceae) on Boophilus microplus and Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Vet Parasitol 151:351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Roulston WJ, Stone BF, Wilson JT, White LI (1968) Chemical control of an organophosphorus- and carbamate-resistant strain of Boophilus microplus (Can.) from Queensland. Bull Entomol Res 58:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saito KC, Bechara GH, Nunes ET, Oliveira PR, Denardi SE, Mathias MIC (2005) Morphological, histological and ultrastructural studies of the ovary of the cattle-tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini, 1887) (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet Parasitol 129:299–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Samish M, Alekseev EA, Glazer I (2000) Mortality rate of adult ticks due to infection by entomopathogenic nematodes. J Parasitol 86:679–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Searcy R, Reyes O, Guajardo G (1995) Control of subclinical bovine mastitis. Utilization of a homoeopathic combination. Br Homeopath J 84:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Silva NL, Moletta JL, Minho AP, Filippsen LF (2008) Use of biotherapic in the control of natural infestation by Boophilus microplus: pilot study. Int J High Dilution Res 7:36–38Google Scholar
  54. Singh NK, Jyoti VB, Singh H, Prerna M, Daundkar OS, Sharma SK, Dumka VK (2015) In vitro acaricidal activity of Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng (Rutaceae) extracts against synthetic pyrethroid-resistant Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Parasitol Res 114:1531–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tahori AS (1975) Acaricidas y resistencia de las garrapatas a los acaricidas. Anais Seminário sobre ectoparasitas: ecologia y control de los parasitos externos de importancia economica que afetan el ganado en America Latina, Cali, Colombia, 163–175Google Scholar
  56. Tarascou I, Souquet JM, Mazauric JP, Carrillo S, Coq S, Canon F, Fulcrand H, Cheynier V (2010) The hidden face of food phenolic composition. Arch Biochem Biophys 501:16–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor MA (2001) Recent developments in ectoparasiticides. Vet J 161:253–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Valente PP, Amorim JM, Castilho RO, Leite RC, Ribeiro MFB (2014) In vitro acaricidal efficacy of plant extracts from Brazilian flora and isolated substances against Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol Res 113:417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Veríssimo CJ (1988) Utilização de nosódio Carrapatinum em bovinos sensíveis ao carrapato Boophilus microplus (CANESTRINI). Pesqui Homeopática 5:21–24Google Scholar
  60. Veríssimo CJ, Lara MAC, Arcaro JRP, Deodato AP, Bechara GH (2004) Associação entre marcadores protéicos e grau de infestação pelo carrapato Boophilus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) Canestrini, 1887, em bovinos, http://www.abz.org.br/index.php?category=28&pg=309. Accessed 5 Oct 2012
  61. Villares JB (1941) Climatologia zootécnica III Contribuição ao estudo da resistência e susceptibilidade genética dos bovinos ao Boophilus microplus. Bol Ind Anim 4:60–86Google Scholar
  62. Wagner H, Bladt S, Zgainski EM (1984) Plant drug analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wall R, Strong L (1987) Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin. Nature 327:418–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiggleswort VB (1984) Reproduction. In: Insect Physiology. Chapman and Hall. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilkinson PR (1955) Observations on infestations of undipped cattle of British breeds with the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Aust J Agric Res 6:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zeringóta V, Senra TOS, Calmon F, Mathurano R, Faza AP, Catunda-Junior FEA, Monteiro CMO, de Carvalho MG, Daemon E (2013) Repellent activity of eugenol on larvae of Rhipicephalus microplus and Dermacentor nitens (Acari: Ixodidae). Parasitol Res 112:2675–2679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Pimentel Valente
    • 1
  • Gustavo Henrique Ferreira Abreu Moreira
    • 2
  • Matheus Ferreira Serafini
    • 2
  • Elias Jorge Facury-Filho
    • 2
  • Antônio Último Carvalho
    • 2
  • André Augusto Gomes Faraco
    • 3
  • Rachel Oliveira Castilho
    • 3
  • Múcio Flávio Barbosa Ribeiro
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento de ZootecniaUniversidade Estadual de São Paulo, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e VeterináriasJaboticabalBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Clínica Veterinária, Escola de VeterináriaUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Fitoquímica, Faculdade de FarmáciaUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  4. 4.Departamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations