|
According to United
Nation's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), the world loses 7.3 dollars (approximately 26,000 shillings) per animal per year fighting ticks.
A research study conducted in Uganda's Mburo National Park community led by a
Makerere University Dr. Ocaido, the effect of ticks on animal production in
Uganda is enormous. In the analysis of their research data, it was
revealed that of the total disease control costs, the pastoralists and
ranches in the area were spending 85% and 73% respectively to control ticks and tick-borne diseases. This result might not be so surprising with the
prevailing fact that in Uganda, in every 10 cattle you find grazing, at least
8 of them are under severe attack from ticks -a condition scientists term as
'tick infestation.' In the most recent national survey conducted by
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), Uganda has 11.4 million head of cattle and when you apply your simple mathematics multiplying the total head of cattle (11,400,000) with the yearly loss per animal (26,000) the result
should be 299,592,000,000 and this is approximately 300 billion Uganda
shillings lost annually battling with ticks. The major threat however is
that this loss may double in the next few years as researchers confirm
rises in tick resistance to available control chemicals even as veterinary drugs simultaneously become ineffective in managing tick-borne diseases
across the nation.
The untold battle
with ticks in Uganda had definitely lasted thousands of years and it is only
growing worse. Animal health practitioners feel weary and exhausted
scratching everywhere for solutions to the animal industry's toughest terrorists
-ticks but with little success to boast. It is important to appreciate that
farmers and investors have already lost much in their animal production
related investments owing to raging ticks and tick-borne diseases.
Battle with ticks is
a great concern globally. The crave to understand it deeply overwhelmed me. There was no better person to unveil this reality than a local animal farmer. And on 15th March 2019, I decided to pay a strategic visit to
Patrick Okello. Patrick is an elderly farmer with 10 heads of cattle, 8 females and 2 males. His farm is some 20 km away from Lira town. Patrick
has supplied milk to urban dwellers for the last 30 years. He has Ankole
breed of cattle -well managed and healthy cattle kept in free range.
Asking Patrick on whether he had ever had to battle with ticks on his cattle, how he can rate the financial loss and general heartache associated with ticks management, Patrick had these revelations: "There are a number of diseases that keep disturbing these animals. The diseases get more severe if I don't spray to kill ticks on their skin." Patrick continues to narrate that last year 2018 he lost one cow to disease that the veterinary doctor told him is tick-borne. Patrick had delayed for six (6) months minus spraying against ticks. "The problem is that if you start spraying periodically and you skip, the effect of ticks can be overwhelming and death of animal can occur like that one of last year. Sometimes I wish I don't spray my animals like my other friends but I also fear the milk production of my cows will drop so much and the calves would grow so slowly and poorly," Patrick talks as if cursing and applauding the tick control chemicals at ago. Then on the issue of costs associated with managing ticks, Patrick revealed that each year he spends at least 60,000 to buy tick control chemicals and meet associated costs like transport. The farmer continued that he spends 150,000 to pay a local veterinary doctor who comes thrice a year to treat his animals. Patrick also unveiled to me that sometimes the tick control chemicals -acaricides he buys turn out to be ineffective and that he would have to buy another acaricide. In a nutshell, Patrick loses 210,000 shillings yearly in battle with ticks on his 10 cattle implying he loses 21,000 shillings per cattle per year battling with ticks. In situation where the acaricides do not work, Patrick would spend close to 25,000 shillings per cattle per year. All in all, the reality on ground 80% agrees with FAO's analysis. But when you factor in losses associated with reduced milk volume, lower price at selling point for the animal due to weight issues, death of animal due to tick-borne disease among others, the losses are massive.
Ticks are small
wingless blood-sucking insects. They are seen when in different sizes, one can encounter a tick as small as a pinhead when unfed or around 10 millimeter (size of
maize seed) after sucking blood. There are different species of ticks all
presenting with beautiful shades of colours. The colours can range from brown
through gray to black or a mix of all the above or more colours.
Ticks attack animals
like cattle, pigs and poultry. However, their attack on cattle is the most
renowned and economically significant one. The attacks on cattle have direct
and indirect effects. Parasitic diseases like babesiosis, theileriosis and anaplasmosis are transmitted by ticks to cattle and very rampant in Uganda. These diseases directly lower the market value and reduce productivity of the cattle. The common manifestations of these diseases on cattle include:
fever, anaemia, decreased appetite, reduction in milk production, lower
endurance of oxen when ploughing, general weakness, lower weight gain,
abortion, lower pregnancy rate and death in cattle.
Fast development of
resistance of ticks to control chemicals -acaricides is greatly worrying
scientists in Uganda as farmers and investors face a sharp rise in production
costs. Most veterinary input shops and practitioners still continue to stock
and recommend some of the tick control chemicals farmers consider as 'not
working.' Makererere University RTC Laboratory based in College of
Veterinary Medicine responded to the cry of local farmers. A special research
study which result would justify or nullify the claim about 'acaricide
ineffectiveness' by local farmers was designed by a team of five (5)
experienced researchers. The outcome of this research would be very
enlightening. The special laboratory investigation at RTC Laboratory revealed
that up to 90% -9 in every 10 tick population showed resistance to synthetic pyrethroid
acaricides.
Synthetic pyrethroid chemical is the most recommended type given it is
considered the safest to the environment and human health. Unfortunately, the
farmers have been lamenting about its ineffectiveness and this high profile
research study offered concrete scientific backing to the farmers' claim. According to lead researcher in this research project - Dr. Vudriko, ticks were sampled from 17
districts in Uganda in 54 farms. The researchers used 'Larval packet test
method' to screen 31 tick populations from 30 farms for ability of the
locally available tick control chemicals to kill them. These scientists at
Makerere University used the following classes of tick control chemicals;
amidine, synthetic pyrethroid (SP), organophosphate (OP) and mixture OP-SP (COF). The researchers then proceeded to assess 'resistance' based on World
Health Organization criteria for screening insecticide resistance. Vudriko confirms that even upon
doubling the doses of the synthetic pyrethroid, 6 in 10 ticks still showed
resistance to the chemical. Close to half -43% of ticks were also resistant to mixture of tick control chemicals that the researchers termed co-formulations, chlorfenvinphos and amitraz registered 13% resistance from ticks. Amitraz is has been one of the best
tick control chemical but the incidence of tick resistance to it has started
emerging.
The RTC study was
the first to report emergence of high level of resistance of ticks to
synthetic pyerthroid and resistance to wide range of chemicals in what the
scientists termed as 'super SP resistant and multi-acaricide resistant
Rhipicephalus ticks in Uganda.'
Most importantly,
the researchers are worried that in the absence of technical interventions,
farmer-led solutions aimed at troubleshooting for efficacy of multitude of
tick control chemicals at their disposal are expected to potentially cause
negative collateral effects on future chemical tick control options, animal
welfare and public health.
Finally, unlike
human drugs that are present in different types, there are very few panels of
chemicals for managing ticks. The most intriguing bit is that ticks are so
far significantly resistant to 60% of these chemicals. Unless the government
of Uganda is planning to invent a novel tick control chemical, non-regualted
usage of acaricides will mean in the next few years, ticks will become
resistant to all available chemical types and the country will have no option
but to down-size on the animal production industry as animal farming can't
last any long without robust tick control strategy involving use of tick control
chemicals.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to give a comment below. |
No comments:
Post a Comment