Abstract
Author information
- 1
- School of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.
The brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) is prevalent on canids in Trinidad. It is directly (by causing anaemia) and indirectly (by acting as a vector of tick‐borne pathogens) responsible for morbidity and mortalities in the canine population. The most commonly used commercial acaricides available to pet owners in Trinidad are amitraz and fipronil. Often, these acaricides may be abused and misused in a desperate attempt to rid pets of ticks. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of amitraz and fipronil with the herbal alternative, neem (Azadirachta indica). Triplicate in vitro trials utilizing the Larval Packet Test (LPT) were conducted using three concentrations (low, recommended and high) of fipronil (0.025%, 0.05% and 0.1%), amitraz (0.01%, 0.02% and 1%), neem oil (10%, 20% and 40%) and neem leaf extract (0.25%, 0.5% and 2%) for each trial. Statistical analysis using the mixed‐effect Poisson regression analysis indicated that there was a significant difference (p < .05) in the survival of ticks pre‐treatment versus post‐treatment with amitraz, fipronil and all controls when compared to the neem oil. Fipronil and amitraz caused ≥99% mortality for all concentrations used in this study. Mortalities for neem oil and neem leaf extract ranged from 72.7% to 82% and 38% to 95.3%, respectively, with the greatest percentage of mortalities occurring at the lower concentrations. Neem oil and neem leaf extract can be used as alternative acaricides, and however, they are less efficacious against the brown dog tick than amitraz and fipronil.
