Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:48:31.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metabolic changes in cattle due to the specific effect of the tick, Boophilus microplus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. C. O'kelly  and
P. M. Kennedy
J. C. O'kelly
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Production, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, PO Box 542, Rockhampton, Queensland 4700, Australia
P. M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Production, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, PO Box 542, Rockhampton, Queensland 4700, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. An experiment was designed to provide information on the alterations in body metabolism which would account for the loss of body-weight in cattle due to the specific effect (factors other than reduced food intake) of the tick Boophilus microplus.

2. Two groups of British (Shorthorn × Hereford) and Africander × British calves, each approximately 6 months old, were used: one group (treated) of each breed was tick-infested and the other (control) was tick-free. Within breeds, calves in the control group were pair-fed to calves in the treated group.

3. In both breeds, the effect of ticks: (a) depressed packed cell volume, serum alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1) and amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) activities, plasma cholesterol and phospholipid levels, serum iron and albumin levels. (b) increased the plasma levels of urea-nitrogen and γ-globulin (c) increased rectal temperature, water intake, urine volume, urinary and faecal total N, urinary urea-N and α-amino acids, the excretion of water, sodium and potassium in the faeces and (d) reduced N balance, N and dry-matter digestibilities.

4. In the British breed, ticks increased the excretion of K with a corresponding decrease in the excretion of Na in the urine and inreased the plasma clearance of bromsulphthalein.

5. A second experiment showed that the specific effect of tick infestation increased the flow of organic matter (OM) from the abomasum and the fractional turnover of rumen fluid of Hereford steers. It was also shown that the decrease in OM digestibility in the gastrointestinal tract was largely due to a decrease in OM digestibility in the rumen and that the increased urinary urea excretion and plasma urea concentration was caused by higher production rates of urea despite a tendency for lowered urea degradation in the gastroinestinal tract.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , May 1981 , pp. 557 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Bawden, R. J. (1969). Aust. J. agric. Res. 20, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wood, W. A. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wood, W. A. (1953). Vet. Rec. 65, 889.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N. Z. J. Sci. Technol. 35A, 328.Google Scholar
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metubolism in the Ruminant, p. 277 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Henry, R. J. & Chiamori, N. (1960). Clin. Chem. 6, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, S. E. & McCosker, P. J. (1967). Clinica chim. Acta 18, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingelfinger, F. J., Bradley, S. E., Mendeloff, A. I. & Kramer, P. (1948). Gastroenterology 11, 646.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megarrity, R. G. & Siebert, B. D. (1977). Analyst, Lond. 102, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, A. T. & Dickerson, H. C. (1965). Clinica chim. Acta. 12, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Kelly, J. C. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 211.Google Scholar
O'Kelly, J. C., Seebeck, R. M. & Springell, P. H. (1971). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 24, 381.Google Scholar
O'Kelly, J. C. & Spiers, W. G. (1976). J. Parasitol. 62, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkins, J. J., Holmes, P. H. & Bremner, K. C. (1973). Res. vet. Sci. 14, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roseby, F. B. (1973). Aust. J. agric. Res. 24, 947.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1969) Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 54, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M., Springell, P. H. & O'Kelly, J. C. (1971). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 24, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springell, P. H., O'Kelly, J. C. & Seebeck, R. M. (1971). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 24, 1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotop. 22, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon Instruments Corp. (1963). Technicon Method Sheets, nos. N-1A, N-11A. Tarry Town, New York: Technicon Instruments Corp.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. & O'Kelly, J. C. (1972). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 9, 356.Google Scholar
Wells, M. G. (1969). Clinica chim. Acta. 25, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, G., Hoch, J. & Combes, B. (1969). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 132, 704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar