Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals

Details Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals

2000-11-27

2003-02-04

Swiatek, Robert P. (Department: 3643)

Animal husbandry

Antivermin treating or cleaning

Process

C119S652000

Reexamination Certificate

active

06513458

ABSTRACT:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides highly effective materials and methods for applying treatments to animals. In a specific embodiment, the invention relates to controlling populations of internal and external pests that attack livestock, deer, and other domestic and wild animals.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Treating livestock and game animals to control ticks, biting flies, and similar haematophagous or noxious arthropods or other parasitic pests is essential to prevent major economic losses. Typically, these parasites pierce the skin of animals, causing damage to the hides, blood loss, and irritation, as well as transmission of deadly infectious diseases. These factors contribute to the enormous economic losses sustained by the livestock industry. Losses in livestock production (cattle, sheep, swine, and poultry) in the U.S. due to arthropod pests have been estimated at more than $3 billion. This figure does not include the cost of pest control or losses to the equine industry (Drummond, R. O., J. E. George, S. E. Kunz [1988
] Control of Arthropod Press of Livestock: a Review of Technology
, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla., 245 pp.). Although precise figures for most countries are lacking, estimates of world-wide economic losses due to ticks and tick-borne diseases alone are in the billions of dollars.
Bovine parasitism is the source of some of the most severe economic losses encountered by cattle producers in the United States. Cattle are infected by internal and external parasites that range from brown stomach worm (the most common) to lungworm, mites, ticks, and lice.
Ticks affect approximately 800 million cattle and a similar number of sheep throughout the world (Sutherst, R. W., R. J. Jones, H. J. Schnitzerling [1982
] Nature
(London) 295:320-322). McCosker (McCosker, P. J. [1979] “Global aspects of the management and control of ticks of veterinary importance,” In
Recent Adv. Acarology
, Rodriguez, J. D. (ed.), 2:45-53) estimated the world-wide impact of tick-borne diseases of cattle at approximately $7 billion. In addition to transmission of diseases, ticks cause severe damage due to failure of cattle to achieve expected weight gains and damage to hides to be used for leather. According to Norval (Norval, R. A. I. [1990
] Parasitologia
32:155-163), weight losses in cattle are estimated at 4.4 grams per
Rhipicephalus appendiculatus
female and 10 grams per
Amblyomma hebraeum female
. Estimates of losses in wildlife are unavailable; however, tick infestations of white-tailed deer (
Odocoileus virginianus
) in some areas are so severe that they have been reported to kill fawns (Drummond et al., supra).
Internal parasites are also a major economic and health problem. Nearly all vertebrates and many invertebrates are affected by internal parasites, for example, the Platyhelminthes and filarial worms.
Treatment or prevention of internal parasite, insect, and tick infestations in animals, especially animals in the wild, is a formidable task. Thus, it is not surprising that no single, universally accepted method is available for this purpose. Common practices for delivering a pesticide, e.g., an insecticide or an acaricide, to livestock include (1) direct, whole-body treatment, where the animal's body is drenched with pesticide-containing liquids; (2) systemics, where the pesticide is allowed to circulate in the host's blood; and (3) controlled-release systems, which are usually physically attached to the animal and which release pesticide continuously over a period of weeks or months.
There are disadvantageous features to all of these previously described methods. Whole body treatments involve substantial waste. In addition, for dipping or spraying, the animals must be herded and driven to, or through, the treatment area. Such procedures are both labor-intensive and stressful to the livestock. Moreover, due to the high potential for spillage, these operations pose significant environmental hazards for the surrounding area as well as health hazards for workers.
Systemics are generally not acceptable, especially for food animals, because of the toxic residues that can concentrate and remain in animal tissues for extended periods. Controlled-release devices, e.g., ear tags, risk infection or skin irritation when these devices are attached to the animal's body. None of these procedures are suitable for use with wildlife such as deer or other large herbivores.
Common methods of administering anthelmintics include injection and oral administration. The disadvantage of injectable formulations of anthelmintics include unwanted side effects and injection site blemishes that can reduce meat's marketability. Oral formulations are, at best, impractical in the case of large herds of domestic animals and unfeasible in the case of wild animals such as deer.
An alternative to the methods described above is self-medication. In self-medication methods, an animal which is attracted to a device that offers a bait, e.g, food, materials for nest construction, etc., is sprayed or coated with pesticide-containing composition when the animal either contacts the device or in some way triggers the device to release the pesticide. Such methods offer an advantage over the previously described methods by minimizing the amounts of pesticide dispersed to the host and, consequently, into the environment.
One well-known example of a self-medicating device is the Duncan Applicator (ARIPO Patent No. AP/88/00079), which has been used to treat livestock and wild ungulates in Africa. The Duncan Applicator consists of a container placed on top of a tall, threaded rod which is placed in a bin containing feed. The overhead container releases an oily liquid pesticide mixture which slowly flows down the rod. When the animals place their heads in the bin to eat the feed, they touch the rod and receive a small amount of pesticide. The Duncan Applicator, due to its design, has limited utility for treating livestock and most wildlife. A principal disadvantage of the Duncan Applicator device is that the container at the top of the threaded rod is small and is exhausted in a short period of time, usually requiring the device to be recharged every day. Such high incidence of maintenance makes the Duncan Applicator difficult to use in areas which may be inconvenient to reach or inaccessible under inclement weather conditions. Further, daily recharging of the Duncan Applicator incurs a high labor cost, making the cost of using the device unattractive. Substituting a larger capacity container on the Duncan Applicator would not provide a complete remedy to the disadvantage of high maintenance. A larger capacity container would increase the tendency for the Duncan Applicator to tip over. If the device is tipped over, the result is a spill of the pesticide on the ground contaminating the environment. The Duncan Applicator poses an environmental threat since the pesticide is not contained and may easily be spilled if the Applicator is knocked over. Two scientific articles have been published relating to this Applicator (Duncan, I. M. (1992) “Tick control on cattle with flumethrin pour-on through a Duncan applicator,” J.S.
Afr. Vet. Assoc.
63:125-127 and Duncan, I. M., N. Monks (1992) “Tick control on eland (
Taurotragus oryx
) and buffalo (
Syncerus caffer
) with flumethrin 1% pour-on through a Duncan applicator,”
J.S Afr. Vet. Assoc
. 63:7-10).
Other variations of self-medicating devices have also been described. U.S. Pat. No. 3,870,023 describes an insecticide applicator for livestock which utilizes a wind-powered spray device. This clearly is distinguished from the subject invention, which does not use a spraying device to apply insecticide. Nor does the subject invention rely on wind power to dispense insecticide.
Other combination feeder/applicators include the inventions described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,137,274, 3,187,772, 3,941,096, 4,023,533, and 4,459,942. Each of these patents discloses a feeder to attract livestock and a means for dispe

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Materials and methods for applying a treatment to animals will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3150244