Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS, VETINDEX | ID: biblio-1487612

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Fipronil was registered in Uruguay in 1997, and, since then, it has been used for the control of Haematobia irritans irritans and Rhipicephalus microplus. The susceptibility of H. irritants to this drug has not been evaluated. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to evaluate the resistance of H. irritans to fipronil. Additionally, a survey was carried out with the farmers to evaluate the use of fipronil for H. irritans control in the ranches where the flies came from. For the bioassays, 31 field populations of H. irritans were exposed to 10 concentrations of fipronil (3.2-16.0g.cm2), and their LC50 values were calculated using probit analysis. A bioassay was performed with horn flies from the susceptible colony maintained at the USDA-ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory for comparison and calculation of resistance ratios (RRs). All 31 field populations surveyed in the study were susceptible to fipronil, with resistance ratios ranging from 0.5 to 2.2. Four populations with RRs >1 did not differ significantly from the susceptible strain. A single population showed an RR >2.2. Overall, the survey shows that fipronil was mostly used for R. microplus control, and in only three ranches, which were free of R. microplus, was fipronil used for horn fly control. Seventeen farmers did not use fipronil at all in the last three years. It is concluded that, in Uruguay, field populations of horn flies remain susceptible to fipronil.


RESUMO: O fipronil foi registrado no Uruguai em 1997 e, desde então, tem sido utilizado no controle de Haematobia irritans irritans e Rhipicephalus microplus. O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar a susceptibilidade de populações de campo de H. irritans ao fipronil. Além disso, foi realizada uma pesquisa para avaliar a utilização de fipronil e as práticas de controle de H. irritans nas fazendas de onde provinham as moscas. Para os bioensaios, 31 populações de campo de H. irritans foram expostas a 10 concentrações de fipronil (3,2-16,0g.cm2), e seus valores de CL50 foram calculados usando análise probit. Um bioensaio foi realizado com H. irritans da colônia suscetível mantida no USDA-ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory para comparação e cálculo das razões de resistência (RRs). Todas as 31 populações de campo pesquisadas no estudo eram suscetíveis ao fipronil, com taxas de resistência variando de 0,5 à 2,2. Quatro populações com Rrs >1 não diferiram significativamente da cepa suscetível. Uma única população apresentou RR >2,2. No geral, o fipronil tinha sido usado principalmente para o controle de R. microplus, e em apenas três fazendas, que estavam livres de R. microplus, o fipronil era utilizado para o controle da H. irritans. Em 17 fazendas não tinha sido utilizado fipronil nos últimos três anos. Conclui-se que no Uruguai as populações de H. irritans no campo permanecem suscetíveis ao fipronil.

2.
Pesqui. vet. bras ; 41: e06821, 2021. tab
Article in English | LILACS, VETINDEX | ID: biblio-1250485

ABSTRACT

Fipronil was registered in Uruguay in 1997, and, since then, it has been used for the control of Haematobia irritans irritans and Rhipicephalus microplus. The susceptibility of H. irritants to this drug has not been evaluated. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to evaluate the resistance of H. irritans to fipronil. Additionally, a survey was carried out with the farmers to evaluate the use of fipronil for H. irritans control in the ranches where the flies came from. For the bioassays, 31 field populations of H. irritans were exposed to 10 concentrations of fipronil (3.2-16.0μg.cm2), and their LC50 values were calculated using probit analysis. A bioassay was performed with horn flies from the susceptible colony maintained at the USDA-ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory for comparison and calculation of resistance ratios (RRs). All 31 field populations surveyed in the study were susceptible to fipronil, with resistance ratios ranging from <0.5 to 2.2. Four populations with RRs >1 did not differ significantly from the susceptible strain. A single population showed an RR >2.2. Overall, the survey shows that fipronil was mostly used for R. microplus control, and in only three ranches, which were free of R. microplus, was fipronil used for horn fly control. Seventeen farmers did not use fipronil at all in the last three years. It is concluded that, in Uruguay, field populations of horn flies remain susceptible to fipronil.(AU)


O fipronil foi registrado no Uruguai em 1997 e, desde então, tem sido utilizado no controle de Haematobia irritans irritans e Rhipicephalus microplus. O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar a susceptibilidade de populações de campo de H. irritans ao fipronil. Além disso, foi realizada uma pesquisa para avaliar a utilização de fipronil e as práticas de controle de H. irritans nas fazendas de onde provinham as moscas. Para os bioensaios, 31 populações de campo de H. irritans foram expostas a 10 concentrações de fipronil (3,2-16,0μg.cm2), e seus valores de CL50 foram calculados usando análise probit. Um bioensaio foi realizado com H. irritans da colônia suscetível mantida no USDA-ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory para comparação e cálculo das razões de resistência (RRs). Todas as 31 populações de campo pesquisadas no estudo eram suscetíveis ao fipronil, com taxas de resistência variando de <0,5 à 2,2. Quatro populações com Rrs >1 não diferiram significativamente da cepa suscetível. Uma única população apresentou RR >2,2. No geral, o fipronil tinha sido usado principalmente para o controle de R. microplus, e em apenas três fazendas, que estavam livres de R. microplus, o fipronil era utilizado para o controle da H. irritans. Em 17 fazendas não tinha sido utilizado fipronil nos últimos três anos. Conclui-se que no Uruguai as populações de H. irritans no campo permanecem suscetíveis ao fipronil.(AU)


Subject(s)
Animals , Cattle , Biological Assay , Pest Control, Biological , Rhipicephalus/pathogenicity , Diptera , Livestock , Surveys and Questionnaires , Disease Susceptibility , Laboratories
3.
Article in English | IMSEAR | ID: sea-174901

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cadaveric dissection is routinely practiced for teaching anatomy for medical students. Anatomy is one of the most important subjects offered during the first year MBBS course. Dissection is very important in learning anatomy, so the first year students will encounter, most likely for the first time, a dead human body. This experience, even though emotionally stressful, provides essential knowledge and skills for their future studies. Methods: A total of 150 newly admitted first-year medical students emotional and physical reactions to cadaveric dissection were assessed by using a questionnaire. The questionnaires were given just before, after a week and 2 months after the initiation of dissection classes. Results: Most of the students experienced negative physical symptoms, such as eye irritation (63.33%), headache (10%), decrease in appetite (12%), nausea (3.3%), sweating (35.33%) giddiness (2.66%), shivering (4.66%) and desire to leave dissection hall (9.33%) in the first encounter with a cadaver in the dissection hall. They also experienced adverse emotional responses such as fear (61.33%), depression (14.66%). However, most of these reactions decreased significantly 2 months later, except for eye irritation and their interest has increased on subsequent visit to dissection classes. A majority (95.5%) considered the cadaver dissection to be the most helpful tool in learning anatomy and it increased their skills. Conclusion: The initial encounters with a cadaver caused emotional and physical stress to students, but most students adapted gradually to the stressful learning environment. The amount of stress can be greatly reduced if they are properly counselled before the dissection classes. Majority of students preferred dissection as the most useful tool to learn anatomy than any other method.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL