Comparative costs, chemical treatments and flystrike rates in mulesed and unmulesed sheep flocks as predicted by a weather-driven model
Peri Lucas A and Brian Horton A BA Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, PO Box 46, Kings Meadows, Tas. 7249, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: brian.horton@utas.edu.au
Animal Production Science 53(4) 342-351 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12246
Submitted: 19 July 2012 Accepted: 3 October 2012 Published: 23 January 2013
Abstract
A computer model for flystrike risk was used to predict the expected costs, pesticide used and number of sheep struck, according to time of shearing and crutching, for the regions Flinders Island, Gunning and Inverell. A comparison was carried out between mulesed and unmulesed sheep and the program optimised the preventive chemical treatments required to minimise overall costs associated with flystrike and flock treatments. This study examined cost differences between mulesed and unmulesed hoggets and ewes where the only change in management was in the method and timing of pesticide treatment.
The model indicated that unmulesed sheep would require more frequent treatment with longer lasting pesticides. Costs associated with flystrike were estimated to increase by $220 per thousand sheep per year (ewes) or $349 (hoggets) for Flinders Island, $445 or $512 (Gunning) and $363 or $844 (Inverell). For unmulesed sheep the model indicated that dicyclanil might be required rather than cyromazine to provide acceptable flystrike control at a lower cost. Despite this increase in preventive treatment for unmulesed sheep, the predicted number of struck sheep was higher for Gunning and Inverell, but not for Flinders Island, where the model did not always require routine preventive treatment for mulesed sheep. In regions with a flystrike problem, avoiding any increase in strike after ceasing to mules was estimated to double the cost of preventive measures for most shearing dates.
The date of shearing had a significant effect on total costs related to flystrike and in some cases shearing during the fly season increased costs and increased strike by interfering with the most efficient use of preventive treatment.
Crutching reduced costs in some cases, but in other situations the timing of crutching interfered with the optimum timing of chemical treatment and the model sometimes predicted worse outcomes than with no crutching. The timing of shearing, crutching and treatment must be carefully managed if both costs and the number of struck sheep are to be minimised. Control of flystrike was found to be most efficient when there was a single period of high risk of strike or two equal periods of strike risk, rather than one short and one long period.
References
APVMA (2006) ‘The reconsideration of approvals of selected sheep ectoparasiticide products and their associated labels: preliminary review findings.’ (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority: Canberra) Available at http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/docs/sheep_ectoparsiticide_prelim_report_vol_1.pdf [Verified 24 October 2012]Bowen FL, Fisara P, Junquera P, Keevers DT, Mahoney RH, Schmid HR (1999) Long-lasting prevention against blowfly strike using the insect growth regulator dicyclanil. Australian Veterinary Journal 77, 454–460.
| Long-lasting prevention against blowfly strike using the insect growth regulator dicyclanil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXntFeitbw%3D&md5=daf12cc5ce3acebc169abdc9c1af9d38CAS |
Foulds RA (1988) Dark fibre contamination in wool – its prediction and ramifications. In ‘Proceedings seminar on technical feasibility of the sale of wool by description, July 1988’. (Ed. HWM Lunney) pp. 127–139. (CSIRO Division of Wool Technology: Sydney)
Greeff J, Karlsson J (2009) Incorporating breech strike resistance into your ram selection program: how to use the data effectively, what genetic progress you can expect to make. In ‘Sheep updates 2009. Perth, WA’. (Ed. S White) (Department of Agriculture and Food)
Horton B, Hogan L (2010) FlyBoss: a web-based flystrike information and decision support system. Animal Production Science 50, 1069–1076.
| FlyBoss: a web-based flystrike information and decision support system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Horton B, Little A (2009) Practical outputs of the Australian flystrike model. In ‘World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology. Calgary, Canada’.
Horton B, Pirlot K, Hosking B (2009) Use of a flystrike model in Australia to optimise the timing and effectiveness of preventive treatment. In ‘ASP & ARC/NHRMC Research Network for Parasitology’. (Eds P Holdsworth, N Smith) pp. 45–46. (The Australian Society for Parasitology: Sydney)
Horton B, Iles L (2007) Dag scores and mean crutching period for mulesed and unmulesed weaners. International Journal of Sheep and Wool Science 55, 48–64.
Horton JD, Champion S (2001a) Wool producer knowledge of flystrike control. In ‘FLICS conference. Launceston, Tasmania’. (Ed. S Champion) pp. 433–442. (Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research: Launceston, Tasmania)
Horton JD, Champion S (2001b) Wool producer perceptions of their flystrike problem. In ‘FLICS conference. Launceston, Tasmania’. (Ed. S Champion) pp. 428–432. (Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research: Launceston, Tasmania)
James PJ (2006) Genetic alternatives to mulesing and tail docking in sheep: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1–18.
| Genetic alternatives to mulesing and tail docking in sheep: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Joint Blowfly Committee (1940) ‘The sheep blowfly problem in Australia.’ (CSIR: Melbourne)
Larsen JWA, Tyrell LD, Anderson N (2012) Prevalence of breech-strike in mulesed, clipped and unmulesed Merino hoggets in south-eastern Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 90, 158–166.
| Prevalence of breech-strike in mulesed, clipped and unmulesed Merino hoggets in south-eastern Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38rlslCiug%3D%3D&md5=63ffac6febaa585170099533540c3f59CAS |
Morley FHW, Johnstone IL (1983) Mules operation – a review of development and adoption. In ‘Sheep blowfly and flystrike in sheep. Proceedings of the second national symposium. University of New South Wales’. (Ed. HW Raadsma) pp. 3–24. (Department of Agriculture New South Wales: Sydney)
Phillips CJC (2009) A review of mulesing and other methods to control flystrike (cutaneous myiasis) in sheep. Animal Welfare 18, 113–121.
Raadsma HW (1987) Flystrike control: an overview of management and breeding options. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 35, 174–185.
Sackett D, Holmes P, Abbott K, Jephcott S, Barber M (2006) Assessing the economic cost of endemic disease on the profitability of Australian beef cattle and sheep producers. MLA Report AHW.087. Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney.
Shaw T (1997) Wool as a ‘clean, green’ fibre; the implications of pesticide residues in wool – a challenge for regulatory authorities, drug companies, wool processors, veterinarians and farmers. In ‘4th international congress for sheep veterinarians. Armidale’. (Ed. MB Allworth) pp. 98–105. (University of New England: Armidale, NSW)
Wall R, Cruickshank I, Smith KE, French NP, Holme AS (2002) Development and validation of a simulation model for blowfly strike of sheep. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 16, 335–346.
| Development and validation of a simulation model for blowfly strike of sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s%2FgsVyltg%3D%3D&md5=db90fb0b72e3aea7c07223028861d213CAS |
Wardhaugh KG, Vogt WG, Dallwitz R, Woodburn TL (1989) The incidence of flystrike in relation to sheep susceptibility and the abundance of the blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). General and Applied Entomology 21, 11–16.
Wardhaugh KG, Morton R, Bedo D, Horton BJ (2007) Estimating the incidence of fly myiases in Australian sheep flocks: development of a weather-driven regression model. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 21, 153–167.
| Estimating the incidence of fly myiases in Australian sheep flocks: development of a weather-driven regression model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2szjvVamuw%3D%3D&md5=3d32d367c9b7ac2d58d9afec4fa39d44CAS |
