NATIONAL TICK SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 



Calendar Year 1976 



During calendar year 1976, the collection and submis- 

 sion of ticks trom native and imported animals and plant 

 and animal material were approximately the same as in 



1975. There were 4,528 collections in 1976, compared 

 with 4,542 collections in 1975 and 11,042 in 1974. 



THE TICK ERADICATION PROGRAM IN TEXAS 



The Boophilus tick activity in south Texas reached a 

 level not experienced in this area in over 30 years. A 

 total of 264 Boophilus collections from Texas were 

 confirmed by the Veterinary Services Laboratory in 

 calendar year 1976. Boophilus annulatus infestations 

 were recorded from Maverick, Dimmitt, Webb, Zapata, 

 Starr, and Wilson Counties from cattle and whitetailed 

 deer. The tropical cattle tick, B. microplus, was found 

 on cattle and deer in LaSalle, Webb, Zapata, Starr, 

 Hidalgo, Cameron, Willacy, Kleberg, Jim Wells, and 

 Reeves Counties. The infestation in Reeves County, an 

 area well beyond the range where B. microplus is known 

 to survive, was found on cattle recently moved from an 

 infested premise in south Texas. Two collections of 

 immature Boophilus, unidentifiable as to species, were 

 found on horses in Kleberg County. However, since B. 

 microplus was the only species reported from Kleberg 

 Count)', the collections from horses were probably B. 

 microplus. 



The B. annulatus infestations were primarily confined 

 to the quarantined buffer zone along the Rio Grande 

 separating Texas and Mexico. The B. microplus ticks 

 were found in this same general area of south Texas as 

 well as in several counties removed from the Rio Grande 

 and adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. 



The infested premises are under State quarantine, and 

 active surveillance and eradication procedures are being 

 carried out by State and Federal tick eradication 

 personnel. Present information indicates that the infesta- 

 tions are limited and confined to south Texas, but other 

 Southern States are strongly urged to institute effective 

 surveillance programs to detect these two ticks if they are 

 accidentally introduced. Prior to 1906, B. annulatus was 

 endemic in all or parts of 12 Southern States as well as 

 California, and reportedly caused annual losses of from 



to $200 million. It has been estimated that in terms 

 of today's purchasing power these losses could approach 

 SI billion per year. Boophilus annulatus has the poten- 

 tial of reestablishing itself in all or parts of Texas, 

 Oklahoma, California, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

 Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 

 North Carolina, and Virginia. This area supports some 30 

 million cattle worth an estimated .$5 billion. 



The potential for the spread of J3. microplus is not as 

 great as that of B. annulatus. The tropical cattle tick, B. 

 microplus, has never been established in the continental 

 United States except in the subtropical areas of south 

 Texas and Florida. However, in areas where it is capable 

 of surviving, it can produce problems as serious as B. 

 annulatus if not more serious. Boophilus microplus 

 apparently has a slightly broader host preference than B. 

 annulatus, and it usually completes the parasitic period a 

 day or two sooner than B. annulatus. Also, the develop- 

 ment of resistance to tickicides has been a much greater 

 problem with B. microplus than with B. annulatus. 



There are three important reasons for preventing the 

 reintroduction of Boophilus ticks into the Southern 

 United States. First, these ticks are serious pests and 

 parasites of livestock, especially cattle, and in areas 

 where they are endemic they exact tremendous eco- 

 nomic losses on livestock by their continual annoyance 

 and bloodsucking, even when there is no transmission of 

 disease agents. In areas of the world where Boophilus 

 ticks are a problem, livestock owners have found it 

 necessary to institute regular control programs, often 

 monthly, in order to prevent serious losses. These 

 routine treatments, used as controls rather than eradica- 

 tion tools, often lead to the development of tickicide 

 resistance in Boophilus populations. Resistance is a very 

 real problem in Australia, South Africa, and Argentina. 



