Effects of the sucking louse (Linognathus vituli) on the grooming behaviour of housed calves

Abstract

The behaviour of cattle with and without louse infestation was studied for eight weeks. Thirty-two crossbred calves were housed in groups of four at 20 weeks old. Sixteen of the calves were artificially infested with the long-nosed cattle louse Linognathus vituli and 16 were left uninfested as controls. In infested animals the number of lice on the shoulders averaged 2.3 per 10 cm length of parted hair. The recorded frequency of irritation, manifested by rubbing and self-licking, was significantly greater in the louse-infested calves than in the uninfested controls. The infested calves spent 28 s/h rubbing and 95 s/h self-licking, compared with 8 s and 62 s/h spent by the uninfested controls. The infested calves also spent more than twice as long scratching as the controls. There were no significant effects of the infestation on social grooming.

Host Determinant Based Prevalence of Ticks and Lice in Cattle (<i>Bos indicus</i>) at Bogra District of Bangladesh

“…They have a major effect on the husbandry and productivity of livestock, weight gain (Gibney et al, 1985), milk production and quality of hide (Coles et al, 2003). When present at high intensities, ticks and lice may cause harm indirectly, such as nuisance, reduced time spent for grazing or ruminating, rubbing and self-wounding (Weeks et al, 1995) and cause direct damage to skin and other sub-cutaneous tissues such as pruritus, alopecia and excoriation (Wall and Shearer, 1997). Moreover, ticks and lice act as vectors of viruses, rickettsia, bacteria, protozoa, cestodes and nematodes, including vectors of zoonotic diseases in humans (Petney et al, 2007).…”

Immune responses to ectoparasites of horses, with a focus on insect bite hypersensitivity

“…Although pruritus and induced grooming or scratching behaviours are not usually considered a component of classical immune responses, there is evidence that parasite-induced pruritus and scratching do limit the parasite burden of cattle lice infestation (16)(17)(18) and cat fleas (19), confirming that grooming plays an important role in host resistance and resilience to ectoparasite infestations. Similarly, tick infestations can be controlled by grooming; in some cases, the grooming behaviour is innate and takes place in the absence of parasites (20), but in others, the rate of grooming is increased by the presence of parasites (21) where the immune sensation of pruritus would serve to alert the host to their presence.…”

Anaemia and Mortality in Calves Caused by the Short-Nosed Sucking Louse (<i>Haematopinus eurysternus</i>) (Nitzsch) in Ibadan

“…As a result, they may cause direct damage to skin and other sub-cutaneous tissues (Tasawar et al, 2008). When present at high intensities, ectoparasites may cause harm indirectly, causing disturbance, increasing levels of behavior such as rubbing, leading to reduced time spent for grazing or ruminating and automutilation (Weeks et al, 1995).The ectoparasites have a major effect on the husbandry and productivity of livestock, weight gain (Devaney et al, 1992), milk production and quality of hides (Coles et al, 2003). They can cause harm due to their blood feeding activities and can transmit many pathogenic organisms SUMMARY A cattle farm in Ibadan recorded the death of a young calf with heavy infestation of short-nosed sucking louse, Haematopinus eurysternus.…”