A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds

This study aimed to compare three different methodologies (Adult Immersion Tests, field trials with naturally infected animals, and a Stall Test using artificially infested cattle) to evaluate the efficacy of two topical formulations that we administered as whole body sprays (15% Cypermethrin+30% Chlorpyriphos+15% Fenthion–Colosso® FC 30, Ouro Fino Agronegócios; and 60% Dichlorvos+20% Chlorpyriphos–Ectofós®, Vallée Saúde Animal Ltd.), against a susceptible strain of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. To achieve this objective, two natural infestation trials were conducted, as well as two artificial infestation trials (Stall Tests) and two Adult Immersion Tests (AIT). The AIT results showed that both spray formulations achieved 100% efficacy against R. (B.) microplus fully engorged females. However, when observing results obtained by field trials (natural infestations) and Stall Tests, none of these topically applied compounds reached 100% efficacy or affected the reproductive capacity of the fully engorged female ticks. Additional studies must be conducted to compare these in vivo methodologies with different in vitro techniques, such as the Larval Packet Test. However, based on results obtained here, we can conclude that depending on the spray formulations used, the AIT can overestimate acaricidal efficacy and values of reproductive efficiency of such compounds against R (B.) microplus. Specifically, when dealing with spray formulations in the Stall Tests, the period of residual action can increase because these animals are sheltered from contact with environmental factors that might interfere with the efficacy of the products tested. It may be necessary to take in vivo trial results into consideration (such as field trials with naturally infested animals or Stall Tests) to standardize a specific in vitro assay, such as the Adult Immersion Test.