Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2026 Jan 30;58(2):73. doi: 10.1007/s11250-026-04866-5

Tick fever risk and factors influencing the transmission of Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina in cattle properties from Atlantic Forest biome

Juan Dario Puentes 1,✉, Rosangela Zacarías Machado 3,4, Wendell Marcelo de Souza Perinotto 1,2, Vinícius Longo Ribeiro Vilela 5,6, Franklin Riet-Correa 1
PMCID: PMC12858521  PMID: 41615537

Abstract

We studied the immune condition of adult cattle to Anaplasma marginale, Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina and identified characteristics influencing the transmission of tick fever (TF) agents in properties from the Recôncavo baiano, a region located in the Atlantic Forest biome in Brazil. Blood was sampled from cattle on 28 properties to determine the seroprevalence of antibodies against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina and define the inoculation rate of B. bovis and B. bigemina on each property. A correlation test was conducted between herd seroprevalences of the TF agents to search for common transmission routes. Relation between characteristics of each property (cattle information, handling practices, tick control practices and acaricide resistance) and A. marginale herd seroprevalence and B. bovis and B. bigemina herd infection rate were explored through comparative analyses. We found seroprevalences over 75% for the three TF agents, being a positive correlation between A. marginale and B. bovis. Variables influencing the transmission of TF agents were genetic composition, use of spray acaricide formulations, use of avermectins and use of fipronil. The present study shows that adult cattle from properties in the Recôncavo baiano region have high seroprevalences for the TF agents meaning that most of the adult cattle are immune and TF outbreaks should not be frequent. We suggest that the principal propagation route of A. marginale in properties from the Recôncavo baiano is tick-borne transmission. Further investigations are necessary to establish risk factors influencing the immunity situation of cattle in the region.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-026-04866-5.

Keywords: Anaplasmosis, Babesiosis, Enzootic, Immunity, Rhipicephalus microplus, Tropic

Introduction

The rickettsia Anaplasma marginale and the protozoans Babesia bigemina and Babesia bovis cause tick fever (TF), a complex of cattle diseases characterized by anorexia, somnolence, weakness, dry feces, tachypnea, fever, hemolytic anemia, and jaundice, which are followed by death if not treated (Richey 1992; Bock et al. 2004). The principal transmission route of the TF agents is their biologic vector, the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Additionally, A. marginale can be transmitted mechanically by horseflies, Stomoxys spp. and/or blood-contaminated fomites as needles (Kocan et al. 2010). This clinical syndrome causes an important financial impact contributing substantially to the total economic loss caused by R. microplus in the Brazilian cattle herd. Beef cattle in the Brazilian Cerrado could lose until US$34.61 and US$7.97/animal in the backgrounding and finishing phase, respectively (Calvano et al. 2019).

In Brazil, the seroprevalence and inoculation rates of the TF agents vary between regions and properties due to differences in climatic and management practices, which influence the vector biology and their transmission. It has been considered that in regions where the climatic conditions favor tick development (Cerrado, Amazon and Atlantic Forest biomes) the constant transmission of TF agents will be enough to maintain herd immunity, and TF outbreaks would not be expected. In contrast, in regions where environmental conditions interfere with the development of R. microplus (chilly winter in the southern region, floods in the Pantanal, and low humidity in the Caatinga) the transmission of TF agents is limited to specific times of the year (Puentes and Riet-Correa 2023). Regarding management practices, the introduction of Bos taurus genotypes in farms to improve productivity, the employment of acaricide spraying and tick control malpractices have been factors influencing in the A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina. seroprevalences (D’Andrea et al. 2006; Jonsson et al. 2008; Costa et al. 2013).

The climatic conditions in the Recôncavo baiano region favor R. microplus development throughout the year, so, it is possible that most of the cattle in this area have immunity against TF agents; however, the disease has been diagnosed occasionally causing relevant losses (Puentes et al. 2023). Given that there is no knowledge about immunity and/or conditions that influence the transmission of TF agents in cattle, we developed this research to investigate the immune condition of adult cattle to A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina and to identify characteristics playing a role in the transmission risk of these agents in properties from the Recôncavo baiano region.

Materials and methods

Studied region

The Recôncavo baiano is part of the administrative division of the State of Bahia, Brazil. It has an extension of 4614 Km2 divided in 19 municipalities that share cultural and commercial relations: Cabaceiras do Paraguaçu; Conceição do Almeida; São Felipe; Cruz das Almas; Sapeaçu; Governador Mangabeira; Muritiba; Cachoeira; Maragogipe; Santo Amaro; Saubara; São Félix; Salinas da Margarida; Dom Macedo Costa; Nazaré; Santo Antônio de Jesus; Castro Alves; Muniz Ferreira; and Varzedo. The territory is in the Atlantic Forest biome, has a tropical humid climate and is characterized by well-defined seasons, a rainy winter from April to August, and a sunny summer from September to March. In 2024, the average temperature was 26.65 °C (± 4.43), the average relative humidity was 91.45% (± 12.77) and accumulated precipitation was 1148 mm. The Recôncavo baiano cattle herd is estimated to comprise 215 100 heads, corresponding to 1.7% of the bovine population in the State of Bahia (SEI 2024). The predominant cattle genotype is Bos indicus (94%), followed by Bos taurus (6%). In this territory, 79.7% of producers are small producers who practice subsistence production (IBGE 2017).

Experimental design

We performed a cross-sectional analytic study. The sampling unit were properties. Between March and November 2024, we sampled by convenience 28 rural properties in the Recôncavo region of Bahia (Fig. 1). We made an especial effort to include properties from almost all the municipalities of the region. In the properties sampled, the average number of adult bovines were 34 (from 5 to 87 animals) and the average area, 61 ha. All properties produced cattle in extensive systems, 57% focused on beef and 43% on dairy production. 64% of the properties raised animals of B. indicus genotypes. All properties had animals infested with R. microplus and implemented acaricide control programs.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Localization of the sampled properties. The map shows the 19 municipalities that integrate the Recôncavo baiano territory. The yellow frame indicates the localization of the Recôncavo baiano territory and red points, the localization of the 28 sampled properties

Given that adult bovines have been considered as the susceptible age group to TF and to prevent maternal immunity from interfering with the tests, we sampled male and female cattle between 9 months and 4 years of age, the same age range used in other reports to define enzootic scenarios of the disease (Mahoney and Ross 1972). The sample size in each property was calculated using the statistic software EpiInfo® 7.2.4.0. version, allowing an acceptable error margin of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, and an expected frequency of 96% (Araújo et al. 1997, 1998). Once defined the size sample, we selected the animals using a simple random sampling method. We sampled a total of 554 cattle.

Questionnaire

Information was obtained from each property owner or manager to characterize and identify factors influencing the A. marginale seroprevalence and the herd inoculation rate (h) of B. bovis and B. bigemina. The data collected from 18 questions included details about cattle information (herd size, genetic composition, production system), handling practices (cattle purchase) and tick and tick control practices (tick seasonality, frequency, criteria and methods for acaricide application, and acaricide compounds used).

Blood sampling

The animals were restrained using cattle crushes or ropes. We collected the blood from the sacrocaudal vein in 10 mL tubes with clot activator. The tubes were centrifuged at 5000 rpm during five minutes. The serum was separated into 2 mL centrifugation microtubes of Eppendorf type and were frozen at -20 °C until being processed. The procedures were approved by the local committee on animal experimentation (CEUA-UFRB Nº 55/2023).

Serology

To determine antibodies against TF agents in the sample, we used an indirect ELISA method described formerly (Machado et al. 1997; Ruiz et al. 2001). We employed solid plates with flat bottom Nunc-Immuno™ MicroWell™ (Sigma-Aldrich®, St. Louis, Missori). The antigens used were the 19 kilodaltons (kDa) recombinant major surface protein 5 (MSP5) of A. marginale (Visser et al. 1992), the 60 kDa recombinant roptria associated protein 1 (RAP1) of B. bovis (Suarez et al. 1991, 1993) and the 7 kDa clon C1A-GST, a fragment of the p200 antigen of B. bigemina (Tebele et al. 2000). The serum dilutions were 1:100 and 1:200 to A. marginale and B. bovis - B. bigemina diagnostic, respectively. The conjugated used was an Anti-Bovine IgG (whole molecule)-Alkaline Phosphatase produced in rabbit (Sigma-Aldrich®). The substrate employed was alkaline phosphatase 4-Nitrophenyl phosphate disodium salt hexahydrate (Sigma-Aldrich®), diluted in diethanolamine buffer solution with pH 9.6 (Sigma-Aldrich®). The intensity of the reaction was determined by a microplate reader with a 405 nm filter.

The cut-off point to define if the sample was positive was established by multiplying the mean optical density (OD) of the negative controls by 2.5, a constant / correction factor (Ruiz et al. 2001). We defined the cut-off points for A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina seropositivity as 0.302, 0.307 and 0.335, respectively. The test was considered valid if the OD of the white well was < 0.090, the control positive, > 0.700 and the negative controls, between 0.100 and 0.200. The ELISA test for A. marginale has 94% specificity and 100% sensitivity; for B. bovis, 98.1% specificity and 98% sensitivity; and for B. bigemia, 94% specificity and 87.5% sensitivity (Madruga et al. 2000a, b; Ruiz et al. 2001).

Herd inoculation rate (h) of B. bovis and B. bigemina

To determine the proportion of animals on each property that receive one infective inoculum of B. bovis and B. bigemina in one day, we defined the h. The h was calculated using the following formula: h = Ln (1 – I) / 270 – t; where Ln is the natural logarithm, I is the true herd seroprevalence of antibodies against B. bovis and B. bigemina and t is the average age in days of the sampled animals (we used 720 days for all the properties) (Mahoney and Ross 1972; Tice et al. 1998).

Acaricide resistance bioassays

To evaluate if tick acaricide resistance may influence in the seroprevalence / inoculation rate of the TF agents, bioassays for five classes of acaricides were performed on ticks from seven properties. For cypermethrin (Sigma-Aldrich®) and chlorpyriphos (Sigma-Aldrich®) was performed the Larval Packet Test (LPT) (FAO 2004). For ivermectin (Sigma-Aldrich®) and fipronil (BASF Chemicals®, Paulínia, São Paulo, Brazil) was performed the larval immersion test (LIT) (Klafke et al. 2012; Castro Janer et al. 2015). For amitraz (Triatox®, MSD Saúde Animal, São Paulo, Brazil) was performed a modified LPT(Miller et al. 2002). The resistance ratio (RR) was calculated as the comparative susceptibility of the field population to a susceptible reference strain. Ticks were considered resistant when RR was > 2.0.

Statistic analysis

First, we described the frequencies of seroprevalences of antibodies against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina at animal and herd level. At animal level, we calculated the percentage of all seropositive animals to A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina with 95% confidence interval (CI) including continuity correction using the VassarStats software available in http://www.vassarstats.net/prop1.html. At herd level, we calculated the medians and interquartile ranges for the seroprevalences of antibodies against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina, and for the h of B. bovis and B. bigemina.

To explore common transmission route of A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina, we looked for correlation between the herd seroprevalences of antibodies against those agents. We linearized the data through a square root transformation, then performed the Pearson test and executed simple lineal regression to establish if it could be an influence between variables. We just considered as valid those correlations with P value ≤ 0.05 and determination coefficient R2 ≥ 0.60.

To establish if the variables derived from the questionnaire influenced the herd seroprevalence of antibodies against A. marginale distribution and the h of B. bovis and B. bigemina distribution and Given that the dependent variables were continuous with non-free distribution, we compared the medians of both categories for each independent variable using the non-parametric Mann Whitney and Pearsson`s correlation test for continuous and numeric independent variables, respectively. The analyses were performed in the software The jamovi project (2025), Jamovi (Version 2.6) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org. The graphs were performed in the program Graph pad prism version 8.0.2 for Windows, GraphPad Software, Boston, Massachusetts USA, www.graphpad.com.

Results

Regarding the information obtained through the questionnaire, the mean herd size of the properties sampled was 33.8 (CI: 25.6–41.9). Most properties are destined for beef production (57.15%, 16/28) and the rest, for dairy (45.85%, 12/28). Most of the herds were composed by Indian breeds (64.28%, 18/28), followed by properties with European breeds (35.72%, 10/28). Concerning cattle purchases, seven producers (25%, 7/14) reported purchasing cattle from other properties located in regions where climatic conditions favor the development of cattle ticks, such as the Atlantic Forest biome. Another seven (25%, 7/14) purchased cattle in regions where climatic conditions do not favor the parasite, such as the Caatinga biome. Relating to R. microplus infestation, most of the producers stated that the tick was present all through the year (64.28%, 18/28) and the remaining properties, that the infestation occured seasonally (35.72%, 10/28).

All producers notified that they employed chemical acaricides for tick control. Concerning the frequency of treatments per year, we found that it is significatively higher in properties with European than Indian breeds (P < 0.005), in dairy than in beef production systems (P < 0.05), in properties that did not perform injectable/avermectin acaricides (P < 0.05) and in properties that performed pour-on/fipronil formulations (P < 0.05) (Table S1). Most producers reported that applied acaricide only when high tick infestation is observed in cattle (67.86%, 19/28), while the rest treated in a systematic or prophylactic way (32.14%, 9/28). Most producers performed injectable (78.57%, 22/28) and pour-on acaricide formulations (78.57%, 22/28) and 67.87% (19/28) reported to use spray formulations. The most used acaricide compounds were pyrethroids (92.59%, 25/27), followed by organophosphates (85.18%, 23/27), avermectins (81.48%, 22/27), fipronil (48.14%, 13/27) and the less used is amitraz (3.70%, 1/27). Most producers did not use multiple acaricides classes simultaneously (57.14%, 16/28). The majority used different products with the same chemical class (53.57%, 15/27). Most producers did not alternate the acaricide compounds (60.71%, 17/27).

At animal level, Table 1 shows the frequencies of seropositive individuals to each one of the TF agents: 10.29% (CI: 7.95–13.2%) of the sampled animals were seropositive only for one agent (57/554), 14.44% (CI: 11.68–17.71%) for two agents (80/554), 69.67% (CI: 65.64–73.45%) for all three agents (386/554) and 5.6% (CI: 3.9–7.94%) were negative to the three agents (31/554). Regarding the animals seropositive for two agents, 20% (CI: 12.2-30.74%) were positive for B. bovis and B. bigemina (16/80), 33.75% (CI: 23.79–45.28%) for A. marginale and B. bigemina (27/80) and 46.25% (CI: 35.16–57.7%) for A. marginale and B. bovis (37/80). In all sampled properties, at least one animal seropositive for A. marginale, B. bovis and/or B. bigemina was detected.

Table 1.

Frequencies of the seropositive individuals to each one of the TF agents

TF agent Number of seropositive animals Seropositive animals (%)
(CI)
Anaplasma marginale 481/554

86.68

(83.65–89.47)
Babesia bovis 445/554

80.32

(76.71–83.5)
Babesia bigemina 449/554

81.05

(77.48–84.18)
Open in a new tab

Note: confidence interval, CI

At herd level, we sampled between 5 and 35 (mean:19.79; CI: 16.65–22.92) animals by property. The median seroprevalences of antibodies against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina were 88% (IQR:75–96%), 84% (IQR:57.75-93%) and 78.5% (IQR:69.5-93.75%), respectively (Fig. 2). A strong correlation was determined between the herd seroprevalences of antibodies against B. bovis and A. marginale (r: 0.7994; P: <0.0001; r2: 0.6390) demonstrating that 63.9% of the B. bovis herd seroprevalence variance is explained because of the A. marginale herd seroprevalence (Fig. 3a). We did not find a correlation between A. marginale and B. bigemina, nor between B. bovis and B. bigemina herd seroprevalences either (Fig. 3b, c). Regarding the proportion of animals on each property that receive one infective inoculum of B. bovis or B. bigemina in one day, the h medians were 0.0034 (IQR:0.0026–0.0061) and 0.0041 (IQR:0.0019–0.0059) for B. bigemina and B. bovis, respectively.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Herd seroprevalence of antibodies against A. marginale (a), B. bovis (b) and B. bigemina (c) in bovines between 9 months and 4 years of age. The results are presented as the medians (horizontal lines) and their interquartile ranges (error bars). Circles represent properties (n = 28)

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Correlation between the herd seroprevalence of antibodies against the TF agents. (a) Correlation between A. marginale and B. bovis herd seroprevalences. (b) Correlation between B. bigemina and B. bovis herd seroprevalences. (c) Correlation between A. marginale and B. bigemina herd seroprevalences. The percentage values were square root transformed. The correlation was performed through the Pearson test. Straight line represents the simple linear regression. Error bars (dashed lines) indicate the confidence intervals. Circles represent properties (n = 28)

Table 2 describes the comparation between medians for each independent variable from the questionnaire. The A. marginale seroprevalence median was significatively lower in properties where acaricide injectable formulations (P < 0.05), avermectins (P < 0.05) or fipronil (P < 0.05) are employed. The B. bovis h median was significatively higher in properties with Indian breeds (P < 0.05), where acaricide injectable formulations (P < 0.005) and avermectins are used (P < 0.005) and was significatively lower in properties where acaricide spray formulations are avoided (P < 0.05). The B. bigemina h median was significatively higher in properties with Indian breeds (P < 0.05) and in properties where spray acaricide formulations are performed (P < 0.05). No correlation was found between herd size and the seroprevalence / inoculation rate of the TF agents (Table S2).

Table 2.

Medians of the herd A. marginale seroprevalence, B. Bovis and B. bigemina. h distribution compared across 18 categoric factors of 28 properties from the Reconcavo Baiano region, State of Bahia, Brazil

A. marginale seroprevalence B. bovis h B. bigemina h
Independent variable (n)
Category (n)		 Median
(%) 		IQR
(%) 		p Median
(h) 		IQR
(%) 		p Median
(h) 		IQR
(%) 		p
Genetic composition (28) 0.229 0.004 0.023
 European (10) 22.5 9.75–25.8 0.002 0.002–0.002 0.003 0.002–0.003
 Indian (18) 14 4-19.8 0.005 0.004-0.00675 0.004 0.003-0.00675
Production system (28) 0.149 0.064 0.194
 Beef (16) 14 3.5–19.3 0.0045 0.00375–0.00625 0.004 0.003-0.00625
 Dairy (12) 22.5 5.5–26.3 0.002 0.002-0.00525 0.003 0.002-0.00525
Cattle reposition (14) 0.44 0.948 0.218
 From Atlantic Forest biome (7) 18 5-24.5 0.005 0.003–0.008 0.004 0.003–0.006
 From Caatinga biome (7) 6 3–18 0.006 0.0025–0.007 0.007 0.005–0.01
Tick infestation occurrence (28) 0.336 0.624 0.542
 Part of the year (10) 20.5 16.8–23.5 0.0045 0.0025–0.00575 0.0035 0.003-0.00575
 All through the year (18) 11.5 4-24.5 0.0035 0.002-0.00575 0.0035 0.002–0.0065
Criteria for acaricide treatments (28) 0.361 0.466 0.367
 Systematic or prophylactic (9) 18 4–20 0.004 0.002–0.007 0.004 0.003–0.006
 High tick infestation in cattle (19) 16 5-26.5 0.004 0.002–0.005 0.003 0.0025–0.0055
Injectable acaricide formulations (28) 0.026 0.002 0.082
 Yes (22) 11.5 4-19.8 0.005 0.00325-0.006 0.004 0.003-0.00675
 No (6) 24 22.3–25.8 0.002 0.00125-0.002 0.003 0.00225-0.003
Pour-on acaricide formulations (28) 1.000 0.529 0.776
 Yes (22) 17 4.5–23.8 0.004 0.002–0.006 0.0035 0.003-0.00575
 No (6) 17.5 7-24.3 0.003 0.002-0.00475 0.003 0.002–0.0085
Spray acaricide formulations (28) 0.554 0.029 0.048
 Yes (19) 18 4-25.5 0.002 0.002–0.005 0.006 0.004–0.007
 No (9) 11 6–20 0.006 0.004–0.006 0.003 0.002–0.0045
Use of avermectins (ivermectin - doramectin) (27) 0.026 0.003 0.080
 Yes (22) 11.5 4-19.8 0.005 0.00325-0.006 0.004 0.003-0.00675
 No (5) 25 22–26 0.002 0.001–0.002 0.003 0.002–0.003
Use of pyrethroids (27) 0.676 0.572 0.480
 Yes (25) 16 4–24 0.004 0.002–0.006 0.003 0.003–0.006
 No (2) 19.5 19.3–19.8 0.005 0.0045–0.0055 0.005 0.0045–0.0055
Use of amitraz (27) 0.334 0.360 0.601
 Yes (1) 25 25–25 0.002 0.002–0.002 0.005 0.005–0.005
 No (26) 16 4-22.8 0.004 0.002–0.006 0.0035 0.003–0.006
Use of fipronil (27) 0.036 0.152 0.374
 Yes (13) 6 2–20 0.005 0.002–0.007 0.004 0.003–0.006
 No (14) 21 12.3–27.5 0.0035 0.002–0.005 0.003 0.00225–0.00575
Use of organophosphates (27) 0.732 0.466 0.972
 Yes (23) 12 4-24.5 0.004 0.002–0.0055 0.004 0.003–0.0065
 No (4) 18.5 17.5–19.3 0.005 0.0035–0.007 0.0035 0.003–0.0045
Rotation of acaricide compound (27) 0.579 0.459 0.818
 Yes (10) 14 2.5–23.3 0.004 0.002-0.00475 0.0035 0.003-0.00475
 No (17) 18 6–23 0.005 0.002–0.006 0.004 0.003–0.007
Multiple acaricides classes used simultaneously (28) 0.235 0.218 0.237
 Yes (12) 16 3.5–20.3 0.0045 0.002–0.007 0.004 0.003–0.007
 No (16) 20.5 6-26.3 0.0035 0.002–0.005 0.003 0.002-0.00525
Use different products with same compound (27) 0.607 0.487 0.551
 Yes (15) 16 4-24.5 0.004 0.002–0.005 0.003 0.003–0.005
 No (12) 14.5 5.5–20.5 0.0045 0.00275–0.00625 0.004 0.003–0.007
Open in a new tab

Note: Mann Whitney test. Variables with P values in bold were considered significative. Interquartile range, IQR. Herd inoculation rate, h

Regarding the acaricide resistance bioassays performed on seven properties, the mean RR for cypermethrin was 85.40 (CI: -16.27;187.1), and susceptibility was observed in only one property; for chlorpyrifos, 124.8 (CI: -12.81;262.5), and susceptibility was observed in only one property; for ivermectin, 105 (CI: -57.37;267.4) and resistance occurred in all properties; for fipronil, 7.16 (CI: -5.35;19.67) and susceptibility was observed in four properties; and for amitraz, 43.59 (CI: -16.07;103.2) and susceptibility was observed in only one property (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Distribution of resistance ratios of Rhipicephalus microplus populations from seven properties in the Recôncavo baiano region, State of Bahia, Brazil. The results are presented as the means (horizontal lines) and the confidence interval (error bars). The dashed line indicates the RR threshold (2.0) from which ticks would be considered resistant. Circles represent properties (n = 7)

Discussion

In the current research, we analyzed the immune state of adult bovines against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina and identified characteristics that influence the transmission of these agents in herds from the Recôncavo baiano region. Our results demonstrate that the TF agents seroprevalences are high in cattle properties from the region. Also, the cattle tick, R. microplus, plays an important role in the A. marginale transmission. After an infection with A. marginale, cattle have lifelong immunity, while antibodies against B. bovis last at least four years and antibodies against B. bigemina generally persist for less than six months (Mahoney et al. 1973; Kocan et al. 2010). Therefore, developing research based on immunological studies against TF in adult cattle provides valid information on the epidemiological aspects of this disease.

The fact that 75% of the properties sampled had herd seroprevalences over 75%, 57.75% and 69.5% to A. marginale B. bovis and B. bigemina, respectively, suggest that most of the cattle have immune protection and, although the agents circulate in the region, outbreaks of TF would be uncommon. In the Recôncavo baiano, R. microplus is present the entire year, so cattle persistently exposed to infection are producing protective antibodies continuously (concomitant immunity) (Brown et al. 2006). High herd seroprevalences against A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina have been found in adult cattle from other regions of Brazil (Guedes Junior et al. 2008; Souza et al. 2013; Costa et al. 2015). Although several works around the world have attempted to understand and predict the TF risk through the concept of enzootic condition based in works from regions with ecological and host genotype differences, it would not be adequate to replicate in the present work. To define the TF enzootic situation in the Recôncavo baiano region it would be necessary to apply a prospective study to stablish the h ranges of A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina in both adults and calves, where it would not be expected TF outbreaks (enzootic stability) and where it would be the maximum TF outbreak risk (enzootic instability) confirming the cases through an accurate diagnosis (Jonsson et al. 2012).

In the Recôncavo baiano region, it seems that the major transmission route of A. marginale is the intraestadial transmission by R. microplus because of the positive correlation found between A. marginale and B. bovis herd seroprevalences. Other authors also have made this assumption given that R. microplus is the exclusive vector of B. bovis (Ramos et al. 2020; Morel et al. 2024). This premise make sense given that, in enzootic stable zones, the cattle tick is responsible for the endemic situation of anaplasmosis. (Kessler 2001). Besides, the mechanical transmission seems to have little relevance because persistent infected animals from enzootic stable zones just get rickettsemias between 102.5 and 106 infected erythrocytes (IE)/mL of blood, so, it is necessary rickettsemias above 5 × 106 IE/mL to horseflies transmit the minimal infectious dose (Scoles et al. 2008). It has not been demonstrated transmission trough blood-contaminated fomites from animals with rickettsemias under 1.45 × 108 IE/mL (Reinbold et al. 2010).

The lower h of B. bovis and B. bigemina in properties with European breeds could be related to the higher frequency of acaricide applications compared to properties with Indian breeds. This is plausible given that R. microplus, the only vector of B. bovis and B. bigemina in cattle, is present throughout the year in our studied region and most of the sampled properties do not receive technical assistance in implementing their tick management strategies, which could result in acaricide misuse and different levels of infestation across properties (Klafke et al. 2024). Another possible reason could be that the animals we sampled would never have been exposed to tick; however, all properties raise animals in contact with R. microplus and none of the B. bovis or B. bigemina h were associated with the recent introduction of cattle from tick-free regions.

Properties using acaricide spray formulations had lower B. bovis transmission but higher B. bigemina transmission. This could be explained based on the evolutive stages of transmission of these protozoans. Given that B. bovis is transmitted by the larval stage of R. microplus, while B. bigemina is transmitted by the nymphal stage, properties using spray formulations could impact more on larvae than nymph or adult tick stages, interfering with B. bovis h (Esteve-Gasent et al. 2020). Tick larvae are more susceptible to contact acaricides because its cuticle is far less tough than the hard adult providing better penetration of the product (Gaur et al. 2016).

The increased transmission of B. bovis but decreased transmission of A. marginale on properties using avermectins (ivermectin - doramectin) for tick control is possible because avermectins had no effect on R. microplus larvae (the B. bovis vector), as observed in the ivermectin bioassay. However, because this compound has a long residual period, it may affect adult male ticks, the rickettsia vector (Davey et al. 2010). Properties using fipronil had lower seroprevalence of A. marginale probably because this acaricide was effective against ticks in most properties, limiting A. marginale transmission. Although we attempted to establish the impact of tick acaricide resistance on the TF agent’s transmission, this would require bioassays to be performed on all properties.

The major difficulty in this research was that we had to choose properties interested in participating by convenience (non-randomized sampling). Although our results could not be extrapolated to all the Recôncavo baiano region, they could reflect in the reality of the region and represent a contribution to the understanding of the A. marginale, B. bovis and B. bigemina immune condition in regions and properties with characteristics very similar to our sample (small and medium properties located in tropical regions from Atlantic forest near to semiarid biome). These kinds of regions are in Brazilian states as Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraiba and/or Rio Grande do Norte.

The present study shows that adult bovines from properties in the Recôncavo baiano region have seroprevalences for the TF agents over 75%, meaning that most of the adult cattle are immune and TF outbreaks should not be frequent. Although factors like genetic composition, class of acaricide compound and formulation used were indirectly associated with variations in the transmission of TF agents, further investigations are necessary to establish risk factors influencing the immunity situation of cattle in the region.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (27.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – Brazil (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) for making this research possible.

Authors contribution

The research was conceived by F.R.C. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by J.D.P. New methods or models were contributed by F.R.C., W.M.S.P., R.Z.M and V.L.R.V. The first draft of the manuscript was written by J.D.P. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The Article Processing Charge (APC) for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614). This research was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – Brazil (CNPq) (grant number 403045/2021-5). J.D.P. has received research support from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) through process 88887.804220/2023-00.

Data availability

All data generated in this study are included in this published article.

Declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This project was approved by the Comissão de Ética no uso de Animais (CEUA) of the Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia, who certified under the protocol Nº 55/2023 that this research agrees with the ethics precepts of the Law 11.794 of October 8, 2008, the Decree 6.899 of July 15, 2009, and the normative issued by the Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentação Animal (CONCEA).

Consent to participate

This project was approved by the Comissão de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP) of the Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia, who certified under the protocol Nº 6.586.232 that this research is fit for the collection of information involving humans. Informed consent was obtained from all individuals.

Consent for publication

All the authors agreed to the publication of this paper.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial interests to disclose.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Araújo FR, Madruga C, Almeida M et al (1997) Serological survey of Babesia Bovis and Babesia Bigemina in the state of Bahia by indirect Immunofluorescence and rapid conglutination test. Braz J Vet Parasitol 6:111–115 [Google Scholar]
  2. Araújo FR, Madruga CR, Leal CRB et al (1998) Comparison between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, indirect fluorescent antibody and rapid conglutination tests in detecting antibodies against Babesia Bovis. Vet Parasitol 74:101–108. 10.1016/S0304-4017(97)00171-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bock R, Jackson L, De Vos A, Jorgensen W (2004) Babesiosis of cattle. Parasitology 129:S247–S269. 10.1017/S0031182004005190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown WC, Norimine J, Knowles DP, Goff WL (2006) Immune control of Babesia Bovis infection. Vet Parasitol 138:75–87. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.01.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calvano MPCA, Brumatti RC, Garcia MV et al (2019) Economic efficiency of Rhipicephalus Microplus control and effect on beef cattle performance in the Brazilian Cerrado. Exp Appl Acarol 79:459–471. 10.1007/s10493-019-00446-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Castro Janer E, Klafke GM, Capurro ML, Schumaker TTS (2015) Cross-resistance between fipronil and Lindane in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) Microplus. Vet Parasitol 210:77–83. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Costa VM, de Ribeiro M, Duarte MFB ALL, et al (2013) Seroprevalence and risk factors for cattle anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and trypanosomiasis in a Brazilian semiarid region. Revista Brasileira De Parasitol Veterinária 22:207–213. 10.1590/S1984-29612013005000022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Costa FB, Melo SA, Araújo FR et al (2015) SEROLOGICAL, parasitological and molecular assessment of Babesia Bovis and Babesia Bigemina in cattle from state of Maranhão. Revista Caatinga 28:217–224 [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Andrea LAZ, Sartor IF, Madruga CR et al (2006) Condição imunológica de Bovinos Das raças Holandesa e Nelore Frente a Babesia Bovis e B. bigemina Em Duas regiões do Estado de São Paulo. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 26:74–78. 10.1590/S0100-736X2006000200003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davey RB, Pound JM, Miller JA, Klavons JA (2010) Therapeutic and persistent efficacy of a long-acting (LA) formulation of Ivermectin against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) Microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) and Sera concentration through time in treated cattle. Vet Parasitol 169:149–156. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.12.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Esteve-Gasent MD, Rodríguez-Vivas RI, Medina RF et al (2020) Research on integrated management for cattle fever ticks and bovine babesiosis in the united States and mexico: current status and opportunities for binational coordination. Pathogens 9:871. 10.3390/pathogens9110871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. FAO (2004) Ticks: acaricide resistance: Diagnosis, management and prevention. Resistance management and integrated parasite control in ruminants. Food and Agriculture Organization Animal Productions and Health Division, Rome, p 33 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gaur RS, Sangwan AK, Sangwan N, Kumar S (2016) Acaricide resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus and Hyalomma anatolicum collected from Haryana and Rajasthan states of India. Exp Appl Acarol, 69:487–500. 10.1007/s10493-016-0046-1 [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Guedes Junior DS, Araújo FR, Silva FJM et al (2008) Frequency of antibodies to Babesia bigemina, B. bovis, Anaplasma marginale, Trypanosoma vivax and Borrelia burdgorferi in cattle from the northeastern region of the state of Pará, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária, 17:105–109. 10.1590/S1984-29612008000200008 [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. IBGE (2017) Censo agropecuário. In: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.html?=&t=resultados. Accessed 30 Apr 2025
  16. Jonsson NN, Bock RE, Jorgensen WK (2008) Productivity and health effects of anaplasmosis and babesiosis on Bos indicus cattle and their crosses, and the effects of differing intensity of tick control in Australia. Vet Parasitol 155:1–9. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jonsson NN, Bock RE, Jorgensen WK et al (2012) Is endemic stability of tick-borne disease in cattle a useful concept? Trends Parasitol 28:85–89. 10.1016/j.pt.2011.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kessler RH (2001) Considerações sobre a transmissão de Anaplasma marginale. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 21:177–179. 10.1590/S0100-736X2001000400009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Klafke GM, Castro-Janer E, Mendes MC et al (2012) Applicability of in vitro bioassays for the diagnosis of Ivermectin resistance in Rhipicephalus Microplus (Acari: Ixodidae). Vet Parasitol 184:212–220. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Klafke GM, Golo PS, Monteiro CMO et al (2024) Brazil’s battle against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) Microplus ticks: current strategies and future directions. Revista Brasileira De Parasitol Veterinária, 33. 10.1590/s1984-29612024026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Kocan KM, de la Fuente J, Blouin EF et al (2010) The natural history of Anaplasma marginale. Vet Parasitol 167:95–107. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Machado RZ, Montassier HJ, Pinto AA et al (1997) An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of antibodies against Babesia Bovis in cattle. Vet Parasitol 71:17–26. 10.1016/S0304-4017(97)00003-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Madruga CR, Araújo FR, Marques APC et al (2000a) Desenvolvimento de Uma Prova de imunoadsorção enzimática Para detecção de Anticorpos contra Babesia Bovis. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 20:167–170. 10.1590/S0100-736X2000000400007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Madruga CR, Marques APC, Leal CRB et al (2000b) Evaluation of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antibodies against Anaplasma marginale. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 20:109–112. 10.1590/S0100-736X2000000300004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mahoney DF, Ross DR (1972) Epizootiological factors in the control of bovine babesiosis. Aust Vet J 48:292–298. 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1972.tb05160.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mahoney DF, Wright IG, Mirre GB (1973) Bovine babesiasis: the persistence of immunity to Babesia Argentina and B. bigemina in calves (Bos taurus) after naturally acquired infection. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 67:197–203. 10.1080/00034983.1973.11686877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller RJ, Davey RB, George JE (2002) Modification of the food and agriculture organization larval packet test to measure Amitraz-Susceptibility against Ixodidae. J Med Entomol 39:645–651. 10.1603/0022-2585-39.4.645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Morel N, Mastropaolo M, de Echaide ST et al (2024) Analysis of management factors influencing Anaplasma marginale transmission. Vet Parasitol 331:110283. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2024.110283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Puentes JD, Riet-Correa F (2023) Epidemiological aspects of cattle tick fever in Brazil. Braz J Vet Parasitol, 32. 10.1590/S1984-29612023007 [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Puentes JD, de Carvalho VS, Caymmi LG et al (2023) The occurrence of cattle tick fever in a region of the Atlantic forest on the border with the Caatinga in Brazil. Animals 13:3636. 10.3390/ani13233636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ramos IA, de Mello S, Mendes VVC NS, et al (2020) Serological occurrence for tick-borne agents in beef cattle in the Brazilian Pantanal. Revista Brasileira De Parasitol Vet 29:1–15. 10.1590/S1984-29612020007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Reinbold JB, Coetzee JF, Hollis LC et al (2010) Comparison of iatrogenic transmission of Anaplasma marginale in Holstein steers via needle and needle-free injection techniques. Am J Vet Res 71:1178–1188. 10.2460/ajvr.71.10.1178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Richey EJ (1992) Bovine anaplasmosis. American Association Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings, pp 3–11. 10.21423/aabppro19916695 [DOI]
  34. Ruiz PMG, Passos LM, Machado RZ et al (2001) Development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of IgM antibodies to Babesia Bigemina in cattle. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 96:237–240. 10.1590/S0074-02762001000200017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Scoles GA, Miller JA, Foil LD (2008) Comparison of the efficiency of biological transmission of Anaplasma marginale (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae) by Dermacentor andersoni Stiles (Acari: Ixodidae) with mechanical transmission by the horse Fly, Tabanus fuscicostatus Hine (Diptera: Muscidae). J Med Entomol 45:109–114. 10.1093/jmedent/45.1.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. SEI, SUPERINTENDENCIA DE ESTUDOS ECONOMICOS E SOCIAIS DA BAHIA GOVERNO DO ESTADO (2024) Território de identidade Recôncavo baiano. In:. https://sei.ba.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content%26view=article%26id=2289%26Itemid=265=pt. Accessed 30 Apr 2025
  37. Souza F, de AL, Braga JFV, Pires LV et al (2013) Babesiosis and anaplasmosis in dairy cattle in Northeastern Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 33:1057–1061. 10.1590/S0100-736X2013000900002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Suarez CE, Palmer GH, Jasmer DP et al (1991) Characterization of the gene encoding a 60-kilodalton Babesia Bovis merozoite protein with conserved and surface exposed epitopes. Mol Biochem Parasitol 46:45–52. 10.1016/0166-6851(91)90197-E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Suarez CE, Palmer GH, Hines SA, McElwain TF (1993) Immunogenic B-cell epitopes of Babesia Bovis rhoptry-associated protein 1 are distinct from sequences conserved between species. Infect Immun 61:3511–3517. 10.1128/iai.61.8.3511-3517.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tebele N, Skilton RA, Katende J et al (2000) Cloning, Characterization, and expression of a 200-Kilodalton diagnostic antigen of Babesia Bigemina. J Clin Microbiol 38:2240–2247. 10.1128/JCM.38.6.2240-2247.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tice GA, Bryson NR, Stewart CG et al (1998) The absence of clinical disease in cattle in communal grazing areas where producersare changing from an intensive dipping programme to one of endemic stability to tick-borne diseases. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 65:169–175 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Visser ES, McGuire TC, Palmer GH et al (1992) The Anaplasma marginale msp5 gene encodes a 19-kilodalton protein conserved in all recognized Anaplasma species. Infect Immun 60:5139–5144. 10.1128/iai.60.12.5139-5144.1992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated in this study are included in this published article.

Articles from Tropical Animal Health and Production are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES