Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 9;4:239. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00239

Table 1.

Comparative score attributed to the tick control methods described in case study 1 and case study 2: major advantages and disadvantages.

graphic file with name fpubh-04-00239-i001.jpg graphic file with name fpubh-04-00239-i002.jpg graphic file with name fpubh-04-00239-i003.jpg graphic file with name fpubh-04-00239-i004.jpg
Control method Dip-tank (case study 1) Footbath (case study 2) Portable manual sprayera Pour-ona
Initial investment 20 0000 US$ 400 US$ 80 US$ 0 US$
Cost for the whole rainy season (per cattle head) 1.5 US$ 0.2–0.25 US$ 0.15–0.25 US$ 3–5.5 US$
Usefulness to treat one/few animal(s) * * ** ***
Usefulness to treat many animals or more than one herd *** ** * **
Environmental implications/hazards 1. volume of product to be used *** * ** *
Environmental implications/hazards 2. risk of spilling/pouring/dispersal on fallow land *** * *** from * to *** (depending on product used)
Public health implications/hazards 1. risk for the operators ** * *** *
Public health implications/hazards 2. residues in foods of animal origin *** ** * *

aOther (most) common tick control methods used under field conditions in the study areas.

Key-legend of the score attributed: * low level; ** medium; *** high level