Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:18:28.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The incidence and effect of poisoning with Lantana camara in different cattle breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. E. Frisch ,
C. J. O'Neill  and
H. M. Burrow
J. E. Frisch
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Tropical Animal Science, Box 5545, Rotkhampton Mail Centre, Queensland, Australia 4701
C. J. O'Neill
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Tropical Animal Science, Box 5545, Rotkhampton Mail Centre, Queensland, Australia 4701
H. M. Burrow
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Tropical Animal Science, Box 5545, Rotkhampton Mail Centre, Queensland, Australia 4701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The incidence of lantana poisoning and its effect on mortality, growth rate and fertility were recorded from 1975 to 1982 in seven lines of Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle and their crosses.

Two Bos taurus Hereford × Shorthorn (HS) lines had higher incidences of poisoning and higher mortalities after poisoning than the Bos indicus based breeds.

During the period of poisoning, live–weight gains of affected animals of all breeds were reduced but subsequent recovery was rapid. Lantana poisoning had no detectable effect on the fertility of animals affected at least 10 months prior to their first mating, irrespective of breed.

Parasite control influenced the incidence of poisoning and mortality in genetically similar groups of HS cattle. This observation, when combined with the between-breed relationships between the incidence of lantana poisoning and susceptibility to environmental stresses suggests that the marked breed differences in susceptibility to lantana poisoning stem from differences in resistance to other environmental stresses, including cattle ticks. This offers little scope for selection of animals that are resistant to lantana poisoning per se but has practical significance in lantanainfested regions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 191 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clarinobold, P. J. (1961). The use of orthogonal polynomials in the partition of chi-square. Australian Journal of Statistics 3, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1982). The use of teatsize measurement or calf weaning weight as an aid to selection against teat defects in cattle. Animal Production 32, 127–133.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1977). Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate and efficiency of feed utilization in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Animal Production 25, 343–358.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1982). Consideration of adaptive and productive components of productivity in breeding beef cattle for tropical Australia. In Proceedings 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Madrid, 1982. IV, 307–321.Google Scholar
Pass, M. A., Seawright, A. A., Heath, T. J. & Gemmell, R. T. (1978). Lantana poisoning: a cholestatic disease of cattle and sheep. In Effects of Poisonous Plants on Livestock (ed. R. F. Keeler, K. R. van Kamper and L.F.James). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seawrioht, A. A. (1963). Studies on experimental intoxication of sheep with Lantana camara. Australian Veterinary Journal 39, 340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, A. A. & Allen, J. G. (1972). Pathology of the liver and kidney in lantana poisoning of cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 48, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifert, G. W. (1971). Ecto– and endoparasitic effects on the growth rate of zebu crossbreds and British cattle in the field. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar