Ticks a thing of the past?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 krikoman 27 Aug 2019

Sounds interesting, pump deer and cattle full of this stuff and they save the world (or a t least save us getting Lyme)

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-saliva.html

 girlymonkey 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects. What eats ticks? What side effects could this have for the cattle or knock on for humans when they eat the cattle? Wiping out a species does make me uneasy

2
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects. What eats ticks? What side effects could this have for the cattle or knock on for humans when they eat the cattle? Wiping out a species does make me uneasy

Yes I often think this about wasps.  

It's a delicate system.  

 ScottTalbot 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

I agree. I'd be far more comfortable targeting the disease than the tick itself.

 tjdodd 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

The answer of course is wiping out humans, the one species that eradicating would definitely lead to everything else doing better.

1
 elsewhere 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Put some human scent in the bait trap. Kill all those that like humans. Only ticks that don't like humans survive to breed. Not extinction, just modification.

Rigid Raider 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Can't they start with the really useless but irritating pests like wasps, estate agents and lawyers?

6
 lewmul 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects. What eats ticks? What side effects could this have for the cattle or knock on for humans when they eat the cattle? Wiping out a species does make me uneasy

Where does the article mention eradicating ticks?

Also before any product is brought to market it is of course tested for side effects etc so I think your fears are a little misplaced. 

2
 tjdodd 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Can't they start with the really useless but irritating pests like wasps, estate agents and lawyers?


Agree with estate agents and lawyers but wasps are really really important

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/in-defence-of-wasps-why-squashing...

 Neil Williams 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

Wasps are far less of an issue than ticks.  Unless you have an anaphylactic allergy (which is fairly rare) they just cause short-term pain, they don't give you a dangerous disease which can be life-changing.

I haven't been stung by a wasp in the UK for over 20 years (and most people only seem to get stung when they flap and swat them).  They seem more aggressive in mainland Europe, though.

 girlymonkey 27 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> Where does the article mention eradicating ticks?

The researchers, who are at Louisiana State University, reasoned that if they could stop ticks from producing saliva, then they could prevent them from feeding—a situation that would be incompatible with sustaining life.

> Also before any product is brought to market it is of course tested for side effects etc so I think your fears are a little misplaced. 

Yes... But sometimes this is not carried out nearly as well as it should be or long term effects cannot be studied. People with vested interests also often seek to affect the results of such studies too.

While I am no fan of ticks, I think it will take more to convince me

MarkJH 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects.

I don't think that anybody has proposed (or is capable of) eradicating them, but you cannot produce food without some  method for targeting pest and pathogens.  Compared to current agricultural control methods or domestic insecticides, this sounds safer and more specific and, as such, may have fewer negative effects on wider ecosystems.

Post edited at 10:45
 SouthernSteve 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Using a systemic acaricide in people would appear to be a good answer - something that kills the tick in less than 12 hours so that Lyme's is very unlikely. This would have a low environmental impact. Products that would kill ticks have been tried in people to kill mosquitos (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801338115

However ticks also have a welfare impact on farm and wild animals as well so good products that kill ticks have benefits there too.

Of course as tick bites may make you allergic to meat proteins forcing you to give up meat, tick bites may in fact help save the planet!

 skog 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects.

I think this is a valid concern, but sometimes it's worth it.

They're spreading Lyme, but also quite a few other diseases in many places (including but not limited to TBE). Stopping this by killing them off would, in my opinion, be justified - and if there are serious knock-on consequences to that we should try to dampen them where possible.

Other diseases are often controlled or even eliminated by killing off carriers - such as water snails to control bilharzia, or mosquitos to control malaria or a variety of other nasties; doing this can save a lot of lives and improve the quality of a great many others.

All that said, the article doesn't actually talk about killing off ticks, just a method for reducing the numbers of them affecting livestock and the likelihood of them passing on diseases to them - so improving agricultural yields. It isn't immediately obvious how it could be rolled out to areas where ticks feed on wild animals, such as deer, rodents or birds.

Post edited at 11:25
OP krikoman 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think the spread of Lymes is worth tackling, I question whether effectively eradicating ticks will have other knock on effects. What eats ticks? What side effects could this have for the cattle or knock on for humans when they eat the cattle? Wiping out a species does make me uneasy


I doubt, you'd eradicate the ticks, and that wasn't mentioned in the post anyway. What it could offer is a way to locally achieve herd immunity and as there are now, pockets of high incidence of Lyme, create low areas of Lyme. You need a certain population of infected insects within an area to keep the infection rates high.

Deadeye 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Well, you'd need to treat all the deer, rabbits, and rodents too...

OP krikoman 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

> Well, you'd need to treat all the deer, rabbits, and rodents too...


No you don't, reducing the available virus in the areas population, might well be enough to halt, or reduce, the incidence of Lyme. I wasn't aware of rodent carrying Lyme, but even so. It's not about exterminating all ticks, it's about stopping the spread of Lyme and the amount of the virus in a given area. If you're successful you eventually get to a point when the virus has so few hosts it dies out. Like Polio.

2
 SouthernSteve 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

The main reservoirs for Lyme borreliae (the bacteria causing Lyme disease) are small mammals, such as mice and voles, and some species of birds, so treating people and farm stock may not have the desired population-exclusion effect you describe although reducing the number of ticks has got to be useful in reducing the number of infections.

OP krikoman 27 Aug 2019
In reply to SouthernSteve:

> The main reservoirs for Lyme borreliae (the bacteria causing Lyme disease) are small mammals, such as mice and voles, and some species of birds, so treating people and farm stock may not have the desired population-exclusion effect you describe although reducing the number of ticks has got to be useful in reducing the number of infections.


That might well be true, but ticks only live on the smaller animals in the early stages of their lives( Larval form) especially in Europe. The nymphs (immature form) feed on small and larger mammals, so there's areal chance of making an impact of the mechanism through which people get infected.

 Snyggapa 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Can't they start with the really useless but irritating pests like wasps, estate agents and lawyers?

And telephone sanitisers


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...