COMPARISON OF THUMB-COUNTING AND COMB-COUNTING METHODS TO DETERMINE CTENOCEPHALIDES-FELIS INFESTATION LEVELS ON DOGS

Comb-counting and thumb-counting were compared in a cross-over study t o determine which was more accurate for quantifying flea infestation l evels on dogs. Twenty beagle dogs were used in the study and infested with either 50 or 100 adult fleas (Ctenocephalides felis). Two groups of five dogs each were infested with either 50 or 100 fleas per dog, a nd then comb-counted with a fine-toothed flea comb for 8 min periods. An additional two groups of five dogs each were also given 50 or 100 f leas, and then thumb-counted. The counting time for this technique is both lower and more variable because the fleas are only observed and n ot captured; thus, the speed at which the dog is covered must be incre ased in order to prevent counting the same fleas more than once. The m ean time of thumbcounting per dog was 3.2 min. Fleas removed during co mb-counting were placed back on the dog they were taken from after the count was concluded. At the cross-over point, the ten dogs that had b een comb-counted were then thumb-counted and the ten dogs that had bee n thumb-counted were comb-counted. The results showed that comb-counti ng recovered significantly (P less-than-or-equal-to 0.05) more fleas t han did thumb-counting. On dogs given 50 and 100 fleas, comb-counting gave mean percentage recoveries of 67.6% and 75.4%, respectively, wher eas thumb-counting found means of 8.8% and 7.7%, respectively. The ord er in which the counting methods were employed produced no significant effect (P > 0.05) on the number of fleas counted.