Cattle mange: causative agents, risk factors and control strategies

Cattle mange is a significant ectoparasitic disease of cattle, particularly in indoor systems and intensive beef production units. Caused by various species of mites—Psoroptes ovis, Sarcoptes scabiei var. bovis, and Chorioptes spp.—bovine mange leads to economic losses due to reduced weight gain, poor feed conversion, skin damage, and increased treatment costs. Beyond productivity, mange impacts animal welfare, causing intense pruritus, skin inflammation, and chronic stress. Recent research also points to emerging resistance to macrocyclic lactones and breed-specific susceptibility, especially in Belgian Blue cattle [1-4].

Prefer to listen to this article? Click the play button below and enjoy our podcast!

Causative agents and clinical presentation of cattle mange

Three types of mites are primarily involved in bovine mange:

• Psoroptes ovis is a non-burrowing mite that causes psoroptic mange, a highly contagious and pruritic condition. It can induce systemic physiological stress, chronic inflammation, and poor growth performance [5]. The mites feed on skin exudates and create thick, crusty lesions with intense inflammation. Lesions often begin around the withers, back, and rump, and may spread over large areas of the body [1,6].
• Sarcoptes scabiei var. bovis is a burrowing mite responsible for sarcoptic mange. It invades the stratum corneum and triggers a hypersensitivity reaction leading to erythema, thickening, scaling, alopecia, and intense pruritus [6]. Lesions are commonly found on the neck, inner thighs, and face. Sarcoptes scabiei can transiently infest humans, causing temporary pruritic skin lesions.
• Chorioptes spp. are surface-dwelling mites causing milder dermatitis. Chorioptes bovis has long been considered the principal species, but recent evidence suggests that Chorioptes texanus may be replacing it in parts of Europe [7]. Lesions are typically seen at the tailhead and perineum with mild itching. Cows with chorioptic mange actively seek mechanical brushes for relief. Providing grooming tools and improving comfort through bedding management can reduce the impact of infestation [8].

Psoroptic mange is particularly severe, with outbreaks spreading rapidly through direct contact or contaminated environments [1]. It is most diagnosed in winter and often presents with intense irritation, secondary infections, weight loss, and in some cases, mortality. While psoroptic mange is highly pathogenic and transmissible, chorioptic mange is often underestimated, especially in dairy systems where cows remain housed year-round.

Mite species	Localisation in the skin	Behavior	Off-Host Survival Time
	Surface of the epidermidis (non-burrowing)	Feeds on skin exudates; causes scab formation; lives in the wool/hair layer	10 - 16 days at room temperature
	Burrows into the stratum corneum (outermost layer of the epidermis)	Creates tunnels in the skin; causes intense pruritus and inflammation; zoonotic potential (self-limiting dermatitis)	2 - 5 days under normal conditions
	Superficial on the skin surface  (non-burrowing)	Found in the keratinized layer, especially around the tailhead and feet	3 - 8 days depending on humidity

Prevalence and risk factors

The prevalence of mange in cattle is influenced by geographic region, housing conditions, breed, and management practices. A study in Northern Belgium showed that 74% of Belgian Blue farms were affected by psoroptic mange, with poor hygiene, inadequate treatments, and high animal purchase rates among the contributing risk factors [9]. In that study, nearly half of the farmers reported difficulty controlling the disease. Other studies in Ethiopia reported a 22.4% prevalence of mange, with Sarcoptes scabiei identified as the most common species [10].

Key risk factors for mange outbreaks include:

• 🐄 Breed susceptibility: Belgian Blue cattle are significantly more susceptible to psoroptic mange than Holsteins, partly due to their immune profile and genetic background [2].
• 🏡 Housing conditions: High stocking densities, poor ventilation, and continuous housing (especially in winter) increase the likelihood of mite transmission and persistence.
• 🚩Animal movement: Farms with higher rates of animal purchases show increased mange risk due to introduction of infested cattle.
• 🧹Hygiene and management: Low hygiene scores and poor barn maintenance are linked to higher infestation rates. Environmental contamination and fomites also contribute to persistence.
• 💉Incomplete treatment protocols: Inadequate dosing, single treatment events, or failure to treat all contact animals contribute to treatment failures and potential resistance.

Interestingly, even with high prevalence, many cattle present with only mild or localized lesions, complicating early diagnosis. On-farm awareness, regular screening, and proper ectoparasiticides use are essential components of effective mange control programs.

Treatment and control

Macrocyclic lactones (MLs) such as ivermectin, doramectin, eprinomectin and moxidectin have been the mainstay of mange treatment in cattle for decades. These compounds offer broad-spectrum activity and are administered via parenteral injection, or as topical formulations. In general, MLs have demonstrated high efficacy when applied as a single dose, leading to rapid clinical improvement, weight gain, and lesion resolution [11]. However, growing evidence shows that ML resistance is emerging.

In a study of 16 Belgian Blue beef farms across Belgium and the Netherlands, only 3 showed complete efficacy of ML treatment against Psoroptes ovis after a single round, while the remainder required multiple treatment rounds or failed to eliminate mites entirely, indicating confirmed resistance [12]. Similar failures have been observed in Argentina where Psoroptes ovis persisted despite appropriate dosing with ivermectin [13]. 

To improve control outcomes, veterinarians and farmers can adopt integrated strategies:

• Ensure accurate dosing: Use bodyweight-based dosing and administer the product according to manufacturer recommendations.
• Treat all in-contact animals: Even asymptomatic individuals may harbor mites and perpetuate infestation.
• Repeat treatments if necessary: Because most acaricides are not fully ovicidal, a second treatment after 7–10 days may be needed.
• Shearing and crust removal: Especially in Psoroptes infestations, removing crusts enhances drug penetration.
• Environmental management: Mites can survive off-host for days to weeks, so improving barn hygiene, ventilation, and bedding hygiene helps reduce reinfestation.
• Use of approved products: In dairy herds, eprinomectin is a valuable option due to its zero-milk withdrawal period [14]. This enables whole-herd treatment without disrupting milk sales.

Conclusion

Cattle mange remains a persistent and multifactorial challenge, impacting productivity and welfare. Resistance has now been confirmed in multiple mite populations, making routine monitoring of treatment efficacy essential. Improving diagnostics, rotating dewormer classes, enhancing hygiene, and promoting responsible use of treatments will be critical for effective, sustainable control.

Bibliography

[1]. Mitchell ES, Jones JR, Foster AP, et al. Clinical features of psoroptic mange in cattle in England and Wales. Vet Rec 2012;170:359.
[2]. Meyermans R, Janssens S, Coussé A, et al. Genetic and genomic analysis of Belgian Blue’s susceptibility for psoroptic mange. Genet Sel Evol 2024;56(52).
[3]. Chen Z, Claerebout E, Chiers K, et al. Dermal immune responses against Psoroptes ovis in two cattle breeds and effects of anti-inflammatory dexamethasone treatment. Vet Res 2021;52(1):1.
[4]. Blutke A, Börjes P, Herbach N, et al. Acaricide treatment prevents adrenocortical hyperplasia as a long-term stress reaction to psoroptic mange in cattle. Vet Parasitol 2015;207(1–2):125–133.
[5]. Rehbein S, Visser M, Meyer M, et al. Ivermectin treatment of bovine psoroptic mange: effects on serum chemistry, hematology, organ weights, and leather quality. Parasitol Res 2016;115:1519–1528.
[6]. Hamel D, Joachim A, Löwenstein M, et al. Treatment and control of bovine sarcoptic and psoroptic mange infestation with ivermectin long-acting injectable. Parasitol Res 2011;108(3):757–764.
[7]. Rehbein S, Visser M. Is Chorioptes texanus to displace Chorioptes bovis? Notes on the mites causing bovine chorioptic mange in Central Europe. Diversity 2024;16(4):199.
[8]. Moncada AC, Neave HW, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Use of a mechanical brush by dairy cows with chorioptic mange. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2020;223:104925.
[9]. Sarre C, De Bleecker K, Deprez P, et al. Risk factors for Psoroptes ovis mange on Belgian Blue farms in Northern Belgium. Vet Parasitol 2012;190(1–2):216–221.
[10]. Kebede A, Hirpa S. Prevalence and identification of mange mites on cattle in and around Nekemte town, Western Ethiopia. Vet Med Res Rep 2022;13:109–116.
[11]. Lifschitz A, Nava S, Miró V, et al. Macrocyclic lactones and ectoparasites control in livestock: efficacy, drug resistance and therapeutic challenges. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2024;26:100559.
[12]. Van Mol W, De Wilde N, Casaert S, et al. Resistance against macrocyclic lactones in Psoroptes ovis in cattle. Parasites Vectors 2020;13:127.
[13]. Lifschitz A, Fiel C, Steffan P, et al. Failure of ivermectin efficacy against Psoroptes ovis infestation in cattle: integrated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation. Vet Parasitol 2018;263:18–22.
[14]. Villarroel A, Halliburton MK. Control of extensive chorioptic mange natural infection in lactating dairy cattle without milk withdrawal. Vet J 2013;197(1):233–237.