Efficacy of Levamisol ® on Milk Production of Dairy Cows:
A Field Study 1
ELLIOT BLOCK, W. A. McDONALD, and B. A. JACKSON
ABSTRACT
Twelve hundred ninety-six cows on 88
farms were alternately injected at calving
with Levamisol or saline. Each farm was
visited every 2nd wk from May to Octo-
ber to administer treatments to cows that
would calve prior to our next visit and to
collect fecal grab samples from cows for
worm egg counts. Production records
were collected for each cow for their first
6 mo of lactation. Fecal worm egg counts
were reduced in cows treated with Leva-
misol for the first 2 mo postcalving. Daily
milk produced was higher in cows treated
with Levamisol by 1.24 kg. Milk fat and
protein percentages were not different
between treatment groups; however, milk
fat production was higher in cows treated
with Levamisol for the first 2 mo post-
calving. Cows treated with Levamisol
produced 235 kg more milk than control
cows during their first 6 mo of lactation
and were projected to produce 339 kg
more milk for a 305-d lactation. Month
of calving improved milk production by
cows treated with Levamisol. Cows
treated with Levamisol and calved in
months May to July showed the highest
improvement in milk production while
cows that were treated with Levamisol
and calved in months August to October
showed no significant improvement in
production. Injection of cows with Leva-
misol at calving improves milk produc-
tion and reduces gastrointestinal worm
burdens.
Received November 12, 1986.
Accepted February 2, 1987.
1This research was partly supported by Cyanamid
Canada, Inc. Levamisol® is a registered trademark of
Cyanamid Canada, Inc. and the American Cyanamid
Co.
1987 J Dairy Sci 70:1080-1085
Department of Animal Science
Macdonald College of McGill University
21,111 Lakeshore Road
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec H9X 1C0, Canada
INTRODUCTION
The deworming of dairy cattle with various
anthelmintie treatments in different geographi-
cal regions has had inconsistent effects on milk
production (4, 7, 12, 14). Some reports (2, 3,
4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19) show deworming in-
creases milk production, whereas others (1,
11, 12, 14, 15, 16) show a decrease or no
changes in milk production. These variations
are partially a result of inconsistent strategy of
treatment employed to deworm cows. The two
main treatment strategies are: 1) deworm at
calving because parturition relaxes the host's
immune system, stimulating the severity of
existing worm burdens or allowing new worm
burdens to occur (11, 12) and 2) eliminate the
worm burdens in all cows simultaneously
during the active phase of the worm's life cycle
to reduce the risks of reinfections or cross-
reinfection (1, 8).
Our group has reported results where lac-
tating cows were simultaneously dewormed
immediately prior to pasture season, during the
pasture season (4), and throughout the year
(16). Both studies showed significant increases
in milk production when anthelmintic was
administered during the pasture season regard-
less of stage of lactation of cows.
The objective of this trial was to determine
field efficacy data for the anthelmintic treat-
ment strategy of deworming cows at calving
using Levamisol as an anthelmintic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In January 1984, a questionnaire was sent
to 250 Holstein dairy farmers on the official
option (data recorded and samples obtained by
a field man) of the Quebec Dairy Herd Analysis
Service (DHAS) program who resided between
Montreal and Quebec City in the St. Lawrence
River Valley and whose cows produced more
than 6500 kg milk cow - l ' y r - a . One hundred
1080
 SUBCLINICAL GASTROINTESTINAL PARASITISM IN DAIRY CATTLE
t w e n t y - t w o replies were received of which 88
were selected for use in a field trial. Thirty-
seven farms were not used because cows were
d e w o r m e d in the preceding 3 yr, dry cows
could n o t be brought into the barn before
e x p e c t e d calving date, or no pasture system was
in use.
In May 1984, each f a r m in t h e study was
visited each 2 w k to administer t r e a t m e n t s and
to obtain fecal grab samples f r o m cows on trial.
Fecal samples were analyzed for w o r m eggs by
a double f l o t a t i o n m e t h o d (9). At each visit,
cows e x p e c t e d to calve before the n e x t visit
were alternately injected with saline or with
Levamisol according to m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s recom-
mendations. Producers were given disposable
syringes, an amber b o t t l e with Levamisol
(marked " P r o d u c t Y " ) , a red b o t t l e with saline
(marked " P r o d u c t Z"), and were i n f o r m e d
which cows were to receive products if the
cows calved before our n e x t visit. The objective
was to inject all cows within 1 wk of parturi-
tion. T r e a t m e n t period was f r o m May through
O c t o b e r inclusive.
All D H A S m o n t h l y reports were o b t a i n e d
for each farm f r o m May 1984 to May 1985 and
were compiled for the first 6 m o postcalving for
treated cows on each farm. Statistics compiled
were milk and 4% FCM p r o d u c e d on test-day;
milk fat and protein percentages for test day
samples; cumulative milk p r o d u c e d at 6 m o
postcalving; projected milk p r o d u c t i o n (305 d)
of each cow at 6 m o postcalving; projected
breed class averages for milk and fat at 6 m o
postcalving. Cows were eliminated f r o m the
trial if t h e y did not receive the e x p e r i m e n t a l
products within 1 wk o f calving. Farms were
eliminated f r o m t h e trial if their official D H A S
status was d r o p p e d , if t h e y did n o t f o l l o w the
t r e a t m e n t protocol, or if t h e y dramatically
changed the m a n a g e m e n t routine or rations fed
to lactating cows. Minor ration changes were
not evaluated. These farms utilized pastures as
large exercise lots and did n o t rely on t h e m to
supply nutrients. Therefore, ration formula-
tions did not change dramatically t h r o u g h o u t
the year for farms used in our final analyses.
Statistical analysis was by c o m p l e t e r a n d o m
design. Herd effects were not included in the
m o d e l because each herd received b o t h Levami-
sol and control t r e a t m e n t s equally. All analyses
were c o n d u c t e d on the McGill c o m p u t i n g sys-
tem using the Statistical Analysis System.
1081
RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION
The total n u m b e r o f cows that calved f r o m
May through O c t o b e r was 1422. One h u n d r e d
twenty-six cows were eliminated because t h e y
did n o t receive t r e a t m e n t within 1 wk of
calving; for the remaining 1296 calvings, 644
cows received saline and 652 received Levami-
sol within 1 w k of calving. In fact, 92% of
experimental cows were treated within 2 d of
calving, 7% within 2 to 3 d of calving, and 1%
within 3 to 6 d o f calving. There were no
reports o f adverse effects due to injections.
Fecal w o r m egg counts for the first 6 m o
postcalving are in Table 1. Cows treated with
Levamisol showed reduced (P<.05) fecal egg
counts c o m p a r e d with control cows for the first
2 m o postcalving and a t r e n d ( P < . 1 0 ) t o w a r d a
lower count for the 3rd m o postcalving. It
should be n o t e d that any one value in Table 1
represents cows calving f r o m May through
October. Hidden parasitological events create
s o m e confusion in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of this table.
Levamisol prevented the normal postparturient
rise in fecal egg counts (11, 12) that was ob-
served in the control cows, which persisted into
the 3rd m o postcalving. The 4th m o postcalving
represented the end of the pasture season for
cows that calved in May, June, or July and
represented winter for cows that calved in
TABLE 1. Fecal worm egg counts from cows injected
with Levamisol (L) or saline (S) at calving. 1
Month
post-
calving S L SE 2
(eggs/g feces)
1 225.4 a 1.5 b 1.2
2 250.5 a 8.6 b 1.3
3 181.7 c 80.4 d .8
4 112.2 115.8 1.4
5 125.4 100.9 .6
6 84.3 81.1 .7
a'bvalues in a row with different superscripts differ
(P<.05).
c'dvalues in a row with different superscripts differ
(P<.IO).
in = Six hundred forty-four cows injected with
saline and 652 injected with Levamisol at calving.
Standard error.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 5, 1987
1082 BLOCK ET AL.

August, September, or O c t o b e r where the M o n t h l y p r o d u c t i o n p a r a m e t e r s a r e in T a b l e

winter months represent a dormant phase for
gastrointestinal nematodes (10, 13). A d d i -
tionally, because Levamisol-treated cows were
housed with control cows and with cows that
calved outside of the treatment period there
w a s l i k e l y a fair d e g r e e o f c r o s s i n f e c t i o n o f
cows and reinfection with worm larvae from
p a s t u r e s . T h e c o n c l u s i o n f r o m T a b l e 1 is t h a t
L e v a m i s o l p r e v e n t e d a p o s t p a r t u r i e n t rise in
worm activity for 2 mo postcalving when Leva-
m i s o l w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d t o c o w s at c a l v i n g
during a grazing season.
2. M i l k p r o d u c t i o n w a s i n c r e a s e d ( P < . 0 5 ) in
cows treated with Levamisol from the 2nd
through 5th mo postcalving, and FCM produc-
tion was increased (P<.05) for the entire 6 too.
Milk f a t p e r c e n t a g e w a s n o t a f f e c t e d b y t r e a t -
ment; however, milk fat production was greater
(P<.05) by Levamisol-treated cows for the first
2 mo postcalving. Milk protein percentage and
production were not affected by treatment.
Persistency of milk production did not differ
between groups. The average monthly decrease
in p r o d u c t i o n f r o m t h e 1st t o 6 t h m o p o s t -

TABLE 2. Milk production and composition for the first 6 m o postcalving b y cows injected with Levamisol (L)
or saline (S) at calving)

4% Fat-
Month Milk corrected
post- produc- milk pro-
calving Treatment tion duction Milk fat Milk protein

(kg,d - a ) ~ (%) (kg'd -1) (%) (kg,d - 1 )

1 S 28.29 27.11 3.72 1.05 3.18 .90
L 29.10 28.38 3.84 1.12 3.24 .94
Difference 2 .81 1.27 a .20 .60 a .06 .04
SED 3 .03 .02 .01 .01 .005 .006

2 S 28.85 26.08 3.36 .97 2.97 .86

L 30.79 28.28 3.46 1.06 2.98 .92
Difference 1.94 a 2.20 a .10 .09 a .01 .06
SED .04 .03 .004 .004 .004 .005

3 $ 27.23 24.87 3.42 .93 3.07 .84

L 28.56 26.32 3.48 .99 3.06 .87
Difference 1.33 a 1.45 a .05 .06 .01 .04
SED .03 .02 .006 .005 .004 .006

4 S 25.04 23.12 3.49 .87 3.17 .79

L 26.34 24.65 3.57 .94 3.18 .84
Difference 1.30 a 1.53 a .08 .07 .01 .05
SED .02 .02 .003 .002 .004 .006

5 S 23.27 21.88 3.60 .84 3.24 .75

L 24.35 23.09 3.65 .89 3.27 .80
Difference 1.08 a 1.21 a .06 .05 .03 .04
SED .05 .04 .004 .003 .002 .002

6 S 21.58 20.62 3.70 .80 3,28 .71

L 22.55 21.70 3.75 .85 3.12 .75
Difference .97 a 1.08 a .04 .05 .04 .04
SED .06 .04 .002 .003 .002 .002

aDifference is significant (P<.05).

J n = Six h u n d r e d forty-four cows injected with saline and 652 cows injected with Levamisol at calving.
Difference calculated as Levamisol minus saline-treated cows.
3 Standard error of the difference.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 5, 1987

 SUBCLINICAL GASTROINTESTINAL PARASITISM IN DAIRY CATTLE 1083

calving was 5.2 and 5.0% for control and
treated cows. Cumulative p r o d u c t i o n for the
6 m o o f the trial and milk p r o d u c t i o n p r o j e c t e d
for 305 d are in Table 3. Cows treated with
Levamisol p r o d u c e d 235.3 kg m o r e (P<.05)
milk at 6 m o and were projected at 338.8 kg
m o r e (P<.05) milk for a 305-d lactation than
control cows. Percentages o f milk fat were n o t
different ( P > . 0 5 ) b e t w e e n groups; however,
cows treated with Levamisol t e n d e d (P<.10)
to produce m o r e milk fat than control cows
due to their higher milk production. These
results c o m p a r e well with our previously
reported results (4) using a different p r o d u c t
and t r e a t m e n t strategy. Therefore, prevention
of postparturient increase in w o r m activity by
injection of Levamisol caused cows to peak
higher and maintain the same persistency as
control cows, t h e r e b y producing m o r e milk
for the lactation.
In previous trials (4, 6) we have s h o w n that
animal p e r f o r m a n c e improves when anthelmin-
tics are administered i m m e d i a t e l y prior to and
during their grazing season regardless of the
p r o d u c t i o n state of the animal. Data in Tables
2 and 3 indicate that anthelmintics can improve
p e r f o r m a n c e if t h e y are administered at calving
irrespective o f season. However, the data were
manipulated to e x a m i n e the effect of season o f
calving on the i m p r o v e m e n t o f p r o d u c t i o n ob-
tained by d e w o r m i n g ; these data are shown in
Table 4. The overall average increase in milk
p r o d u c e d by treated cows was 1.24 k g - d - 1
(P<.05) for the entire trial period (average of
difference in milk f r o m Tables 2 and 4). Table
4 shows that cows calving in m o n t h s o f May--
July were responsible for the increase in milk
p r o d u c t i o n due to the large differences in milk
p r o d u c t i o n b e t w e e n treated and control cows,
while milk p r o d u c t i o n o f cows treated with
Levamisol that calved in m o n t h s o f A u g u s t -
O c t o b e r was not significantly different ( P > . 0 5 )
f r o m that o f control cows. We have shown pre-
viously (16) that gastrointestinal w o r m activity
decreases in O c t o b e r if fecal egg counts are the
indicator. Use of anthelmintics at calving pre-
vents postparturient rise in w o r m activity, but
to observe a long-term significant effect on milk
p r o d u c t i o n t h e w o r m s must be in the active
phase of their life cycle following peak lacta-
tion o f cows. F u r t h e r analysis of data in Table
4 w o u l d n o t be fair because calving distribution
was not even; however, it is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t
the m o n t h with the least calvings ( S e p t e m b e r )

TABLE 3. Cumulative and projected production parameters by injection with Levamisol (L) or saline (S) at
calving. I

Difference
Parameter S L SE 2 (L-S)

Cumulative milk production at 6 mo postcalving, kg 4635.8 4871.1 6.1 235.3 a

Cumulative milk fat at 6 mo postcalving

% 3.53 3.61 .03 .08
kg 163.64 175.85 1.2 12.21 b

Cumulative milk protein at 6 mo postcalving

% 3.13 3.14 .01 .01
kg 145.1 152.95 .88 7.85

Predicted milk production at 305 d, kg a 6938.7 7277.5 7.2 338.8 a

Predicted BCA milk ~,4 143.4 150.3 1.01 6.9 a
Predicted BCA fat 3,4 137.4 147.1 .96 9.7b

aDifference is significant (P<.05).

bDifference is significant (P<.10).
1Six hundred forty-four cows injected with saline and 652 cows injected with Levamisol at calving.
2 Standard error.
3 Predicted based on production at 6 mo of lactation.
4 BCA = Breed class average.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 5, 1987

1084 BLOCK ET AL.

TABLE 4. Average daily milk production and number of calvings (n) for the first 6 mo postcalving by cows
injected with saline (S) and Levamisol (L) for cows that calved during different months of the trial, t

Month Milk produced (kg od - J ) for 6 mo Difference

of calving S (n) L (n) SE 2 (L-S)

May 25.31 (185) 27.12 (178) .27 1.81 a

June 26.09 (158) 27.43 (143) .17 1.34 a
July 25.48 (84) 27.01 (97) .18 1.53 a
August 24.86 (100) 25.92 (85) .42 1.06 b
September 26.27 (35) 26.99 (33) .39 .72
October 26.25 (82) 26.73 (116) .45 .48

Average 25.71 26.95 .31 1.24 a

aDifference is significant (P<.05).

bDifference is significant (P<.IO).
1n = Six hundred forty-four cows injected with saline and 652 injected with Levamisol at calving.
2 Standard error.

c o n t a i n e d e n o u g h calvings for a fair c o m p a r i s o n w o r m i n g s h o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d w h e n gastro-

(35 calvings w h e r e cows were t r e a t e d w i t h
saline and 33 w h e r e cows were t r e a t e d w i t h
Levamisol).
C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e results o f this trial w i t h
previous trials (4, 5, 6, 16) c o n c l u s i o n s a n d
s p e c u l a t i o n s can b e e x t r a p o l a t e d . T o c o n t r o l
gastrointestinal worms, the two treatment
strategies o f d e w o r m i n g at calving a n d simul-
t a n e o u s d e w o r m i n g are effective; h o w e v e r ,
simultaneous deworming imposes control
d u r i n g t h e active p h a s e o f t h e parasite's life
cycle. T o o b s e r v e c o n s i s t e n t l y b e n e f i c i a l effects
of d e w o r m i n g o n milk p r o d u c t i o n , animals
m u s t be i n f e c t e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t n u m b e r s o f
parasites a n d m u s t be s i m u l t a n e o u s l y de-
wormed immediately before and during the
p a s t u r e season. T h e a n t h e l m i n t i c u s e d does n o t
have a large e f f e c t o n t h e overall p r o d u c t i o n
increase; t h e o n e s we t e s t e d p r o d u c e similar
responses. However, d e w o r m i n g at calving,
irrespective o f season, does n o t a f f o r d c o n t r o l
of w o r m s o n a f a r m . F o r e x a m p l e , cows t h a t
calve in D e c e m b e r are d e w o r m e d , r e m o v i n g
active w o r m s ; h o w e v e r , cows t h a t will calve in
J u l y will r e i n f e c t t h e cows t h a t calved in
D e c e m b e r b y s h e d d i n g eggs o n t o p a s t u r e s in
May a n d J u n e t h a t will b e c o n s u m e d as h e r b a g e
larvae b y t h e cows t h a t calved in D e c e m b e r .
T h e r e f o r e , for successful c o n t r o l of larvae o n
pastures a n d w o r m s in cows d e w o r m i n g m u s t
be p e r f o r m e d m o r e t h a n o n c e p e r year. De-
i n t e s t i n a l w o r m s b e c o m e active ( a r o u n d pasture
season) a n d again w h e n i n f e c t i v e larvae are
c o n s u m e d (during p a s t u r e season) at intervals
c o i n c i d e n t w i t h g e n e r a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t (ap-
p r o x i m a t e l y 1 mo). This s t r a t e g y will r e d u c e
t o t a l w o r m p o p u l a t i o n o n a farm. T h e addi-
t i o n a l s t r a t e g y o f d e w o r m i n g at calving will
help to decrease t o t a l w o r m p o p u l a t i o n m o r e
r a p i d l y b u t will n o t b e effective if it is t h e o n l y
control.
REFERENCES
1 Barger, I. A. 1979. Milk production of grazing
dairy cattle after single anthelmintic treatment.
Aust. Vet. J. 55:68.
2 Bliss, D. H., and A. C. Todd. 1973. Milk produc-
tion by Wisconsin dairy cattle after deworming
with Baymix. Vet. Med. Small Anita. Clin. 68:
1034.
3 Bliss, D. H., and A. C. Todd. 1976. Milk produc-
tion by Vermont dairy cattle after deworming. Vet.
Med. Small Anim. Clin. 71:1251.
4- Block, E., and P. Gadbois. 1986. Efficacy of mor-
antel tartrate on milk production of dairy cows:
a field study. J. Dairy Sci. 69:1135.
5 Block, E., and H. Takagi. 1986. Relationship be-
tween fecal egg counts and total worm counts in
subclinically parasitized calves and examination of
possible variations in fecal worm egg excretion by
cows. Can. J. Anita. Sci. 66:799.
6 Block, E., H. Takagi, B. R. Downey, M. E. Rau,
and P. Gadbois. 1985. Efficacy of morantel tar-
trate in a sustained release bolus on the control of
subclinical gastrointestinal parasitism in first-year

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 5, 1987

 SUBCLINICAL G A S T R O I N T E S T I N A L PARASITISM IN DAIRY CATTLE
grazing dairy replacements. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2361.
7 Brown, M. A., and V. J. Maniscalco. 1974. Effects
on milk production and internal parasites o f dairy
cattle f r o m a ration s u p p l e m e n t e d with parasiticide
(coumaphos). Southwest. Vet. 25:51.
8 Cox, D. D., M. T. Mullee, and A. D. Allen. 1969.
Effect o f c o n m a p h o s and fethion feed additives on
gastrointestinal nematode c o u n t in feedlot cattle.
A m . J. Vet. Res. 30:1933.
9 Cox, D. D., and A. C. Todd. 1962. Survey of gas-
trointestinal parasitism in Wisconsin dairy cattle. J.
A m . Vet. Med. Assoc. 141:706.
10 Dunsmore, J. D. 1961. Effect o f whole b o d y irra-
diation and cortisone on the development of Oster-
tagia spp. in sheep. Nature (Lond.) 192:139.
11 Fisher, L. J., and A. C. MacNeill. 1982. The re-
sponse of lactating cows and growing heifers to
t r e a t m e n t for parasites. Can. J. Anita. Sci. 62:
481.
12 Fr~chette, J. L., and P. Lamothe. 1981. Milk pro-
duction effects o f morantel tartrate t r e a t m e n t at
calving in dairy cows with subclinical parasitism.
Can. Vet. J. 22:252.
13 Gibbs, H. C. 1969. Some factors involved in the
1085
spring rise p h e n o m e n o n in sheep. In Reaction of
the host to parasitism. E.J.L. Soulsby, ed. Elvert,
Marbury/Lahn, FRG.
14 Harris, B., and C. J. Wilcox. 1976. Effect o f anthel-
mintics on milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 59:20.
15 Herd, R. P. 1980. Animal health and public health
aspects of bovine parasitism. J. A m . Vet. Med.
Assoc. 176:737.
16 Takagi, H., and E. Block. 1986. Effects of feeding
c o u m a p h o s to dairy cows at various stages of lac-
tation on subclinical parasite infection and milk
production. Can. J. Anita. Sci. 66:141.
17 Todd, A. C. 1978. T r e a t m e n t of milking cows for
w o r m parasitism (economic and rationale). Pract.
Vet. 49:20.
18 Todd, A. C., D. H. Bliss, L. Grisi, and J. W. Crow-
ley. 1978. Milk production by dairy cattle in
Pennsylvania and North Carolina after d e w o r m i n g
(treatment at freshening and systematically over
the first three m o n t h s of lactation). Vet. Med.
Small A n i m . Clin. 73:614.
19 Todd, A. C., D. H. Bliss, and G. H. Myers. 1975.
Milk production increases following t r e a t m e n t of
subclinical parasitism. N.S. Vet. J. 23:59.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 5, 1987