As part of a continuing programme to aid in the development of new acaricides, the efficacy in the field of four different pour‐on formulations was tested against four economically important tick species in Kenya. Synthetic pyrethroids flumethrin2, cypermethrin (mixed isomers)3, and alpha cypermethrin4were compared together with an organophosphate, phosmet5. All the acaricides were applied along the dorsal midline of the animals except where Porect was applied onto the ears, neck and face of the animals as an alternative treatment. Bayticol was significantly more effective than all the others tested (P <0.05) for the duration of the trial of 14 days and would be of immense benefit to farmers who are dipping once or even twice a week and still experience losses fromTheileria parvainfection or East Coast Fever (ECF). Porect, SF06666 and SF06646 were found inadequate to be used in situations where susceptible cattle are reared in ECF endemic areas. However, they can be used where farmers rear resistant cattle and where the priority is to reduce tick worry without trekking animals for long distances to the dip. SF06666 had poor control over body ticks particularly theAmblyornmaspecies. Porect at special application rates to the ears, face and neck is too cumbersome to be practicable. There was a significant rub‐off effect on to the synthetic pyrethroid control animals, especially Bayticol, which contributed to the low numbers of total ticks in the controls relative to total ticks pre‐treatment.