RESEARCH PAPER
Choice of optimal biocide combination to control flies (Diptera: Muscidae)
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department for Plant and Environmental Protection, Novi Sad, Serbia
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2015;22(2):243–246
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Introduction. Flies – by feeding on decaying matter, human waste and food – have been implicated in the spread of numerous animal and human diseases. Excessive fly populations are generally associated with livestock units and domestic waste due to decaying organic matter. A large number of flies cause extreme disturbance in the behavior of the host, resulting in skin irritation, lesions, wounds, and secondary infections are likely to appear.

Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of combined applications of larvicide (cyromazine) and adulticides (acetamiprid in formulation with pheromone and thiamethoxam) on the suppression of fly populations.

Material and Methods:
The study was conducted on a pig farm. The piglet farms are one of the most favorable places for fly breeding. Three units were used for biocide applications and a fourth unit as the control where biocides were not applied. The monitoring of pre- and post-treatment of adult fly populations was carried out by glued cardboards. The cards were hung on metal rods above piglet’s cage. This monitoring method served as a parameter for the estimation of biological effectiveness.

Results:
The highest degree of fly control (88.4% mortality 8 days after treatment) was achieved when a combination of cyromazine and thiamethoxam was used. A biocide based on sex pheromone (Z)-9-tricosene + acetamiprid was the most effective on flies 3 days after biocide application, with a mortality rate of 69.1%. Thiamethoxam achieved the highest reduction of flies 6 days after treatment, with 78.19% obtained mortality.

Conclusions:
Biological efficacy of the applied biocides in combination ciromazine + thiamethoxam and thiamethoxam alone was justified.

 
REFERENCES (31)
1.
Taylor DB, Moon RD, Mark DR. Economic Impact of Stable Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on Dairy and Beef Cattle Production. J Med Entomol. 2012; 49(1): 198–209.
 
2.
Banjo AD, Lawal OA, Adeduji OO. Bacteria and fungi isolated from house fly ( Musca domestica L) larvae. Afr J Biotechnol. 2005; 4(8): 780–784.
 
3.
Greenberg B, Kowalski J, Klowden M. Factor affecting the transmission of Salmonella by flies: natural resistance to colonization and bacterial interference. Infect Immun. 1970; 2: 800–809.
 
4.
Greenberg B. Flies and disease, vol. I. Princeton University Press, NJ, 1971.
 
5.
Greenberg B. Flies and disease, vol. II. Princeton University Press, NJ 1973.
 
6.
Greenberg B, Verela G, Bornstein A, Hernandez H. Salonellae from flies in a Mexican slaughterhouse. AM J Hyg. 1963, 77: 177–183.
 
7.
Levine O, Levine M. Houseflies (Musca domestica) as mechanical vector of shigellosis. Rev Infect Dis. 1991; 13: 688–696.
 
8.
Crosskey RW, Lane RP. Houseflies, Blowflies and their allies (calyptrate Diptera). In: Lane RP, Crosskey R.W (eds.). Medical Insects and Arahnids. London, 1993. p. 403–428.
 
9.
Meerburg BG, Vermeer HM, Kijlstra A. Controlling risks of pathogen transmission by flies on organic pig farms. Outlook on Agriculture. 2007; 36(3): 193–197.
 
10.
Thomas GD, Skoda RS. Rural flies in the urban environment. N Central Regional Res Pub. 1993.
 
11.
Cao MX, Song FL, Zhao TY, Dong YD, Sun, CHX, Lu BL. Survey of Deltamethrin resistance in houseflies (Musca domestica) from urban garbage dumps in Northern China. Environ Entomol. 2006; 35(1): 1–9.
 
12.
Malik A, Singh N, Satya S. House fly ( Musca domestica): A review of control strategies for a challenging pest. J Environ Sci Health B. 2007; 42: 453–469.
 
13.
Kocisova A. The stability of resistance in a field house fly population, Musca domestica, over 60 generations is following the interruption of insecticides selection pressure. Czech J Anim Sci. 2001; 46: 281–288.
 
14.
Azzam S, Hussein E. Toxicities of several insecticides to the house fly Musca domestica from different regions in Jordon. Sarhad J Agric. 2002; 18: 69–75.
 
15.
Gebara AB, Ferreira CS, Miguel O. Efficacy of seven pyrethroids against Musca domestica Linn. (Diptera: Muscidae). Arquivos-do-Instituto-Biologico-Sao-Paulo. 1997; 64: 111–113.
 
16.
Larsen EB, Thomsen M. The influence of temperature on the development of some species of Diptera. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk naturhistorisk Forening i København Bind. 1940; 104: 1–75.
 
17.
Keiding J. Lessons provided by the house fly on evalution of resistance (R) to insecticides. Phytoparasitica. 1995; 23: 97–100.
 
18.
Novartis Ltd 2006: Fly control in livestock and poultry production, Technical brochure www.flycontrol.novartis.co.uk/... (access: 2012.12.25).
 
19.
Burgess P, 2009. Fly Control in Dairy Cattle and Beef Operations. Integrated Fly Management for Livestock Farms. http://www.perennia.ca/Fact%20... (access: 2013.01.12).
 
20.
Henderson CF, Tilton EW. Tests with acaricides against the brow wheat mite. J Econ Entomol. 1955; 48: 157–161.
 
21.
Hanley ME, Dunn DW, Abolins SR, Goulson D. Evaluation of (Z)-9- tricosene baited targets for control of the houseflies (Musca domestica) in outdoor situations, Scool of Biological Science. JEN. 2004; 128(7): 478–482.
 
22.
Ibragimkhalilova IAV, Eremina O. Neonikotinoid susceptibility in House fly, German cockroach and Rat flea. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Urban Pests; Hungary, OOK-Press Kft. 481. 2008. http://www.icup.org.uk/reports... (access: 2013.01.02).
 
23.
Eremina O, Lopatina Y. Investigation of Neonicotinoid Insectoides against House Fly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) and German cockroach Blattella germanica (Blattodea: Blattellidae). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Urban Pests, July 10–13 2005; Singapore; Ph’ng @ P&Y Design Network, Malaysia, 2005. http://www.icup.org.uk/reports... (access: 2013.02.02).
 
24.
Chamberlain WF. Insect growth regulating agents for control of arthropods of medical and veterinary importance. J Med Ent. 1975; 12: 395–400.
 
25.
Hall RD, Foehse MD. Laboratory and field tests of CCA-72662 for control of the house fly and face fly in poultry, bovine or swine manure. J econ Ent. 1980; 73: 564–569.
 
26.
Кünast VC, Bothe G. Untersuchungen über den Einsatz des Insektenwachstumsregulators Triazin CGA-72662 (Neporex) zur Bekämpfung von Fliegen im Stall- Anz. Schadlingskde. Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz. 1984; 57: 127–131.
 
27.
Mulla MS, Axelrod H. Evaluation of Larvadex, a new IGR for the control of pestiferous flies on poultry ranches. J econ Ent. 1983; 76: 520–524.
 
28.
Bell HA, Robinson KA, Weaver RJ. First report of cyromazine resistance in a population of UK house fly ( Musca domestica) associated with intensive livestock production. Pest Manag Sci. 2010; 66: 693–695.
 
29.
Sheppard DC, Hinkle NC, Hunter JS, Gaydon DM. Resistance in constant exposure livestock insect control systems: a partial review with some original findings on cyromazine resistance in House Flies. Fla Entomol. 1989; 72: 360–369.
 
30.
Farkas R, Plapp L. Monitoring of susceptibility to cyromazine and diflubenzuron in House-fly (Musca domestica) populations in Hungary. Parasitol Hungarica. 1991; 24: 99–107.
 
31.
Sánchez Arroyo H. Housefly, Musca doméstica Linneaus. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in205 (access 2012.12.22).
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966