ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS • EFFICACY TEST METHODS
VOLUME IV
LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, FUR & WOOL BEARING ANIMALS
JANUARY
1977
EPA-540/10-77-002
-------
REPORT To THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MALYfir CF SFFCIPLIZFF FFSTICILE FPOFIFFS
INVEFTEFRATE CCKTPCL AGENTS - EFFICACY TEST FETHODS
VCLUPE IV
LIVESTOCK, POULTRY^ FUP f I''COL FEARING /^,'ir.ALs
Ilie work upon which this publication is based was performed in whole or
in part under Contract No. 68-01-2457 with the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Report To The
Environmental Protection Agency
By The
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Arlington, Virginia 22209
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation for use.
-------
LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, FUR & WOOL BEARING ANIMALS TASK GROUP
Chairman:
PR. ROGER 0. PRUMM0NP
USDA-ARS, Livestock Insects Lab
PR. J. L. LANCASTER PR. PAUL P. LUPWIG
University of Arkansas Dow Chemical Company
EPA Observer: AIBS Coordinators;
MR. ROGER PIERPOWT MS. PATRICIA RUSSELL
Criteria and Evaluation Division MR. PCWALP R. BEEM
-------
LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, FUR AND WOOL BEARING ANIMALS
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Cattle (Beef and Dairy) 3
Cattle Grubs 3
Horn Flies 7
Other Biting Flies 10
Face Fly 12
Lice 14
Ticks 16
Scab and Mange Mites 18
Screwworms 19
Test Reporting 21
References Cited 22
Horses 28
Horse Bots 28
Ticks, Lice and Mites 30
Flies 33
Test Reporting 35
References Cited 36
Sheep and Goats 37
Sheep and Goat Lice 37
Sheep Ked 40
Scab and Mange Mites 41
Fleeceworms and Screwworms 43
Sheep Nose Bots 45
Test Reporting 47
References Cited 48
-------
Table of Contents Continued
Page
Swine 51
Hog Lice 51
Hog Mange 53
Test Reporting 54
References Cited 56
Poultry 57
Lice 57
Fowl Mites 60
Turkey Chiggers 62
Manure-Inhabiting Fly Larvae 63
Test Reporting 65
References Cited 67
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report presents techniques utilized by researchers to determine
the efficacy of insecticides applied to livestock (cattle, horses, sheep
and goats, swine and poultry) for the control of the major arthropods
that parasitize these animals. Also included are techniques utilized to
determine the effectiveness of insecticides applied to litter, bedding,
limited livestock inhabitation areas, and livestock manure.
The listing of these techniques is not intended to eliminate other
procedures to determine efficacy of insecticides for the control of the
same arthropod parasites. The compilation of these listed techniques
revealed areas in which adequate testing procedures were not available.
Other techniques, may be equal to or better than the listed techniques
in determinimg efficacy of insecticides.
Of major importance in the selection of techniques for inclusion in
this report were 2 factors: (1) Is the technique of application and
amount of insecticide applied so carefully defined and recorded that the
dosage of insecticide to which the arthropods were exposed can be deter-
mined? (2) Are the infestations of arthropods so measured that the re-
sponse of the arthropods to the treatment can be evaluated? The develop-
ment of accurate and reliable data depends on these two factors.
The basic premise underlying testing for efficacy is the realiza-
tion that infestations of arthropod parasites will respond in a similar
manner to a known amount of insecticide applied to an animal or its
environs. Although this response is not completely consistent, it, as
well as the dosage, must be measured with accuracy and consistency in
order to obtain meaningful data on the response. Thus, tests should be
designed so that changes in a population of an arthropod parasite that
are due to factors other than the specific dosage of insecticide can be
determined as well as the changes in the infestation due to the insec-
ticidal treatment.
This report is divided into divisions according to the five major
commodity groups. Each division is divided into two sections.
Section A "Treatment and Evaluation Techniques" delineates the bio-
logical and chemical information needed to evaluate candidate compounds
for livestock parasite control. The major species or groups and stand-
ard or suggested techniques to determine their populations or infestations
are listed. The number of animals (or other parasite habitats) to be
sampled has been suggested because the number of animals given a treatment
can range from one to a flock of thousands. The examination times suggested
are those that are generally used. In the discussion on control groups
and standard treatments, the practicality of maintaining control groups
or untreated animals is presented. It is important that the numbers of
animals in the control or standard treatment groups be equal to numbers of
-------
-2-
animals in a treatment group in small scale tests; in large-scale tests,
only a small portion of the animals need to be untreated or given a stand-
ard treatment. It is most important that the control or standard treat-
ment groups contain animals of the same general size, age, condition, groups
and have similar infestation of parasites or be exposed to similar popula-
tions of arthropod parasites. The criteria for determining the effective-
ness of the treatment(s) are listed. Finally, section A contains a com-
pilation of the techniques of application of insecticides to animals or
other targets. A technique is listed only once for each commodity group
but may be used to apply insecticides for the control of a number of
parasites.
Whenever possible, published techniques are briefly presented and the
literature citation given.
Section B, "Test Reporting", contains a suggested outline for report-
ing details of the test.
-------
-3-
I. Cattle (Beef and Dairy)
Cattle are parasitized by a variety of insects, ticks, and mites that
suck blood, annoy and irritate animals, transmit diseases, damage hides,
stunt growth, decrease production of milk, loxjer resistance of animals to
diseases, and cause death of animals. Insecticides are applied to both
beef and dairy cattle to control these arthropods and to avoid these losses,
Usually, treatments that effectively control arthropod parasites on beef
cattle will also control those same parasites on dairy cattle.
A. Treatment and Evaluation Techniques
1. Cattle Grubs
Cattle grubs are the larvae of heel flies that lay eggs on
hairs of animals. The reaction of cattle running from the ovipositing
females is called "gadding". Larvae hatch from the eggs, penetrate the
animal's skin, and migrate through the animal's body and later are found
encysted in the animal's back. (The swellings in the animals' backs are
called "warbles" or "wolves".) Grubs spend 30-40 days in the back before
leaving to pupate in the ground. The life cycle of the cattle grub takes
about 1 year with certain events such as egg laying, migration of larvae
through the body, and formation of warbles in the hide taking place at
about the same time of the year. Time of appearance of these various
stages depends upon the geographical location in the United States.
Cattle are essentially the only hosts for cattle grubs, although bison
and horses may be infested.
The cattle industry loses millions of dollars each year to cattle
grubs because of decreased weight gains, milk flow due to gadding, ex-
cessive trimming of the carcass especially from the backline infested
with cattle grubs, and down-grading of hides damaged by cattle grubs.
For many years the standard method of control of cattle grubs has
been the application of insecticides onto grubs in warbles in the animals'
backs. This method has been replaced in recent times (since 1957) by
treatment of cattle with animal systemic insecticides that are applied
after the end of heel fly activity and kill migrating larvae and prevent
them from reaching the animals' backs. The extensive literature on the
development and use of animal systemic insecticides has been reviewed
by Bushland et al. (1963) and Khan (1969).
a. Species: Cattle in the United States are infested
with 2 species of cattle grubs: the northern cattle grub, Hypoderma
bovis (L.), is found in Canada and throughout the United States south to
a line froTr>. California to Oklahoma to Virginia, and the common cattle
grub, fj. lineatwn (de Villers) , is found in cattle throughout the United
-------
-4-
States, Canada, and Mexico. Life history of these 2 species is similar
with minor -exceptions. In areas where both species are found, the H.
Hneatum cycle is usually slightly earlier in the year than the E. bovls
cycle. Adults and third instar larvae can be easily separated by species.
Although no differences in susceptibility of the 2 species to treatment
have been recorded, it is necessary to know the species in the test cattle.
b. Population Determination: Numbers of cattle grubs in
cattle are determined by examining the backs of the animals and recording
numbers of larvae in warbles.
c. Sample Size: The size of the sample of cattle to be
examined for cattle grubs depends basically upon the size of the treatment
groups. A suggested number of cattle examined is as follows:
No. of No. of
Cattle Per Treatment Cattle Examined
3-20 All
21-100 50% (minimum of 20)
>100 50
Arn'Trials examined1 should .be of the same general age and condition as the
entire treatment group. Usually younger animals, less than 2 years old, are
more heavily infested than older animals.
d. Examination Times: In tests with systemic insecti-
cides, there are 2 general regimes for examination of cattle for the
appearance of cattle grubs in the animals' backs. In one regime, the
animals are examined monthly during the 4 to 6-month period of warble for-
mation, and as grubs appear in the animals' backs they are located on an
outline map of the back of each animal. At each monthly examination, as
new grubs appear, they are also located on the map. In this manner, cumu-
lative counts of grubs that appear in each animal's back can be obtained
(Drummond 1960).
In another regime, cattle are examined once or twice possibly more)
during the period when warbles are being formed in the animal's back.
Counts should be separated by 60 days so that grubs counted at the first
examination will not be counted at the second. Cattle should,be examined
when peak numbers of grubs normally are found in animals' backs. Add the
counts together in order to determine total numbers of grubs in each
animal's back. (Drummond1959a, Rogoff et al. 1960),
In areas where both species of cattle grubs appear in animal's backs
at about the same time of the year, sufficient counts and identification
of grubs in warbles should be made in order to establish efficacy of treat-
ments for both species.
-------
-5-
In tests with materials applied to animals to kill larvae that have
formed warbles in the animal's back, warbles should be located on a map,
the animals treated, and then the backs of the animals examined at 4-7
days after treatment and grubs extracted from the animals' backs to deter-
mine the number of grubs that have been killed by the treatment (Smith and
Richards 1954). The animals may be examined 1 month after treatment to
determine whether the treatments prevented new grubs from appearing in the
backs of the animals.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In order to determine
the effectiveness of treatments with animal systemic insecticides to prevent
cattle grubs from appearing in the backs of cattle, it is essential that a
group of animals of the same age and from the same herd that is treated be
maintained as untreated controls. If possible, one group of animals equal
in size to a treated group should be given a standard treatment. In very
large—scale tests to demonstrate area control, it may be necessary to treat
all the cattle on a ranch. In this type of test, untreated animals may be
removed from the ranch and cattle grubs counted elsewhere, or untreated
animals may be held on ranches outside the treatment area (Rich 1965). In
tests with insecticides applied to the backs of cattle to kill encysted
grubs, a group of untreated animals should be maintained along with treated
animals in order to determine natural mortality of grubs in the animals'
backs and also to compare numbers of grubs that appear in treated animals'
backs.
f. Experimental Design: In tests with animal systemic
insecticides to prevent larvae from appearing in animals' backs, cattle
are treated after the end of heel fly season and before grubs appear in
the animals' backs. Effectiveness of the treatments is determined by com-
paring the numbers of grubs that appear in the backs of treated animals
with numbers that appear in the backs of untreated animals from the same
herd.
In tests to determine effectiveness of materials applied to backs
after grubs have appeared, animals are treated, and effectiveness of
treatments is determined by extracting grubs and determining mortality
of extracted grubs.
g. Treatment Techniques: Cattle are treated in a variety
of ways with animal systemic insecticides for the control of cattle grubs.
(1) Single Oral Dose: Animal systemic insecticides
may be administered orally as drenches, boluses, or in capsules (Drummond
1960). Care should be taken that animals receive the entire dose. Record
the formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, total amount
administered, and dosage in terms of mg of active ingredient per kg of body
weight of animal (animals should be weighed if possible).
-------
-6-
(2) peed Treatment; Animal systemic insecticides may
be administered to animals as part of a feeding regimen. Insecticides may
be mixed into the entire feed ration (Kohler et al, 1959) or fed in a small
amount of feed which, when consumed, is followed by untreated feed (Drummond
and Moore 1960). Record the formulation, final concentration of active
ingredient (ppm in feed), or total mg of active ingredient per kg body
weight of animal, amount of feed or treatment consumed, length of treatment
period.
(3) Water Treatment: Animal systemic insecticides may be
administered to cattle through drinking water (Dobson and Sanders 1963) .
If a number of cattle are treated, the entire volume of drinking water may
be treated, or individual cattle may be offered treated drinking water and,
when the treated water is consumed, given untreated water. Record the
formulation, final concentration of active ingredient in terms of ppm in
water or mg of active ingredient per kg of body weight of animal, average
consumption of water per animal, and length of treatment period.
(4) Mineral, Salt, or Protein Supplement: Animal systemic
insecticides may be formulated at low concentrations in mineral, salt, or
protein supplements and offered free choice to cattle (Rogoff and Kohler
1959, Medley et al. 1963). Because consumption of salt, mineral, and pro-
tein supplement varies considerably from animal to animal, it is important
to determine whether or not all animals consumed treated materials. Record
formulation, final concentration of active ingredient in terms of percentage
or ppm of treated supplement, average consumption per animal per day, dosage
in terms of mg active ingredient per kg body weight per day, and length of
treatment period.
(5) Injections: Animal systemic insecticides may be given
to animals in the form of intramuscular, intraperitoneal, or subcutaneous
injections (Drummond 1959b, Kohler and Rogoff 1962). Record formulation,
amount of material injected per animal, location of injection, and dosage
in terms of mg of active ingredient per kg of body weight.
(6) Whole-Body Sprays: Animal systemic insecticides may
be applied to animals as whole-body sprays. Care should be taken that
animals are treated thoroughly and that enough pressure is used to penetrate
hair coat and assure wetting of the skin (Rogoff et al. 1960). A variation
of the whole-body spray is the use of a spray-dip machine to apply spray
to cattle (Drummond et al. 1965). Record formulation, final concentration
of active ingredient, equipment used and application techniques (pressure,
nozzles, etc.), and average volume of spray applied per animal.
(7) Dip: Animal systemic insecticides may be used to
charge dipping vats in which cattle may be dipped (Scharff and Ludwig 1961,
Drummond 1963). It is important that the animals be immersed thoroughly in
-------
-7-
the dip fluids. Record formulation, final concentration of active in-
gredient, volume of liquid in the vat, age of charge at time of dipping,
number of cattle dipped, and data on recharging if necessary. Chemical
analyses of active ingredient in vat fluids before and after dipping are
necessary in order to determine actual amount of active ingredient in the
vat fluid.
(8) Pour-on Treatment; Animal systemic insecticides may
be applied to cattle by the pour-on technique in which a small amount of
insecticide is applied to the backline of cattle. In the pour-on tech-
nique, ready-to-use formulation or an emulsifiable concentrate diluted
with water or oil are poured down the backline of cattle in ounce rates
(Rogoff and Kohler 1960). In an extension of this technique, ready-to-
use formulations are applied to a spot on the backline at milliliter rates
(Loomis et al. 1973). Record formulation, diluent, final concentration
of active ingredient, amount applied per animal, area treated, and dosage
based on mg active ingredient per kg body weight of animal.
(9) Dust: Animal systemic insecticides may be applied
as dusts contained in dust bags and placed in the pasture for free-
choice use or placed in openings to feed, mineral, and/or water sources
so that cattle are forced to use them on a daily basis (Matthysse et al.
1968, Lloyd 1971). With cattle grub control, it is important that dust
bags be located so that animals are forced to treat themselves on a
daily basis to insure that sufficient insecticide is applied for grub
control. In tests with dust bags for control of ectoparasites, such daily
treatment is not essential. Record formulation, final concentration of
active ingredient, average amount of dust used per animal, location of
dust bags, and length of treatment period.
In tests to control cattle grubs in the animal's back, the animal
may be treated with contact insecticides as follows:
(1) Back Spray: The animals' backs should be sprayed
thououghly with the insecticide. Care is taken to force insecticide
into the warble openings in the animals' backs. Record formulation,
final concentration of active ingredient, equipment used, and applica-
tion techniques (pressure, nozzles, etc.) and average volume of spray
applied per back.
2. Horn Flies
Probably the most important fly affecting cattle in the United
States is the horn fly. Populations of these small flies that appear on
cattle in early spring and remain on animals until frost in the fall may
reach levels of 3000/animal and as high as 20,000/bull (Laake 1946). Adult
flies suck blood from cattle as many as 20 times/day and mate on the host.
-------
Females lay eggs in fresh cattle manure. Adult horn flies are found prin-
cipally on cattle but may be found occasionally on horses and other large
mammals. Heavy infestations cause considerable discomfort to cattle;
animals move restlessly, continuously switching their tails and throwing
their heads in order to brush off flies. Heavily infested animals may
show lesser weight gains when compared with gains of treated animals.
Most ranchers treat cattle for the control of horn flies.
a. Species; The horn fly is Haematobia irritans (L.).
b. Population Determination: In tests with topical
application of insecticides for the control of adult horn flies, the
standard technique is to estimate the number of horn flies per animal.
This estimation is accomplished by examining a number of animals in the
herd, usually with the aid of binoculars, and counting or estimating num-
bers of horn flies on the animals. Flies are counted or estimated on
both sides of an individual or on one side of an animal and reported as
"flies/side". In tests with orally administered insecticides for the con-
trol of larval horn flies in cattle manure, in addition to estimating the
number of adult horn flies on cattle, freshly dropped manure pats may be
covered with emergence cages, and numbers of adult horn flies that emerge
are counted (Kunz et al. 1973).
c. Sample Size: It is difficult to count or estimate horn
flies on all of the cattle in a treatment group unless small treatment groups
are maintained. The following is a suggested sampling:
No. of No. of No. of
Cattle per Cattle Examined Manure Pats Covered
Treatment for Horn Flies or Collected
3-10 All 5
11-100 20% (Minimum of 10) 10
>100 20 20
Because of the differences in infestation rates of horn flies on bulls,
cows, and calves, it is important to try to count flies on the same animals
before and after treatment. In tests with materials added to feed or water
for control of horn fly larvae in manure, manure samples should be collected
before treatment and at intervals after treatment to determine whether horn
fly larvae are killed in the manure pats.
d. Examination Times: Cattle should be examined and
manure pats should be covered or collected at least once before treatment
and usually twice a week after treatment. In tests with continuous treat-
-------
-9-
ment, cattle should be examined and manure pats covered or collected at
weekly or biweekly intervals during the treatment period.
e. Control (Standard Treatment); Because of the mobile
nature of these flies, it is necessary that all animals in the same pasture
be treated with the same treatment. Similar animals in adjoining pastures
may be treated with a standard treatment, other treatments, or contain
untreated control animals. The more that a treated group is isolated from
untreated cattle, the less the reinfestation pressure.
f. Experimental Design: In tests with adulticides,
numbers of horn flies on treated cattle are compared with numbers on the
same animals before treatment and with numbers on nearby untreated control
cattle. In certain tests (Roberts 1959), untreated controls were not main-
tained, but treatments were considered to have failed when the average num-
ber of horn flies per animal exceeded 25. In tests to control larvae, effect-
iveness can be determined by counting numbers of horn flies on the cattle
before and during treatments. More realistically, because activity in the
manure against larvae can be obscured by the migration of flies onto treated
cattle, effectiveness should be determined by comparing numbers of horn
flies that emerge from manure collected from the same animals before treat-
ment or from nearby animals collected at the same time after treatment. In
addition, manure samples can be subjected to a bioassay technique in which
samples are infested with known numbers of horn fly eggs or larvae and
number of adults that emerge are recorded. Effectiveness is determined
by comparing number of horn flies that emerge from treated manure with
numbers from untreated manure.
g. Treatment Techniques: Cattle are treated in a number
of ways to control horn flies. The techniques of application of insecticides
for treatment of cattle in section I, A, 1, g, (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8),
(9) can be used to apply insecticides for the control of adult horn flies.
Of special interest are use of self-applicating dust rubbers (Hargett and
Turner 1958), dust bags (Poindexter and Adkins 1970, Knapp 1972), hand
dusting (Lindquist and Hoffman 1954), pen spraying (Hoffman and Roberts
1963), and pour-on (Rogoff et al. 1963, Rogoff and Kohler 1961). In the
application of pour-on for horn fly control, a standard amount, e.g., 100
ml/animal, may be applied rather than a specific mg/kg dosage as with
animal systemic insecticides.
In addition, there are the following treatments:
(1) Backrubbers: Backrubbers are commercially
available or may be constructed of chain or cable wrapped with lengths
of burlap and treated with a suspension, emulsion, or solution of insecti-
cide in no. 2 diesel oil or other diluent (Rogoff and Moxon 1952). Back-
rubbers are positioned in pastures so that animals may rub against them at
-------
-10-
free choice or may be positioned in entrances to watering troughs, salt or
mineral blocks, etc., so that cattle are forced to use them on a continuous
basis. Record formulation, final concentration of insecticide, diluent,
type of backrubber construction, amount of material applied per meter of
backrubber, location of backrubber, use, and length of treatment period.
(2) Low-Volume Application: Insecticides may be applied
to cattle with low-volume sprayers that dispense mist sprays of 5-150 ml
of insecticide per animal daily. (Hoffman et al. 1965). Application de-
vices can be placed in doorways of animal facilities through which animals
are forced to pass daily. Record formulation, final concentration of insec-
ticide, diluent, details of apparatus and application, and average amount
of spray per animal per day.
(3) Ultra-Low-Volume Application: Automatic sprayers
can be used to apply less than 5 ml of insecticide/animal (Eschle and Miller
1968). These sprayers should be situated where cattle pass so that animals
can be treated automatically on a daily basis, In another type of ULV
technique, unrestrained cattle were treated with insecticides dispensed
from an ULV applicator in a pickup truck (Kinzer 1970) or dispensed from
an airplane (Kantack et al. 1967, Kinzer 1969). Record formulation, diluent,
final concentration of insecticide, details of equipment, average amount of
insecticide applied per animal, length of spray period (for automatic
sprayers) or amount of insecticide applied per hectare, number of cattle
and numbers of treatments (for ground and aerial application).
(4) Wax-Bar Application: Harvey and Ely (1969) des-
cribed a technique in which an insecticide was incorporated into a wax bar
and the bar rubbed onto the backs of animals. Record the formulation, final
concentration of insecticide, configuration of bars, amount of bar per
animal, and insecticide per animal.
Materials may be given to cattle for the control of larvae of horn
flies in manure orally in feed, water, and mineral similarly to techniques
used to administer animal systemic insecticides in feed, water, and mineral
for the control of cattle grubs. Treatment may be administered utilizing
techniques in section I, A, 1, g, (2), (3), (4).
3, Other Biting Flies
In addition to horn flies, there are a number of other blood-
sucking flies (often called biting flies) that attack cattle. These flies
annoy animals and interfere with normal feeding activities, in that cattle
may band together to aid each other in protecting themselves from these
flies. Heavy infestations cause considerable loss of blood, reduced weight
gains, increased susceptibility to diseases, and even death of cattle,
These biting flies may spread such diseases as anaplasmosis, anthrax, tularemia,
bluetongue, and other diseases of cattle. Because they are found on cattle
only when feeding, biting flies are generally very difficult to observe,
evaluate, and control.
-------
-11-
a. Species: There are a number of species of biting flies
that attack cattle and other livestock, Of particular interest is the
stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans (L,), that is found around cattle held in
pens and other confined situations. Larvae of this species are found in
animal and feed wastes. Other biting flies belong to the family Tabanidae,
the horse flies and deer flies. These large flies may be found in marshy,
coastal areas in abundance. They feed intermittently on cattle and may
cause considerable damage for brief periods of time. Flies of the family
Simuliidae, the black flies or buffalo gnats, are very small flies that
usually feed in the ears and around the head of cattle. They may reach
epidemic numbers, and their feeding activities may weaken animals and
even cause death. Flies of the family Ceratopogonidae, often called
"punkies" or no-see-ums", are tiny flies that prefer to feed in the ears
of cattle. These flies often may reach epidemic populations. Finally,
members of the family Culcicidae, the mosquitoes, suck blood from cattle
and transmit diseases and cause weight loss (Steelman et al. 1972, 1973).
It is necessary to capture representative samples to determine the test
species.
b. Population Determinations: Populations of biting
flies are determined by observing the numbers of each species feeding on
cattle. It is important to observe animals at a specific time of the day
because of the variation in time of feeding of the different species of
flies. With stable flies, usually flies observed feeding on the inside
of one leg and the outside of the other leg are counted for a specific
period of time (Campbell and Hermanussen 1971). Techniques to determine
populations of other biting flies feeding on cattle have not been well
defined.
c. Sample Size: Since it is difficult to count biting
rates, the following sampling of animals is suggested:
No. of No. of
Cattle per Treatment Cattle Observed
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: Because insecticides applied to
cattle for the control of biting flies are generally effective for only
short periods of time, animals are usually examined before treatment and
daily after treatment,
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): Untreated animals
should not be pastured in the same pasture with treated cattle. Untreated
cattle and cattle given standard treatments should be pastured near treated
cattle so that they will be exposed to the same population pressures.
-------
-12-
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments is
determined by comparing the feeding rates of flies before treatment with
the feeding rates of flies on the same cattle after treatment. In addition,
feeding rates on treated animals after treatment can be compared with feed-
ing rates on untreated animals taken at about the same time.
g. Treatment Techniques: The techniques listed in I, A,
1, g, (6), (7), (8), (9), and I, A, 2, g, (1), (2), (3), may be used to
apply insecticides to cattle for the control of other biting flies. Camp-
bell and Hermanussen (1971) applied residual sprays to resting sites in
the barnyard for control of stable flies. In addition, they applied whole-
body sprays to cattle and mist-blower low-volume applications to cattle
in feedlots. Insecticides may also be applied at low-volume or ultra-low-
volume rates from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to cattle in feedlots
and other confinements (Campbell and Raun 1971), Hippelates gnats and other
flies were controlled by low-volume application of insecticides to breeding
sites (Axtell 1971). A review of techniques to apply ULV treatments to
cattle and rangeland was presented by Lofgren (1970).
4. Face Fly
The face fly, although a recent introduction to the United
States from Europe, has spread rapidly from the northeastern states to
almost all of the contiguous 48 states. whenever new infestations of the
face fly are found, it often becomes a major pest of cattle in the newly-
infested areas. Once established in an area, it continues to be a major
pest. The face fly, a relative of the house fly, has the habit of fre-
quenting the moist areas, eyes, nostrils, etc., of the face of cattle (and
horses)- This characteristic makes it difficult to control and allows the
face fly to contribute to the spread of pinkeye, the eye worm (Thelaz-ia spp)
and other ailments of the eyes of cattle. Females leave the host to lay
eggs in fresh manure where larvae develop. Ode and Matthysse (1967) pre-
sent a review of the literature and a comprehensive study on the bionomics
of the face fly.
a. Species: The only species is Musoa autumnalis DeGeer,
the face fly.
b. Population Determination: The usual techniques are
to observe cattle and count the number of face flies on the head or whole
animal. McGuire and Sailer (1962) determined that counting of the face
flies around the eyes is statistically sound for computing the total fly
count on a given animal.
c. Sample Size: Suggested numbers of cattle to be
examined for face flies is as follows :
-------
-13-
No. of No, of Cattle
Cattle per Examined for
Treatment Face Flies.
3-10 All
11-10Q 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: Because the effectiveness of single
treatments for the control of the face fly is usually shortlived, it is
necessary to count the number of flies immediately before treatment and
daily or 2 to 3 times a week after treatment. If multiple treatments are
used, it may be iiecessary to count flies between treatments and after the
last treatment. If continuous treatments are tested, flies may be counted
at intervals during the treatment period.
e. Controls: In small-scale tests, untreated controls
should be maintained in separate pasture but on same farm. Also, the same
farm may contain pasture with a group of animals treated with a standard
treatment. In large-scale tests, it may not be possible to have untreated
animals on the same ranch as treated animals, but untreated animals may be
maintained in similar pastures nearby.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of the treatments
is determined by comparing the numbers of face flies per animal before
treatment with numbers of flies on the same animals after treatment, or
numbers on treated animals after treatment can be compared with numbers of
flies on untreated animals observed at about the same time.
g. Treatment Techniques: A number of standard dermal
treatments [see section I, A, 1, g, (6), (7), (8), (9), I, A, 2, g, (1),
(2), (3)] have been applied to the face and body of cattle for the control
of face flies. Cattle have been treated with whole-body sprays, hand dust-
ing, self-treatment dust bags or backrubbers, (Turner 1965, Poindexter and
Adkins 1970, Wrich 1970, Kessler and Berndt 1971), and aerial application
of ULV insecticides (Del Fosse and Balsbaugh 1974).
Other treatments for the control of the face fly have been the
application of repellents or toxicants as smears, baits, ointments, and
face wipes to the faces of individual animals (Bruce et al. 1960, Ode
and Matthysse 1964a). Record formulation, diluent, final concentration
of active ingredient, type and location of application, and amount of
material applied per animal.
Insecticides may be incorporated into the feed of cattle in order to
control face flies in the manure of the animals (Ode and Matthysse 1964b,
Lloyd and Matthysse 1970). Jones and Medley (1973) fed insecticide to
cattle or allowed infested cr.ttle to graze on insecticide-treated pasture.
-------
-14-
Bioassay techniques similar to those used with the horn fly I, A, 2, f, can
be used to evaluate orally administered treatment for control of face larvae
in manure.
5. Lice
Cattle in most areas of the United States are infested with
biting lice and a variety of sucking lice. Infestations of lice cause
lowered milk production and reduced weight gains in cattle and may be a con-
tributing factor to death. Animals heavily infested appear in poor con-
dition and have large areas rubbed free of hair with the remaining hair
coat rough and matted in appearance. Heavy infestations of sucking lice
cause marked anemia in cattle.
Oftentimes a small number of animals in a herd tend to be more
heavily infested than the majority of the herd. The animals, called
"carriers", may act as a reinfestation focus for the less heavily infest-
ed animals. Populations of lice vary according to season, and lice are
usually most numerous in the cooler times of the year. Excellent reviews
of biology and control of cattle lice have been presented by Imes (1974)
and Matthysse (1946).
a. Species: Five species of lice have been recorded from
domestic cattle. One is the cattle biting louse, Bowioola bovis (L) . The
remainder are sucking lice — the shortnosed cattle louse, Haematop'inus
eurysternus (Nitzsch), the longnosed cattle louse, Linognathus vituli (L,),
the little blue cattle louse, Solenopotes oapillatus Enderlein, and the
cattle tail louse, H. quadripertusus Fahrenholz. Because of their large
size, these lice can readily be distinguished; although similar, there
should be no confusion between H. euvystermus and 'H. quadr"ipertusus (Melany
and Kin 1974).
b. Population Determination: The only technique to
estimate the populations of lice on cattle is to examine areas of skin
on the animal's body for lice. Because of the large body surface area
of cattle, it is impossible to examine all sites of infestation. In
addition, each species of cattle lice inhabits specific locations. Most
authors have presented systems in which they rated infestations of lice
according to the ease of finding them, the number per square inch examined
and appearance of lice and hair coat, etc. (Matthysse 1946, Collins and
Dewhirst 1965, Hoffman et al. 1969, Buchanan and Coles 1971).
c. Sample Size; The following sampling is suggested:
-------
-15-
No, of Cattle No. of
per Cattle Examined
Treatment for Lice
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
It is suggested that cattle be examined before treatment to find
heavily infested animals. These animals should be marked clearly so that
they can be examined after treatment.
d. Examination Times: Animals should be examined before
treatment and weekly intervals after treatment. If multiple treatments are
used, animals should be examined between treatments and after the last treat-
ment. If continuous treatments are being tested, animals should be examined
weekly or biweekly during the treatment period.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In most tests, controls
should be maintained separately from groups of treated animals. In addition,
a group of animals treated with a standard treatment should also be main-
tained separately from treated animals. In large-scale tests, usually all
animals in a pasture are treated with the same treatment.
f. Experimental Design: In most tests effectiveness of
the treatments is determined by comparing rates of infestations of lice on
the same animals before treatment and after treatment. Rates of infestations
on treated animals can be compared with rates on untreated animals.
g. Treatment Techniques: Insecticides can be applied to
cattle for the control of lice by a variety of treatment techniques already
presented [Section I, A, 1, g, (6), (7), (8), (9), I, A, 2, g, (1), (2),
(3)J. In addition, Harvey and Ely (1968) presented a technique in which
infested cattle were placed individually in a shed that also contained resin
strips impregnated with a vaporizing insecticide. Record formulation, final
concentration of active ingredient, details of exposure conditions, amount
of resin strip tested, and exposure period. Butler (unpublished) evaluated
insecticides for the control of the cattle tail louse by treating the
animals completely, with special care exercised to treat tails. In addition,
he evaluated insecticides by dipping the tail of animals in the insecticide.
Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, details of
testing procedure, and amount of material used per animal. Roberts et al.
(1969) fed a systemic insecticide to determine activity against shortnose
sucking lice.
-------
-16-
6. Ticks
Cattle are parasitized by a number of species of ticks. On
a worldwide basis, ticks are the most important parasites of cattle. Ticks
suck blood from animals, predispose them to other parasites, inject toxins,
damage hides, and cause "tick worry", and transmit a number of severe and
often fatal diseases of cattle. Ticks may become so numerous that cattle
appear listless, their hair coat becomes matted and rubbed, they may not
graze normally, and they may suffer severe anemia. In many areas of the
United States, it is necessary to control ticks for the health of the
cattle. Usually, ticks on cattle are controlled by the application of insec-
ticides to infested animals. Grazing areas may be treated with insecti-
cides for tick control, but techniques for ground application will not be
reviewed in this compendium.
a. Species: Each area of the United States has a specific
fauna of ticks that affect lifestock. Most species are found in southern
States, although some species are found in both northern and southern
States. In most areas the tick fauna on cattle will vary from season to
season. Of the variety of the ticks found on livestock, the following are
the most important:
Amblyomma amer^oanim (L.), the lone star tick, a 3-host species found
on cattle in the spring and generally distributed throughout the south-
eastern third of the United States; Amblyomma maoulatwn Koch, the Gulf
Coast tick, a 3-host species found attached in and near the ears of cattle
in the summer and limited in distribution (except for Oklahoma and neighbor-
ing states) to States around the Gulf Coast and southern Atlantic Coast;
Dermacentov albi-pictus (Packard) , the winter tick, a 1-host species often
found in large numbers on cattle in the fall and winter and widely dis-
tributed in most northern and central southern States; Deimaoentor andersoni,
Stiles, the Rocky Mountain wood tick, a 3-host species found in the summer
on cattle in northwestern States; D. oooidentalis Marx, the Pacific Coast
tick, a 3-host species found in the spring and summer on cattle distributed
along the Pacific Coast; D. variabilis (Say), the American dog tick, another
3-host species found sparsely in the spring and summer on cattle in the
eastern two-thirds of the United States; Ixodes scapularis Say, the black-
legged tick, a 3-host species found in low numbers in the late winter and
early spring on cattle in the south central States; and Otobi-us megnini
(Duges), the spinose ear tick, a 1-host species found at all seasons in
the ears of cattle in most areas of the United States.
b. Population Determination: In tests with insecticides for
the control of ticks, populations of ticks on cattle are usually determined
by the examination of specific body areas of animals for attached ticks
(Hoffman et al. 1969), Drummond et al, (1959, 1960) counted numbers of
adult lone star ticks and winter ticks on the dewlap and escutcheon of each
animal confined in a chute. Roth and Eddy (1966) counted adult Rocky Mountain
-------
-17-
wood ticks attached to the brisket and nearby areas, especially the lower
part of the neck. Numbers of Gulf Coast ticks were counted in and around
ears of cattle by Gladney et al. (unpublished). In tests with spinose ear
ticks, Drumnond et al. (1967a) removed _ticks from ears of cattle with a
wire loop; Harvey and Brethour (1961) counted ticks in ears.
c. Sample Size: The following sample size is suggested:
No., of No. of
Cattle Cattle Examined
per Treatment for Ticks
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 cattle)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: In most tests with insecticides
applied to cattle for the control of ticks, animals are usually examined
for ticks before treatment and at weekly or monthly intervals after treat-
ment. In tests with the ear tick, animals were examined at 1 week and 1
month posttreatment (Drummond et al. 1967a).
e. Controls (Standard Treatment); In order to determine
changes in natural populations of ticks, a group of animals of the same
general type as those in treated groups should be maintained in the same
pasture as controls. If possible, one group of animals should be treated
with a standard treatment. In large-scale tests, it may not be possible
to have untreated animals available in the same pasture.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments
applied to cattle for the control of ticks is determined by comparing the
average number of ticks counted before treatment with the average number
of ticks counted after treatment on the same animals or with average number
counted on untreated controls at the same posttreatment intervals. Un-
treated controls may not be part of the evaluation technique; rather they
can be used to determine natural dynamics of tick populations.
g. Treatment Techniques: The most common treatment of
cattle for the control of ticks with insecticides is the use of dips and
sprays, which involves the thorough treatment of the animals' bodies. See
section I, A, 1, g, (6), (7), (8), (9), I, A, 2, g, (1), (2), (3) for
details. Other treatment techniques have been pour-on (Drummond et al.
1967b) and feeding animals systemic insecticides (Drummond et al. 1972;
Harvey and Brethour 1961). Gladney et al. (unpublished) evaluated a num-
ber of techniques, including dust bags, smears, ointments, insecticide-
impregnated collars, ear bands, and ear tags for the control of Gulf Coast
ticks. In tests with spinose ear ticks, Drummond et al, (1967a) applied
dusts, pour-ons, aerosols, smears, and ointments directly into the ears of
cattle.
-------
-18-
7. Scab and Mange Mites
In the United States, cattle are infested with at least
5 species of scab and mange mites that live on or in the skin and cause
severe dermatitis that consists of a thickening of the skin and the form-
ation of lesions and scabs at the sites of infestations, Cattle react to
scab mite infestations by biting, rubbing, and scratching infested areas.
Heavy infestations of scab and mange cause loss in vitality, decreased
weight gains, and may lead to the death of animals, An excellent review
of the species, biology, and control of cattle scab is presented by Kemper
and Peterson (1953). Because of the contagious nature of the infestation,
certain scab mites are subjects of ongoing eradication campaigns, which
include compulsory treatment and quarantine. Therefore, if scab is sus-
pected in cattle, it should be reported to State and Federal regulatory
authorities.
a. Species: In the United States, there are 5 species
of mites that cause cattle mange or scab. The most important from a
quarantine and damage basis is the common scab mite, Psoroptes ovi-s
(Bering). In addition, cattle may also be infested with the sarcoptic
scab mite, Sarooptes scab-Lei, bovis (DeGeer) . Cattle may also be infested
with a less virulent scab mite, the chorioptic scab mite, Chovioptes
bowis (Bering). In addition, another less prevalent mite, Psovergates bos
Johnston, has been found on cattle and may be widely distributed although
not detected (Roberts and Meleney 1965). Finally, cattle are infested
with demodectic mange mites, Demodex bovis Stiles. These mites are very
common and cause lesions that can be readily identified in pickled
cattle hides (Fisher 1974).
b. Population Determinations: The only method of deter-
mining infestation with mange is to scrape lesions on cattle and examine
the scrapings for mites with the aid of magnification. At that time, both
numbers and species of mites can be determined. However, population deter-
minations are usually limited to determining whether or not the animals are
infested with mites.
c. Sample Size: The following sampling sizes are
suggested:
No. of No. of
Cattle Cattle Examined
per Treatment for Mange Mites
3-10 AH
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 cattle)
>100 20
-------
-19-
It is extremely important in these tests to examine carefully all
cattle before treatment, mark those that are infested, and be sure to
examine those same infested cattle at the post-treatment examinations.
d. Examination Times: Animals should be examined before
treatment and during treatments if multiple treatments are administered,
and then within 1 week after treatment and monthly thereafter to determine
whether animals become reinfested. These long posttreatment examination
intervals are necessary because of the difficulty in determining whether
or not animals are infested.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): Because of the highly
contagious nature of scab and mange, it is necessary to separate treated
animals from untreated animals and from animals given a standard treatment.
In large-scale tests, it may not be possible to maintain untreated animals
on the same premises, but untreated (but infested) cattle could be main-
tained on nearby premises so as to determine natural changes in infestation
rates.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments for
the control of mange on cattle is determined by comparing infestation of
animals before treatment with infestation of these same animals after
treatments. Care should be taken to keep the cattle in the same environ-
ment before and after treatment. Cattle that are moved often lose their
infestation.
g. Treatment Techniques: The most commonly used and
recommended method is to treat cattle by dipping them in insecticides
in dipping vats. It is necessary to thoroughly immerse the animals to
make sure that all body areas are treated completely [see section I, A,
1, g, (7)J . In areas where dipping vats are not available, animals may
be sprayed thoroughly with high-pressure equipment so that the animals
are wet thoroughly to the skin (Smith 1967), however, Matthysse et al.
(1967) used a mist blower to apply 2-8 oz insecticide/cow and achieved
control of Chor"ioptes bovis. In certain instances (Roberts and Meleney
1965), a spray-dip machine has been used to apply whole-body spray to
animals. Roberts et al. (1969) fed an animal systemic insecticide to a
bovine infested with Psoroptes mites.
8. Screwworms
The screwworm fly, once the most important and destructive
ectoparasite of livestock in the southwestern and southeastern States,
has been the subject of a highly successful eradication program. It was
eradicated from the southeastern United States in 1958 but is found annually
in small numbers in the southwestern United States when it invades southern
areas from Mexico. Research with screwworm larvicides is extremely limited
-------
-20-
because of the lack of natural reinfestations and because of the need to
prevent artificial infestations from escaping into the environment.
a. Species: The screwworm is Cooh1i,omyLa hominivorax
(Coquerel), the only species of blow flies that invades living flesh.
b. Population Determination: Because of the era-
dication program, natural populations of screwworms are extremely limited
in size and transitory. Therefore, populations of screwworms in wounds
are established through the artificial infestation of man-made wounds of
cattle. Wounds are inflicted by cutting the skin with a scalpel and
scarifying the underlying muscles. The wounds are then infested with newly
hatched screwworm larvae. Wounds may be infested at different days before
treatment in order to contain larvae of different ages at treatment time
(Drummond et al. 1967c).
c. Sample Size: Because of the extreme limitations
of reinfestation and the need for prevention of escape of screwworms into
the environment, only small-scale tests with larvicides should be conducted
within buildings constructed specifically against escape of screwworm flies.
Each animal should have 1 or more infested wounds.
d. Examination Times: To determine initial kill,
wounds on cattle are examined 24 hr after treatment. If larvae have been
killed, the wounds are challenged by applying newly hatched larvae to them
at semi-weekly intervals after treatment until wounds are healed or become
reinfested. These data will define the length of reinfestation protection
period.
e. Controls: It is well known that screwworm
larvae will complete their development in a wound. Therefore, in tests with
screwworm larvicides, untreated animals are not necessary. Each wound on
each animal acts as its own control. Wounds may be treated with a standard
treatment in order to determine relative effectiveness of experimental
materials.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments
for screwworms in wounds is determined by comparing numbers of wounds in
which larvae of specific age survive treatment with numbers of wounds infest-
ed before treatment. Residual effectiveness is determined by recording
number of days before wounds become reinfested.
g. Treatment Techniques: Insecticides may be applied
to cattle for the control of screwworm larvae in wounds by dipping and whole-
-------
-21-
body sprays or dusts (Wrich et al. 1961, Graham et al, 1959, Drummond et
al. 1966, 1967c, Wrich 1961, Wrich and Bushland I960). In addition, in-
dividual wounds may be treated with dusts or smears, Record formulation,
final concentration of active ingredient, diluent used, application tech-
niques, and amount of material applied per wound.
B. Test Reporting:
All details of the test should be reported. Such details should
include:
1. Identification of test arthropod(s).
2. Breed, age, sex, origin, (weight if necessary) and condition
of cattle in test.
3. Location and time of test. Weather conditions if important.
4. Number of animals/treatment group.
5. Formulation of insecticide.
6. Final concentration of active ingredient.
7. Method and rate of application.
8. Application equipment.
9. Infestation rates before and after treatment. Describe tech-
nique used to determine infestation rates. The data depend on the test
arthropod, e.g., no. lice/animal, no. of cattle grubs/animal, no. cattle
with mite lesions/no, cattle examined, no. of adult flies/animal, etc.
10. Difference in infestation rates of treated cattle at a par-
ticular examination period after treatment as compared with infestation
rates of same cattle before treatment or infestation rates of similar un-
treated cattle examined at the same posttreatment time. This difference
is usually expressed in terms of percent control or percent reduction of
infestation.
11. Effects on host (no effect or unnatural effects).
12. Any other comments regarding the test.
-------
-22-
Referenoes Cited
Axtell, R.C. 1971. Ultralow volume aerial sprays for: the control of
Hippelates gnats and other flies. J'. Georgia Entomol. Soc.
6(2):101-5.
Bruce, W.N., S, Moore, and G.C. Decker. I960. Face fly control.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 53(3):450-51.
Buchanan, R.S., and P.G. Coles. 1971. Control of lice on cattle with
Dursban. New Zealand Vet. Journal 19:197-202.
Bushland, R.C., R.D. Radeleff, and R.O. Drummond. 1963, Development of
systemic insecticides for pests of animals in the United States.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 8:215-38.
Campbell, J.B., and J.F. Hermanussen. 1971. Efficacy of insecticides
and methods of insecticidal application for control of stable flies
in Nebraska. J, Eoon. Entomol. 64(5):1188-90.
Campbell, J.B., and E.S. Raun. 1971. Aerial ULV and LV applications of
insecticides for control of the stable fly and the horn fly.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 64(5):1170-73.
Collins, R.C., and L.W. Dewhirst. 1965. Some effects of the sucking
louse, Haematopinus eurysternus, on cattle on unsupplemented range.
J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoo. 146(2):129-32.
Del Fosse, E.S., and E.U. Balsbaugh, Jr. 1974. Effects of ULV organo-
phosphates on horn flies and face flies of cattle, and on the bovine
coprocoenosis. Environ. Entomol. 3(6):919-22.
Dobson, R.C., and D.P. Sanders. 1963. Cattle grub control by the addition
of a systemic insecticide to drinking water. J. Eoon. Entomol.
56(5):717-18.
Drummond, R.O. 1959a. Texas field tests for the control of cattle
grubs with sprays of Bayer 21/199. J. Eoon. Entomol.
52(3):512-13.
Drummond, R.O. 1959b. Tests with dimethoate for systemic control of
cattle grubs. J. Eoon. Entomol, 52(5);1004-06.
Drummond, R.O. 1960. Preliminary evaluation of animal systemic
insecticides, J. Eoon. Entomol. 53(6):1125-27.
Drummond, R.O. 1963. Small-scale field tests in Texas with six systemic
insecticides for the control of cattle grubs. J, Eoon. Entomol,
56(5):632-34.
-------
-23-
Drummond, R.O,, and B, Moore, I960. Systemic insecticides as feed
additives for cattle grub control, J\ Eoon. Entomol, 53(4);682-83.
Drummond, R.O,, B, Moore, and J, Warren, 1959, Tests with insecticides
for control of the winter tick, J", Eoon, Entomol. 52(6) :1220-21,
Drummond, R.O,, B. Moore, and M,J, Wrich, 1960, Field tests with
3-nsecticides for the control of lone star ticks on cattle,
J. Eoon. Entomol, 53(5);953-55,
Drummond, R.O., T.M. Whetstone, and S.E. Ernst. 1965, Control of cattle
grubs with coumaphos applied by sprayer and spray-dip machine,
J. Eoon. Entomol. 58(5): 1017-18.
Drummond, R.O., T.M. Whetstone, and S.E. Ernst, 1967a. Insecticidal
control of the ear tick in the ears of cattle. J. Eaon. Entomol.
60(4):1021-25.
Drummond, R.O., T.M. Whetstone, and S.E, Ernst, 1967b. Control of the
lone star tick on cattle. J. Econ. Entomol. 60(6):1735-38.
Drummond, R.O., S.E. Ernst, C.C. Barrett, and O.H. Graham. 1966. Sprays
and dips of Shell compound 4072 to control Boophilus ticks and larvae
of the screw-worm on cattle. J. Eoon. Entomol. 59(2):395-400.
Drummond, R.O., S.E. Ernst, J.L. Trevino, and O.H. Graham. 1967c.
Control of larvae of the screw-worm in cattle with insecticidal
sprays. J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(1):199-200.
Drummond, R.O., T.M. Whetstone, S.E. Ernst, and W.J. Gladney. 1972.
Control of three-host ticks: Laboratory tests of systemic insecticides
in feed of cattle. J. Eoon. Entomol. 65(6):1641-44.
Eschle, J.L., and A. Miller. 1968. Ultra-low-volume application of
insecticides to cattle for control of the horn fly.
J. Econ. Entomol. 61(6):1617-21.
Fisher, W.F. 1974. Incidence of demodicosis in commercially pickled
steerhides. J'. Am. Leather Chem. Assoo. 59(1):5-10,
Graham, O.H., B. Moore, M.J. Wrich, S. Kunz, J.W. Warren, and R.O. Drummond.
1959. A comparison of ronnel and Co-Ral sprays for screw-worm control.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 52(6);1217-18.
Hargett, L.T., and E.G. Turner, Jr. 1958. Horn fly control by the use
of insecticidal dusts in self-applicating devices, J. Eoon. Entomol.
51(6):795-98.
Harvey, T.L., and J.R. Brethour. 1961, Effectiveness of Ruelene and
ronnel for ear tick compared with cattle grub control. J. Eoon. Entomol.
54(4):814-15.
-------
-24-
Harvey, T.L., and D.G, Ely, 1968. Controlling short-nosed cattle lice
with dichlorvos resin strips, J, Econ. Entomol. 61(4) :II28--29.
Harvey, T.L., and D.G. Ely. 1969, Wax-bar applications of Ciodrin for
horn fly control. J'. Econ. Entomol, 62(6) :1386-S8.
Hoffman, R.A., and R.H. Roberts, 1963, Horn fly control studies in
Mississippi, 1961. J. Soon. Entomol. 56(3);258-61,
Hoffman, R.A., I.L. Berry, and O.K. Graham. 1965. Control of flies on
cattle by frequent, low-volume mist spray applications of Ciodrin.
J. Boon. Entomol. 58(5);815-17.
Hoffman, R.A., R.O. Drummond, and O.K. Graham. 1969. Insects affecting
livestock and domestic animals. Pages 87-90 in Survey Methods for Some
Economic Insects. USDA, ARS 81-31. 140 pp..
Imes, M. 1947. Cattle Lice and How to Eradicate Them. USDA Farmer's
Bull. No. 909 21 pp.
Jones, C.M., and J.G. Medley. 1963. Control of the face fly on cattle
with Co-Ral in grain and on pasture, J. Econ. Entomol. 56(2):214-15.
Kantack, B.H., W.L. Berndt, and E.U. Balsbaugh, Jr. 1967. Horn fly and
face fly control on range cattle with aerial applications of ultra-low-
volume malathion sprays. J. Econ. Entomol. 60(6);1766-67.
Kemper, H.E., and H.O. Peterson. 1953. Cattle Scab and Methods of Control
and Eradication. USDA Farmer's Bull. No. 1017. 26 pp.
Kessler, H., and W.L. Berndt. 1971. Comparison of dust bags to backrubbers
for control of horn flies and face flies on beef cattle in east-central
South Dakota. J. Econ. Entomol. 64(6):1465-66.
Khan, M.A. 1969. Systemic pesticides for use on animals. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 14:369-86.
Kinzer, H.G. 1969. Aerial applications of ultra-low-volume insecticides
to control the horn fly on unrestrained range cattle. J. Econ. Entomol.
62(6):1515-16.
Kinzer, H.G. 1970. Ground application of ultra-low-volume malathion and
fenthion for horn fly control in New Mexico. J. Econ. Entomol.
63(3):736-39.
Knapp, F.W. 1972. Evaluation of dust bags for horn fly control on cattle.
J. Econ. Entomol. 65(2);470-72.
Kohler, P.H., and W.M. Rogoff. 1962. Control of cattle grubs by pour-on,
injection, and spray, J. Econ. Entomol. 55(4):539-44.
-------
-25-
Kohler, P.H., W.M. Rogqff, and R. Duxbury. 1959. Continuous individual
feeding of systemic insecticides for cattle grub control, J. Boon.
Entomol. 52(6):1222-23,
Kunz, S,E,, J.R. Cunningham, and J.L, Eschle, 1973, Horn fly; Use of
insecticides to disrupt life cycle, J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(5):1239-40.
Laake, E.W. 1946, DDT for the control of the horn fly in Kansas,
J. Eoon. Entomol. 39(1);65-68.
Lindquist, A.W., and R.A. Hoffman. 1954, Effectiveness of cattle-rubbing
devices and hand dusting for horn fly control. J. Eoon Entomol.
47(1):79-81.
Lloyd, J.E. 1971. Cattle grub control in Wyoming with a late-summer
dust-bag application of Prolate. J. Eoon.. Entomol. 64(4) :899-900,
Lloyd, J.E., and J.G. Matthysse. 1970, Polyvinyl chlorideinsecticide
pellets fed to cattle to control face fly larvae in manure,
J. Eoon. Entomol. 63(4);1271-81,
Lofgren, C.S. 1970 Ultra-low-volume applications of concentrated insecti-
cides in medical and veterinary entomology. 'Ann. Rev. Entomol.
15:321-42,
Loomis, E.G., L.L. Dunning, and L.A. Riehl, 1973, Control of Hypoderma
lineatum and H. bovi-s in California, 1970^72, using crufomate, fenthion,
and Imidan in new low-volume and usual pour-on formulations, J, Eoon.
Entomol. 66(2):439-43,
Matthysse, J.G. 1946. Cattle Lice Their Biology and Control. Cornell U.
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 832. 67 pp.
Matthysse, J.G., J.E. Lloyd, J.F. Butler, and K, Tillapaugh. 1968.
Cattle grub control by dust bag application of coumaphos in summer.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 61(1):311-13..
Matthysee, J.G., R.F. Pendleton, A. Padula, and G,R. Nielsen, 1967-
Controlling lice and chorioptic mange mites on dairy cattle.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(6):1615-23.
McGuire, J.U., and R.I. Sailer. 1962. A Method of Estimating Face Fly
Populations on Cattle, USDA-ARS-33-80. 8 pp.
Medley, J.G., R.O. Drummond, and O.K. Graham. 1963. Field tests with
low-level feeding of ronnel for control of cattle grubs and horn flies.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 56(4):500-03.
Meleney, W.P-, and K.C. Kin. 1974. A comparative study of cattle-infesting
Haematopinus, with redescription of H. quadripertusus Fahrenholz (1916)
anaplura'.Haematopinidae. J. Parasitol. 60(3) : 507-22.
-------
-26-
Ode, P.E., and J.G. Matthysse, 1964a. Face fly control experiments,
J. Eeon. Entomol. 57(5);631-36.
Ode, P.E., and J.G, Matthysse, 1964b. Feed additive laryiciding to
control face fly, «7, Eeon^ Entomol. 57(5):637-40,
Ode, P.E., and J.G. Matthysse, 1967, Bionomics of the Face Fly;
Musca autumnalis DeGeer, Cornell Agric. Exp. Sta., New York State
College of Agric,, Ithaca? N,Y. Memoir 402, 91 pp..
Poindexter, C,E,, and T,R, Adkins. 1970. Control of the face fly and
the horn fly with self-applicatory dust bags. J. Eeon. Entomol.
63(3):946-48.
Rich, G.B. 1965. Systemic treatments for control of cattle grubs
Eypoderma spp. in an isolated range herd. Can. J. Animal Sei.
45:165-72.
Roberts, R.H., 1959. Field tests with five insecticides for the
control of horn flies, J'. Eeon. Entomol, 52(6) ;1216-17.
Roberts, I. H,, and W.P. Meleney. 1965. Psorergatic acariasis in cattle.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.. 146(1) : 17-23.
Roberts, I.H., W.P, Meleney, and S.A. Apodaca. 1969. Oral famphur for
treatment of cattle lice, and against scabies mites and ear ticks of
cattle and sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoe. 155(3):504-09.
Rogoff, W.M., and A.L. Moxon. 1952. Cable type back rubbers for horn
fly control on cattle. J. Eeon. Entomol. 45(2);329-34.
Rogoff, W.M., and P.H. Kohler. 1959. Free-choice administration of
ronnel in a mineral mixture for the control of cattle grubs. J. Eeon
Entomol. 52(5):958-62.
Rogoff, W.M., and P.H. Kohler. 1960. Effectiveness of Ruelene applied
as localized "pour-on" and as spray for cattle grub control.
J. Soon. Entomol. 53(5):814-17.
Rogoff, W.M., and P.H. Kohler. 1961. Horn fly control by the pour-on
technique using Ruelene or toxaphene, J. Eeon. Entomol. 54(6):1101-04.
Rogoff, W.M., P.H. Kohler, and R.N. Duxbury. 1960. the in vivo activity
of several systemic insecticides against cattle grubs in South Dakota.
J. Eeon. Entomol. 53(2):183-87.
Rogoff, W.M., P.H, Kohler, and S,D. Hintz, 1963. Pour-on treatments
of DDT or Toxaphene for horn fly control. <7. Eeon. Entomol.
56(l):82-83.
Roth, A.R., and G.W. Eddy. 1966, Insecticides control of the Rocky
Mountains wood tick on cattle in Wyoming. J. Med. Entomol. 3(3-4):342-44.
-------
-27-
Scharff, D.K., and P.D. Ludwig, 1961. Cattle grub control with Ruelene
as a dip and a pour-on treatment,
-------
-28-
II. Horses
Horses are infested with a number of insect, mite, and tick parasites.
These parasites cause damages ranging from general irritation to death
of the horse. Many of these parasites are found in large numbers which
can be annoying and debilitating to the host. In addition, because of
the bloodsucking habits of a number of these parasites, they transmit
diseases of horses. To prevent disease transmission, irritation, and
death loss, it is necessary to treat horses with insecticides to kill
or protect them from these parasites.
A. Treatment and Evaluation Techniques
1. Horse Bots
Horse bots are larvae that hatch from eggs laid by the flies
on the front of the breast, neck and head area of horses. These larvae
penetrate the lips and live in the mouth area for brief periods and then
migrate down the gastrointestinal tract where they attach to the lining of
the stomach or small intestine. When mature, larvae leave attachment sites
and pass out with the horse manure; they pupate in the manure or ground.
Horse bot larvae cause considerable irritation to the lining of the stomach
and small intestine, and animals often suffer from colic or other gastric
ailments. In addition, the habits of the female flies when ovipositing
cause horses to rear, run, and try to avoid the flies. Such actions are
often detrimental to the horse.
a. Species: Horses are infested with three species of
horse bots: the common horse bot fly, Gastevophilus •intest-inal'is (DeGeer) ,
the nose bot fly, G. haemorrhoidalis (L.), and the throat bot fly, G.
nasal-Is (L.). Adults of the three species, as well as eggs and larvae,
can be easily identified. Usually larvae are collected in order to deter-
mine species. Life cycles of these three species are essentially similar.
b. Population Determinations: In order to determine popula-
tions of horse bot larvae in the gastrointestinal tracts of horses, it is
usually necessary to kill the horses and examine the gastrointestinal tracts
for attached larvae. As an alternative to killing the horses, horses may be
treated with trichlorfon, which causes most of the larvae to detach, and
manure from such treated animals can be examined daily to determine the
number of larvae expelled from the horses. In tests with first-instar
larvae, populations in the gums? lips and tongue are created through artifi^
cial infestation procedures, and second-instar la,rvae at necropsy are
recorded to determine populations of bots (Drudge et al, 1972).
c. Sample Size: In small-scale tests, it is necessary to
slaughter or examine all of the horses given a specific treatment.. In
-------
-29-
large-scale tests, it may be possible to slaughter or examine only a
representative sample, With the use of the trichlorfon purge, it may
not be necessary to slaughter any of the animals. The following sampling
regimen is suggested;
No. of No. of
Horses per Treatment Horses Sampled
1-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: It is not possible to determine
extent of infestation before treatment. Therefore, horses should be
examined at 1 week after treatment. In the interim, numbers of
Gasterophilus larvae expelled in manure should be counted and recorded
daily.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): Because each animal acts
as his own control, it is not necessary to maintain untreated animals.
Horses may be given a standard treatment in order to relate the effective-
ness of the test treatments with a known standard treatment.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of the treatments is
determined by comparing the numbers of Gasterophitus larvae expelled from
and remaining attached in horses after treatment. The data on expelled
larvae can be obtained by counting all of the larvae in the manure for
1 week posttreatment, and data on remaining larvae can be obtained at
slaughter or by giving animals a standard treatment of trichlorfon at
1 week after treatment with the test material. At slaughter, unattached
larvae found in the large intestine or intestinal ceca are considered dead,
The effectiveness of the treatment can be determined by comparing numbers
of bots expelled from horses receiving the test treatment with numbers
expelled from the same horses after receiving the standard treatment.
g. Treatment Techniques: Horses are treated in a variety
of ways with systemic insecticides for the control of Gasterophilus
larvae.
(1) Stomach Tube; Suspensions, emulsions or solutions
of insecticide are pumped into the horse's stomach with the aid of a
stomach tube (Drummond et al. 1959). Care should be taken that the tube
is in the stomach. Record formulation, final concentration of active in-
gredient, total amount of liquid administered, and dosage in terms of mg of
insecticide per kg of body weight of horse.
-------
-30-
(2) Pour-on; Insecticide may be administered as a pour-
on of insecticide applied on and brushed into the back of horses (Drummond
1963). Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, diluent,
total amount of liquid applied, application technique, and dosage in terms
of mg of insecticide per kg of horse body weight.
(3) Intramuscular Injection; Horses may be treated with
insecticides injected intramuscularly (Drummond et al. 1959). Record form-
ulation, final concentration of active ingredient, diluent, total amount
adminstered, location of injection, and dosage in terms of mg of insecticide
per kg of body weight.
(4) Feed Treatment: Insecticides may be administered in
the feed of horses. Usually horses are not given feed for 24 hr before treat-
ment, and insecticide is mixed with a small amount of feed or grain supple-
ment and given to horses. No other feed is offered until horses have con-
sumed the treated feed. Treated feed may be given for 1 day only (Drummond
1963) or for periods of 2-5 days (Drudge and Lyons 1972), Record formula-
tion, final concentration of active ingredient, total amount of material
placed in the feed, number of days fed, and mg/kg dosage. It may be nec-
essary to record also the rate of consumption of treated feed and water during
the test.
(5) Mouth Treatments: Insecticides have been administered
as gels and paste formulations into the mouth specifically to kill first
instar larvae in the mouth area of horses (Drudge et al. 1972). Record
formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, diluent, application
technique, and dosage in terms of mg of active ingredient per kg of body
weight of horse.
2. Ticks, Lice and Mites
Horses are parasitized by a variety of ticks, lice, and mites
that suck blood, burrow in the skin, feed on body fluids, and, in general
cause considerable damage and irritation to horses. Of special interest
is the fact that certain ticks of horses may carry diseases from animal to
animal.
a. Species: A number of species of ticks may be found on
horses. Included in this list are Amblyomma conepi-canwn, the lone star
tick, A. maaulatum, the Gulf Coast tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, the black-
legged tick, and Otobius megnini, the spinose ear tick. Of special import-
ance is Vermacentor albipictuss' the winter tick, that is found in large
numbers on horses in the fall and winter months. Also important is Anooentor
nitens (Neumann), the tropical horse tick; though limited in its distribution
-------
-31-
to Georgia, Florida, and southern parts of Texas, it is of significance
because it is a vector of equine piroplasmosis, It lives in the ears and
nasal diverticulae of horses. Horses are infested with two types of lice;
the horse biting louse, Bovicola equi (L.) (Denny), and the horse sucking
louse, Eaematopinus asini (L) . In addition, horses may be infested with
three species of mange or scab mites; a sarcoptic mite, Sarcoptes scdbei
equi (DeGeer), a psoroptic mite, Psovoptes ovis (Bering), and a chorioptic
mite, Chorioptes bopis equi (Hering), In addition, chigger mites may cause
severe dermatitis.
b. Population Determinations: To determine populations of
ticks on horses, it is necessary to examine body areas of horses for
attached ticks (Hoffman et al, 1969). Drummond and Medley (1965) examined
the entire breast from the heart girth to the middle of the back to deter-
mine populations of winter ticks and blacklegged ticks. Populations of
tropical horse ticks were determined by scraping ticks from the ears of
horses (Drummond and Graham 1964, Drummond and Ossorio 1966), Populations
of biting and sucking lice can be determined by counting or estimating
numbers of lice on specific body areas. Populations of mange and scab mites
can be determined only by scraping lesions and examining these scrapings
under a microscope for mites.
c. Sample Size: In small-scale tests, all of the horses can
be examined for ticks, mites, and lice. In large-scale tests, it may be
possible to examine only a sample of horses. The following sampling regi-
men is suggested:
No of No of
Horses per Treatment Horses Sampled
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: In tests with ticks, horses were
examined at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month posttreatment (Drummond and Medley
1965). In tests with tropical horse ticks, animals were examined usually
at 1 week and often at 2 weeks after treatment (Drummond and Graham 1964).
In tests with lice, animals can be examined at 1 day and weekly after treat-
ment. In tests with mange mites, animals can he examined at 1 week and 1
month later after treatmentt
e. Controls (Standard Treatment); In order to determine
natural fluctuations in populations, one group of.horses-held in same pasture
should not be treated; to relate effectiveness to a known standard one group
of horses could be treated with a standard treatment. In tests with the
tropical horse tick, one group of animals was usually left untreated in order
-------
-32-
to determine effectiveness of treatments (Druramond and Graham 1964) , In
tests with lice and mites, it is suggested that a group of untreated animals
be maintained in a separate pasture,
f, Experimental Design: In tests with winter ticks and black-
legged ticks, effectiveness of the treatments was determined by comparing
numbers of ticks on treated animals after treatment with numbers of ticks on
the same animals before treatment» In tests with tropical horse ticks,
effectiveness of the treatments was determined by comparing numbers of dead
ticks with numbers of live ticks scraped from ears, or numbers of live ticks
scraped from ears of treated horses were compared with numbers of live ticks
scraped from ears of untreated horses. Effectiveness of insecticides applied
to horses for the control of lice can be determined by comparing populations
of lice on treated horses with populations on untreated animals after treat-
ment. Effectiveness of insecticides for control of mange mites can be de-
termined by comparing numbers of horses with infested lesions after treat-
ment with numbers that had infested lesions before treatment or, number of
lesions/horse after treatment can be compared with number of lesions/same
before treatment.
g. Treatment Techniques: Horses have been treated in a variety
of ways with insecticides for the control of ticks, lice, and mites.
(1) Whole-body sprays: Insecticides have been applied
with power equipment (Drummond and Medley 1965). Record formulation, final
concentration of active ingredient, equipment used (pressures, nozzles, etc.),
and volume applied/horse.
(2) Dips; Horses may be dipped in vats charged with in-
secticides. Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient
(chemical analysis if possible), volume of liquid in vat, amount of insec-
ticide in the charge, number of horses dipped, and information on recharging
the vat, if necessary.
(3) Ear treatments; To control tropical horse ticks or
spinose ear ticks that live deep in the ears of horses, dusts, mineral oil
formulations, smears, and water suspensions or emulsions of insecticides can
be applied directly into the ears. The same formulations have been inserted
up the nostrils of horses for control of the tropical horse tick (Drummond
and Graham 1964). Record formulation, diluent, final concentration of
active ingredient, and amount of material applied per horse,
(4) Feed treatment; Tropical horse ticks were controlled
in horses given insecticide in the feed for periods of 1-10 days (Drummond
and Ossorio 1966)- Record formulation used, final concentration of active
ingredient in feed (ppm) or dosage mg per kilogram body weight (length of
treatment period), and number of horses treated.
-------
-33-
(5) Dermal treatments; Horses may be treated dermally with
insecticides applied as aerosols, fine mists, by sponge and wipes. Record
the formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, application
technique, and amount (weight or volume), of material applied per horse.
3, Flies
Horses are parasitized by a number of bloodsucking flies (often
called biting flies) that are of particular importance because of the fact
that they cause considerable annoyance to horses as well as transmit diseases
such as anthrax, habronemiasis, encephalitis, swamp fever, vesicular stoma-
titis, and anaplasmosis. In addition, horses can be annoyed by face flies
that do not bite.
a. Species: Species of biting flies that attack horses in-
clude horn flies, Haematob-ia i-vr-itans., stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans,
and a variety of horse flies and deer flies, black flies, biting midges,
and mosquitoes. Each of these species has a unique relationship with horses,
and it is necessary to determine species of fly that is the test arthropod.
The face fly, Musoa autunrnalis, and often the house fly, M, domestioa L.,
are attracted to the moisture about the eyes of horses where they sponge
liquids.
b. Population Determination: Because of the fact that biting
flies remain on the host only for a short feeding period, it is difficult
to determine the populations of these flies on horses. Usually horses are
observed for a specific period of time at a specific period of the day, and
the numbers of flies that light on the animals and feed are recorded. In
tests with face flies, Dorsey (1966) counted numbers of face flies on the
face of horses when the face was presented in a frontal view.
c. Sample Size: In small-scale tests, it is necessary to ex-
amine all the animals given a treatment. In larger tests, it may be possible
to sample only a limited number as follows:
No. of No, of
Horses per Treatment Horses Sampled
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
d. Examination Times; Because insecticides that control (or
repel) biting and nonbiting flies on horses are active for only short periods
of time, it may be necessary to examine horses within hours after treatment
and daily thereafter. In tests with baits or insecticide-impregnated resins
-------
-34-
in strand-containing halters? horses may be examined periodically through-
out the treatment period for face flies.
e. Controls: Because of the fact that biting flies fly rapidly
from animal to animal, treated and untreated horses should not be held in the
same pasture. In tests with repellents, Blume et al, (1971) held treated and
untreated horses in the same pasture, Dorsey (1966), in tests with the face
fly, was able to hold treated and untreated animals in the same pasture. In
order to determine relative effectiveness of new treatments, a group of horses
may be treated with a standard treatment. With biting flies, horses given a
standard treatment should not be held in the same pasture with animals given
the experimental treatment.
f. Experimental Design: In tests with horses sprayed with a
repellent, one horse was not treated, another horse was treated with a
specific amount of spray, and numbers of horse flies lighting and feeding
on the treated horse were compared with those on the untreated horse.
Examinations were made between 3/4 and 3-3/4 hr after treatment (Blume et
al. 1973). In tests with toxicants applied to horses, Blume et al. (1973)
confined horses in large cages and released stable flies and horn flies into
the cages. Effectiveness of the treatment was determined by comparing num-
bers of flies released and numbers of flies recaptured from treated horses
with numbers released and recaptured from untreated horses. It is extremely
difficult to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of materials applied
to horses to kill and repel flies.
g. Treatment Techniques: Horses may be treated with insecti-
cides in dips, as whole-body sprays, or as fine mist sprays, with toxicants
or repellents in aerosols, or as sponge-on or wipe-on applications to control
or repel biting flies, [see section II, A, 1, g, (1), (2), (5)].
Other techniques were used to control face flies.
(1) Treated Halters: Dorsey (1966) attached insecticide-
impregnated strands to halters worn around the face of horses for the control
of face flies. Record formulation of insecticide, final concentration of
active ingredient, impregnated material, construction of halter and of treat-
ment carrier, and final amount of insecticide/horse,
(2) Smears and Baits: Dorsey (1966) applied insecticides
and repellents as smears and baits onto the face of horses for control of
face flies. Record formulation? diluent, final concentration of active
ingredient, application techniques, and amount applied/horse.
-------
-35-
B, Test Reporting:
All details of the test should be reported, Such details
should include:
1, Identification of test arthropod,
2, Breed, color, age, sex, origin, weight (if necessary)
and condition of horses in test,
3. Location and time of test (weather conditions if important).
4, Number of animals/treatment group.
5. Formulation of insecticide.
6. Final concentration of active ingredient.
7. Method and rate of application,
8. Application equipment,
9. Infestation rates before and after treatment.
The data depend on the test arthropod, e.g., average no,
bots/horse, average no. lice/horse, average no, ticks/horse, average no.
horses infested with mange/no, horses examined, average no, flies feeding/
horse,'etc. Describe technique used to determine infestation rates.
10. Difference in infestation rates of treated horses at a
particular examination period after treatment as compared with infestation
rates of same horses before treatment or infestation rates of similar untreated
horses examined at the same posttreatment time. This difference is usually
expressed in terms of percent control or percent reduction of infestation.
11. Effects on host (no effect or unnatural effects).
12. Any other comments regarding the test.
-------
-36-
RefeTences Cited
Blume, R,R,, J.J, Ma,tter, and J.L, Eschle, 1973, Biting Flies (Diptera;
Muscidae) on horses: Laboratory evaluation of five insecticides for control,
c7. Med. Entomol. 10(6) ;596-98,
Blume, R.R., R,H. Roberts, J.L, Eschle, and J,J. Matter, 1971.. Tests of
aerosols of deet for protection of livestock from biting flies. J. Eaon.
Entomol. 64(5);1193-96.
Dorsey, C.K. 1966. Face fly control experiments on quarter horses - 1962-
64. J. Eaon. Entomol, 59(1):86-89.
Drudge, J.H., and E,T. Lyons, 1972. Critical tests of a resin-pellet
formulation of dichlorvos against internal parasites of the horse.
Am. J. Vet. Res. 33(7):1365-75.
Drudge, J.H., E,T, Lyons, and T.W, Swerczek, 1972, Activity of gel and
paste formulations of dichlorvos against first instars of Gasterophilus
spp. Am. J. Vet. Res. 33(11):2191-93.
Drummond, R.O. 1963. Tests with systemic insecticides for the control of
Gasterophilus larvae in horses. J. Eoon. Entomol. 56(l):50-52.
Drummond, R.O., and O.H. Graham. 1964. Insecticide tests against the
tropical horse tick, Dermacentor nitens, on horses. J. Eaon. Entomol.
57(4):549-53.
Drummond, R.O., and J.G. Medley. 1965. Field tests with insecticides for
the control of ticks on livestock. J. Eoon. Entomol. 58(6):1131-36.
Drummond, R.O., and J.M. Ossorio. 1966. Additional tests with insecti-
cides for the control of the tropical horse tick on horses in Florida.
J. Eaon. Entomol. 59(1):107-10.
Drummond, R.O., J.B. Jackson, E.E. Gless, and B. Moore. 1959. Systemic
insecticides for the control of GasteTophilus bots in horses. Agria. Chem.
14(12):41-43, 118.
Hoffman, R.A., R.O. Drummond, and 0,H. Graham. 1969. Insects affecting
lifestock and domestic animals,' Pages 87-90 in Survey Method for some
Eaonomia Insects. USDA, ARS 81-31. 140 pp.
-------
-37-
III, Sheep and Goats
Sheep and goats are parasitized by a variety of arthropods that suck blood,
live on skin scales and hair or wool, invade tissues, and even live in
nasal chambers and sinuses, Control of arthropod parasites is essential to
the health and productivity of the animals, for parasitized animals are less
productive than parasite-free animals, and heavy infestations may lead to
the debilitation or death of the animals.
A Treatment and Evaluation Techniques
1. Sheep and Goat Lice
Sheep and goats are parasitized by a number of biting and suck-
ing lice. Biting lice live on skin debris, hair or wool and may create in-
tense dermal irritation which causes sheep and goats to rub and bite wool
and mohair, and as a result the fleece or hair coat becomes matted, ragged,
torn, and greatly reduced in value. Often large areas of wool and mohair
are rubbed off. Sucking lice damage sheep and goats by withdrawing blood
and also cause intense irritation and itching. Often wounds are formed at
the sites of irritation, and these wounds may become infected with bacteria
and other agents. In general, lice cause reduction in amount and quality
of wool and mohair, and heavy infestations may lead to stunting of growth
and loss of vitality of the animal.
a. Species: Sheep are infested with the sheep biting louse,
Rovioola ovis (Schrank), sucking body louse, L-inognathus owillus (Neumann),
and the sucking foot louse, L. pedalis (Osborn). Goats are infested with
three species of biting lice — Bov-ioola orassipes (Rudow) and B. li-mbatus
(Gervais), both commonly found on Angora goats, and B. caprae (Gurlt), found
on Spanish-type goats. Goats are also infested with the sucking lice, L.
stenopsis (Burmeister) and L. africanus (Kellogg and Paine). It is necessary
to collect representative samples of lice on treated animals and identify them.
b. Population Determination: The usual method for the deter-
mination of populations of lice on sheep and goats is by parting the wool
or mohair on one side of the animal's body in at least 5 places, usually
on the side of the face, neck, back, side of body and hind leg. The number
of motile forms seen in a 1-in. or 2-cm section of the part are recorded.
The total count is used to indicate degree of infestation. With goats, it
is necessary to differentiate between the three species of biting lice and
the two species of sucking lice that may be found scattered over the animal's
body. With sheep, the only biting louse encountered will be B. ovis; L.
opillus is found particularly on the face and head area but may be found in
colonies on the body, and L. pedalis is limited in its distribution to lower
legs but may infest lower hairy parts of the body, including shanks and belly.
-------
-38-
Populations of L. pedal-Is are determined by counting the number of lice on
all 4 lower legs, Hoffman et al, (1969) lists the following rating system
for all types of lice on sheep and goats;
Total number of lice s.een in 5 parts
(or total L, pedalis on all,4 legs) Rating
0 Uninfested
1-5 Light
6-20 Moderate
>20 Heavy
c. Sample Size; The number of animals examined depends upon
the size of the treatment groups. Suggested sample sizes are as follows:
No. of Sheep or No, of Sheep or
Goats/Treatment Group Goats Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
It is suggested that heavily infested sheep and goats be selected before
treatment and marked so that the same animals can be examined after treat-
ment.
d. Examination Times: Test animals should be examined before
treatment and after treatment. If 2 treatments are to be tested, animals
should be checked at weekly intervals after both treatments. If eradication
is the goal, animals may be checked several months to a year after treatment
to determine if animals become reinfested before the next shearing.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In small-scale tests, a
group of untreated animals equal in size to a treatment group and containing
animals of the same general description as the treated animals should be left
untreated to determine natural changes in populations, and one or more treat-
ment groups may be treated with a standard treatment. Untreated animals and
animals treated with standard treatment should be isolated from treatment
groups, In large-scale tests, usually all the sheep or goats on the same
farm or in the same pasture are treated with the same treatment, and con-
trols may be situated qn nearby farms,
f. Experimental Design; Usually treatments are applied after
animals are sheared. At the time of treatment, it is important to note
length of wool or mohair or interval since last shearing. In most tests,
-------
-39-
effectiveness of treatment is based on average numbers of lice on treated
animals compared with average numbers on untreated animals at specific
intervals after treatment. In other tests, effectiveness is based on
numbers of animals infested per group after treatment.
g.. Treatment Techniques: A number of techniques have been
utilized to apply insecticides to the external surfaces of sheep and goats
for the control of lice.
(1) Dip: Sheep or goats may be dipped in a standard rec-
tangular or round dipping vat (Moore et al. 1959), Animals should be com-
pletely immersed in the insecticide to thoroughly wet the skin on all body
parts. Special care should be taken to submerge the head. Record formulation
used, final concentration of active ingredient (chemical analysis if available)
and volume of vat fluid, size and type of vat, number of animals dipped, and
average amount of vat fluid per animal dipped (record volume before and
after animals are dipped.) Also record replenishment rate and time of
replenishment.
(2) Spray: Insecticides can be applied as high volume-
high pressure sprays or low volume-low pressure sprays (Medley and Drummond
1963) . A modification of the low volume-low pressure technique is the
application of insecticide to sheep in which the operator uses a sprinkling
can to apply the insecticide onto the backs of animals (Matthysse 1967).
Record formulation used, final concentration of active ingredient, the
equipment utilized, the pressure, nozzle type, average volume per animal,
and general techniques of application.
(3) Pour-on: Insecticides formulated in water or as
ready-to-use solutions can be applied onto the skin along the backline.
Often the sheep are weighed and the insecticide is applied on a specific
mg of active ingredient per kg body weight basis. The pour-on treatment
usually consists of a volume of ounces of finished treatment/100 Ib body
weight (45 kg) while lower volume treatment consists of a volume of a few
milliliters per 100 Ib body weight. Record formulation used, diluent, the
final concentration of active ingredient, application technique, the amount
applied per animal, and dosage in terms of mg of active ingredient per kg
of body weight.
(4) Dust; Insecticides are applied as dusts to sheep
by power dusters or by hand. In tests with power dusters, sheep are
dusted by driving them through a curtain of dust expelled from a multiple-
nozzle power duster (Pfadt and Defoliart 1957) or from a single hand-held
nozzle (Wrich 1961). Hand dusting consists of applying dusts by hand or
with hand-operated equipment to sheep or goats. Record formulation, final
concentration of active ingredient, average amount of dust per animal,
equipment used, and average length of time animals are exposed to treatment.
-------
-40-
(5) Vapor Action; Darrow (1973) placed dichlorvos-im-
pregnated collars (PVC strips) around the necks, of goats and recorded the
decline in louse infestations. Collars remain on the animals for many weeks,
Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, the size or
weight of the strip, and site of attachment,
2, Sheep Ked
The sheep ked is a wingless, bloodsucking fly that spends its
life in the fleece of sheep and may infest goats pastured with sheep. It
causes a reduction in market value of leather, decreased carcass weights,
and lessened wool growth (Everett et al, 1971), and is the prime cause of
a sheepskin defect called cockle (Everett et al, 1969), General methods
for the control of this parasite are to treat sheep dermally with insecti-
cides. A review of the biology and control of keds was presented by Imes
(1940) and Kemper and Peterson (1953).
a. Species; The only species is Melophagus owinus (L,),
the sheep ked.
b. Population Determination: The methods used to estimate
populations of sheep keds on sheep have been extensively reviewed by Nelson
et al. (1957), who considered the total live count the only satisfactory
method for determining populations. However, adequate estimates of popula-
tions of keds can be determined by parting the wool on one side in at least
15 places and counting the number of sheep keds observed in the 5 to 8-cm
part. Ratings of relative infestations of sheep keds were presented by
Hoffman et al. (1969) as follows:
Total Number of
Keds Counted/Animal
(15 partings) Rating
0 Uninfested
1-15 Light
6-15 Moderate
>15 Heavy
c, Sample Size; The number of sheep examined depends upon
the size of the treatment group, Suggested sample sizes, are as follows:
No, of Sheep/Treatment Group No, of Sheep Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
-------
-41-
It is suggested that heavily infested sheep be selected before treat-
ment and marked so that•the same animals can be examined after treatment,
d. Examination Times; Usually sheep are examined before treat-
ment and 1 week and monthly after treatment, Examinations may be made at in-
tervals up to 1 year (next shearing) if eradication is the.goal of the treat-
ment (Matthysse 1967),
e. Controls (Standard Treatment); In smallscale tests, usually
one group of sheep similar in breed, size, and condition to treated sheep
should be maintained as an untreated control. It is important that the un-
treated sheep do not come in contact with treated sheep. One group may be
given a standard treatment. In large-scale tests, usually all the sheep
on the same premises are given the same treatment. Untreated controls may
be maintained on a nearby farm.
f. Experimental Design: Treatments may be applied once or
twice to determine whether eradication can be accomplished. It is import-
ant to note whether or not infested sheep were added to the flock during
the posttreatment period. Usually sheep are treated after shearing when
wool is gone and treatments can be applied directly onto the skin. Con-
dition and length of wool should be recorded as part of the treatment
technique, for poor results may result from incomplete or inadequate cover-
age of sheep with insecticide. Effectiveness of treatments is determined
by comparing average numbers of sheep keds on sheep examined before treat-
ment and after treatment. Controls are kept to determine natural changes
in population of keds.
g. Treatment Techniques: Those techniques listed in Section
III, A, 1, g, (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), for lice can be used to apply
insecticides to sheep for the control of sheep keds. Treatment techniques
have been reviewed by Schwardt and Matthysse (1948) and Matthysse (1967).
Often sheep are infested with keds as well as lice, and a single test can be
conducted to determine effectiveness of insecticides for control of both
sheep keds and sheep lice.
3. Scab and Mange Mites
Both sheep and goats are parasitized by several species of
mange and scab mites, some of which burrow and tunnel in the other layers
of skin, causing considerable irritation. Animals bite, scratch, and rub
the infested areas, often causing loss of wool and mohair. Scab or mange
mites cause decrease in quantity of wool or mohair, loss in weight and gen-
eral thriftiness of animals, and death, Evidence of scab mite infestation
is the tagging and loss of bits of wool and mohair on fences and other objects.
Many times large areas of skin become thickened and covered with wounds or
lesions. Often fine wool varieties of sheep are more seriously infested than
-------
-42-
coarse wool varieties. A good review of sheep scab etiology, biology, and
control was presented by Kemper (.1952) .
Certain species of mange mites are under quarantine regulations, and
proper regulatory authorities should be notified if mange mites are sus-
pected,
a. Species; The most common mite on sheep is Chori-optes
bovis (Hering), the foot mange mite (Roberts et al, 1964), Sheep may
also be infested with the mange mite, Sarcoptes soabiei (DeGeer). The
common mange mite, Psoroptes owls (Hering), was declared eradicated from
the United States in 1973,
Rarely seen in the United States but of considerable importance through-
out the world is the itch mite, Psorergates ovi-s Womersley. Goats may be
infested with a mange mite, Chorioptes oaprea (Delafond). It is necessary
to examine scab and mange mites under magnification in order to determine
species. Sheep and goats may be also infested with demodectic mites,
Demodex ovis Railliet in sheep and D. caprae Railliet in goats; these mites
cause follicular or red mange and are usually not treated.
b. Population Determination: The only way to determine in-
festation of scab and mange mites is to scrape lesions and wounds and
examine these scrapings for mites under a dissecting microscope. The num-
ber of scrapings per animal is variable, but Downing and Mort (1962) re-
commends 17 areas. This number can be reduced to 5-6 if the scrapings are
taken from animals known to have been infested before treatment (Meleney
and Roberts 1967). Usually the scrapings are examined, and examinations are
listed as positive or negative for mites. Meleney and Roberts (1967) pre-
sented a scoring system ranging from 1 to 8, dependent upon the number and
extent of lesions infested with live mites.
c. Sample Size: Numbers of sheep and goats examined depend on
the size of the tests. As with tests with lice and keds, the following
samples are suggested:
No. of Sheep or No, of Sheep or
Goats/Treatment Goats Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
Because of the difficulty in determining infestations, it is essential
that infested animals be identified before treatment and that the same
animals be examined after treatment to determine effectiveness of treatment,
-------
-43-
d. Examination Times; Usually animals are examined before
treatment to insure that they are infested and after treatment at weekly
intervals for several months and then monthly thereafter, These long
intervals are necessary to allow populations, of mites to develop so that
they can be detected,
e. Controls (.Standard Treatment); In small-scale tests, one
group of untreated animals should be maintained to determine natural changes
in populations. If possible, one group of animals should be treated with a
standard treatment. In large-scale tests, usually all sheep on the same
premises are given the same treatment. In most tests, infested sheep given
the same treatment should be kept together with one pen and isolated from
those receiving other treatments to determine whether treatment killed all
the mites. In certain tests (Roberts and Meleney 1971), previously uninfested
and treated sheep were placed into flocks that were infested so that the
treatments could be challenged by infestation.
f. Experimental Design: Animals may be treated more than
once as part of the treatment regimen. It is important to know whether or
not sheep or goats are shorn or not shorn and length of time between treat-
ment and shearing. Effectiveness of treatment is determined by comparing
numbers of sheep and goats infested per numbers examined with number infested
per number examined after treatment. Same animals should be examined before
and after treatment.
g. Treatment Techniques: The most common and effective method
of treatment is dipping [III, A. 1, g, (1)] (Strickland et al. 1970, Meleney
and Roberts 1967). Other treatments have been whole-body sprays. Roberts
and Meleney (1971) found that dusting was ineffective. It is extremely im-
portant that the treatment be thorough and complete in order to assure that
all lesions on the animals are treated.
4. Fleeceworms and Screwworms
Both sheep and goats are attacked by screwworm larvae that
invade living tissues. This species has been eradicated from the South-
eatern U.S. and is the object of an eradication program in the Southwestern
U.S. and Mexico. Sheep and sometimes goats are also attacked by fleece-
worms that may live on the skin and in the fleece of sheep and mohair of
goats or infest old wounds. These maggots rarely invade living tissue, but
live in damp wool or mohair that is soiled with urine or feces. The in-
fested area may become irritated, denuded of wool or mohair, and eventually
invaded by bacteria, etc, Fleeceworms in the U.S. are closely related to
the species of flies, that cause fly strike in sheep - important parasite of
sheep in many areas of the w,orld outside of the United States.
-------
-44-
a. Species: The primary screwworn; that invades living tissue
is Coohliomyia honrinivorca; (Coquerel) . Fleeceworms that invade fleece and
breed, in carrion and old wounds are primarily Cochl-iomyia.maeellaria (F,),
the secondary screwworm fly, Phormia reg-ina Qfeigen) , the.black blow fly,
and Fhaenicia sericata (Meigen) , There may be other species of lesser im-
portance, Often fleeceworms are found in multiple infestations
b. Population.Determination:
(1) Screwworms; Because of the eradication program in the
United States, natural populations of screwworms are very rarely encountered.
Therefore, testing is usually conducted with artificially infested wounds.
Animals are wounded by cutting away skin and scarifying exposed flesh, and
wounds are infested with newly hatched larvae at specific intervals before
treatment (Wrich and Bushland 1960).
(2) Fleeceworms: In order to be assured of infestations,
usually the fleece of animals is impregnated with citrated blood (Knipling
1942) or hamburger meat (Graham and Eddy 1948), and this soiled fleece is
artificially infested with larvae of fleeceworms. Natural infestations of
fleeceworms may be found in the crotch or breech area of sheep in moist
environments when the wool is soiled by feces, urine, or rain.
c. Sample Siae: In tests with screwworms and fleeceworms,
each animal is inspected before treatment, and extent and deviation of in-
festation are determined before an animal is included in the test. At
least 3-5 infested animals should be treated with the same treatment.
d. Examination Times: Animals are examined usually 1 day
after treatment to determine kill of larvae in wounds or in fleece. In
tests tht include artificial reinfestation, wounds or fleece are challenged
at specific intervals, usually weekly, until wounds become infested or are
healed or until fleece becomes reinfested. In large-scale test with fleece-
worms, previously infested animals are inspected biweekly or weekly after
treatment for natural reinfestations.
e. Control (Standard Treatment); In treatments with screwworms,
each wound is its own control in that wounds are examined for initial kill
and artificially reinfested until healed. In tests with fleeceworms, each
animal is its own control. In most instances, it is possible to place
groups of treated sheep in the same pasture with untreated controls and one
group of animals that may be treated with a standard treatment and challenged
artificially or naturally along with the test animals,
f. Experimental Design: In small-scale tests with screwworms,
one day after treatment, wounds are examined for living larvae to determine
-------
-45-
residual effectiveness of the treatment. In tests with fleeceworms, all
animals should be examined one day after treatment to determine initial
kill, If treatments kill all the larvae, in natural reinfestation tests,
animals are returned to the pasture and examined weekly to determine extent
of reinfestation. In artificial reinfestation tests, animals are challenged
weekly with reinfestation and examined carefully to determine whether larvae
survive. Effectiveness of initial kill is based on the ratio of numbers of
wounds or animals in which all larvae are killed per number wounds or animals
originally infested. Effectiveness of residual activity is based on length
of time required for wounds or fleeces to become reinfested,
g. Treatment Techniques: Sheep and goats may be treated for
control of screwworms and fleeceworms with treatment techniques of dipping,
spraying, and dusting [listed in section III, A, 1, g, (1), (2), and (4)].
In addition, the following treatment techniques may be used:
(1) Smear: Insecticides formulated as smears or in
ointments may be applied directly into and surrounding wounds containing
screwworm larvae. Special care should be taken to treat the area thoroughly.
In tests with fleeceworms, smears and ointments may be diluted with water
or oil and brushed or otherwise applied onto the entire infested area.
Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, and amount
of material applied per wound or area.
5. Sheep Nose Bots
The larvae of the sheep nose hot fly live on mucous surfaces of
the nasal passages and sinuses of sheep and occasionally goats. During warm
weather females deposit living larvae onto and in the nostrils of sheep.
Infestation of larvae can cause irritation to the nasal passages, and sheep
characteristically try to prevent flies from larvipositing by holding their
heads near the ground and shaking their heads and stomping their feet. Heavy
intestation may cause unthriftiness in sheep; animals may lose condition and
become susceptible to secondary infections. Recent studies on life history
of the sheep bot fly have been presented by Rogers and Knapp (1973). Early
treatments for the control of sheep nose bot larvae in sheep consisted of
the irrigation or injection of materials into the nasal passages and frontal
sinuses of sheep (Cobbett 1940). Since 1958, sheep nose bot larvae have
been controlled by animal systemic insecticides,
a, Species; The only specis is Oestrus opis L,, the sheep
nose bot fly,.
b. Population Determination: The only accurate method for
determining numbers of sheep nose bot larvae in sheep is to kill the sheep,
split the skulls transversally along a line between the eyes, and examine
carefully surfaces of the mucous membranes of the nasal chamber, nasal septa,
sinuses, for larvae and record numbers of all three instars.
-------
-46-
c. Sample Size: Each animal is an individual treatment,
Suggested numbers of sheep slaughtered and examined are as follows:
Number of Number of
Sheep/Treatment Sheep Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
d. Examination Times: Treated sheep are usually slaughtered
and examined at- 3-10 days after treatment.
e. Control (Standard Treatment): In small-scale tests, one group
of sheep equal in number to a treatment group and similar in age, weight, breed,
origin, etc., to treated sheep should be left untreated as a control. One treat-
ment group may be given a standard treatment. In large-scale tests, typical
animals may be slaughtered immediately before treatment to determine the
size of infestation and serve as controls for the test.
f. Experimental Design: If possible, during the period between
treatment and slaughter, treated sheep should not be exposed to reinfestation
be larvipositing flies. Tests may be conducted after frost when the danger of
reinfestation is decreased.
g. Treatment Techniques: The techniques utilized to apply
insecticides dermally to sheep and goats for control of lice, keds, and mange
are dips, spray, pour-ons and dusts [listed in section III, A, 1, g, (1), (2),
(3), and (4)] can be used to apply insecticides to sheep for the control of
sheep nose bots. In addition, the following techniques can be used:
(1) Single oral treatment: Sheep may be treated orally with
insecticides formulated as drenches, boluses, or in capsules (Peterson et al.
1958, 1960 and Drummond 1962), Record formulation, final concentration of
active ingredient, form of treatment, and dosage in terms of mg of active ingre-
dient per kg body weight of sheep,
(2) Feed or water additive; Sheep may be treated with
insecticides administered daily in feed or water for a specific period of
time (Pfadt 1964). Record formulation, final concentration of active ingre^
dient, amount of feed or water consumed (daily and total), length of treat-
ment period, and dosage either in mg of active ingredient per kg body weight
or ppm in feed or water. Animals should be observed closely to be sure that
they consume all of the treated feed or water,
(3) Injection: Sheep may be treated with insecticides
injected intramuscularly, subcutaneously, or intraperitoneally (Peterson
et al. 1959, Drummond 1966). Record formulation, diluent, final concentration
-------
-47-
of active ingredient, locus of injection and dosage in terms of mg of
active ingredient per kg of body weight of sheep,
(4) Nasal treatments: Insecticides formulated as oint-
ment, smear, aerosols and mist sprays may be applied to the external and in-
ternal surfaces of the nostrils or into the nasal chamber to control sheep
nose hot larvae (Pfadt and Campbell 1963).
Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, exact
method of treatment, and amount applied per sheep,
B. Test Reporting
All details of the test should be reported. Such details should
include;
1, Identification of test arthropods.
2. Breed, age, sex, origin, weight (if necessary), condition,
length of wool or mohair (time after shearing), and condition of sheep
and goats in tests,
3. Location and time of test (weather conditions if important).
4. Number of animals/treatment group,
5. Formulation of insecticide.
6. Final concentration of active ingredient.
7. Method and rate of application.
8. Application equipment.
9. Infestation rates before and after treatment. The data depend
on the test arthropod, e.g., average number of lice or keds/sheep, number of
lesions with mange mites/nuiaber lesions examined, number of sheep infested
with mange/number examined, number of wounds with screwworms/number wounds,
number of sheep with fleeceworms/number sheep inspected, number 0. ovis
larvae of each instar/number sheep heads examined, etc. Describe method of
determining infestation rates.
1Q. Difference in infestation rates of treated animals at a particulai
examination period after treatment as compared with infestation rate of same
animals before treatment or with infestation rates of similar untreated
animals examined at the same posttreatment time. This difference is usually
expressed in terms of percent control or percent reduction of infestation,
11. Effects on host (no effect or unnatural effects),
12. Any other comments regarding the test.
-------
-48-
References Cited
Cobbett, N,G. 1940. A method of large-scale treatment of sheep for the
destruction of head grubs (.^ Oestrus avis'). J. Am. Vet. Assoo.
97(765);571-75
Darrow, D.I. 1973. Biting lice of goats: Control with dichlorvos-
impregnated resin neck collars, J. Eoon. Entomol. 66Q) ;133-35.
Downing, W., and P, Mort. 1962, Experiments in the .control of the itch
mite, Psorergates ovis, Womersley, 1941, Part I, Austral. Vet, J.
38(3)77-85.
Drummond, R.O. 1962. Control of larvae of Oestrus ovis in sheep with
systemic insecticides. J. Parasitol. 48(2):211-14.
Drummond, R.O. 1966, Systemic insecticides to control larvae of Oestrus
ovis in sheep. J. Parasitol. 52(1):192-95.
Everett, A.L., I.H. Roberts, and J. Naghski. 1971, Reduction in leather
value and yields of meat and wool from sheep infested with keds.
J. Am. Leather Chem. Assoo.. 66(3) :118-32,
Everett, A.L., I.H. Roberts, H.J, Willard, S.A. Apodaca, E.H, Bitcover,
and J. Naghski. 1969. The cause of cockle, a seasonal sheepskin defect,
identified by infesting a test flock with keds (Melophagus ovinus). J. Am.
Leather Chem. Assoo. 64(10):460-76.
Graham, O.H., and G.W. Eddy. 1948. Persistence of chlorinated camphene
as a fleece worm larvicide. J. Eoon. Entomol. 41(3):521.
Hoffman, R.A., R.O. Drummond, and O.H. Graham. 1969. Insects affecting
livestock and domestic animals. Pages 87-90 in Survey Method for Some
Economic Insects. USDA, ARS 81-31. 140 pp.
Imes, M. 1940. The Sheep Tick and its Eradication by Dipping. USDA Farmers
Bull. No. 798. 22 pp.
Kemper, H.E. 1952, Sheep Scab, USDA Farmers Bull No, 713.. 26 pp.
Kemper, H.E., and H.O, Peterson, 1953, The Sheep Tick and its Eradication.
USDA Farmers. Bull, No. 2057. 22 pp.
Knipling, E.F. 1942, A preliminary report on a treatment for fleeceworm
infestations in sheep, J. Eoon Entomol. 35(6) ;896<-8,
Matthysse, J.G, 1967- Sheep ectoparasite control, 1, Insecticides and
application methods for keds and biting lice, J1, Econ. Entomol. 60(6):
1645-50,
Medley, J.G., and R.O. Drummond. 1963. Tests with insecticides for control
of lice on goats and sheep. J. Econ. Entomol. 56(5):658-60.
-------
-49-
Meleney, W.P., and I,H. Roberts, 1967. Evaluation of acaricidal dips for
control of Psoroptes ovis on sheep. J, Am. Vet, Med., Assoc. 151(6) :725-31.
Moore, B. , R,0, Drummond, and H,M, Brundrett, 1959, Tests of insecticides
for the control of goat lice in 1957 and 1958. J, Boon. Entomol.
52C5);980-81.
Nelson, W,A,, S,B, Slen, and E.C, Banky. 1957. Evaluation of methods of
estimating populations of the sheep ked, Melophagus ovinus(L.) (Diptera:
Hippoboscidae), on mature ewes and young lambs. Can. J, Anim, Sci.
37:8-13.
Peterson, H.O., E.M, Jones, and N.G, Cobbett, 1958, Effectiveness of Dow
ET-57 (Trolene) against the nasal botfly of sheep, Am, J, Vet. Res.
19:129-31.
Peterson, H. 0., N.G., Cobbett, and W.P, Meleney. 1959. Treatment of
Oestrus ovis with dimethoate. Vet. Med. 54:377-83.
Peterson, H.O., W.P, Meleney, and N.G. Cobbett. 1960, The use of organic
phosphorus compounds in destroying Oestrus ovis larvae. Proc. U.S. Live-
stock Son-it. ASSOQ. 64:178-86,
Pfadt, R,E, 1964, Sheep bot fly control tests. J. Eeon. Entomol.
57(6):928-31.
P'fadt, R.E., and J. Campbell. 1963. Sheep bot fly control with DDVP,
J. Eoon. Entomol. 56(4):530-1.
Pfadt, R.E., and G,R, DeFoliart, 1957- Powder dusting to control the
sheep ked. J'. Econ, Entomol, 50(2) ; 190-94.
Roberts, I,H«,, and W.P, Meleney. 1971, Acaricidal treatment for pro-
tection of sheep against Psoroptes ovis, J, Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
158(3):372-78.
Roberts, I.H., G.J, Hanosh, and S.A. Apodaca. 1964. Observations on the
incidence of chorioptic acariasis of sheep in the United States. Am. J.
Vet, Res.. 25(105) ; 478-81.
Rogers, C,E., and F,W, Knapp. 1973. Bionomics of the sheep bot fly,
Oestrus ovis. Environ, Entomol, 2(I);11-23,
Schwardt, H,H., and J.G. Matthysse, 1948, The Sheep Tick CMelophagus
ovinus Lj Material and Equipment for its Control, Cornell U, Agric,
Exp, Sta, Bull. No, 844, 33 pp,
Strickland, R,K,, R.R, Gerrish, J.L, Hourrigan, and F,P, Czech, 1970.
Chlorpyridyl phosphorotMoate insecticde as dip and spray; Efficacy
against Psoroptes ovis, dermal toxicity for domestic animals, selective
carryout, and stability in the dipping vat. Am^ J. Vet,
31(12)=2135-43,
-------
-50-
Wrich, M.J. 1961. A comparison of Co-Ral, ronnel, and Ruelene dusts for
screw-worm control. J. Econ. Entomol. 54(5):941-45.
Wrich, M.J., and R.C. Bushland. 1960. Screw-worm control with insecticide
sprays. J. Econ. Entomol. 53(6):1058-61.
-------
-51-
IV. Swine
Swine are infested with a limited number of arthropod ectoparasites, lice
and mange mites, that suck blood, cause irritation and itching, decreased
weight gains and stunted growth. Unlike mange in cattle, sheep and goats,
mange in hogs, although a problem to swine and swine herders, is not the
object of an eradication campaign and therefore is not subject to quarantine
and compulsory treatment. Because of their large size, hog lice are easily
detectable on infested animals.
A. Treatment and Evaluation Techniques
1. Hog Lice
a. Species: The only species of lice on swine is Haematopinus
su-is (L.), the hog louse.
b. Population Determination: To determine populations of
hog lice on swine, it is necessary to restrain hogs and count numbers of
motile forms, including nymphs and adults on the whole body. Special
attention should be given to examine legs, eyes, tail and inside the ears.
It is preferable to use actual counts of lice. However, infestations were
rated by Hoffman et al. (1969) as follows:
No. of Lice
per Animal Rating
0 None
1-5 Light
6-15 Moderate
16 and above Heavy
c. Sample Size: The following is a suggested sampling size.
No. of Swine No. of Swine
per Treatment Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10 animals)
>100 20
It is suggested that heavily infested animals be identified prior to
treatment and these same animals be examined after treatment.
-------
-52-
d. Examination Times: Animals should be examined before treat-
ment and weekly after treatment. In case of continuous treatment, such as
backrubbers, oilers, or premise treatment, animals should be examined before
treatment and at frequent intervals during treatment regime to assess
effectiveness.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): Whenever possible in small-
scale tests, one group of swine equal to the size of a treated group should
be left untreated. If possible, another group should be treated with a
standard treatment. Both untreated swine and those given a standard treat-
ment should be isolated from treatment groups. In large-scale tests in
which all swine on a farm are given the same treatment, untreated swine
should be maintained on neighboring facilities to determine natural changes
in populations of hog lice.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatment is deter-
mined by comparing average numbers of lice on swine before treatment with
average numbers of lice on these same animals at intervals after treatment
or by comparing average numbers of lice on treated swine with average numbers
of lice on untreated swine.
g. Treatment Techniques: Lice can be controlled by applying
insecticides to swine or swine holding areas.
(1) Whole body sprays: It is necessary to treat animals
thoroughly to point of run-off (Imes 1937). Special care should be taken
to treat inside of ears and other difficult-to-treat areas. Record form-
ulation, final concentration of active ingredient, equipment used and
application techniques and average volume of spray applied per animal.
(2) Dip: Swine may be dipped in a standard swine dipping
vat (Imes 1937), or any container large enough to completely immerse swine.
Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient (chemical analysis
if available), volume of liquid in vat, age of charge at time of dipping, num-
ber of swine dipped and data on recharging if necessary.
(3) Dust: Dusts can be applied by hand or power duster
to all parts of the body with special care to treat the ears. Record form-
ulation, diluent, final concentration of active ingredient and average amount
of dust applied per animal.
(4) Pour-on: Insecticides formulated in water or as ready-
to-use solutions can be applied to the skin of swine. Treat along backline
-------
-53-
of animal with specific volume of dilute insecticide. Record formulation,
diluent, final concentration of active ingredient, average dosage in terms
of mg of active ingredient per kg of body weight of animal.
(5) Backrubbers or oilers: Standard swine backrubbers or
oilers can be treated with insecticide in number 2 diesel oil, light mineral
oil, or standard diluent. Place backrubber or oilers at appropriate heights
in areas where swine congregate. Record formulation, diluent, final concen-
tration of active ingredient, rate of treatment, volume per meter of back-
rubber or oiler. If backrubbers or oilers are refilled, record time of
retreatment, formulation, concentration of active ingredient, and volume
used.
(6) Premise Treatment: Dust, granules or sprays can be
applied to bedding, litters, wallows and other areas in the hog lot (John-
son 1961, McGregor and Gray 1963). Record formulation, final concentration
of active ingredient, and amount applied (grams or liters/square meter). If
areas are retreated, record similar data for retreatment.
2. Hog Mange
a. Species: Common mange in swine is caused by Sorcoptes
suis Gerlach. Another type of mange is caused by Demodex spp.
but demodectic mange usually is not treated.
b. Population Determination: To determine infestation of
mange mites, it is necessary to scrape skin and examine scrapings under
magnification for live mites. Scraping should be taken from areas that are
obviously infested. A minimum of 3 scraping/hog is recommended. Scrapings
are designated as either infested or not infested with mange mites (Hixson
and Muma 1947).
c. Sample Size: Sample size should be similar to that for
hog lice. The following is the suggested sample size:
Number of Number of
Swine/Treatment Swine/Examined
3-10 All
11-100 20% (minimum of 10)
>100 20
It is important to mark heavily infested animals so that these same
animals can be examined after treatment.
-------
-54-
d. Examination Times: Swine should be examined before treat-
ment and at 1 week, and monthly after treatment. Usually if treatment fails,
live mites are found 1 month after treatment. Additional examinations may
be warranted to determine whether the treatment eradicates mange (Roberts
and Rogoff 1953) .
e. Control (Standard Treatment): In small scale tests a
group of untreated controls or a group of swine treated with a standard
treatment should be maintained on the same farm but should be kept completely
isolated from treated animals. In all tests all animals that come in contact
with each other should be treated with the same insecticide.
f. Treatment Techniques: Treatment techniques have been
limited to those that provide thorough application such as dips and sprays
[Section IV, A, 1, g, (1), and (2)J.
B. Test Reporting
All details of the test should be reported. Such details should
include:
1. Identification of test arthropods.
2. Breed, age, sex, origin, weight (if necessary) and condition
of swine in test. Weather conditions (if important).
3. Location and time of test.
4. Number of animals/treatment group.
5. Formulation of insecticide.
6. Final concentration of active ingredient.
7. Method and rate of application.
8. Application equipment.
t
9. Infestation rates before and after treatment for hog louse
control should be recorded in terms of average numbers of lice per hog
and with hog mange control, data should be recorded in terms of numbers
of swine infested per number of swine examined. Describe technique used
to determine infestation rates.
10. Difference in infestation rates of treated animals at a
particular examination period after treatment as compared with infestation
rate of same animals before treatment or with infestation rates of similar
untreated animals examined at the same posttreatment time. This difference
is usually expressed in terms of percent control or percent reduction of
infestation.
-------
-55-
11. Effects on host (no effect or unnatural effect),
12. Any other comments regarding test.
-------
-56-
Referenaes Cited
Hixson, E., and M.H. Muma. 1947. Hog mange control tests. J. Eoon.
Entomol. 40 (3):451.
Hoffman, R.A., R.O. Drummond, and O.K. Graham. 1969. Insects affecting
livestock and domestic animals. Pages 87-90 in Survey Methods for Some
Economic Insects.. USDA ARS 81-31. 140 pp.
Imes, M. 1937. Hog lice and hog mange. Methods of Control and Eradication.
USDA Farmers Bull. No. 1085, 22 pp.
Johnson, W.T. 1961. Hog louse control by ground treatment. J. Econ.
Entomol. $4 (4):821.
McGregor, W.S., and H.E. Gray. 1963. Korlan insecticide granules for
control of hog lice. Down To Earth. 19(3):l-3.
Roberts, I.H., and W.M. Rogoff. 1953. Organic insecticides for the
control of swine mange. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 123(918):227-31.
-------
-57-
V. Poultry
Poultry, including chickens, turkeys and a number of domestic fowl, are
infested with a variety of arthropod ectoparasites that live on the skin
of the birds, chew skin debris and feathers, suck blood, and cause lowered
growth rates lessened egg production, and may lead to debilitation and death
of heavily infested animals. It is usually necessary to treat poultry with
insecticides to prevent massive buildup of populations of these ectopara-
sites. In addition, poultry houses are the source of a variety of flies
that are of considerable nuisance and must be controlled.
The techniques listed for evaluating the effectiveness of insecticides
applied to poultry and other fowl in this compendium are limited to those
used to evaluate insecticides applied directly to poultry for the control
of major arthropod parasites, to litter for the control of major arthropod
parasites, to litter for the control of lice and mites, to the ground for
the control of turkey chiggers, and to the diet of poultry or to the manure
for the control of manure-inhabiting fly larvae. Excluded are treatments
for the control of fowl ticks, Argas spp., and the fowl mite, Dermanyssus
Qalli-nae (DeGeer) , which are controlled by treating roosts, cracks, and
wall and floor surfaces of poultry houses; effectiveness of thes treat-
ments is determined by examining structures in poultry houses rather than
by examining the poultry. Also excluded are techniques for evaluating
treatments of walls and other surfaces with residual spray and baits for
the control of adult flies found in poultry houses.
Also excluded are tests to control rare or minor parasites such as
sticktight fleas, Eohidnophaga gallinacea (Westwood), the scaly leg mite,
Knemidokoptes mutans (Robin and Lanquetin), and the depluming mite,
Knemidokoptes gallinae (Railliet). There are a number of other ectopara-
sites found on poultry, but they are of little economic importance (Bishop
and Wood 1939).
A. Treatment and Evaluation Techniques
1. Lice
Poultry are infested with a number of species of biting lice
that live on skin and feathers of the host. Although lice are found on
all areas of the body; certain species may be more prevalent in a specific
area than other species. Although these lice are all biting lice, on the
occurrence of excessive feeding and damage to the host, their alimentary
tracts may contain blood elements. Heavy infestations of lice may cause
considerable injury in that chickens exhibit drooping wings, ruffled
feathers, and may even lose weight, produce fewer eggs, and become pre-
disposed to common chicken diseases.
-------
-58-
a. Species: The most common species of lice on chickens is
the body louse, Menacanthus stramineus (Nitzsch). Another common species
is the shaft louse, Menopon gdltinae (L,)° Less common species are the
head louse, L-i^euTus heterographus (Nitzsch), the wing louse, Lipeurus
capon-is (L.)> and the fluff louse, Gonioootes gallinae (DeGeer) . Other
closely related species of lice may be found on turkeys, geese, ducks,
pigeon, and other fowl. When conducting a test, it is necessary to collect
samples of lice from test birds in order to determine species composition
of the infestation.
b. Population Determination: The most common method of deter-
mining populations of lice on poultry is by parting feathers on several
places of the body and counting motile forms. Hoffman et al. (1969)
suggested parting feathers in 7 places, one each on the vent, neck, back,
each wing, and 2 on the breast. Other numbers and locations of partings
have been used by Hoffman (1960, 1961), Hoffman and Hogan (1967), and Simco
and Lancaster (1965). Hoffman et al. (1969) suggested that lice populations
may be rated as follows:
Total No. of
Lice Seen Rating
0 Uninfested
1-10 Light
11-25 Moderate
>25 Heavy
c. Sample Size: It is not necessary to examine all birds in
a specific test. The following sample sizes are suggested. Birds that are
examined should be randomly selected and typical of birds on test.
No. of Birds No. of Birds
Per Treatment Examined
3-10 All
11-100 10
101-500 10%
>500 50
d. Examination Times: Birds should be examined at least
once before treatment and 1 day and weekly after treatment for a minimum
of 6 weeks after the last treatment. If multiple treatments are tested,
birds should be examined after each treatment and weekly for 6 weeks after
last treatment. If continuous treatments are tested, birds should be
examined throughout the treatment period.
-------
-59-
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In small-scale tests, one
group of untreated controls, equal in number to a treatment group, housed on
the same farm or in the same poultry house, and separated adequately to pre-
vent transfer of parasites or of treatment, should be maintained as an un-
treated control. In large-scale tests in which all birds in a single house
or on the same farm are given the same treatment, it may not be possible to
maintain untreated controls. If possible, one group of birds in s small-
scale test should be treated with a standard treatment. In large-scale
tests, this may not be possible.
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments is
determined by comparing average numbers of lice per bird in treated groups
with average numbers of lice per bird in the same groups before treatment
or with average numbers of lice per bird on untreated control birds.
g. Treatment Techniques: There are several techniques used
to apply insecticides to poultry for control of lice.
(1) Dip: Individual birds may be dipped in insecticide
thoroughly so as to wet the feathers to the skin (Bishopp and Wood 1939).
Birds should be completely immersed. Caution should be exercised to dip
on warm days so as to lessen the untoward effect of the water on the birds.
Record the formulation, the final concentration of active ingredient, and
the volume used and number of birds treated.
(2) Spray: Insecticides may be applied as sprays directly
to the birds (Simco and Lancaster 1965). Individuals may be treated separately,
or birds in cages may be treated as a group. Record formulation, final con-
centration of active ingredient, equipment used, pressure, and the amount of
spray applied per individual or group of birds treated.
(3) Mist Spray: Insecticides may be applied as fine mists
or fogs directly to birds in cages or birds on the floor (Foulk and Matthysse
1963). Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, equip-
ment used, and amount of spray applied per number of birds treated.
(4) Dust: Dusts may be applied by hand or with power
dusters directly onto individual birds or groups of birds in cages or on
the floor (Linkfield and Reid 1958). Record formulation, final concentration
of active ingredient, equipment used, and amount of dust per bird or group
of birds.
(5) Floor of Litter Treatment: Insecticides can be applied
as mists or fogs, dusts, or granules directly to floor areas, litter, or nest
-------
-60-
areas (Hoffman 1960, 1961). Record formulation, final concentration of
active ingredient, equipment used, amount of insecticide per square meter
of surface treated, and total surface area treated.
(6) Dust Box Treatment: Insecticides formulated as dusts
or granules may be placed into dust box containers and chickens allowed to
treat themselves (Hoffman and Hogan 1967), Record formulation, diluent,
final concentration of active ingredient, amount of material per dust box,
length of treatment period, number of birds, and average amount of material
used per bird during the treatment period.
(7) Vapor Treatment: Strands, cords, or other devices
impregnated with insecticides may be attached underneath or around cages
containing infested birds (Simco and Lancaster 1965) or attached directly
onto birds. Insecticides volatilize from the impregnated surfaces and kill
ectoparasites on birds. Record formulation, impregnated material, final
concentration of active ingredient, length or weight of impregnated material
per bird or per cage containing a specific number of birds, and length of
treatment period.
(8) Oral Treatment: Insecticides may be given to birds
in single oral treatments or multiple oral treatments in feed or water
(Hoffman 1961, Kraemer and Furman 1959) in order to control lice. Record
formulation, final concentration of active ingredient in ppm in feed or
water, amount of feed or water consumed, dosage of active ingredient per
kg of body weight, and length of treatment period.
2. Fowl Mites
Fowl mites spend their life cycles on poultry and are con-
trolled by applying insecticides to birds, or to litter or nesting material
that come into direct contact with the birds. Fowl mites suck blood and
cause considerable injury to birds. Often birds become heavily infested
with fowl mites, and such infestations may lead to lowered egg production,
lowered vitality, and often to the death of birds (Combs and Lancaster 1965).
a. Species: The most common species of fowl mite is the
northern fowl mite, Ornithonyssus sylviaztm (C. and F.). Another much
less common species is 0. bursa (Berlese), the tropical fowl mite.
b. Population Determination: Common methods of determination
of populations are to count or estimate numbers of motile forms of fowl
mites seen when parting feathers in one place on the vent area. Because
populations of fowl mites may reach very high levels that cannot be counted,
most researchers have used a scale system based on number of mites and feather
-------
-61-
discoloration in the vent area to express the degree of infestation (Linkfield
and Reid 1958). The following, a modification system of Simco and Lancaster
(1965), is suggested as a guide to scales and infestation rates:
No. of Feather
Scale Mites Rating Appearance
0 0 None Normal
1 1-20 Light Normal
2 20-1000 Moderate Greying
3 >1000 Heavy Blackened
c. Sample Size: As with poultry lice tests, all birds in
small-scale tests should be examined. Samples can be taken from animals
as follows:
No. of Birds No, of Birds
per Treatment Examined
3-10 All
11-100 10
100-500 10%
>500 50
It is helpful to mark heavily infested birds so that these can be examined
after treatment.
d. Examination Times: Usually birds are examined once before
treatment and at 1 day and weekly after treatment for at least 8 weeks. If
multiple treatments are used, birds should be examined after both treatments
to determine relative effect of the treatments. Most critical, however, are
the examinations after the last treatment. If continuous treatments are used,
birds can be examined during the treatment period.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): Usually one or more groups
of untreated animals are maintained in the same house or on the same farm in
order to determine natural fluctuations in infestation rates on these control
animals. If possible, one group of birds should be treated with a standard
treatment. Because of the mobile nature of these mites, it is necessary to
be very careful about separating untreated controls from treated birds and
birds treated with a standard treatment from untreated birds or birds treated
with the experimental materials. In large-scale tests, when all birds on
the same farm are treated with the same treatment, no untreated controls can
be maintained and each bird serves as its own control.
-------
-62-
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of treatments is deter-
mined by comparing average scale ratings of mites per bird or group of birds
given the same treatment with the average scale ratings of these same birds
before treatment or with average scale ratings of untreated control birds.
g. Treatment Techniques: The same techniques used to apply
insecticides to poultry or litter for the control of poultry lice can also
be used to control northern fowl mites. (See Section V, A, 1, g.)
3. Turkey Chiggers
In certain areas of the southern United States, turkeys on
range are infested with a turkey chigger, Neoschongastia americana (Hirst).
The chiggers cause downgrading of turkeys because of loss due to the need
at processing time to trim from the skin the feeding lesions formed at the
site of attachment of turkey chiggers. Feeding lesions take 3 or 4 weeks
to heal after chiggers have been eliminated. General information on im-
portance and biology of 717. amevloana has been presented by Kunz et al.
(1969) and Everett et al. (1973).
a. Species: Only Neoschongastia amerioana is of importance.
b. Population Determination: Because chiggers attach in large
numbers in feeding lesions, numbers of chiggers on turkeys are not counted;
rather skin on the leg, thigh, breast, and vent is examined for feeding
lesions. The total number of lesions per bird is used as an estimate of
the chigger population (Kunz et al. 1969).
c. Sample Size: In small-scale tests, usually all turkeys
are examined for lesions. In larger-scale tests, it is necessary only to
examine a representative sample. A suggested sample is as follows:
No. of No. of
Turkeys/Treatment Turkeys/Examined
3-10 All
11-100 10
101-500 10%
>500 50
d. Examination Times: Turkeys should be examined for lesions
at least once before treatment to determine extent of infestation and then
examined weekly after treatment for periods of 4 weeks or until all of the
lesions have healed.
-------
-63-
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In small-scale tests,
it is necessary to have similarly handled turkeys confined to untreated
soil in order to determine the natural fluctuations in populations during
the test period. If possible, one group of turkeys should be confined onto
soil treated with a standard treatment. In large-scale tests, it may not be
possible to have untreated turkeys on the same farm; if convenient, a group
of turkeys should be maintained on nearby untreated ground (Kunz et al. 1972)
f. Experimental Design: Effectiveness of a treatment is
determined by comparing the numbers of lesions on treated turkeys with the
numbers of lesions on the same turkeys before treatment or with numbers of
lesions on turkeys confined to untreated ground (Kunz et al. 1971). In
small-scale tests, it was necessary to surround treated areas with 10-
to 15-ft. protective barrier to prevent chiggers from migrating into
treated areas from adjacent untreated areas (Price and Kunz 1970).
g. Treatment Techniques: Insecticides may be applied
directly onto turkeys by the techniques used to apply insecticides to
poultry for the control of lice and mites (see section V, A, 1, g). Price
and Kunz (1970) reported failure of treatment in feed to control chiggers.
Most commonly, treatment usually consists of applying insecticides as
granules, dusts and sprays to turkey-grazing areas. Insecticides are
usually applied at high rate of active ingredient and high volume of
material per acre. In small-scale tests, insecticides may be applied by
hand; in large-scale tests, power equipment may be used to thoroughly
saturate the turkey-grazing areas. Record formulation, final concentration
of active ingredient, amount applied per area treated, equipment used,
and number of birds on treated areas.
4. Manure-Inhabiting Fly Larvae
Poultry manure, especially that which accumulates under caged
layers, is usually infested with larvae of several species of flies. There
are two general methods utilized to control fly larvae in poultry manure.
One is the topical application of insecticides to poultry manure; the other
is the addition of insecticides to the feed or water, of poultry. The
insecticide becomes incorporated with the poultry manure and thus is toxic
to the larvae. However, the most effective method used to eliminate poultry
fly problems is to remove poultry manure from poultry houses at short in-
tervals so that there will be no accumulation and thus eliminate the larval
medium. An excellent review of the use of larvicides was presented by
Miller (1970).
a. Species: There are several species of flies whose larvae
develop in poultry manure. Typically, manure is infested with larvae of
the house fly, Musca domestica (L<), little house fly, Fannia canicularis
(L.), the costal fly, F. femoralis Stein, and the false stable fly, Musoina
stdbutans (Fallen). In addition, other fly larvae may be found. In order
-------
-64-
to determine species composition, it is necessary to collect infested manure,
allow flies to emerge from the sample, and count and identify these flies.
b. Population Determinations: Collect a standard volume or
weight of fresh manure. Place the sample in a suitable container and record
numbers and species of flies that emerge from the sample. In certain tests
with larvicides applied to manure, populations of larvae were determined by
counting the number of larvae in manure samples (Bailey et al, 1970); in
other tests, fly populations were assessed by counting live adult flies and
fly specks (Matthysse and McClain 1973) .
c. Sample Size: The following is a suggested number of
samples to use in conducting insecticide-feed additive trials:
No. of Birds No. of
per Treatment Manure Samples
3-10 3
11-100 10% (minimum of 3 samples)
>100 10
With typically-applied larvicides, Bailey et al. (1968) collected 10
samples, each 1 spoonful, from 10 locations where heaviest infestations
of larvae were observed.
d. Examination Times: Samples should be collected at least
once before treatment and collected once or twice per week after treatment.
In long-term tests, samples may be taken biweekly.
e. Controls (Standard Treatment): In small-scale tests with
feed or water additives, one group of untreated birds equal in size to a
treated group and housed in the same house or on the same farm should be
maintained to collect untreated manure. If possible, a standard treatment
should be given to a group of birds equal in size to a treated group. In
larger-scale tests, suitable controls may not be maintained on the same
farm, but could be maintained on similar nearby farms.
In tests with typical larvicides, one plot of manure may not be
treated or treated with water only. One plot may be treated with a
standard treatment.
f. Experimental Design: Two types of experiments can be
conducted with feed or water additives for the control of manure-inhabiting
fly larvae. One utilizes the bioassay technique in which a known number of
fly eggs or newly-hatched larvae are placed on a specific weight or volume
of manure collected from treated and untreated birds or to be treated birds
-------
-65-
before treatment (Miller et al. 1975, Sherman and Ross 1960). Manure should
be frozen before bioassay in order to kill unwanted arthropods. After arti-
ficial infestation, the samples should be held in containers so that emerged
adults can be collected. The second type of test involves utilization of
natural reinfestation and is essentially similar to the bioassay technique
except that samples of manure are not frozen but are naturally infested in
the field and held to determine numbers of flies that emerge. Effectiveness
of treatments is determined by comparing numbers of adults collected from
treated manure with numbers collected from untreated manure.
In tests with larvicides applied to manure, manure sample are taken
after treatment and numbers of larvae counted or numbers of adults that
emerge are compared with numbers counted or emerged before treatment or
with numbers emerging from untreated manure.
g. Treatment Techniques: Poultry may be treated orally with
insecticides added to the feed or water. Insecticides may be added to all
the feed or water provided the birds (Miller et al. 1975) or insecticides
may be given on a mg/kg basis, and each day's treated feed or water must be
consumed before untreated feed or water is provided. Record formulation,
final concentration of active ingredient in ppm or percent in feed or water
(Morgan et al. 1975), amount of active ingredient consumed per bird or weight
of bird, and length of treatment period.
In testing manure with larvicides, insecticides may be applied as con-
ventional sprays, low-volume sprays or mists, and dusts or granules directly
onto the manure (Matthysse and McClain 1973, Bailey et al. 1968, 1970, Axtell
1970). Record formulation, final concentration of active ingredient, amount
applied per square meter of manure, equipment used, and treatment pressures.
B. Test Reporting:
All details of the test should be reported. Such details should
include:
1. Identification of test arthropods.
2. Breed, age, sex, origin, weight (if necessary) and condition
of birds in test. In tests with manure record depth of manure cones, con-
sistency, and time of last clean out.
3. Location, type of poultry house, and time of test. Weather
conditions (if important).
4. Number of birds/treatment group.
5. Formulation of insecticide.
-------
-66-
6. Final concentration of active ingredient.
7. Method and rate of application,
8, Application equipment.
9. Infestation rates before and after treatment. The data depend
on the test arthropod, e,g., no. lice/bird, score of mites/bird, nOvchigger
lesions/bird, no.of adult flies or larvae/manure sample, etc. Describe methods
used to determine infestation rates.
10. Differences in infestation rates of treated birds (or manure)
at a particular examination period after treatment as compared with infesta-
tion rates of same birds (or manure) before treatment or infestation rates
of similar untreated birds (or manure) examined at the same posttreatment
time. This difference is usually expressed in terms of percent control or
percent reduction of infestation.
11. Effects on host (no effect or unnatural effects).
12. Any other comments regarding the test.
-------
-67-
References Cited
Axtell, R.C, 1970. Fly control in caged poultry houses; Comparison of
larviciding and integrated control programs. J, Econ. Entomol.
63(6):1734.
Bailey, D,L., D,W. Meifert, and P,M, Bishop. 1968 Control of house flies
in poultry houses with larvicides, Fla. Entomol. 51(2):107-11.
Bailey, D.L., G,C, LaBrecque, and T.L. Whitfield. 1970. Insecticides
applied as low-volume and conventional sprays to control larvae of
the house fly in poultry houses. J. Eoon. Entomol, 63(3):891-93.
Bishopp, F.C., and H.P. Wood. 1939. Mites and Lice on Poultry. USDA,
Farmers Bull. No. 801, 25 pp.
Combs, R.L., and J.L. Lancaster, Jr. 1965. The Biology of the Northern
Fowl Mite. U Ark. Exp. Sta. Rept. Ser. No. 138, 10 pp.
Everett, R.E., M.A. Price, and S.E. Kunz. 1973. Biology of the chigger
Neoschongastia americana. (Acarina: Trombiculidae).
Ann. Entomol. Soo. Am. 66(2):429-35.
Foulk, J.D., and J.G. Matthysse. 1963. Experiments on the control of
northern fowl mite. J. Eoon. Entomol. 56(3):321-26.
Hoffman, R.A. 1960. The control of poultry lice and mites with
several organic insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 53(1):160-62.
Hoffman, R.A. 1961. Experiments on the control of poultry lice.
J. Eoon Entomol. 54(6):1114-17
Hoffman, R.A. and B.F. Hogan. 1967. Control of chicken body, shaft,
and wing lice on laying hens by self-treatment with insecticide dusts
and granules. J. Eoon. Entomol. 60(6) :1703-5.
Hoffman, R.A., R.O. Drummond, and O.K. Graham. 1969. Insects affecting
livestock and domestic animals. Pages 87-90 in Survey Methods for Some
Economic Insects. .USDA, ARS 81-31. 140 pp.
Kraemer, P., and D.P. Furman. 1959. Systemic activity of Sevin in control
of Ornifhonyssus sylviamm (C. & F.) J. Econ. Entomol. 52(1):170-71.
Kunz, S.E., M.A. Price, and O.H. Grahan. 1969. Biology and economic im-
portance of the chigger Neosehongastia americana on turkeys.
J. Econ. Entomol. 62(4):872-75.
Kunz, S.E., M.A. Price, and R. Everett. 1971. Evaluation of insecticides
to control the chigger Neosehongastia americana on turkeys. J. Econ.
Entomol. 64(4)-.900-1.
-------
-68-
Kunz, S.E., M.A. Price, and R.E. Everett. 1972. Large-scale testing
of chlorpyrifos for control of Neosehongastia amevioana on turkeys.
J. Econ. Entomol. 65(4):1207-8.
Linkfield, R.L,, and W.M. Reid. 1958. Newer acaricides and insecticides
in the control of ectoparasites of poultry. J. Econ. Entomol.
51(2):188-90.
Matthysse, J.G., and D. McClain, 1973. House fly control in climate-
controlled caged-hen layer houses, J. Eaon. Entomol. 66(4):927-33,
Miller, R.W. 1970. Larvicides for fly control — a review. Bull, Entomol. Soc.
M. 16 (3): 154-58.
Miller, R.W., C. Corley, and K,R. Hill 1975. Feeding TH 6040 to chickens:
Effect on larval house flies in manure and determination of residues in
eggs. J. Econ. Entomol. 68(2):181-82.
Morgan, P.B., G.C. LaBrecque, D.E. Weidhaas, and A. Benton. 1975. The
effect of methoprene, an insect growth regulator, on MUSGO. domesti-ca
(DipterarMuscidae). Can. Entomol. 107:413-17-
Price, M.A., and S.E. Kunz, 1970. Insecticidal screening for chemicals
to control the chigger Neoschongast-ia amevicana on turkeys. J. Boon.
Entomol. 63(2):373-76.
Sherman, M., and E. Ross. 1960. Toxicity to house fly larvae of droppings
from chickens fed insecticide-treated rations. J. Eoon. Entomol.
53(3):429-32.
Simco, J.S., and J.L. Lancaster, Jr. 1965. Control of Common External
Parasites on Commercial Layers and Hatchery Flocks. Ark. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 703. 18 pp.
u.b. GG'/ERXMEilT PRINTING OFFICE—1977-720-117/1932/3-1
------- |