Search

Many flies are considered serious pests of livestock, poultry, and equids. These pests can negatively impact animal welfare and contribute to considerable production losses. Management of filth fly pests in particular, including the house fly (Musca domestica L.), stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans (L.)), horn fly (Haematobia irritans (L.)), face fly (Musca autumnalis De Geer) (Diptera: Muscidae), and little or lesser house fly (Fannia canicularis (L.) (Diptera: Fanniidae)), has been a research and Extension priority of veterinary entomologists for many decades. However, ongoing changes to animal husbandry and production practices, coupled with an increasing development of behavioral and physiological resistance to insecticides require renewed focus on new and more effective management strategies. This article is the first in a series of updates to these historical reports and the purpose is to serve as a resource for veterinary practitioners, consultants, funding agencies, veterinary entomologists, industry, commodity groups, and the scientific community working towards control of these pests. Companion articles will review individual filth fly species of importance to animal agriculture in the United States [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The little house fly, Fannia canicularis (L.) (Diptera: Fanniidae), is a significant pest associated with livestock and animal systems worldwide. This species commonly develops in poultry production systems. The males of this species are a nuisance to people because they form mating swarms in enclosed spaces. The pest status of F. canicularis has not lessened since it was identified as a critical arthropod pest of veterinary importance over 50 yr ago. During this period, there has been little research progress to control this pest, especially when compared with other filth fly species. This article reviews the biology, distribution, pest status (including nuisance and pathogen transmission risk), monitoring, and control techniques, and identifies knowledge gaps for F. canicularis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The two most economically important poultry ectoparasites are the northern fowl mite, Ornithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), and the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer). Both mites are obligate blood feeders but differ in where they reside. Sampling methods thus focus on-host, especially the vent feathers, for northern fowl mite and off-host, especially cracks and crevices near the nighttime roosting areas, for poultry red mite. Much remains unknown, however, about the basic biology and ecology of both mites. Here we discuss mite detection, quantification, and decision making and provide thoughts on future directions for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Northern fowl mite management on conventionally caged birds relies on synthetic pesticide sprays to wet the vent. Cage-free chickens cannot be effectively treated this way, and pesticide use is restricted in organic production. Dustbathing behavior is encouraged in newer production systems for increased hen welfare. Diatomaceous earth (DE) is an approved organic insecticide that can be mixed with sand in dustboxes, suppressing mites but not excluding them, and potentially allowing development of mite immunity. We tested two hypotheses: 1) that DE-filled dustboxes placed before northern fowl mite introduction (prophylactic use) prevents mite populations from reaching economically damaging thresholds, and 2) that bird exposure to low mite numbers allows for protective hen immunity to develop and suppressmites after dustboxes are removed. We also tested if different beak trimming techniques (a commercial practice) affect mite growth. Mites were introduced to birds after dustboxes were made available. Average mite densities in flocks remained below damaging levels while dustboxes were available. Average mite populations rebounded after dustbox removal (even though DE persisted in the environment) regardless of the timing of removal. Mite densities on birds where a traditional hot-blade beak trimming technique was used (trial 1) were high. Mite densities in trial 2, where a newer precision infra-red trimming was used, were lower. The newer infra-red trimming method resulted in nearly intact beaks, which were better for mite control by bird grooming behaviors. The combination of early dustbox use and infra-red beak trimming should allow producers to avoidmostmite damage in cage-free flocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal welfare-driven legislation and consumer demand are changing how laying chickens are housed, thus creating challenges for ectoparasite control. Hens housed in suspended wire cages (battery cages) are usually treated with high-pressure pesticides. This application type is difficult in enriched-cage or cage-free production. Alternatives to pesticide sprays are needed in enriched-cage or cage-free systems. In this study, we tested the efficacy of sulfur dust deployed in "dust bags" for control against the northern fowl mite (Ornithonyssus sylviarum), which causes host stress, decreased egg production, and reduced feed conversion efficiency. Dust bags were hung from the tops of cages or were clipped to the inside front of cages. We also tested permethrinimpregnated plastic strips, marketed for ectoparasite control in caged or cage-free commercial and backyard flocks. Previous work has shown sulfur to be very active against poultry ectoparasites; however, we found that the placement of bags was important for mite control. Sulfur in hanging bags reduced mites on treatment birds by 95 or 97% (depending on trial) within one week of being deployed, and mite counts on these birds were zero after 2 wk. Clipped sulfur bags acted more slowly and did not significantly reduce mites in one trial, but reduced mite counts to zero after 4 wk in trial 2. Permethrin strips had no effect on mite populations. This may have been due to mite resistance, even though this mite population had not been exposed to pyrethroids for several years. Sulfur bags should be effective in caged or cage-free systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]