EVALUATION OF AN AUTOMATIC SPRAY SYSTEM IN THREE STATES FOR CONTROL OF FACE FLIES AND HORN FLIES 1,2

R. E. Williams,3 F. W, Knapp,' R. D. Hall," C, A. Towell-Vail,3 F. Herald,' and K E. Doisy 5

AbstracL" Evaluations were made in Indiana, Kentucky. and Missouri of an automatic spray system/mineral station for control of face flies, Musca autumnalis De Cecr. and hom flies, Haemotobia irritans (Linnacus). on pastured cattle. [0 Indiana, Oy control on a herd exposed to fenvalerate in the automatic sprayer was compared to that on a herd treated with fenvalerate ear tags. In Missouri, the automatic sprayer was charged with permethrin and resultant. fly control was compared to that on herds of cattle treated with fenvalerate and nucythrinate ear tags. [n Kentucky, comparisons were made of Oy control resulting from fenvalerate, permethrin. and dichlorvos in the automatic sprayer. Initially, cattle were reluctant to use the automatic sprayer device, but after cattle began to enter it, face fly control in each test exceeded 60% during the study and born fly control exceeded 95%.

Key Words: Face fly controL hom fly controL automatic spray system, Musca autumnaJis, Haematobia iTTilans.

J. Agric. EnlomoL 3(4), 315-321 (Oclober 1986)

Various techniques have been used in attempts to control the face fly, Musca autumnalis De Geer, and horn fly, Haematobia irritans (Linnaeus) on pastured cattle. Bibliographies on the horn fly (Morgan and Thomas 1974, 1977) and face Oy (Morgan et al. 1983) included reports on control experiments, and 8 literature review on control of the face fly was provided by Pickens and Miller (1980). Methodologies employed included spray treatments, feed additives used as oral larvicides and systemics, and self application methods such as dust bags and backrubbers. In recent years, insecticide· impregnated ear tags have been developed to control these pests (Harvey and Brethour 1970; Ahrens 1977; Ahrens and Cocke 1979; Knapp and Herald 1980; Williams and Westby 1980; Williams et a!. 1981; Miller et a1. 1984),

Here we report the results of a three·state evaluation of a new, automatic sprayer designed for use with pastured beef cattle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Design of Automatic Sprayer The automatic sprayer used in these studies was housed in 8 walk-in mineral

station equipped with wooden skids to facilitate transportation (Fig. 1). Constructed of pine boards, it was ca 1.6 m high and 3 m long. At one end of the station 8

plywood cover wos hinged over 0 mineral box and connected to a switching device that controlled 0 12V electric pump 6 through a time-delay. When cattle activated

1 DIPTERA: Muscidae. 2 This reseo.rch was supported by NC-154. Accepted for publication 9 October 1986. 3 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN 47907. Journal Paper No. 10,726. 4 Department of Entomology, Universil)' of Kentucky. Lnington, KY 40546·0091. 5 Department of Entomology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. 6 Shurllo Diaphragm Pump, Model 1040-814-15 (Carr-Grifr. 1400 E. Cerritos Ave., Anaheim, CA

92805).

315

316 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 3, No.4 (1986)

Fig. 1. Automatic spray/mineral station.

the system by holding the mineral bin cover open for more than 10 sec before allowing it to close, the pump was started, operated for ca. 3 sec, and the resultant pressure sprayed the animal for a 13 sec period. A total of 175 ml of fluid was discharged at each operation of the pump system. The insecticidal spray issued from no. 10 nozzles placed overhead. One nozzle was situated immediately behind the mineral box and was intended to provide insecticidal coverage to the animal's face. In the model tested in Kentucky and Indiana, two additional nozzles were situated laterally on the sides of the sprayer next to the entrance. These nozzles provided spray coverage of the animal's sides. On the model evaluated in Missowi, the two lateral nozzles were replaced with one overhead nozzle which afforded spray coverage to the back. The dimensions of the spray chamber were 1.2 m high and 1.8 m long. A 114-liter plastic tank located behind the mineral bin and accessible through a rear door provided a reservoir For insecticidal fluid. A wet-cell automotive storage battery provided electrical power to the pump and was fully charged when the system was initially put into operation,

In each trial, the automatic sprayer device was transported to the appropriate pasture and placed in a location which afforded cattle easy access. During the Missouri trials, the sprayer was moved several times as the cattle were pastured in different fields.

Indiana Field Trial On 14 June 1984, the automatic sprayer was placed in a pasture with 23

crossbred Angus cows with calves located in Warren County and not previously treated with insecticide in 1984. After a 2-wk acclimatization period, the unit was charged with 0.1% active ingredient (An fenvalerate water dispersion (Ectrin

\VILLlAMS et al.: Spray System for Hom Fly and Face Fly Control 317

WDL) (26 June). During the study, the insecticidal tank was filled at weeks 0, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11. During the first 4 wk a leak in a connecting hose attributed to some loss in the tank. A standard mineral mix was maintained in the mineral hopper at all times throughout the trial. A nearby herd of 26 crossbred Angus cows with calves was treated on 26 June at the rate of two tags per cow with plastic ear tags containing 8% Al fenvalerate. A third herd of 22 crossbred Angus cows with calves was used as an untreated control group. The three herds were separated by 1 - 2 Jun.

Kentucky Field Trials Three trials were conducted using beef cattle on summer pasture. Trial I,

initiated on 24 June 1983, employed a spray solution of 0.05% AI permethrin (Atroban EC) in the automatic sprayer. The device was situated in a pasture containing 25 crossbred Angus and Hereford cows with calves located in Meade County and not previously treated with insecticide in 1983. Trial 2, started on 14 July 1983, evaluated 0.05% AI fenvalerate (Ectrin WDL) as the spray solution on 60 crossbred Angus and Hereford cows and calves located in Jessamine County and not previously treated with insecticide in 1983. In Trial 3, automatic sprayers were located in each of three different pastures on 7 July 1984. All locations housed 70 - 100 Simmental crossbred cows with calves located in Meade County and not previously treated with insecticide in 1984. Comparisons were made between the performance of automatic sprayers charged with 0.1 % AI fenvalerate IEctrin \VDL), 0.1% permethrin (Atroban EC), or 0.1 % Al dichlorvos (Vapona ECl. In each of the above trials, untreated beef cattle herds (crossbred Angus and Hereford) in the vicinity of the test animals sClVed as untreated controls.

Missouri Field Trial A comparison was made between face fly and horn fly control produced by an

automatic sprayer charged with 0.03% AI permethrin (Ectiban EC) and that on herds treated with fenvalerate or f1ucythrinate ear tags. A herd of seven crossbred steers was treated with nvo 8% AI fenvalerate (Ectrin) ear tags each on 22 May 1984. On 14 June, a herd of 45 Angus cows with calves was given access to the automatic sprayer. On the same date a proximate herd of 28 cows with calves was treated with two 7.5% AI flucythrinate (Guardian) ear tags each. A proximate group of 15 crossbred cows selVed as an untreated control. All cattle in this study were located in Boone County and had not previously been treated with insecticide in 1984.

Fly Cou.nting Protocol In each trial, face fly and horn fly populations were assessed weekly by direct

visual inspection of all treated and control herds. Within each state, counts were made by the same person on the same day each week between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm. Face flies were counted on the entire face, and horn flies on a single side, of 10 head selected at random per herd in Indiana and Kentucky, and 15 head per herd in Missouri. The side of an animal was defined to extend from the top of the back to the belly, and from the point of the shoulder to the back leg. In MissourL the herd with steers was resampled at random to accrue sufficient counts.

318 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 3. No.4 (1986)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fly count data were compared by monthly averages for each test site (Tables 1 - 5). In Indiana, the automatic sprayer did not provide effective face fly and horn

Table 1. Face fly and horn fly counts on cattle in Indiana, 1984 - x (% reduction from control)."

Face fly Hom fly

Automatic Automatic 8% sprayer 8% sprayer

Cenvalerate (0.1 % CenvaleratA> (0.1 % Month ear tags fenvalerate) Control ear tags fenvalerate) Control

Pre-trt 12.6 b 25.4 a 12.0 b 26.0 b 43.0 a 27.0 b July 3.1(71) b 8.4(21) a 10.6 a 0.3(99) c 22.1(47) b 42.0 a Aug. 3.3(61) b 2.2(74) b 8.5 a 1.4(95) b 0.4(99) b 29.7 a Sept. 1.2(14) a 0.4(71) b 1.4 a 0.8(87) b 0.6(90) b 6.3 a .. Mean!! within rows for each fly specie!! wiLli the lI11rne letter nrc not significantly different (P < 0.05)

(Duncan's Multiple Range Tellt).

Table 2. Face fly and horn fly counts on cattle in Kentucky. Trial I, 1983 - x (% reduction from control).·

Face fly Hom fly

Automatic Automatic sprayer sprayer (0.05% (0.05%

Month permethrin) Control pcrmethrin) Control

Pre-trt 7.5 b 11.8 a 50.0 a 60.0 a July 23.7(19) a 29.3 a 0(100) b 220.0 a Aug. 10.1(65) b 29.1 a 0(100) b 320.0 a Sept 2.1(64) b 5.9 a 0(100) b 380.0 a • Means within rows for each fly species with the same letter are not significanLl)' different (P < 0.05)

(Duncan's Multiple Range Test).

Table 3. Face fly and horn fly counts on cattle in Kentucky, Trial 2, 1983 - x {% reduction from control},*

Face fly Horn fly

Automatic Automatic sprayer sprayer (0.05% (0.05%

Month fenvalerate) Control fen valerate) Control

Pre-trt 32.6 a 38.8 a 250.0 a 225.0 a July 9.5(49) b 18.7 a 0(100) b 300.0 a Aug. 0.9(69) b 2.9 a 0(100) b 375.0 a • Means within rows for each fly &pecie8 with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05)

(Duncan's Multiple Range Test),

Table 4. Face fly and horn ny counts on cattle in Kentucky, Trial 3, 1984 - x (% reduction from control).·

Face fly Horn fly

Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic sprayer sprayer sprayer sprayer sprayer sprayer (0.1% (0.1% (0.1% (0.1% (0.1% (0.1%

Month fenvolerate) permethrin dichlorvos) Control fenvalerate} permethrin) dichlorvos} Control

Pre-trt 26.0 0 22.0 h 38.0 0 38.0 a 125.0 a 150.0 a 130.0 0 125.0 0

July 9.0(82} b 10.0(80) b 10.0(80) b 49.0 a O(IOO} b 0(100) b 0(100) h 160.0 0

Aug. 7.084) b 8.0(81) b 7.0(84} b 43.0 a 0(100) b 0(100) b 0(100) b 280.0 0

Sept. 4.0(92) h 4.0(92) b 3.0(94) b 52.0 0 0(100) b 0(100} b 0(100) b 340.0 a

• Means within rows for each fly .'lpecies with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Hange Test).

Table 5. Face fly and horn ny counts on cattle in Missouri, 1984 - x (% reduction from control)"

Face fly Horn fly

Automatic Automatic 8% 7.5% sprayer 8% 7.5% sprayer

fenvalerate flucythrinate (0.03% fenvalerate flucythrinate (0.03% Month ear tags ear tags permethrin) Control ear tags ear tags permethrin) Control

June 1.5(83) b 2.1(76) b 8.7(O} 0 8.6 a 0.1(99) c 0.9(95) c 74.2(0) 0 17.2 b July 4.1(60) c 4.6(55} c 26.2(O} 0 10.3 b O(lOO} c 0(100} c 79.0(0) a 17.0 b Aug. 5.5(78) c 9.3(63} b 23.0(8} a 25.0 a O(IOO} c 0(100) c 18.5(7} b 19.8 0

Sept. 1.2(78) b 1.8(67) b 2.1(6I} b 5.4 0 O(IOO} b O(IOO} b 0(100) b 23.2 0

Oct. 0.1 (94) c 1.3(28) ob 0.9(50) b 1.8 a O(IOO} b 0(100) b 0(100) b 27.6 0

• MeaM within rows for each fly species with the same letter are not signil1cllntly different (P < 0.05) (Duncan'!I Multiple Range Test).

320 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 3. No.4 (1986)

fly control for the first 4 wk of operation as it required this long for the cattle to routinely use the automatic sprayer. In Missouri, molasses mix was added to the standard mineral supplement after several weeks of cattle disinterest, and the mineral box lid was propped open. Subsequently, cattle continued regular use of the system when the lid was closed and the sprayer functioning, In Kentucky, the cattle were salt·starved for 2 wk prior to th.) start of the test and no problems were encountered with the cattle using the sprayer system.

Face fly control at each location eventually exceeded 60%, and was greater than 90% on one occasion in Kentucky (Table 4). Significant (P < a.05) control of face flies was achieved in all trials after cattle use of the system became regular. Few differences in effectiveness against face flies were noted when dichlorvos, fenvalerate, or permethrin was applied with the sprayer system. Interestingly, dichlorvos remained effective in aqueous emulsion in the system's storage tank during the course of the 1984 Kentucky study (Table 4).

Control of horn flies exceeded 95% in all herds treated with the automatic sprayer system. In Indiana and Missouri, the insecticides used in the device were as effective as ear tag treatments once the cattle began routinely using the system. In Kentucky, all treatments applied with the automatic spray system eventually produced complete suppression of hom flies.

Functioning of the automatic sprayer system was generally good throughout the bials. In Indiana and Missouri, several leaks were responsible for loss of insecticidal fluid early in the season; however, they were repaired easily and did not recur. Of greater importance was a requirement to reroute the spray return line so that backflow of insecticidal fluid into the spray tank did not occur. Backflow left the spray line empty, and intermittent operation of the pump was insufficient to recharge it. The automatic spray system had to be recharged several times during the season (7 times in 11 wk in Indiana and three times during the 16-wk trial in Missouri), requiring transportation of water and insecticide to the field location. In Kentucky, however, the spray tank was filled only every 3 - 4 wk and the average amount of spray used per day was ca. 1 liter. This was about the same for both the 25 cow test and the 60 cow test, suggesting that about the same number of cows and calves was using the sprayer each day in each test. Longevity of the battery in the automatic sprayer was good, with a single charge lasting through all three trials.

The automatic sprayer system tested has merit as an alternative method of treating pastured cattle for face flies and horn flies. It requires a higher level of operator input than does application of insecticidal ear tags. However, with a few modifications and improvements the operator input can be greatly reduced. Because horn flies in many parts of the U.S. are resistant to pyrethroid-containing ear tags (Quisenberry et 81. 1984; Sheppard 1984; Schmidt at a1. 1985), self· application systems such as the device tested may be of practical use when charged with non-pyrethroid insecticides.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Mr. Ginger Wilson, Irvington, KY, for supplying us with the experimental units tested. Technical assistance was provided by Fred Fischer (MO). Use of cattle was facilitated by A. Decker and R. Morrow (MO).

WILLIAMS et at: Spray System for Horn Fly and Face Fly Control 321

REFERENCES CITED

Ahrens, E. H. 1977. Horn fly control wit.h an insecticide impregnated ear tag. Southwest Entomol. 2: 8-10.

Ahrens, E. H., and J. Cocke. 1979. Season long hom fly control with an insecticide­impregnated ear tag. J. Econ. Entomol. 72: 215.

Harvey, T. L., and J. Brethour. 1970. Horn fly control with dichlorvos-impregnated strips. J. EeoD. Entomol. 63: 1688-1689.

Knapp, F. W., and F. Herald. 1980. Efficacy of permethrin ear lags against face flies and horn flies on pastured cattle. Southwest. Entomol. 5: 183-186.

Miller, R. \\'., R. D. Hall, F. W. Knapp, R. E. Williams, K. E. Doisy, F. Herald, and C. A. Towell 1984. Permethrin ear tags evaluated in four slates for control of the horn fly and fnce fly. J. Agric. EntomoL 1: 264-268.

Morgan, C. E., and G. D. Thomas. 1974. Annotated bibliography of the horn ny, Haematobia irritans (L.), i.ncluding references on the buffalo ny, H. exigua (deMeijere), and other species belonging to the Genus Haematobia. U. S. Dept Agric. Misc. Pub!. No. 1278, 134 pp.

Morglln, C. K, llnd G. D. Thomas. 1977. Supplement I: Annotated bibliography of the horn fly, Haematobia irritans (L.), including references on the buffalo fly, Ii. irritan.'l exigua (deMeijere), nnd other species belonging to the Genus Haematobia. U. S. Dept. Agric. Misc. Pub!. :-lo. 1278, 38 pp.

Morgan, C. E., G_ D. Thomas, and R. D. Hall L983. Annotated bibli.ography of the stable fly, Stomoxys calcitram (L.), including references on other species belonging to the Genus Stomoxys. Nort.h Cent. Region Res. Rep. 291, Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 1049. 190 p.

Pickens, L. G., nnd R. W. Miller. 1980. Biology and control of the face fly, Musca autumnalis (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med Entomol. 17: 195-210.

Quisenberry, S. S., J. A. Lockwood, R. C. Byford, H. K. Wilson, and T. C. Sparks. 1984. Pyrethroid resistance in the horn fly, Hacmatobia irritans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 1095-1098.

Schmidt, C. D., S. E. Kunz, H. D. Peterson, and J. L. Robertson. 1985. Resistance of horn flies (Diptera: Muscidae) to permethrin and fenvnlerate. J. Eeon. Entomol. 78: 402­406.

Sheppard, D. C. 1984. Fenvalerate and flucythrinate resistance in a horn fly population. J. Agric. Entomol. 1: 305-310.

Williams, R. E., and E. J. Westby. 1980. Evaluation of pyrethroids impregnated in cattle ear lags for control of face flies and hom flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 73: 791·792.

Williams, R. E., E. J. Westby, K. S. Hendrix, and R P. Lemenager. L981. Use of insecticide­impregnated ear tags for the control of face flies and horn flies on pasrured cattle. J. Animal Sci. 53: 1159-1165.