Transcript Slide 1

Attractants for House Flies
Christopher J. Geden
USDA, ARS, CMAVE
Howard (1911) described a prototype baited trap developed by C F. Hodge
Methods: ”…baited with fish heads, meat scraps, watermelon rinds, and green
corncobs, over which the melted waste from the ice cream freezer was poured”
Results: “on one occasion he caught 2,500 flies in fifty-five minutes”
• In 1945, Harvey Scudder was assigned by the US Public Health
Service to assess of the efficacy of DDT.
• No standard methods had been developed for measuring fly
populations at the time.
• His solution: count flies resting on a known surface area, making 3-5
counts in areas appearing to have the highest population. (Scudder, H.
I. 1947 A new technique for sampling the density of housefly
populations)
“In constructing a neutral resting surface, consideration has
been given to the fact that houseflies are commonly observed
to select edges as resting places” Scudder 1947.
The Scudder grid (or grill) became the standard method for
monitoring house fly populations for many years, and is still the
method of choice for some organizations.
• World Health Organization
• U.S. Armed Forces Pest Management Board
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
Advantages:
• Simple
• Inexpensive
• Fast
• Allows sampling of many sites
• If used consistently, can be used to measure
population changes over time
Action thresholds proposed by Scudder
(1998)
_______________________________
Location
No. flies/grill
_______________________________
Restaurant kitchen
2
Residential back yard
2-3
City block
5
Milking parlor
15
General farm
20
_______________________________
Scudder, H. I. 1998. Use of the fly grill for assessment of house fly
populations: An example of sampling techniques that create rough fuzzy
sets. J. Vector Ecol. 21: 167-172.
Axtell (1970) introduced the spot card and recommended its
use as a fly monitoring tool.
Advantages:
• Easy
• Inexpensive
• Allows consistent sampling of the same locations over time
• Measures activity over a week rather than giving snapshot of
instantaneous fly activity
• Good tool for monitoring fly populations indoors
Disadvantages: does not distinguish among fly species; temperature dependent
Research on fly attractants led to improvements over food-baited
“Big Stinky” types of traps.
Mulla (1970’s) identified triemethylamine and indole/skatole as potent
feeding attractants.
Carlson (1970’s) discovered the pheromone (Z)-9-tricosene
Scatter baits including some or all of these components plus fast-acting
toxicants were a major improvement over earlier insecticidal baits.
The challenge: attractant must compete with natural odors
Olson sticky cylinder trap with white sleeve
Farnam Fly Terminator
Victor Fly Magnet
Sheltered QuikStrike with collecting pan
Comparison of Olson sticky trap, Farnam jug trap, Victor
jug trap, and sheltered QuikStrike bait strip stations.
__________________________________________________
Day Olson
Farnam
Victor
QuikStrike
__________________________________________________
Mean no. house flies/trap
1
661 b
5,462 a
2,920 a
6,015 a
2
679 c
4,356 b
2,934 bc
8,814 a
3
678 c
3,080 b
2,520 bc
7,366 a
4
515 b
904 b
1,611 b
5,659 a
__________________________________________________
Means within rows followed by the same letter are not
significantly at P=0.05 (Tukey’s range test)
Comparison of Olson sticky trap, Farnam jug trap, Victor
jug trap, and sheltered QuikStrike bait strip stations.
__________________________________________________
Day
Olson
Farnam
Victor
QuikStrike
__________________________________________________
% Females
1
21.9 c
72.1 a
59.1 ab
47.5 b
2
19.8 c
73.8 a
78.0 a
35.2 b
3
19.8 c
62.2 ab
68.2 a
46.2 b
4
15.9 d
66.5 b
76.8 a
41.0 c
__________________________________________________
Means within rows followed by the same letter are not
significantly at P=0.05 (Tukey’s range test)
Jug traps and QuikStrike vs sticky traps.
RESULTS:
• Sheltered QuikStrike bait stations collected more flies
than the other methods.
• Jug traps collected higher proportions of female flies
flies (66-78%) than QuikStrike stations (35-48%) or
sticky traps (16-22%).
• Jug trap counts on day 4 were much lower than on
day 1.
• All of the methods except the QuikStrike stations were
limited by trap saturation effects.
Effect of “fly conditioning” on attractiveness of Farnam
attractant.
________________________________________________
Day
No. flies collected :
% Females
Fresh Fly-conditioned Fresh Fly-conditioned
________________________________________________
1 7,953 a
8,149 a
90.9a
33.0 b
2 6,762 a
3,337 ab
75.9 a
60.2 b
3 4,749 a
2,429 ab
78.5 a
57.0 b
4
994 a
706 a
64.7 a
66.8 a
________________________________________________
Means within rows under subheading followed by the
same letter are not significantly at P=0.05 (Tukey’s range
test)
Do jug trap collections increase when attractant is
“fly-conditioned”?
RESULTS: No. Fly-conditioned attractant collected
about the same number of total flies as fresh
attractant, but proportionally more females were
collected with fresh attractant.
Comparison of traps baited with Farnam attractant,
Victor attractant, or a combination.
________________________________________________
Day
Farnam
Victor
Farnam + Victor
________________________________________________
Mean (SE) no. flies collected
1
469 b
1,279 ab
2,295 a
2
2,631 b
2,114 b
6,847 a
3
2,457 b
2,030 b
6,812 a
4
1,037 b
1,059 b
3,662 a
________________________________________________
Means within rows followed by the same letter are not
significantly at P=0.05 (Tukey’s range test)
Are the Farnam and Victor attractants
synergistic?
RESULTS: Yes. Attractant combinations
collected significantly more flies than either
attractant alone and more than expected
based on the sum of the collections in the
two single-attractant treatments.
Comparison of molasses (25% diluted blackstrap),
standard Farnam Terminator attractant, & molasses plus
Farnam attractant.
________________________________________________
Day Molasses
Farnam
Molasses + Farnam
________________________________________________
Mean no. house flies/trap
1
6,251 a
9,835 a
8,588 a
2
4,407 a
6,946 a
7,021 a
3
16,417 a
19,378 a
16,053 a
4
8,895 a
13,778 a
10,347 a
________________________________________________
Means within rows followed by the same letter are not
significantly at P=0.05 (Tukey’s range test)
Molasses as a fly attractant.
RESULTS: Molasses traps collected as many flies
as traps with Farnam attractant or molassesattractant mixtures.
Farnam attractant: The two main components are
metabolic products of protein degradation that provide
flies with token stimuli for the presence of protein.
The attractant has a very objectionable odor and can
not be used near people or food.
Molasses is a complex material that may contain
sugar breakdown products to provide flies with token
stimuli for the presence of sugars.
Quinn, B. et al. 2007. Analysis of extracted and volatile
components in blackstrap molasses feed as candidate
house fly attractants. J. Chromatography, Series A. (in
press).
Organic components extracted from blackstrap molasses
__________________________________________________________________
Compound name
Retention time (min) Found in extract
__________________________________________________________________
dihydro-2-methyl-hydroxy-2(3H) furanone
11.59
hexane
x
3-hydroxy-2-butanone
11.96
ether
2,5-dimethylpyrazine
12.69
ether
x
trimethylpyrazine
13.82
ether
x
acetic acid
14.41
both
propionic acid
15.45
both
x
butanoic acid
16.86
both
x
furfuryl alcohol
17.16
both
x
pentanoic acid
18.14
hexane
propanamide
18.84
ether
x
2-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one
19.08
both
x
hexanoic acid
19.34
ether
2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3(2H) furanone
19.44
both
butylated hydroxy-toluene
19.92
ether
acrylamide
20.22
ether
x
1-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl) ethanone
20.63
both
x
furan carboxylic acid methylethyl ester
21.04
hexane
2(3H)-dihydro-3-hydroxy-4,4-dimethyl furanone
21.26
ether
x
5-acetyldihydro-2(3H) furanone
21.59
ether
2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol
22.79
both
5,6-dihydro-6-pentyl-2H-pyran-4-one
23.17
hexane
2,6-dimethoxyphenol
23.41
both
x
1-acetyl pyrrolidine
24.43
ether
2,3-dihydrobenzofuran
24.55
ether
1,4:3,6-dianhydro-α
-
n
z
o
p
y
r
a
2
4
.
6
3
e
2
5
.
2
0
b
o
t
h
2
5
.
3
7
b
o
t
h
2
6
.
1
4
b
2
6
.
3
2
e
2
6
.
6
2
b
o
t
h
x
2
6
.
7
4
b
o
t
h
x
2
7
.
2
7
b
o
t
h
2
7
.
5
4
b
o
t
h
2
7
.
8
1
h
e
x
a
n
e
2
8
.
5
2
h
e
x
a
n
e
2
8
.
6
2
h
e
x
a
n
e
2
8
.
6
8
h
e
x
a
n
e
e
2
8
.
8
9
h
e
x
a
n
e
e
2
9
.
0
7
e
t
h
e
r
x
2
9
.
1
8
e
t
h
e
r
x
2
9
.
2
2
e
t
h
e
r
2
9
.
3
5
h
e
i
h
1
-
(
4
-
h
y
d
r
o
x
y
-
3
-
m
e
t
h
o
x
y
p
h
e
n
y
l
)
1
-
(
4
-
h
y
d
r
o
x
y
-
3
-
m
e
t
h
o
x
y
p
h
e
n
y
l
)
2
,
6
o
p
e
n
y
l
3
,
4
4
-
x
y
p
h
e
n
h
e
3
-
(
4
-
m
4
-
h
y
d
4
-
h
y
d
4
-
p
y
r
4
-
h
y
d
1
-
(
n
z
e
y
(
d
-
d
4
2
4
i
m
i
m
e
t
-
e
a
d
h
o
r
o
d
i
r
o
y
d
o
x
y
y
b
e
-
x
y
b
e
r
9
-
x
c
i
-
y
h
l
n
u
s
e
m
c
r
l
d
x
e
3
y
i
a
,
5
3
p
o
t
2
,
H
r
4
-
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
q
u
i
n
o
l
i
n
e
)
f
u
r
a
n
)
o
-
n
e
e
-
p
h
t
h
2
-
e
n
2
-
a
p
n
r
o
o
o
n
p
e
a
n
o
n
e
l
l
h
l
o
e
n
e
h
i
y
l
)
-
b
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
p
r
o
p
e
n
o
i
c
a
c
i
d
d
d
d
y
m
-
n
y
x
2
i
o
i
o
d
-
c
m
h
-
)
a
a
t
,
d
o
o
2
(
-
n
n
o
-
2
2
e
e
z
b
-
e
a
o
-
(
h
m
r
y
-
-
z
f
r
3
4
p
n
a
-
o
o
d
x
3
p
d
i
o
-
y
-
e
c
y
y
y
c
r
c
o
h
a
d
x
i
i
c
y
o
y
d
x
x
x
x
i
y
o
n
n
t
h
x
-
h
o
r
o
r
h
t
2
e
h
r
c
,
-
t
d
y
i
c
n
d
1
4
e
e
h
-
y
d
-
a
o
h
a
-
e
r
-
x
n
d
-
y
i
c
d
x
c
u
b
o
a
l
-
h
c
g
6
t
i
-
e
e
o
d
b
e
b
e
e
t
n
h
z
o
e
x
n
y
e
p
a
h
c
e
e
n
t
y
i
c
l
)
a
e
c
t
i
h
d
a
n
o
n
e
t
h
o
t
e
t
h
e
r
x
h
x
e
x
r
a
n
e
x
From this information, we developed several
candidate blends of components. A 7component blend looks particularly
promising…
Fly response to blend in assay chambers
View collections after 5-min assay period
Responses of house flies to 7 component molasses
blend in outdoor cages
_______________________________________________
Fly count
Blend
Water control
_______________________________________________
1 min counts
26.3 (5.1)
6.7 (2.2)
3 min counts
21.5 (2.7)
5.7 (1.6)
5 min counts
15.2 (2.6)
6.3 (1.3)
Collection at 5 min
69.5 (22.2)
5.8 (3.9)
________________________________________________
“Counts” are visual counts of flies resting on the
outside cover of the assay chamber at 1, 3 and 5
minutes after placement in the cages. At the end of 5
minutes, the entry port was sealed and the flies present
in the assay chamber were counted.
Jug trap tests, CMAVE tents:
_____________________________
Water Farnam MolBlend
_____________________________
Tent 1 41
71
206
Tent 2 30
121
235
Tent 3 42
65
227
Mean 37.7
85.7
222.7
_____________________________
Jug trap tests, CMAVE tents:
______________________________
Rep Water
25% Mol. MolBlend
______________________________
1
62
118
189
2
23
88
303
3
64
165
453
Mean 49.7
123.7
315.0
______________________________
Jug trap tests, CMAVE tents
_______________________________________
Tent Water 25% Mol. MolBlend
Farnam
_______________________________________
1
58
264
422
191
2
46
442
347
303
3
72
353
855
188
Mean 58.7
353.0
541.3
227.3
_______________________________________
How well will the
blend compete with
other natural food
odors?
Can the lure be incorporated into an attract-and-kill system?