- Email: [email protected]
An Evaluation of Permethrin,1 Carbaryl, and Amitraz for the Control of Northern Fowl Mites2 on Caged Chickens3
An Evaluation of Permethrin,1 Carbaryl, and Amitraz for the Control of Northern Fowl Mites2 on Caged Chickens3 CLARENCE H. COLLISON, ROBERT G. DANKA, DANIEL R. KENNELL Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 (Received for publication October 20, 1980)
1981 Poultry Science 60:1812-1817 INTRODUCTION T h e n o r t h e r n fowl mite, Omithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), is a serious h e m a t o p h a g o u s m i t e of chickens in t h e United States (DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ) . While research findings are n o t in c o m p l e t e agreement, it is generally believed t h a t mite-stressed birds often reduce feed intake, lose weight, and exhibit pale pink combs. Severe anemia and death may occur in birds with large mite populations. In addition t o t h e c o n s t a n t drain o n t h e birds vitality, heavy infestations at times lowers egg p r o d u c t i o n and fertility of roosters (DeVaney et al, 1 9 7 7 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 b , 1 9 7 9 ) . Breeding flocks and caged layers are highly susceptible t o high m i t e p o p u l a t i o n s . Rapid m i t e r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d dissemination, high density housing of birds, and p o o r acaracide distribution and p e n e t r a t i o n during t r e a t m e n t , m a k e effective control difficult. In addition, r e p o r t s of chemical resistance t o m a l a t h i o n (Reid et al, 1 9 5 6 ; Rodriguez and Riehl, 1 9 6 3 ; Foulk and Mat\ thysse, 1 9 6 4 ; Nelson and Bertun, 1 9 6 5 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ; Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ) , carbaryl
1 Supported by grant funds from ICI Americas Inc., Wilmington, DE 19897. 2 Acari: Macronyssidae. 3 Authorized for publication as Paper No. 6108 in the Journal Series of the Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
( F u r m a n and Lee, 1 9 6 9 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ) , and stirofos (DeVaney, 1978a) have been r e p o r t e d . An effective, long lasting control is desperately needed b y t h e producers. T o date, u n d e r l a b o r a t o r y and limited field tests, t h e synthetic p y r e t h r o i d s have been r e p o r t e d t o be e x t r e m e l y effective against t h e n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e : Ectiban® ( p e r m e t h r i n ) (Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ; Lancaster and Simco, 1 9 8 0 ; Loomis and Dunning, 1 9 8 0 ) , A t r o b a n ® (perm e t h r i n ) (Loomis and Dunning, 1 9 8 0 ; Williams and Berry, 1980) and Ectrin® (fenvalerate) (Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ; Combs, 1 9 7 8 ; Loomis et al, 1 9 7 9 ; Williams and Berry, 1 9 8 0 ) . Chlordimeform was also f o u n d effective for n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e c o n t r o l b u t has never been registered for use (Hall et al, 1 9 7 5 ; Christensen et al, 1977). R e p o r t e d here are t h e results of t w o field trials t o further evaluate t h e efficacy of t w o formulations (5.0% EC and .25% Livestock Dust) of t h e synthetic p y r e t h r o i d E c t i b a n ® p e r m e t h r i n (3-Phenoxyphenyl) m e t h y l (±) cis trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclop r o p a n e c a r b o x y l a t e , ICI Americas Inc., and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d u r a t i o n of control. In t h e initial trial, t h e E c t i b a n ® formulations were evaluated against carbaryl (Sevin® 4 F ) , a registered insecticide against n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e , a n d in t h e second trial against amitraz ( T a k t i c ® 1 2 . 5 % EC), which is n o t registered; (N'-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N-[ [2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] m e t h y l ] -N-methylmeth-animidamide). As of F e b r u a r y
1812
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
ABSTRACT In two trials at the University poultry farm, two formulations of the synthetic pyrethroid permethrin (Ectiban® 5.0% EC and Ectiban® .25% Livestock Dust) were compared against carbaryl and amitraz sprays for the control of northern fowl mite, Omithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on caged birds. Under continuous reinfestation pressure, birds treated with dust did not support live mites in the vent region until 7 weeks posttreatment in comparison to 4 weeks with the permethrin .05% spray. Initially, both carbaryl (.5%) and amitraz (.05%) sprays were as effective in controlling mites as the permethrin spray but did not provide protection for as long a period. Individual birds were either hand dusted or treated with low pressure sprays. (Key words: Omithonyssus sylviarum, northern fowl mite, chemical control, permethrin, amitraz, carbaryl)
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL 1981, Ectiban® is not registered for direct application to poultry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All birds treated with permethrin and amitraz were destroyed at the end of the trials, and all eggs were destroyed daily. Trial 1. Sixty-four naturally infested birds (56 hens and 8 roosters) of various ages and breeds (44 White Leghorns, 8 White Rocks, and 12 birds of a synthetic line of heavy, black Leghorns) were housed on November 9, 1979. The birds were divided into four similar test groups consisting of 16 birds each. All birds of each test group were housed together in alternate cages using both sides and all tiers of the cage bank end. Acaracide applications were made to individual birds suspended from leg shackles on November 14, 1979. Sprays were applied with a
Hudson Cordless Electric Sprayer No. 6302 and the dust applied by hand. Treatments consisted of Ectiban® .05% spray, Sevin® .5% spray, Ectiban® .25% dust, and untreated (control). The dosage rates for sprays were 1 gal/100 birds (37.9 ml/bird) and the dust was 1.3 lb/100 birds (6.0 g/bird). Applications were directed primarily to the vent area where most of the mites were found. Treated birds were challenged by 44 naturally infested birds with ratings of 6 at 7 weeks posttreatment, by placing the infested birds in the empty cages next to each treated bird. The reinfestation pressure was continued for 6 weeks. Trial 2, During the second trial, 60 naturally infested birds (56 hens and 4 roosters; 48 White Leghorns and 12 heavy, black Leghorns from the synthetic line) were used. The birds were treated with the two Ectiban® formulations on April 7, 1980 and with amitraz on April 9, 1980. Low pressure sprays were applied with a Hudson hand-pump, stainless steel Climax® 11.3 liter capacity sprayer (No. 67335). Amitraz .05% spray was applied at a rate of 33 ml/bird. For all acaracides, the entire bird was treated. Treated birds were challenged with 40 naturally infested birds throughout the entire study. Challenge birds initially had a mean mite rating of 3.1 when the treatments were made. Weekly mite counts continued over a 10 week period. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of field trial 1 are presented in Table 1. Visual examination of birds 24 hr posttreatment did not find any live mites on the birds treated with Ectiban® dust. However, live mites were found on 5 birds treated with Ectiban® spray and 4 birds treated with carbaryl. Counts taken on the three treated groups 1 and 2 weeks posttreatment found live mites only on the neck and breast regions. Possible explanations for this would be that treatments directed principally toward the vent region left small residual populations on a few birds or that a few mites survived by migrating from the treated areas. Since birds were given an overall mite rating prior to treatment and records were not kept for each body region, it was impossible to determine the actual cause. Poorest control was achieved on the roosters and heavy bodied females. The first mites observed in the vent regions were at 3 weeks posttreatment for carbaryl treated birds and 4 weeks for birds
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
Tests were conducted at The Pennsylvania State University Poultry Research Farm on campus within a 7.3 X 7.3 m shelter. Birds were housed singly in Hartford raised-wire, three-tier, double-row, sloping-floor cages (30.5 X 45.7 cm). Two banks of cages (102 cages/bank) with 1.8 m aisles on each side were present. Only the outer 30 cages at both ends of each bank housed birds during the study. Thus, the four test groups were separated by 2.1 m within a bank and 1.8 m between banks. Manure from each tier was collected on paper and removed daily. A time clock was used to maintain a 14 hr photophase. Mite populations were estimated visually by parting the feathers and carefully observing mites in the vent area, and on the breast, neck, and back. Counts were taken 24 hr pretreatment, 24 hr posttreatment (first trial only) and at weekly intervals for the duration of the study. Each bird was suspended with leg shackles while counts were made and mite populations were rated by the following scale: 0 = no mites observed, 1 = 1 to 5 mites/bird, 2 = 6 to 15 mites/bird, 3 = 16 to 50 mites/bird, 4 = 51 to 100 mites/bird, 5 = 101 to 500 mites/bird, and 6 = more than 500 mites/bird. The mites were actually counted when populations were less than 50 and estimated when populations were higher. Precautions were taken to avoid transfer of chemical residues between test groups with the use of disposable rubber gloves. Birds were only handled during acaracide treatment and mite counts.
1813
_
_
^
0a .4 a .5a 2.3b
2.3 a 2.3 a 2.3 a 2.3 a
^
1
-1
_
.la .5a." .4 a ' 4 3.3 b
7
_
.7 a .3a.4 .l a > 4 3.6 b
14
_
0a.3 .2 a .2a 4.1b
21
_
0a .3a .6 a 4.4 b
28
_
_
0a .4 a 1.0a 4.5b 2 4
0
4
6
5
4
3
One bird died; anemia and obstruction of vent.
Two birds died; 1 with visceral gout.
One bird died.
Two birds died; both with mites on the neck and breast.
2 Treated birds were challenged by 44 infested birds with ratings of 6 at 7 weeks posttreatment. Infested birds w The reinfestation pressure was continued for 6 weeks.
Mite rating used: 0 = 0 mites/bird, 1 = 1—5 mites/bird, 2 = 6—15 mites/bird, 3 = 16—50 mites/bird, 4 = 51— 500 mites/bird.
_
0a .4 a . 4 .8a 4.4 b
42
Days posttreatmen 35
a ' b ' c Means within columns not followed by a common letter are significantly different (P<.05).
„
16 16 16 16
Ectiban dust (.25%) Ectiban 5% EC (.05% spray) Sevin 4 F (.5% spray) Check
_
No. of birds
"hemical and t: ormulation
TABLE 1. Average mite ratings on caged chickens treated with perm ethrin and carbaryl for the control of north
xfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL
Complete control with the permethrin and amitraz sprays was not achieved. Counts taken at 1 week posttreatment found 4 permethrin and 8 amitraz treated birds with mites. Infested birds within the permethrin group were heavybodied females and males, whereas in the amitraz group 4 were White Leghorn hens. Residual mite population densities remained constant on the permethrin and amitraz sprayed birds until 4 and 5 weeks posttreatment, respectively. Mite populations increased significantly faster on the amitraz treated birds than on the permethrin sprayed birds. Initially, both carbaryl and amitraz sprays were as effective in controlling northern fowl mites as the permethrin sprays. However, carbaryl and amitraz demonstrated a shorter residual than permethrin. Further testing with amitraz at higher concentrations may prove to be beneficial. No evidence was found that mites were migrating from the vent area, the site of highest mite density, to either the back, neck, or breast regions, which was suggested as a possible survival mechanism from the results of the first trial. The presence of treated fowl next to the challenge birds during the second trial did not affect the mite populations on the untreated birds. Similar results were reported by Hall et al. (1978). Spray applications of both per-
methrin and amitraz proceeded without any problems. Autopsies performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory on campus found no evidence that bird mortality was associated with acaracide treatments. While both formulations of permethrin were effective in controlling northern fowl mites, the .25% dust provided a residual that prevented mite populations from developing on the birds for 7 weeks in comparison to 4 weeks with the .05% spray. This difference was not seen until the birds were exposed to a continuous challenge and may be partially due to the spray having poorer penetration of the feathers, since the birds were hand dusted. Both the use of low pressure sprays and the small amount of spray being applied per bird may have contributed, especially with larger-bodied and heavy-feathered fowl. Lancaster and Simco (1980) reported complete control with .125%, .25%, and .5% Ectiban® dust through 70 days. However, at no time were the birds challenged with mites. Permethrin emulsion sprays at concentrations of .5%, .25%, and .125% applied at dosage rates of 38 ml per bird with a pressure of 40 psi and continual reinfestation pressure gave 100% control for 77 days (Hall et al, 1978). Loomis and Dunning (1980) achieved 100% control after 1 week with a .125% spray applied with 30 psi and at dosages of 74 ml per bird. The birds remained mite free for 91 days and were unsuccessfully challenged with mites 23 and 44 days after treatment. However, when spray concentrations have been at .05%, complete control either has not been achieved, or has lasted over a shorter period of time, which is in agreement with our findings. Results vary with dosage rates and application pressure which suggests marginal acaracidal coverage or penetration. Lancaster and Simco (1980) achieved 100% control for 28 days, using 37.8 ml per bird before terminating the test. Loomis and Dunning (1980) used rates of 29.5, 44, and 74 ml per bird with 30 psi and obtained 95% mite control for 49 days beginning 1 day after treatment, 100% control after 2 weeks, and 100%o control for 91 days after 1 week, respectively. Williams and Berry (1980) applied 40 ml of finished spray per bird at 60 psi and had 100% control for 56 days. Similar control was also obtained with .01% and .025% sprays. Loomis and Dunning (1980) using an application
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
treated with permethrin spray. Mite populations in the vent regions of the carbaryl treated birds increased rapidly during weeks 4 to 6 and were significantly higher than the permethrin treatments 7 weeks posttreatment. Except for one bird in the permethrin spray group, mite populations did not increase in the permethrin treated birds until the week after the birds were challenged with infested birds. At that time, live mites were found on 3 of the dusted birds and 7 of the sprayed birds. Mite populations continued to build for the duration of the trial. Table 2 gives the results of field trial 2. With a continuous challenge by infested birds, the birds treated with permethrin dust did not support live mites until 7 weeks posttreatment, which is in agreement with trial 1. At 4 weeks posttreatment (breast) and 7 weeks posttreatment (neck), only one live mite was found on a single bird in the dusted group. Once mites became established on the birds, populations increased rapidly with 4 and 13 birds having mites at 8 and 9 weeks posttreatment, respectively.
1815
Ectiban dust (.25%) Ectiban 5% EC (.05% spray) Taktic 12.5% EC (.05% spray) Check
Ob .7b .5b 4.4 a
14 Ob .7b .7b 4.3a
21 ,lc 1.3b .8bc.4 4.2a>5
28 OC3 l.lb 1.7b,5 4.1a
35
6
5
4
3
One bird died; enlarged liver with areas of necrosis; spontaneous hemorrhage from ovary; trauma.
One bird died; lymphoid leukosis.
One bird died; abcess with septicemia.
One bird died; septicemia.
^Treated birds were challenged by 40 infested birds throughout the entire study. Challenge birds had a mean mi
Mite rating used: 0 = 0 mites/bird, 1 = 1 — 5 mites/bird, 2 = 6—15 mites/bird, 3 = 16—50 mites/bird, 4 = 51— 500 mites/bird.
1
1 > 3.8a
OC cjbc
7
Days posttreat
' ' c ' Means within columns not followed by a common letter are significantly different (P<.05).
4.3 a 4.1a 4.3a 3.9 a
15 15 15 15
Chemical and formulation
a
0
No. of birds
TABLE 2. Average mite ratings on caged chickens treated with permethrin and amitraz for the control of n
xfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful t o Gavin B. Braithwaite, C. R. Whiteman (ICI Americas Inc.) for providing financial s u p p o r t and E c t i b a n ® formulations. Boots Hercules Agrochemicals Co. furnished [email protected]%EC. Kenneth G o o d w i n , head, Poultry Science D e p a r t m e n t , and Paul W. Parsons, farm manager, and his staff supplied test p o u l t r y , facilities, feed, and care during t h e experiment. Our appreciation is e x t e n d e d t o all w h o aided us in this investigation.
REFERENCES Christensen, C. M., F. W. Knapp, and J. W. Turtle, 1977. The efficacy of chlordimeform for the control of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago) (Acarina, Dermanyssidae). Poultry Sci. 56:79-81. Combs, R. L., Jr., 1978. Chickens, evaluation of SD 43775 water dispersible liquid for the control of Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago) on caged layers, 1977. Insect. Acar. Tests 3: 181-182. DeVaney, J. A., 1978a. A survey of poultry ectoparasite problems and their research in the
United States. Poultry Sci. 57:1217-1220. DeVaney, J. A., 1978b. Effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on fertility and hatchability of eggs from artificially inseminated White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1189-1191. DeVaney, J. A., 1979. The effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum, on egg production and body weight of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 58:191-194. DeVaney, J. A., M. H. Elissalde, E. G. Steel, B. F. Hogan, and H. D. Petersen, 1977. Effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on White Leghorn roosters. Poultry Sci. 56:1585-1590. Foulk, J. D., and J. G. Matthysse, 1964. A new toxicological test method for haematophagous mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 57(4):602-604. Furman, D. P., and D. Lee, 1969. Experimental control of the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(5); 1246. Hall, R. D., L. H. Townsend, Jr., and E. C. Turner, Jr., 1975. The use of chlordimeform against northern fowl mites on caged laying hens. Vet. Parasitol. 1:185-192. Hall, R. D., L. H. Townsend, Jr., and E. C. Turner, Jr., 1978. Laboratory and field tests to compare the effectiveness of organophosphorous, carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid acaricides against northern fowl mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 71(2): 315-318. Lancaster, J. L., Jr., and J. S. Simco, 1980. Effects of a pyrethroid against northern fowl mite. Arkansas Farm Res. 24(1):9. Loomis, E. C , E. L. Bramhall, and L. L. Dunning, 1979. Comparative effectiveness of fenvalerate and carbaryl sprays against the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 72(6):856-859. Loomis, E. C , and L. L. Dunning, 1980. Synthetic pyrethroids effective against fowl mite. California Agric. 34(5):10-11. Nelson, T. E., and K.M.R. Bertun, 1965. Synergism of malathion against the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 58(6):1117-1118. Reid, W. M., R. L. Linkfield, and G. Lewis, 1956. Limitations of malathion in northern fowl mite and louse control. Poultry Sci. 35:1397-1398. Rodriguez, J. L., and L. A. Riehl, 1963. Northern fowl mite tolerant to malathion. J. Econ. Entomol. 56(4): 5 0 9 - 5 1 1 . Williams, R. E., and J. G. Berry, 1980. Control of northern fowl mite with permethrin and fenvalerate, two synthetic pyrethroid compounds. Poultry Sci. 59(6):1211-1214.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
rate of 29.5 ml per hen with spray concent r a t i o n s of .005 a n d . 0 0 0 5 % o b t a i n e d less than 6 0 % control 1 week after t r e a t m e n t . However, b y respraying b o t h g r o u p s with t h e .005 concentration at t h e same rate, control was achieved. Data from these test results indicate t h a t b o t h formulations of E c t i b a n ® appear t o be very promising for n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e control. However, c o m p l e t e coverage and p e n e t r a t i o n of t h e acaracide is essential. Direct placement of acaracide t o individual birds is n o t possible u n d e r commercial c o n d i t i o n s . Therefore, further testing with commercial caged layers using conventional e q u i p m e n t is needed t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r spray c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and dosage rates. Additional l a b o r a t o r y bioassays a n d field tests with amitraz are needed t o d e t e r m i n e t h e effectiveness of this acaracide in controlling t h e mite.
1817
1981 Poultry Science 60:1812-1817 INTRODUCTION T h e n o r t h e r n fowl mite, Omithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), is a serious h e m a t o p h a g o u s m i t e of chickens in t h e United States (DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ) . While research findings are n o t in c o m p l e t e agreement, it is generally believed t h a t mite-stressed birds often reduce feed intake, lose weight, and exhibit pale pink combs. Severe anemia and death may occur in birds with large mite populations. In addition t o t h e c o n s t a n t drain o n t h e birds vitality, heavy infestations at times lowers egg p r o d u c t i o n and fertility of roosters (DeVaney et al, 1 9 7 7 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 b , 1 9 7 9 ) . Breeding flocks and caged layers are highly susceptible t o high m i t e p o p u l a t i o n s . Rapid m i t e r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d dissemination, high density housing of birds, and p o o r acaracide distribution and p e n e t r a t i o n during t r e a t m e n t , m a k e effective control difficult. In addition, r e p o r t s of chemical resistance t o m a l a t h i o n (Reid et al, 1 9 5 6 ; Rodriguez and Riehl, 1 9 6 3 ; Foulk and Mat\ thysse, 1 9 6 4 ; Nelson and Bertun, 1 9 6 5 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ; Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ) , carbaryl
1 Supported by grant funds from ICI Americas Inc., Wilmington, DE 19897. 2 Acari: Macronyssidae. 3 Authorized for publication as Paper No. 6108 in the Journal Series of the Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
( F u r m a n and Lee, 1 9 6 9 ; DeVaney, 1 9 7 8 a ) , and stirofos (DeVaney, 1978a) have been r e p o r t e d . An effective, long lasting control is desperately needed b y t h e producers. T o date, u n d e r l a b o r a t o r y and limited field tests, t h e synthetic p y r e t h r o i d s have been r e p o r t e d t o be e x t r e m e l y effective against t h e n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e : Ectiban® ( p e r m e t h r i n ) (Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ; Lancaster and Simco, 1 9 8 0 ; Loomis and Dunning, 1 9 8 0 ) , A t r o b a n ® (perm e t h r i n ) (Loomis and Dunning, 1 9 8 0 ; Williams and Berry, 1980) and Ectrin® (fenvalerate) (Hall et al, 1 9 7 8 ; Combs, 1 9 7 8 ; Loomis et al, 1 9 7 9 ; Williams and Berry, 1 9 8 0 ) . Chlordimeform was also f o u n d effective for n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e c o n t r o l b u t has never been registered for use (Hall et al, 1 9 7 5 ; Christensen et al, 1977). R e p o r t e d here are t h e results of t w o field trials t o further evaluate t h e efficacy of t w o formulations (5.0% EC and .25% Livestock Dust) of t h e synthetic p y r e t h r o i d E c t i b a n ® p e r m e t h r i n (3-Phenoxyphenyl) m e t h y l (±) cis trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclop r o p a n e c a r b o x y l a t e , ICI Americas Inc., and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d u r a t i o n of control. In t h e initial trial, t h e E c t i b a n ® formulations were evaluated against carbaryl (Sevin® 4 F ) , a registered insecticide against n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e , a n d in t h e second trial against amitraz ( T a k t i c ® 1 2 . 5 % EC), which is n o t registered; (N'-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N-[ [2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] m e t h y l ] -N-methylmeth-animidamide). As of F e b r u a r y
1812
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
ABSTRACT In two trials at the University poultry farm, two formulations of the synthetic pyrethroid permethrin (Ectiban® 5.0% EC and Ectiban® .25% Livestock Dust) were compared against carbaryl and amitraz sprays for the control of northern fowl mite, Omithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on caged birds. Under continuous reinfestation pressure, birds treated with dust did not support live mites in the vent region until 7 weeks posttreatment in comparison to 4 weeks with the permethrin .05% spray. Initially, both carbaryl (.5%) and amitraz (.05%) sprays were as effective in controlling mites as the permethrin spray but did not provide protection for as long a period. Individual birds were either hand dusted or treated with low pressure sprays. (Key words: Omithonyssus sylviarum, northern fowl mite, chemical control, permethrin, amitraz, carbaryl)
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL 1981, Ectiban® is not registered for direct application to poultry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All birds treated with permethrin and amitraz were destroyed at the end of the trials, and all eggs were destroyed daily. Trial 1. Sixty-four naturally infested birds (56 hens and 8 roosters) of various ages and breeds (44 White Leghorns, 8 White Rocks, and 12 birds of a synthetic line of heavy, black Leghorns) were housed on November 9, 1979. The birds were divided into four similar test groups consisting of 16 birds each. All birds of each test group were housed together in alternate cages using both sides and all tiers of the cage bank end. Acaracide applications were made to individual birds suspended from leg shackles on November 14, 1979. Sprays were applied with a
Hudson Cordless Electric Sprayer No. 6302 and the dust applied by hand. Treatments consisted of Ectiban® .05% spray, Sevin® .5% spray, Ectiban® .25% dust, and untreated (control). The dosage rates for sprays were 1 gal/100 birds (37.9 ml/bird) and the dust was 1.3 lb/100 birds (6.0 g/bird). Applications were directed primarily to the vent area where most of the mites were found. Treated birds were challenged by 44 naturally infested birds with ratings of 6 at 7 weeks posttreatment, by placing the infested birds in the empty cages next to each treated bird. The reinfestation pressure was continued for 6 weeks. Trial 2, During the second trial, 60 naturally infested birds (56 hens and 4 roosters; 48 White Leghorns and 12 heavy, black Leghorns from the synthetic line) were used. The birds were treated with the two Ectiban® formulations on April 7, 1980 and with amitraz on April 9, 1980. Low pressure sprays were applied with a Hudson hand-pump, stainless steel Climax® 11.3 liter capacity sprayer (No. 67335). Amitraz .05% spray was applied at a rate of 33 ml/bird. For all acaracides, the entire bird was treated. Treated birds were challenged with 40 naturally infested birds throughout the entire study. Challenge birds initially had a mean mite rating of 3.1 when the treatments were made. Weekly mite counts continued over a 10 week period. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of field trial 1 are presented in Table 1. Visual examination of birds 24 hr posttreatment did not find any live mites on the birds treated with Ectiban® dust. However, live mites were found on 5 birds treated with Ectiban® spray and 4 birds treated with carbaryl. Counts taken on the three treated groups 1 and 2 weeks posttreatment found live mites only on the neck and breast regions. Possible explanations for this would be that treatments directed principally toward the vent region left small residual populations on a few birds or that a few mites survived by migrating from the treated areas. Since birds were given an overall mite rating prior to treatment and records were not kept for each body region, it was impossible to determine the actual cause. Poorest control was achieved on the roosters and heavy bodied females. The first mites observed in the vent regions were at 3 weeks posttreatment for carbaryl treated birds and 4 weeks for birds
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
Tests were conducted at The Pennsylvania State University Poultry Research Farm on campus within a 7.3 X 7.3 m shelter. Birds were housed singly in Hartford raised-wire, three-tier, double-row, sloping-floor cages (30.5 X 45.7 cm). Two banks of cages (102 cages/bank) with 1.8 m aisles on each side were present. Only the outer 30 cages at both ends of each bank housed birds during the study. Thus, the four test groups were separated by 2.1 m within a bank and 1.8 m between banks. Manure from each tier was collected on paper and removed daily. A time clock was used to maintain a 14 hr photophase. Mite populations were estimated visually by parting the feathers and carefully observing mites in the vent area, and on the breast, neck, and back. Counts were taken 24 hr pretreatment, 24 hr posttreatment (first trial only) and at weekly intervals for the duration of the study. Each bird was suspended with leg shackles while counts were made and mite populations were rated by the following scale: 0 = no mites observed, 1 = 1 to 5 mites/bird, 2 = 6 to 15 mites/bird, 3 = 16 to 50 mites/bird, 4 = 51 to 100 mites/bird, 5 = 101 to 500 mites/bird, and 6 = more than 500 mites/bird. The mites were actually counted when populations were less than 50 and estimated when populations were higher. Precautions were taken to avoid transfer of chemical residues between test groups with the use of disposable rubber gloves. Birds were only handled during acaracide treatment and mite counts.
1813
_
_
^
0a .4 a .5a 2.3b
2.3 a 2.3 a 2.3 a 2.3 a
^
1
-1
_
.la .5a." .4 a ' 4 3.3 b
7
_
.7 a .3a.4 .l a > 4 3.6 b
14
_
0a.3 .2 a .2a 4.1b
21
_
0a .3a .6 a 4.4 b
28
_
_
0a .4 a 1.0a 4.5b 2 4
0
4
6
5
4
3
One bird died; anemia and obstruction of vent.
Two birds died; 1 with visceral gout.
One bird died.
Two birds died; both with mites on the neck and breast.
2 Treated birds were challenged by 44 infested birds with ratings of 6 at 7 weeks posttreatment. Infested birds w The reinfestation pressure was continued for 6 weeks.
Mite rating used: 0 = 0 mites/bird, 1 = 1—5 mites/bird, 2 = 6—15 mites/bird, 3 = 16—50 mites/bird, 4 = 51— 500 mites/bird.
_
0a .4 a . 4 .8a 4.4 b
42
Days posttreatmen 35
a ' b ' c Means within columns not followed by a common letter are significantly different (P<.05).
„
16 16 16 16
Ectiban dust (.25%) Ectiban 5% EC (.05% spray) Sevin 4 F (.5% spray) Check
_
No. of birds
"hemical and t: ormulation
TABLE 1. Average mite ratings on caged chickens treated with perm ethrin and carbaryl for the control of north
xfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL
Complete control with the permethrin and amitraz sprays was not achieved. Counts taken at 1 week posttreatment found 4 permethrin and 8 amitraz treated birds with mites. Infested birds within the permethrin group were heavybodied females and males, whereas in the amitraz group 4 were White Leghorn hens. Residual mite population densities remained constant on the permethrin and amitraz sprayed birds until 4 and 5 weeks posttreatment, respectively. Mite populations increased significantly faster on the amitraz treated birds than on the permethrin sprayed birds. Initially, both carbaryl and amitraz sprays were as effective in controlling northern fowl mites as the permethrin sprays. However, carbaryl and amitraz demonstrated a shorter residual than permethrin. Further testing with amitraz at higher concentrations may prove to be beneficial. No evidence was found that mites were migrating from the vent area, the site of highest mite density, to either the back, neck, or breast regions, which was suggested as a possible survival mechanism from the results of the first trial. The presence of treated fowl next to the challenge birds during the second trial did not affect the mite populations on the untreated birds. Similar results were reported by Hall et al. (1978). Spray applications of both per-
methrin and amitraz proceeded without any problems. Autopsies performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory on campus found no evidence that bird mortality was associated with acaracide treatments. While both formulations of permethrin were effective in controlling northern fowl mites, the .25% dust provided a residual that prevented mite populations from developing on the birds for 7 weeks in comparison to 4 weeks with the .05% spray. This difference was not seen until the birds were exposed to a continuous challenge and may be partially due to the spray having poorer penetration of the feathers, since the birds were hand dusted. Both the use of low pressure sprays and the small amount of spray being applied per bird may have contributed, especially with larger-bodied and heavy-feathered fowl. Lancaster and Simco (1980) reported complete control with .125%, .25%, and .5% Ectiban® dust through 70 days. However, at no time were the birds challenged with mites. Permethrin emulsion sprays at concentrations of .5%, .25%, and .125% applied at dosage rates of 38 ml per bird with a pressure of 40 psi and continual reinfestation pressure gave 100% control for 77 days (Hall et al, 1978). Loomis and Dunning (1980) achieved 100% control after 1 week with a .125% spray applied with 30 psi and at dosages of 74 ml per bird. The birds remained mite free for 91 days and were unsuccessfully challenged with mites 23 and 44 days after treatment. However, when spray concentrations have been at .05%, complete control either has not been achieved, or has lasted over a shorter period of time, which is in agreement with our findings. Results vary with dosage rates and application pressure which suggests marginal acaracidal coverage or penetration. Lancaster and Simco (1980) achieved 100% control for 28 days, using 37.8 ml per bird before terminating the test. Loomis and Dunning (1980) used rates of 29.5, 44, and 74 ml per bird with 30 psi and obtained 95% mite control for 49 days beginning 1 day after treatment, 100% control after 2 weeks, and 100%o control for 91 days after 1 week, respectively. Williams and Berry (1980) applied 40 ml of finished spray per bird at 60 psi and had 100% control for 56 days. Similar control was also obtained with .01% and .025% sprays. Loomis and Dunning (1980) using an application
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
treated with permethrin spray. Mite populations in the vent regions of the carbaryl treated birds increased rapidly during weeks 4 to 6 and were significantly higher than the permethrin treatments 7 weeks posttreatment. Except for one bird in the permethrin spray group, mite populations did not increase in the permethrin treated birds until the week after the birds were challenged with infested birds. At that time, live mites were found on 3 of the dusted birds and 7 of the sprayed birds. Mite populations continued to build for the duration of the trial. Table 2 gives the results of field trial 2. With a continuous challenge by infested birds, the birds treated with permethrin dust did not support live mites until 7 weeks posttreatment, which is in agreement with trial 1. At 4 weeks posttreatment (breast) and 7 weeks posttreatment (neck), only one live mite was found on a single bird in the dusted group. Once mites became established on the birds, populations increased rapidly with 4 and 13 birds having mites at 8 and 9 weeks posttreatment, respectively.
1815
Ectiban dust (.25%) Ectiban 5% EC (.05% spray) Taktic 12.5% EC (.05% spray) Check
Ob .7b .5b 4.4 a
14 Ob .7b .7b 4.3a
21 ,lc 1.3b .8bc.4 4.2a>5
28 OC3 l.lb 1.7b,5 4.1a
35
6
5
4
3
One bird died; enlarged liver with areas of necrosis; spontaneous hemorrhage from ovary; trauma.
One bird died; lymphoid leukosis.
One bird died; abcess with septicemia.
One bird died; septicemia.
^Treated birds were challenged by 40 infested birds throughout the entire study. Challenge birds had a mean mi
Mite rating used: 0 = 0 mites/bird, 1 = 1 — 5 mites/bird, 2 = 6—15 mites/bird, 3 = 16—50 mites/bird, 4 = 51— 500 mites/bird.
1
1 > 3.8a
OC cjbc
7
Days posttreat
' ' c ' Means within columns not followed by a common letter are significantly different (P<.05).
4.3 a 4.1a 4.3a 3.9 a
15 15 15 15
Chemical and formulation
a
0
No. of birds
TABLE 2. Average mite ratings on caged chickens treated with permethrin and amitraz for the control of n
xfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
NORTHERN FOWL MITE CONTROL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful t o Gavin B. Braithwaite, C. R. Whiteman (ICI Americas Inc.) for providing financial s u p p o r t and E c t i b a n ® formulations. Boots Hercules Agrochemicals Co. furnished [email protected]%EC. Kenneth G o o d w i n , head, Poultry Science D e p a r t m e n t , and Paul W. Parsons, farm manager, and his staff supplied test p o u l t r y , facilities, feed, and care during t h e experiment. Our appreciation is e x t e n d e d t o all w h o aided us in this investigation.
REFERENCES Christensen, C. M., F. W. Knapp, and J. W. Turtle, 1977. The efficacy of chlordimeform for the control of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago) (Acarina, Dermanyssidae). Poultry Sci. 56:79-81. Combs, R. L., Jr., 1978. Chickens, evaluation of SD 43775 water dispersible liquid for the control of Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago) on caged layers, 1977. Insect. Acar. Tests 3: 181-182. DeVaney, J. A., 1978a. A survey of poultry ectoparasite problems and their research in the
United States. Poultry Sci. 57:1217-1220. DeVaney, J. A., 1978b. Effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on fertility and hatchability of eggs from artificially inseminated White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1189-1191. DeVaney, J. A., 1979. The effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum, on egg production and body weight of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 58:191-194. DeVaney, J. A., M. H. Elissalde, E. G. Steel, B. F. Hogan, and H. D. Petersen, 1977. Effects of the northern fowl mite, Ornitbonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), on White Leghorn roosters. Poultry Sci. 56:1585-1590. Foulk, J. D., and J. G. Matthysse, 1964. A new toxicological test method for haematophagous mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 57(4):602-604. Furman, D. P., and D. Lee, 1969. Experimental control of the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(5); 1246. Hall, R. D., L. H. Townsend, Jr., and E. C. Turner, Jr., 1975. The use of chlordimeform against northern fowl mites on caged laying hens. Vet. Parasitol. 1:185-192. Hall, R. D., L. H. Townsend, Jr., and E. C. Turner, Jr., 1978. Laboratory and field tests to compare the effectiveness of organophosphorous, carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid acaricides against northern fowl mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 71(2): 315-318. Lancaster, J. L., Jr., and J. S. Simco, 1980. Effects of a pyrethroid against northern fowl mite. Arkansas Farm Res. 24(1):9. Loomis, E. C , E. L. Bramhall, and L. L. Dunning, 1979. Comparative effectiveness of fenvalerate and carbaryl sprays against the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 72(6):856-859. Loomis, E. C , and L. L. Dunning, 1980. Synthetic pyrethroids effective against fowl mite. California Agric. 34(5):10-11. Nelson, T. E., and K.M.R. Bertun, 1965. Synergism of malathion against the northern fowl mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 58(6):1117-1118. Reid, W. M., R. L. Linkfield, and G. Lewis, 1956. Limitations of malathion in northern fowl mite and louse control. Poultry Sci. 35:1397-1398. Rodriguez, J. L., and L. A. Riehl, 1963. Northern fowl mite tolerant to malathion. J. Econ. Entomol. 56(4): 5 0 9 - 5 1 1 . Williams, R. E., and J. G. Berry, 1980. Control of northern fowl mite with permethrin and fenvalerate, two synthetic pyrethroid compounds. Poultry Sci. 59(6):1211-1214.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 13, 2015
rate of 29.5 ml per hen with spray concent r a t i o n s of .005 a n d . 0 0 0 5 % o b t a i n e d less than 6 0 % control 1 week after t r e a t m e n t . However, b y respraying b o t h g r o u p s with t h e .005 concentration at t h e same rate, control was achieved. Data from these test results indicate t h a t b o t h formulations of E c t i b a n ® appear t o be very promising for n o r t h e r n fowl m i t e control. However, c o m p l e t e coverage and p e n e t r a t i o n of t h e acaracide is essential. Direct placement of acaracide t o individual birds is n o t possible u n d e r commercial c o n d i t i o n s . Therefore, further testing with commercial caged layers using conventional e q u i p m e n t is needed t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r spray c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and dosage rates. Additional l a b o r a t o r y bioassays a n d field tests with amitraz are needed t o d e t e r m i n e t h e effectiveness of this acaracide in controlling t h e mite.
1817