Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T00:24:11.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repellents for Stomoxys calcitrans (L.), the stable fly: techniques and a comparative laboratory assessment of butyl methylcinchoninate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. H. Yeoman  and
B. C. Warren
G. H. Yeoman
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Station, Astra-Hewlett Limited, Nomansland Farm, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, U.K.
B. C. Warren
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Station, Astra-Hewlett Limited, Nomansland Farm, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An in vitro test, based on the molasses sandwich-bait test, for mass screening of new compounds for general insect repellency is described. This is followed by a detailed account of a laboratory technique for comparing the initial potency of contact repellents for the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans (L.).

Methods for rearing S. calcitrans of standardised aggressiveness and making comparative assessments of contact repellents against this fly are described. For initial potency, a standard area of the treated close-clipped abdominal skin of mice lying outside the cage was exposed through an orifice to standardised flies. A treated 0·5-cm-wide screen was incorporated as a border round the exposed area of treated skin so that flies biting the mouse were obliged to make tarsal contact with repellent. Using this method, and the organdie bag x human hand method for determining persistence on an inert substrate, each of the following repellents was compared with butyl 3-methylcinchoninate, a new repellent for S. calcitrans:

dimethylphthalate; 2-ethyl-1, 3-hexanediol; butoxypolypropylene glycol; dibutyl succinate; N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide; di-n-propyl isocinchomeronate; 2,3,4,5-bis (Δ2-butenylene)-tetrahydrofurfural; 2-hydroxyethyl n-octyl sulphide and N-benzoyl piperidine.

In each case butyl 3-methylcinchoninate was found to be superior. In the initial potency tests, the 50% repellency application rate was found to lie between 0·002 and 0·007 mg/cm2, while on organdie, rates of 0·2, 0·4, 0·8 mg/cm2 gave mean protection periods of 9, 19 and 34 days, respectively.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , April 1970 , pp. 563 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. R. & Forgash, A. J. (1966). The location of the contact chemoreceptors of the stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera Muscidae).—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almazova, V. V. (1962). Experiments on the widespread application of the new repellents repellin-alpha and repellin-beta in 1961. [In Russian with English summary]—Medskaya Parazit. 31, 587–593.Google Scholar
Altman, R. & Smith, C. N. (1955). Investigations of repellents for protection against mosquitoes in Alaska, 1953.—J. econ. Ent. 48, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bataev, P. S., Ivanova, L. V. & Vorob'eva, Z. G. (1963). New repellents. [In Russian]—Medskaya Parazit. 32, 209–216.Google ScholarPubMed
Bishopp, F. C. (1939). The stable fly: how to prevent its annoyance and its losses to livestock.—Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1097 (3rd edn), 18 pp.Google Scholar
Bruce, W. N. & Decker, G. C. (1957). Experiments with several repellent formulations applied to cattle for the control of stable flies.—J. econ. Ent. 50, 709–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, W. N. & Decker, G. C. (1958). The relationship of stable fly abundance to milk production in dairy cattle.—J. econ. Ent. 51, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1957). A critical review of the techniques for testing insecticides, p. 171. London, Commonw. Inst. Ent.Google Scholar
Gilbert, I. H., Gouck, H. K. & Smith, C. N. (1955). New mosquito repellents.—J. econ. Ent. 48, 741–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, I. H., Gouck, H. K. & Smith, C. N. (1957 a). New insect repellent.—Soap chem. Spec. 33 no. 5, 115–117. 129–133.Google Scholar
Gilbert, I. H., Gouck, H. K. & Smith, C. N. (1957 b). New insect repellent: Part II—clothing treatments.—Soap chem. Spec. 33 no. 6, 95–99, 109.Google Scholar
Goodhue, L. D. & Howell, D. E. (1960). Repellents and attractants in pest control operations.—Pest Control 28 no. 8, 44–50.Google Scholar
Goodhue, L. D. & Stansbury, R. E. (1953). Some new fly repellents from laboratory screening tests.—J. econ. Ent. 46, 982–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P. (1944). “Paired product testing” for the evaluation of mosquito repellents.—Proc. New Jers. Mosq. Exterm. Ass. 31, 173–178.Google Scholar
Granett, P. & Haynes, H. L. (1945). Insect-repellent properties of 2-ethylhexanediol-l,3.—J. econ. Ent. 38, 671–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granett, P., Haynes, H. L., Connola, D. P., Bowery, T. G. & Barber, G. W. (1949). Two butoxypolypropylene glycol compounds as fly repellents for livestock.—J. econ. Ent. 42, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granett, P., Haynes, H. L. & Helm, R. W. (1951). Further evaluation of butoxypolypropylene glycol as a fly repellent for dairy cattle.—J. econ. Ent. 44, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. E. & Goodhue, L. D. (1955). Fly-repellents.—Soap chem. Spec. 31 no. 10, 181–189, 221.Google Scholar
Krijgsman, B. J. (1930). Reizphysiologische Untersuchungen an blutsaugenden Arthropoden im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Nahrungswahl. I. Teil. Stomoxys calcitrans.—Z. vergl. Physiol. 11, 702–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, U. H., Ulff, B. & Yeoman, G. H. (1968). Cinchoninic and 3-alkylcinchoninic acid alkyl esters. A new class of insect repellents.—Acta pharm. suec. 5, 441–448.Google Scholar
Locke, M. (1965). Permeability of insect cuticle to water and lipids.—Science, N.Y. 147 no. 3655, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, E. T., Barthel, W. F., Gertler, S. I. & Hall, S. A. (1954). Insect repellents. III. N,N-diethylamides.—J. org. Chem. 19, 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. B. (1962). Insect repellent formulations for personal use.—Aerosol Age 7 no. 12, 43–46. 123, 128.Google Scholar
Smith, C. N. (1958). Insect repellents.—Soap chem. Spec. 34 no. 2, 105–112.Google Scholar
Stones, L. C. (1967). In The U.F.A.W. Handbook on the care and management of laboratory animals, pp. 934–945. Edinburgh, &c., E. & S. Livingstone.Google Scholar
Todd, D. H. (1964). The biting fly Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) in dairy herds in New Zealand.—N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 7, 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeoman, G. H. & Warren, B. C. (1965). The chemosterilisation of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata (Meig.) with apholate.—Vet. Rec. 77 no. 32, 922–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeoman, G. H., Warren, B. C, Lindberg, U. H. & Ulff, B. (1968). Repellency of the butylester of 3-methylcinchoninic acid against Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) the stable fly—Vet. Rec. 83, 131–133.Google Scholar