Ecology and Control of the Principal Flies
Associated with a Compost Plant

By
CALVIN GALE ALVAREZ

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1971

II

SSESBL& no*

08552

(IDA

Mini

4782

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to extend his sincere thanks and gratitude to the
many persons who have made this endeavor possible:

To Dr. F. S. Blanton and Dr. H. D. Putnam for serving as co-chairmen
of the supervisory committee, and their assistance and friendship through-
out this investigation.

To. Dr. G. C. LaBrecque for serving as a committee member, for his
assistance, direction, and friendship, and for providing equipment and
working space at the United States Department of Agr icul ture's Insects
Affecting Man and Animals Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida.

To Dr. J. F. Butler for his participation with the committee, for
providing equipment and working space at the Medical Entomology Laboratory,
and for his tolerance of the odors of rearing blow flies.

To Dr. D. H. Habeck for his assistance and work with the committee.

To Dr. W. G. Eden for his guidance, encouragement, and assistance.

To Dr. D. L. Bailey for providing equipment and advice.

To Dr. D. E. Weidhass and all the other members of the Insects
Affecting Man and Animals Laboratory for providing counsel and aid on
many occas ions.

To Mr. Dan Wojcik and Mr. Terry Marable for photographic assistance.

To the Department of Environmental Engineering of the University
of Florida for financial assistance provided by Contract number 5-701-UI-
01029-09 from the United States Public Health Service.

ii

To Mr. Herb Houston, project director of the Gainesville Municipal
Waste Convers ion Authority, Inc., and Dr. D. T. Knuth, Environmental
Engineering, Inc., for furnishing eq - and fac " ies as provided
by Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Demonstration Grant
number 5-D01-U1 -00030-02.

Finally, the author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to
his wife,Judi, for her patience and constant encouragement during this
stuGy.

i i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT x

I NTROOUCTI ON 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Location of Compost Plant 4

Operation of Compost Plant 5

Fl ies 9

SECTION

I. FLY LARVAL MIGRATION FROM REFUSE 13

Methods 15

Result and Discussion 17

II. CONTROL OF BLOW FLIES 26

Blow Fly Traps 26

Field Tests 29

Rearing Blow Flies 37

Laboratory Screening of Insecticides for

Control of _P. cupr ina k\

III. DENSITY AND SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS OF HOUSE FLIES AT

THE COMPOST PLANT k6

Rearing House Flies k6

Seasonal Fluctuations of House Flies kj

Evaluation of Fly Sticky Tapes 5*+

Determination of the Magnitude of the House Fly

Popul at ion 57

IV. HOUSE FLY BREEDING IN COMPOST 60

Moisture and Age of Compost 60

Sludge and Grinding 6k

Temperature 67

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
SECTION

V. MIGRATION AND DISPERSAL 72

Literature Review ~]2

Fl ight Mills 75

Blow Flies Released at Compost Plant 78

Fly Releases at the City Landfill 8i

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100

APPENDIX

1. Test for the precision of the counting technique used to

determine total number of larvae collected under

the apron conveyor 108

2. Fly larvae trapped under apron conveyor during 1969, at

the Gainesville compost plant 109

3. Percent mortal ity of 5-day old Phaen ic ?a cupr ina

females 2k hr after exposure to insecticides

in a w ind tunnel Ill

k. Temperature in digesters 114

L ITERATURE C ITED 115

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

Page

1. Percent abundance of species of fly larvae trapped

under apron conveyor during 1969 19

2. Total number of larvae collected under apron conveyor

compared to number of larvae trapped the same day.. 20

3. Total number of larvae collected per day under apron

conveyor compared to the number caught in the

same area during the night 22

4. Sex, species, and abundance (%) of flies caught in

cone traps baited with 1-day old fish heads

at Gainesville compost plant 29

5. Number of flies caught per day in cone traps baited

with fish heads as a monitor of procedures to

control adult flies at the Gainesville compost

plant 30

6. Sex, species, and abundance (%) of flies caught by

sweep net in grass adjacent to receiving area

of Gainesville compost plant 34

7. Analysis of several rearing media to determine the most

su i table method of rear ing Phaen icia cupr ina 39

8. LC-- of 5-day old Phaenicia cuprina females to

insecticides in a wind tunnel 43

9. Air temperatures recorded 15 cm above compost in

digesters at Gainesville compost plant 51

10. Number of adult house flies caught on sticky tapes in

different ages of compost 53

11. Recapture of 3-day old marked laboratory reared house

flies by sticky tapes hung in digesters for 24 hr

following release of flies in the same area at

the Gainesville compost plant during 1969 59

v I

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE

Page

12. Influence of moisture and age of compost on maturation

of immature house flies reared in compost 63

13. Influence of moisture on maturation of immature house

flies reared in 3-day old compost 65

14. Influence of sludge and grinding of refuse on maturation

of immature house flies reared in compost 66

15. Temperatures observed irr house fly rearing containers.... 69

16. Temperatures observed in 4-day old compost in

d ig esters 71

17. Mean distances flown in 24 hr by adult Phaen icia

cupr ina attached to an insect flight mill 79

18. Distance flown until death by adult Phaenicia

cupr ina attached to an insect flight mill 80

19. Recapture of wild marked flies by sweep net and

baited traps 24 hr after release 82

20. Recapture of marked wild flies at Gainesville sanitary

landfill by sweep net after release 91

21. Observations of marked wild JP. cupr ina remaining at

Gainesville landfill after release 93

22. Observations of marked wild M. domes tica remaining at

Gainesville landfill after release 94

23. Average percentage of flies remaining at city landfill

under different weather conditions 95

24. Rainfall recorded at Gainesville Municipal Airport

during release studies at city landfill 96

25. Observations of 2-day old marked laboratory reared

Phaenicia cuprina remaining at Gainesville

landfill after release 98

VI 1

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Floor plan of Gainesville municipal compost plant

2. Refuse flow plan of Gainesville compost plant 7

3. Receiving building filled with refuse 3

k. Sorting conveyor carries refuse to sorting platform

5. Composting takes place in concrete digesters

6. The finished product Is discharged to outdoor storage areas. 10

7. Fly larvae and pupae under receiving hopper ]k

8. Fly larvae migrating from refuse to pupation sites under

wall of receiving building 14

9. Number of fly larvae caught under apron conveyor per

week at Gainesville compost plant during 1969 18

10. Eastern edge of approach ramp 2k

11. Fly larvae aiong base of eastern wall of approach ramp 2k

12. Cone trap baited with 1-day old fish heads to sample

fly populations at compost plant 28

13. Rear view of receiving building showing receiving hopper

and pavement behind building 28

14. Mean number of adult flies captured per sticky tape per

week during 1969, in digesters at Gainesville

compost plant 50

15. Number of house flies captured on sticky tapes within

2k hr after release in a large outdoor cage 56

t

16. Position of te srature probes in house fly rearing

cor....: srs 33

V I I i

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page

FIGURE

17. Diagram of insect flight mill 77

18. Fly larvae in animal disposal area of city landfill 84

19. _P. cupr ina roosting on grass tassel at night at city

1 andf ill 8k

20. Predominant! y M. domes t ica roosting on weed at night

at city landfill 85

21. Predominant! y _C. macel 1 aria with some M. domes t ica

roosting or, dead brush in refuse at night

at city landfill 85

ix

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

r
ECOLOGY AND CONTROL OF THE PRINCIPAL FLIES ASSOCIATED

.TH A CG'.POST PLANT

By
Calvin Gale Alvarez

March, 1971

Chairman: : Dr. F. S. Blanton
Co-chairman: Dr. H. D. Putnam
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology
Minor Department: Environmental Engineering

Seasonal fluctuations of Diptera indigenous to domestic sol id. waste
were examined at the Gainesville, Florida, municipal compost plant during
1S68-1S69. Populations of both immature and mature forms were estimated
and the efficiency of chemical and physical control procedures was
tested. Adult dispersal studies were conducted during 1570 at the city
landfill.

The major fly source at the compost plant was found to be from
larvae-infested incoming refuse. The greenbottle blow fly, Phaen i
cupr ina (Shannon), comprised more than 50 percent of the larvae which
migrated into protected areas where they developed into adults. Approxi-
mately 450,000 adult flies per week were produced during the summer
months. This figure could be reduced by more than 63 percent by pro-
cedural changes and good housekeeping.

The daily application of a dichlorvos su^ar bait reduced the number
of flies by 66.7 p<~ ogle application of ite reduced

the population by moi

and dl sre als< tl rests.

The number of house flies captured on sticky tapes was shown to
be proportional to the number present in a large outdoor cage. Sticky
tapes were used to show seasonal fluctuations of house fl I es in the
digester building.

House flies were the predominant insect breeding in compost. They
were limited to the top 2.5cm in the digesters because of temperature.
The optimum moisture content for house fly breeding was 75 perc^r.^. ■
to 14 percent of the eggs placed in compost at 45-55 percent moisture
(normal operating conditions) developed 'rnto pupae. Egg survival to
pupae decreased significantly when placed in refuse after 5-10 days of
compost ing.

P. cupr Ina males flew an average of 19,405.4 m and a maximum of
30,137 m when attached to a flight mill until death. Females flew an
average of 25,235.2 m and a maximum of 45,030 m.

Wild _P. cupr ina and M. comestica were marked and released 1 mi from
a. landfill and later recaptured at the landfill. An average of 10.17
percent of the wild P. cupr ina and 1.66 percent of wild K. domestica
released at the landfill on days followed by 24 hr without rain were
recaptured 24 hr after release. An average of 10.7 percent of the wild
_P. cupr ina released at the compost plant were recaptured in the same area
24 hr later. An average of 11.3 percent of 1 aboratory-reared P_. cup;- ina
released at the landfill were recaptured 24 hr later. Baited traps
surrounding the landfill recaptured only 2 flies after a total release
of 255,000 fl ies.

x .

-

The demands of our affluent society for more goods and coi
items such as r,o deposit and non-returnable materials, ult in tl
generation of waste products in gigantic proportions. As the a1 ze
and the population increase, the per capita and total amount of waste
increase proportionally. The disposal of these tremendous quantities
of wastes has primarily been an urban problem. Since the trend in the

ited States is toward urbanization the problems of refuse disposal
become increasingly more important. This becomes evident when it is
noted that in I960 the estimated median waste per capita per year in urban
areas was 1,430 pounds. This amounted to *, 80 billion pounds per year
and the cost of collecting and disposing of this refuse was more than
1.5 bill ion dollars (1).

To combat the rising problem of refuse disposal the "Solid Waste
Disposal Act" was enacted in 1965 to support a national program designed
to implement and evaluate more efficient methods of coping with the
solid waste problems. Under this act the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment awarded a contract to the Gainesville Municipal Waste Conversion

ority for the construction and operation of a refuse composting
facility. T.i^ purpose of this project was to "danonstrate the reliability,

ry and nu i
of a recc -rat

dispc:, ...

1

2
The primary objective cf composting is to dispose of refuse by
biological degradation of the organic mater ials. Modern scientific
composting prccecures which are employed in municipal disposal systems
involve the rapid partial decompos i of organic matter by the use
of aerobic microorganisms under controlled conditions (1). Municipal
composting is a fairly common practice in many European countries. It
is rarely used in the United States because land for refuse disposal was
available in close proximity to urban centers in the past. The
increasing demand for land provided the stimulus for municipalities
to seek a more acceptable form of refuse disposal. As late as .$p0,
there was little scientific information available on municipal composting
in the United States. Since then several universities and the United
States Public Health Service conducted studies that have as yet yielded
only a limited amount of practical information. The capital and operating
costs of composting are known to be higher than most other forms of
refuse disposal but the specific ecor.cmics involved in municipal com-
posting in the United States are practically unknown. The feasibility
of composting must be determined by the major advantage of composting,
the recycling of waste products. The sale of marketable compost and
salvageable goods would reduce the net cost and may result in a profit.

There are 2 general composting processes that appear to be the most
efficient and economical under U.S. conditions. The first is mechanical
digestion, a process in which refuse is sorted, ground, and mechanically
manipulated in order to shorten the biological degradation process. The
second method termed windro/.'ing involves the sorting, grinding, and
of refuse in windrows allowing the materia', to compost naturally,
compost plant constructed at Gainesville used the mechanical uigestion
process.

the P.-cbl cm

As with other scientific information concerning composting in the
U.S., little is known concerning insect prob] ems that may arise in this
type of operation. The original purpose of the present investigation was
to search out these problems, determine their magnitude, and suggest
possible solutions. Initial observations revealed that large numbers of
fly larvae entered the compost plant within the refuse. These larvae
seeking a suitable pupation site migrated from the refuse stored in the
refuse receiving building. These insects were aesthetically unpleasant
to the employees as the larvae were often crushed beneath their shoes and
sometimes crawled into the clothing of a resting employee. Many of the
immature insects eventually became adults and further tormented the
employees at the site by their constant presence whi 1 e others were reputed
to invade the surrounding community. Thus, the primary areas of this
investigation were as follows:

To identify the larvae entering the compost plant with the refuse
and to determine their magnitude and seasonal fluctuations.

To search out possible processing procedures which may reduce the
number of larvae migrating into the plant.

To evaluate mechanical and insect icidal control procedures to reduce
the larval populations.

To screen several commercial insecticides for their effectiveness
against the emerging adult flies.

To determine the density and seasonal fluctuations of the adult house
f] ies a1 :ompost plant.

k

To determine the extent and sane of the limiting factors of house
fly breeding in compost.

To determine the extent of fly cispersal from the compost pie
:o the surrounding community.

Laboratory studies were co.-.ducted at the USDA Insects Affec
Man and Animals Laboratory in Gainesville, Florida, and at tl >ity

of Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory. Field studies conducted at
compost plant were begun in June, 1968. Because of a lack of funds,
plant was closed on December 31, 1969, ar.c seme of the studies r.ot

expanded as the author had intended. Most c.r the dispersal studies v.
performed at the C'ty of Gainesville Sanitary Landfill curing the suit
of 1970.

Locrticn cf C c.r, post Plant

The compost plant was constructed on a 5-acre tract of land located
in southeast Gainesville at the city's sewage treatment complex. This
site was near a sewage treatment plant, an animal shelter, and an
abandoned dump.

A densely populated region of middle-income apartment complexes
inhabited primarily by University of Florida students and a lew-income
residential area were located in c'r.e immediate vicinity. A woodland area
buffered a middle- and high-income residential area located one-half
I e from the plant.

Operation of Comoost Plant

The floor pK he c post plant Is - .ted in Fig. 1 and .

general flow plan of the refuse 2. Refuse w

truck and dumped on oor of the receiving building (Fl .3).

refuse was then placed into a receiving hopper by a tractor modified wi

a front-end loader. The hopper (19-3 m "long, 3.6 m wide, , 6 i de

constituted the rear side of the building. An apron conveyor which

consisted of a series of overlapping or Interl :ron pans was

located at the bottom of this hopper. afuse was transported al

the conveyor onto an oscillating table. This table loosened the p<

rc.:„s^ in order to assure a unil flow. A sorting conveyor ccrried

the refuse from tr.e oscillating tab", e to a platform where 6 lcjo-^rs

manually removed sal vageable paper, cardboard, and large bulky items

(Fig. k) . The paper and cardboard were dropped into chutes which fed

t
into a baler and the bulky items were placed in chutes that emptied into

a dump truck which carried these materials to a landfill. The sorted

refuse then proceeded directly into a crusher-disintegrator grinding mill.

2
ground refuse discharged from the crusher averaged 7.6 cm but varied

in size depending upon the type and amount of material fed into the

machine (20).

Refuse passed from the first grinder into a second grinding unit which

2
reduced the particle size to approximately 5 cm . It was then discharged

from the bottom of the secondary grinder into mixing screws where '2 counter-
rotating ribbon-type screws, placed sid^ by side in a common trough,
blended tl terial with or sludge. /eyor ~~. . carried the

moistened refuse under a . ic separat, xjs

Hgestsr aeration blowers
tgiloadar v/ unload log shuttle conveyor
Vgl loader transfer car rails
Hgester unloading conveyor
tglloader transfer car
.(eg rind loading convayor

grind distributing screw convayor
tegrlnd sail feeder screw conveyors(2)
(•grind kills (2)
isgrlnd overflow screw coaveyor
tegrlnd discharge screw conveyor
Stockpiling belt conveyor
Itorsge building w/truck loading reap
<avstory and showers
tlectrleal swltchgear rooa

(

Fig

«TOtu t>li_»

Fig. 1. Floor plan of Gainesville municipal compost plant (20),

Fig. 2. Refuse flow plan of Gainesville compost plant (20)

Fig. 3. Receiving building filled with refuse.

Fig. k. Sorting conveyor carries refuse to sorting platform.

metals and tl • onto the 1 ei ndc the

... of .r.e digesters. A shuttle conveyor, w . travelled en a pair of
steel rails between the digesters discharged the refuse into these ur.!;s.
The digesto.-s or digesting tanks were 2 concrete troughs S9 m long,
6 m wide, and 2.7 m deep (Fig. 5). The digester walls were constructed of
concrete blocks and tne floor was converted with perforated galvanized
steel places. These plates were above an air plenum into which air was dis-
charged by a centrifugal low pressure fan. River gravel approximately
0.6 cm in diameter covered the perforated plates to a depth of 7-10 cm.
This enabled the air to diffuse evenly through the small slots over the
entire floor of the tank. The refuse was placed in the digesters to a
depth of 1.8-2.4 m and allowed to compost for approximately 6 days (20).
(In this investigation "compost" refers to refuse that has remained in
the cigesters for a period greater than 24 hours.)

Removal of the compost was accomplished by a machine called the
Agi-Loader (Metro-Waste Patent No. 3,294,451). This machine removed the
>OSt and deposited it back onto the tripper conveyor. A system of

conveyor belts transported the compost to a final grinding mill. A finely

2
grOo eriai approximately 1 cm was discharged from this grinder and

was transported by conveyor to an outdoor storage area (Fig. 6).

es

uS species of flies present at ^..e compost plant were
n house fly, Musca don-est'ea Linnaeus, (.-.cscidae, Diptera), and
greenbottle blow fly, _ „_^_ li _ [Shannon), (Call Iphorldae,

- ^ ," O J »

10

Fig. 5. Composting takes place in concrete digesters,

Fig. 6. The finished product is discharged to outdoor st

orage areas,

The house fly has been incriminated as a carrier of numerous diseases
of man and animals including typhoid fever, cholera, and amoebic dysentary
(27, 82); however, these claims have been supported only by circumstantial
evidence. House fly associations with diseases need further c. i cat ion

as experimental evidence Is s:irsc and contamination of house flies between
caged mates has been shewn to be sporadic (l

Greenbottle blow flies may be domestic nuisances or carry disease
organisms, but in this capacity they are far less important tnan other
flies. However, the damage ere suffering which the larvae inflict upon
domestic animals in some stock-raising areas is of tr« us consequence.

In Australia, this fly Is by far the most important species in fly strike
or cutaneous myiasis of sheep (44, 69). Fly strike is a condition produced
by the development of blow fly larvae on living sheep which may lead to
death or a considerable loss of wool. This is a formidable problem in
Australia and amounts to an annual loss of 4,000,000 pounds to sheep
raisers (44, 6S) .

The common house fly is well established as Musca domes tie;. Linnaeus
but the systematics of the greenbottle blow fly are somewhat confused.
Australian authors refer to this fly as Lucil ia cupr Ina (Wiedemann) . Hall
(26) compared specimens from the United States and Australia and concluded
they were not the same species. He described the American species as a
new combination, _P. pal 1 escenes (Shannon). Waterhouse and Paramonov (80)
later examined numerous specimens from Texas, New York, New Orleans,
Washington, and Australia and concluded that there was no difference in
species, but a definite pair of subsp^. ,. James (2S) concurred in this
vie.-/. Hall later in Stone il . (78) m£ ned h i i -ion of ?,

12

— s_ (Shannon) but recognized the works of Watcrhouse and

aut or uses the species name frcn Waterhouse and Paramonov
since their work appeared to be more cc. ..sive than that of Hall.

SECTION :

FLY LARVAL MIC. FROM REFUSE

The major source of fly Infestation appeared to be from introdi
of larvae i the collected refuse and not from breeding at the co
plant. Fly larvae that were br , In refuse containers throughcn t the
city were brought to I post plant with the refuse. This infested
refuse was stored awaiting processing in the receiving area. Many
the larvae were mature and the i.^coc stimulus of the disruptive transfer
to the plant caused them to actively seek a pupation site (Figs. 7 and 8).
Seme of these larvae migrated Into the working areas where they annoyed
the employees while others reached protective areas where they metamorphosed
to adults. Such occurrences were not unique to the compost plant. Large
numbers of larvae may escape to pupation sites during the handling,
transferring, or processing of 1 arvae- infested refuse. Green and Kane (23)
found that 7200 larvae/hr/per car were escaping from railroad cars awaiting
dispatch to c rural disposal area.

The infestation of refuse by larvae in the Gainesville area was
anticipated because in a southern California city, with a climate similar
to that of Gainesville, Ecke _et aj_. (18) reported that residential refuse
containers can have -s many as 50, GOG . e per c» itainei ovei a 10-week
These larv "t feed .

13

\k

Fig. 7. Fly larvae and pupae under receiving hopper.

Fig. 8. Fly larvae migrating from refuse to pupation sites under wall
of receiving building.

15
to pupate in the soil and later emerged as adults. During the hot summer
months it was reported that the feeding period was completed in k days
(79). This observation led to the recommendation and subsequent adoption
of a twice-weekly refuse collection system for several California cities
(17, 79).

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the species of the
larvae escaping into pupation sites at the plant, to determine the
magnitude and the seasonal fluctuations of this massive influx of insects,
and to search out possible processing procedures which would reduce the
total number of escaping insects.

Methods

Seasonal Fluctuations

Visual observations indicated that the majority of the larvae escaping
from the refuse were confined to the partially enclosed area under the
apron conveyor. The larvae reached this area either by crawling through
the openings between the metal pans of the conveyor or by falling through
the opening between the floor of the receiving building and the edge of
the receiving hopper. To determine the species present and the seasonal
fluctuations of the larvae entering the plant, a trap was placed in this

area. This trap was similar in function to that descr ibed by Roth (58) and

2
consisted of a 30.^*8 cm plywood box.. It was abutted to the wall under

the apron conveyor so that larvae falling through the opening between the

hopper and the floor would be trapped in the box. The trap was operated

from January 12 to December 31, 1969.

The trap was checked daily and the number of larvae recorded. A
minimum of one sample catch per week was preserved in alcohol for identi-
fication.
Pope ' tor

It was desired that the larval population trapped in the se-
fluctuation survey be used to estimate the total number of larvae e_
into the plant. To accomplish this it was necessary to c
total number of larvae that entered the plant, the percentage
larvae trapped, and the reliability of the trapping proced.

The total number of larvae entering the plant wol'.c
figure to accurately define. Since the majority of the larvae migrat
under the apror, conveyor it was used to deter.. ire the total number of
larvae in that area and to determine the reliability.

The larval population under the apron conveyor was determined by
sweeping the area for a 10-day period beginnir _. st 29, 1969. These
sweepings, which included the debris and larvae that had fallen during
the previous 2k hr, were placed into a 55-gallon (208 1) drum. The drum

its contents were weighed, sealed, and thoroughly mixed by rolling
on the floor for several minutes. Immediately a volume of approximately
0.5 1 was removed and weighed on a laboratory balance (Ohaus, Union, i\.J.) .
The larvae in the sail countec and the total number of larvae in
the drum or under the apron conveyor was calcula.

To deterr.-;..^. the precision of the above method, a sample of approxi-
mately 0.5 ] was r I, copied, and replaced ir. the drum. The

-are was rep: ica.
•
in A

• 7

ffects of Clearinc ing Building Dally of Refuse

It was standard operating procedure that a sufficient amount of
refuse remain in the receiving building overnight so that operations
could begin the following morning and proceed without interruption until
the trucks began delivering refuse. To determine the number of larvae
escaping into the compost plant as a direct result of this proc t< re,
the area under the apron conveyor was swept twice daily; once at 7-"00 z.
before daily operations began, and again at c : ". 5 F - :'le

plant closed. This was repeated for 6 consecutive days during September,
1969. The larvae collected were enumerated as described previously.

Result and Discussion

Seasonal Fluctuations

The results of a larval sampling program to determine the species
present and seasonal fluctuations of the larvae escaping into the compost
plant are shown in Fig. 9 and Appendix 2. These data show that relatively
few larvae were captured during January, February, and March. The catch
'..-.creased in April while a consistently high number of larvae were trapped
from June to mid-October. The number c'ecl ined throughout November and
larvae became relatively scarce in December.

Phoenicia cuprina was the predominant fly species collected in this
survey. Table 1 shows that greater than 97 percent of the captured larvae
were _P. cuor ina. One percent were M. devest ica while the remainder were
comprised of Cochl ic.ry ia a_rla ! ' 1 1 ucens (Linnaeus),

•Ibut i on of ... ose

reported by other 1 .95

18

or'"

ID
CO

>

CO

O
CM

C
ro

x:

1/1
0

t

O

a.

§

1

u

h

(U

^

■—

ibo

>

c'

o

l/I
V

c
co

<

•—

C3

!

+j

r

CO

s

cr\ o

l_

0)

Q.

Isi

1_

r^ co

O

-a-

V

x-j

>
c

o

o

F

o

c
o

l_

oo

a.

— ->

(/)

CO

LA

.*

i_

fM

<u

CD

a)

XI

•

5

c

o

J" I

CT\

3

ci

vO

+J

LTV

CO

CPl

-C

If—"

~—

CTI

3

<U

-* X

CO

c

1

O

3
-5

1 CM

<u

CO

U1

i |

>

l_

1 %Q <

i_

•—

CO

CO

t

— <T\

Q-

C

C^l

MD

V

CM

^CTi

I-

PM 1—

£T> 2:

4-

CT1

<4- C

1_

o

>4-

sp

O —

1_

TJ

SU

1- 3

0)
•0

li.

XI

o

Ko

(' CNI

e ■m

3 C

o

,»

Z CO

4 1

w—

*->

CM -}

a.

c

:

•
en

CO

ex

CT)

vO

CM

(0001 x)

JoAaAuoo uojde jspun paddej} 3eAje[ A[± ±o JaquunN

19

Table 1. Percent abundance of species of fly larvae trapped under apron
conveyor during 1969.

Spec ies

Percent of total number of
larvae examined per week

Max imum

M in [mum

Average

100

90.

5

97.2

6.4

0

1.0

6.0

0

.7

4.7

0

.7

4.7

0

.6

<.01

0

-

Phaenicia cuDrina

Musca doTiest ica
Cochl ioTiy ia macel 1 aria
Sarcophaga spp.
Hermet ia il 1 ucens
Others

percent of all larvae collected from residential refuse containers in
southern California (28, 18, 79). It was also the principal blow fly
found in garbage in Orlando, Florida (31). Green and Kane (23) reported
Phaenic ia was the predominant genus occurring in London during the summer.
Population Factor

Table 2 gives the calculated number of larvae collected per day under
the apron conveyor and the percent trapped in the larval sampling program
for that same day. These data indicate that an average of 0.99 or approxi-
mately 1 percent of the larvae under the conveyor were caught in the trap.
The variance of 0.04 for these results indicates consistency.

Larval movement into the plant was not limited to the area under the
apron conveyor as migration from a pile of refuse could be expected to
occur randomly in all directions. Larvae migrating from the refuse in the
receiving building in an easterly direction found harborage behind a
wooden retaining wall. This was approximately 1 m from the outer wall of

20

TO
>

o

-O

E

3
C

X>

TO

Q.

O

>^

o
>
c
o
o

c
o

l_
Q.
TO

<L>
X>

c

3

Xt
<D

+■>
O

o
o

o

(0 •

> >•

l- TO
TO XI

<0

u- E

O TO
I/)
l_

O O

JQ JZ

E +J

C XI

o

■— Q.

to q.

4-> TO
O L-

V

TO

4J XI

c <u

o c

<J Q.

I- TO

<D L.

0)

(0 XI

> <u

U CL

TO Q.

— ID

O X)

TO 0)

> +->

1- O

TO 0)

. O
O O

a> —

TO O-

> E

1- TO

TO i/l

_ I —
■4" —

■J CA
OO 00

-3"
-3"

oo oo —

O rA

O

'q-'e
S3

to

ca
ca

C7I
TO

l_
<D

>
<

i — n 4 vD
CO LTV — oo

j- -3- — ca

r-»

CA
CM

CNJ

o

co

rA

CM

— O -3"

- m a\

-3" -3" CM

O O O
O O O

_ cm la

o
o

LA

o

CO
CA

o o — — o

LTv O rA LA O
CM .— I — 00 v£>

-3" oo ca ca r»» o
ca ca — o vo r^

CM

LA LA
rA -3"

ca

— vO O CM

J- r-^ O -3"

N vO LA CO

— CM — rA

LA rA rA 00 vO CA

LA r~» CA LA CA f —

CO 00 CA I — [■*■■ CA

vO -3" — — — rA

vO -3" O CM vO CA

r» ca o -3- r»» o

CA 00 CM vO O O

ca CM .— LA

r»» vo — oo
SO 00 vO oo

1/1

en

c

•"■ ^— v

D. cn

a ^

o

o

00

-3"

r-»

LA

CO

-3"

rA

CM

o — -

5

CA

r-~

»—

00

o

-3"

CA

r^

vO

CM

in

—

CM

1 —

—

—

1 —

•~

CM

21
the building and extended the length of the receiving area. It was
difficult to sample this area and the larval population was an approxima-
tion based on visual observation. It was estimated that the number of
larvae escaping behind the east wall was approximately one-third of those
escaping under the apron conveyor for any given day.

The construction of the receiving area and the practice of handling
the refuse greatly reduced larval survival in other directions. Refuse
was deposited toward the east wall and as it was moved into the hopper
from east to west by the front-end loader, those larvae migrating in a
westerly direction were scraped into the receiving hopper. Northerly
migration resulted in little survival since the ramp and paved areas
provided no protected areas for pupation.

Combining the estimates that two-thirds of the larvae migrating into
the plant enter the area under the apron conveyor and 1 percent of these
are trapped results in a population factor of 133. This factor may be
multiplied by the daily larval catch to give an approximation of the
number of insects migrating from the refuse into the protected areas of
the plant. For example, Appendix 2 shows that 6116 larvae were trapped
the week of September 7, 1969. Multiplication by 133 gives an approximation
of 813, ^+28 larvae entering the plant during that one-week period.
Effect of Clearing Receiving Building Daily

Larvae collected under the apron conveyor during plant operation
were compared to collections in the same area during off hours. The results
are given in Table 3 and indicate that an average of 38.5 percent of the
larvae escaping into the compost plant migrated from piles of refuse
remaining in the receiving building after the plant was shut down for the

22

o

XI

E

3
C

<13

Q.

o

>.

o

>

c

0

u

c

0

i_

a

rg

u

<u

■o

c

3

•

>»

— i

rg

£

"O

C>

• —

L.

C

O

C~

a

_z

—

+->

o

— '

en

U

c

j

• —

- —

l_

.—

3

0

"O

u

ra

o

o

IS

u

>

Q

L.

ra

C)

i —

E

m

i—

i/i

o

o

i_

x:

CJ

— <

-Q

E

c

3

■—

C

— •

—

-^

(3

C">

—<

3

0

(0

1-

u

•

m

u

—

ra

u

TO

o

rg

4-1

o

(0

•a

(0 u

0)

ra x;

> <u

i_ *->

ra o

O O

z o

0)

E

in
C71

C

Q. CD
O ^

<y ^"

2

00

vo

-a-

ra

CO

ra

cm

ra

CM

O
00
0"\

O

la

CM

o
o

o

CM

fa

o
o
CTl

o
o

la

00*

en

ra
i_
o
>
<

i —

O

CM

LA

-3"

00

oo
oo

o o
oo o

— 00

o o

O ^A

r- la

o o
o o

LA vO

o o

O CM

i-»-vo

o o
o o

-3" LA

o o
o o

CM 0O

vD —
ra ra

cm r^

J" CM

O -3"
ra —

-3" -3"
-3" ra

ra la
vO CM

Q Z

o z

o z

a z

u

u

ra

»—

O CM

00 —

-3" —

00 LA

M0 -3"

cm -3-

>

o.

o —

o r>.

CTvvO

— cr\

LA —

0"\ ra

i_

F

-3" ve-

LA C7\

r*. en

ra 0"\

-3" CT\

cnoo

rg

ra

ra ra

CM CM

■

1 —

— CM

w— CM

O ^-.

— E

O- en

LA —

MO ra

O ra

CM o

— ra

CM CM

E ^

CM LA

m0 -3"

M0 r—

CM -3"

— 00

O CO

ra

r-» ra

vO ra

ra ra

r^ —

VO CM

MD cm

to

CMLALACOLALA la LAvOr*-

CM a\ ra— enco OO VO rara OLA

r~^ CM — ra

r-^ — .

vO

m0 ra

en cm

F

E

Bl

ra

LA

o

rm

o

SO

I**

-

F

."J

^_

o

m

o

• —

• •

• •

l-^MD

II

y

Q Z

23
day. It is obvious from these results that not storing refuse overnight

would reduce the number of larvae entering the plant by more than 35

percent and decrease the ensuing adult population.

The value of clearing the refuse from the receiving area daily was
further demonstrated by observing the large numbers of larvae along the
eastern edge of the approach ramp. When refuse remained on the approach
ramp for several days numerous larvae migrated from the refuse and fell
to the pavement below. On several occasions when this occurred fly larvae
were so numerous that the pavement along the edge of the ramp appeared
white. On one such occasion the pavement was swept clean and the larvae
collected 12 hr later. Their number was estimated to be 30,000 or 60,000
per cay migrating from the ramp (Fig. 10 and 11).
^dult Development from Larvae

The majority of the larvae that migrated from the refuse were mature
and thus required only a suitable pupation site to develop into adults.
This was demonstrated by placing i 00 larvae collected under the apron
conveyor into waxed paper cups (0.946 1). Twenty-five gm of refuse debris
collected from the same area were added to one-half of the cups. The cups
were covered with cloth, secured with a rubber band, and placed under the apron
conveyor. Ten. days later the number of adult flies that had emerged were
counted. Nine replicates of each test gave an average of 65.3 percent
adult emergence from the cups to which only larvae had been added, and an
average of 88.8 percent adult emergence from the cups with debris added.

Generally there was a considerable amount of debris under the apron
conveyor and behind the east retaining wall, the main areas of larval
infestation. It was concluded that most of the escaping larvae reached

Ik

Fig. 10. Eastern edge of apporach ramp.

Fig. 11. Fly larvae along base of eastern wall of approach ramp.

25
adequate pupation sites and close to 88.8 percent adult eiiergence was
expected. Extending the previous example given for the week of
September 7, 1969, an approximation of 733,313 adult flies could be
expected to emerge within 10 days as a result of larval migration from
the refuse.
Survival of Larvae Through Grinding Mills

Approximately 10,000 mature house fly' 1 arvae were passed through
the secondary grinder in May, 1969. The primary grinder was not in
operation at that time because of equipment failure. Nine live larvae
were recovered in the discharged refuse. In July, 1969, 10,000 mature
house fly larvae were passed through the recently installed primary
grinder. No surviving larvae were found in the discharged refuse.

SECTION I I
CONTROL OF BLOW FLIES

Studies were initiated in June, 1969, to evaluate several procedures
such as mechanical control and insecticide baits, fogs, and residues for
the control of blow flies emerging from the incoming refuse. The
effectiveness of a control measure was determined by the reduction of
flies caught in two baited traps located behind the receiving building.
These investigations were terminated in October with the advent of
cool er weather.

Bl ow Fly Traps

A suitable method to estimate changes in the number of flies was
needed to evaluate the various control procedures. Sticky tapes were
ineffective because the large amount of dust created in the receiving
area rapidly coated the adhes ive mater ial . Grill counting was ineffective
because the counts varied with hourly density fluctuations and positive
species ident if icat ion was nearly impossible (42, 45).

Norris (45) reported that bait trapping was the only generally
useful method available to study blow fly populations and that the bait
employed was the most important variable. He reported that animal tissue
was the best for blow flies, being mere reliable than some of the more

26

27
recently developed synthetic attractan:s (14, 45). However carrion is
not a uniform bait. Its attractiveness varies with age, moisture, and
decomposition (42). Kawai and Suenaga (30) found that fish 1 -day-old
was the most attractive to b". '. es.

The traps si For use compost plant were two 3C x IZ .%
54 cm inverted cone traps. fere baited with 1-day-olc
acquired locally. " ^sa of each trap was enclosed by 0.5 cm screen
wire to prevent small ar.imals from stealing the bait. These traps e
shown in F ig. 1 2. ,

The traps were place : . the pavement behind the receiving area,
see FIgs.l and 13. The flies were collected from the traps daily by
placing the trap and 13 ml of ethyl acetate into a plastic bag. After
the flies were anesthetized, they were removed and placed Into a small
plastic bag. The catches were then transported to the laboratory For
counting and identification.

Table 4 gives the identification of flies caught in 15 different
daily catcnes. This shews that 89 percent of the flies trapped were

-"icia spp., 6.8 percent were Musca domestica, 3.7 percent were
Cochliomyia macellaria, and 0.5 percent Sar'coohag \ spp. These figures
are close to those percen .ages recorded in Table 1 which gives the
relative abundance of the various species of larvae entering the plant
from the refuse. The differences that occur may be the result of the

.ping method employed, different survival rates of the species
involved, or immigration of adults from surrounding areas.

28

Fig. 12. Cone trap baited with 1-day-old fish heads to sample fly
populations at compost plant.

Fig. 13. Rear view of receiving building showing receiving
hopper and pavement behind building.

29

Table k. Sex, species, and abur.de.nca (%) cf flies caught in cone tr:

b^ited with 1-day old fish heads at Gainesville compost plant.

. ; i es

Phaer, ?c :a spp.
^usca domes tica
Cochl iomy'a macel la~ra
Sarcophaga spp.

-

39.0
6.8

.

% Femal

10.4

.

1.7

93.3

55.2

- .

0.0

IOC .

Mean of 15- day catches taken at random.

Field tests

ethods

Severe, adult fly control procedures were evaluated to cetermine

their effectiveness and cost of application during the summer of 1 969.

The effectiveness of the control procedures was determined by comparing

the number of flies caught per day in baited traps during the treatment

period to the number of flies caught during a prior period of no treat-
s-
men t. The duration of pre-treatment control sampling was 7 days and

subsequent control periocs were 3 days. Treatment and control periods

were alternated c.nc followed chronologically in the order presented in

Taole 5, beginning July 14, Four ays elapsed between a

treatment and the following control peri

The control procedures are described as follows:

. t al ■ (31) "n studies t dumps found that

trichlorfon I ^ave gc . BaiK

ported iits controlled house flies.

30

•_

0

-J

•~

c

0

£

id

in

ID

l/l

•

—

— 1

ID

c

u

ID

-C

|M

a.

-Z

l/l

— <

• —

l/>

*t-

O

a

£

p

w

0

•—

u

2

o

—

. —

fi

—

■4-J

• —

•—

>

id

in

.0

U

c

l/l

•—

a

Q

<o

O

L.

+J

0

£

o

w

c

o

■>->

o

ID

o

Li

c
o

o

c

.5 j

>~

,_

n;

L_

XI

— 1

i_

.

o

3

CL-O

ID

.->

jC

. —

~

0

3

l_

n

w

u

C

0

i/>

u

u

—

o

—

-4-J

u-

in

>—

o

0

u

3

L.

T,

O

u

X,

u

E

O

3

i_

Z

a

•

~-\

4)

—

-3

ID

.C

cn

3
<D
U

l/l

— Q

— XI

o

a.

o
a>

2

<D
Q

CMcnrvlJ-vOvDvOO— CO -3"

\0

pa — O pa — • — pa CO — la vO

a

3

mo la co r^ pa • — Ln^ivifloo

LA LA O vO LA MD I — .CT\ (^' — 00
CO O CT\ VO PA O I 3" -3" i^iCTi

rA
CO

o

II

IX

c
o

-Z

—

o-.

ID

3

-Q

Q

U

l/l

en

O

>

3

• —

a;

oo

i —

"a

*—

L.

u-

O

o

C~

u

ID
O

r-»\o -X

<T\ .— LA
.— PA CA
_ CM —

CN

Co

D

x

CO

iao\o - n cA-3-LAvor-~cocr\o.— cm

— — CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMpAPAPA

-3" -3- la r-- — O LA

O LA LA CTl P~ LA LA

J- la co vo -? r^ en

VO

CO la la vO — O r»»

r>> r^co cn-3- en o

— CO CM la O -S- —

PA
LA

VO

II
|x

pa vo co en o vo -3"

-T en *o rsin ltipj

pa r-» cnj en o -3- co

CM CM CM f— PA

cn

LA

cn

ii
|x

pA-TLAvor^cocno — cmpa-3"

X>

<u

VI

3

O
2

i/i

<D

i_

3
XI

c
o
o

o

c

c
o

s

fD

x>

o
a.

x;
cn

3
(D
U

in

o

E
3

<D
XI

l/l

(0
X)

XI

CL
CL
ID

E

i_
ID
cn
3
l/l

l/l
O
>

o

-C

u

E
cn

o
o

-4-

10
XI

a

in

O
>.

o
>

c
o
o

c
o

l_
o.

(0

o

XI

c

3

(D
0)

u

<

c
E

o

a)

i_

3
XI

o
u
o

c
o
>

cn

x:

o

X3

o

cn

3

m
u

in

a)

J3

E

3
C

C
ID
0)

E
o

c
o
in

o
i_
Q.

i/)

o

3

<D
>

C
(D
0)

i I

c
o
o

—

Q

O

f)

U

>~

• —

<z

. —

■a

<+-

_

V -

tu

D

_

o

•

.

r-

>-J

z:

c
o
o

i — ur\ mj\ r^i-;- o cm

z> ^oco r-- r-^ o -a
.-^vd i^«.Ko vo — —

co

a.

LA \~>

II

5^

c

o

o

-J

JZ

q

.a

z,

CD

4J

o

. —

CO

to

s

a>

3
C

O

LA

CO

l_

u

c

o"\ o~\

LA
I

I — — cm cv^i -3-

-3" LA Lf\ LA LA -A LA

ex co o —

ISCO (TiO
LA LA LA \0

CO CD .-v-i r- CO C7\

CO C\ CM \D fv-.

NVO \0 CN. _ y£) _q-

■a

O -C - IAIN I — [*-. —

O . 3" -i" VO 0\ — rr\

CALAvO CM -3" LAOICO

*~ II

IX

— r-. is

— (

INIV^.O

- -•-

<A <v\ <v. . f. __- __- ^.- J- ^] -

CA

LA

1/1

>~

(0

"o

-

o

!_

CD

v._

cn

•—

2

•

S

•^

• —

L.

o

•—

-3

CO

CO

O

10

CD

(0

>-

1 —

. —

-3

- —

'

■a

t_

■o

^

o

.—

CD

r— —

-

r—

CL

■(->

CD

—

s

*k

(—

—

O

O

•—

•—

4->

, —

D

o_

Q.

"o

CO

in

*—

■i-j

•

■ —

o

TO

E

1 —

a)

^

3

LA

4-

ex

CM

{2

■—

•

O

to

z

O

>

c

O

i —

f—

.c

o

<_>

•—

•_

(—

XI

■i-l

c

*sP

<D

o

<4-

«

■ —

o

•

o

LA

,

<4-

E

o .

LA

— LA

o

CNI

— --

^

4-

32

c
o
o

z

ra

■*->

r

£

0

en

—

3

i_

<D

CO

u

o

U1

■J H

.- CO

— X

VI-

L.

M_ (1)

o a,

o

c
c
o

Q

C

o

J)

o

4-1

— 1

-C

o

CD

0

3

.c

(D

~->

U

01

b

in

—

4) >■

Q

x
o

C

c
o

o

—

ID

<z
—

u
o
a

CO
O

vO — O -3" -3" O CO

LO J- CM CO -^ LT\ co
CM LA — -3" CO -3" CM

\£> CO • — -3" CTi — O
in LA Lf\ co -3" CO 0"\

ovon p- en r» o

I NOO(n
r>» r-~ — — .
vO — -3" -3"

II

CO

vO — CM po -3" LA vO I — oo en o
r-»cooocococococococo en

LAcoCTvOLTicocoCrvvDcoO —

oocnr^cn^r-»co-3-oooi-r\o
o^cncncncx\cncnco en r~ la co

co co r^ oo -3- en cm r-~ o ,>o <— vo
cm — co — mo-3--— oor-^cn— lt\

— CM — COCO CM

r»» en — icn
co — -3" en
j- r-~ n [s

ii
|x

— cm r^-j lao nco a\o — <*m co-3"in

vO vO vO vD vjj vi) vO M3 vj c^ r"». r>- P"- r»» r»»

en

c

o
u

o

c

CJ

u
ra
— I
XI
CO

10
Q

o

;/)

CO
fO

1_

en

o

CM

en

CM

o
co
ra

en

o

co

1_

CO

CO

■a

>-

■M

ra

ra

X

^>

c

O

•

o

•—

CO

. —

VO

X

Q.

0)

a.

>-

•—

ra

<D

^—

XI

a.

c

o.

o

c

ro

• —

o

~J

c

3

c

o

. —

o

•—

0

•—

— <

1/1

— »

D

ra

.—

J

o

o

— <

•—

to

ra

|M

0

Q.

ro

.^

Cl

C

—i

ra

o

o

X

0)

l_

c

CO

X

o

CJ

.

o

en

O

—

c

—

71

•—

-C

X

^~

•—

3

5

33
Fly Bait, a 0.5 percent dichlorvos sugar bait obtained commercial 1 y from
the Fasco Chemical Co., was used prior to this investigation to control
the fl ies at the compost plant. This bait was evaluated when appl ied
at a rate of 400 gm per day. The bait was distributed along the conveyor
belt system for a 7-day period beginning on day 8 of Table 5.

Sweeping to remove larvae. — The area under the apron conveyor has
previously been shown to contain the majority of the larvae migrating
into the compost plant. To determine the effect of collecting and
removing these larvae on the total number of adult flies, this area
was swept daily for 15 days.

Malt bait. — Malathion, diazinon, chlorthion, and dichlorvos in
malt or molasses were reported to be highly effective liquid baits for
blow fly control around dumps (76, 31, 34). A dichlorvos and malt
solution was used to determine the value of liquid baits for the control
of flies at the compost plant. Blue Ribbon malt was diluted with
distilled water to form a 25 percent malt solution. Technical grade
dichlorvos was added to produce a 1 percent dichlorvos solution which
was stored at 4 C until used. Fifty ml of this solution were applied
daily to each of 4 locations along the conveyor belt system for a 7-day
period beginning on day 40.

Fogg ing. — Fogging is not a highly recommended procedure for
effective control of flies since fogging leaves no residue and a high
concentration is necessary to kill flies. However, the effectiveness of
fogging was evaluated since it was used to control flies at the Tennessee
Val ley Author ity compost plant in Johnson City, Tennessee (6l).

It was observed that the adult blow flies, predominantly Phaenicia
(Table 6), left the building at dusk and roosted in the grass immed iatel y

Table 6. - -ies, and . ght by

In grass i
pi ant.

i
Spec f 1 ies

a.

Cau

ng day

Phaenicia «

95. 2

43.1

56.

i ca

4.3

.2

67.2

b.

Cai

at night

1 1 c i a s

99.7

-J

5".

-

.3

-.7

.

Mean ^.r ten s ..pies taken by five sweeps of net.

surrounding the plant. These areas were fogged at S:00 pm on day 53,
54, and 55 (Table 5) wren a 5 percent fenthion in No. 2 fuel oil solution
distributed by a portable hot-air swing fogger. This insect icide was
selected because of availability and --cause a 5 percent fenthion solution
killed 97 percent of the caged e flies 50 m from a moving fogger (4).

Residual sprays. -- Contact and residual sprays are the most often
recommended methods of controlling flies. These sprays are most effect,
when applied to feeding areas and night-time resting places such as
shrubs and plants in the --.."ro^.-.ding area (34, 76).

Dimethoate gave the best control of house flies in Fiorida dairy b.
when applied at a rate of 2 gm (Al)/r.i (5, 9, 10). A 10 percent dimethoate

I) cc

2
p r es

sur.

Gardona, (2-chl oro-l-2[2,4,5-tr ichl orophenyl J vinyl dimethyl
phosphate), a house fly larvicide, was provided by Dr. G. C. LaBrecque,
USDA Gainesville laboratory. A 10 percent Gardona in water solution
was applied on day 83 in the same manner as described for dimethoate.
Resul ts

The results of the field tests are presented in Table 5.

Sugar bait. -- Daily application of a 0.5 percent dichlorvos sugar
bait red-jced the number of flies trapped by an average of 66.7 percent
when compared to a previous 7-day period of no treatment. This control
procedure cost about $3.00 plus 0.5 man-hr per 6-day workweek.

Sweeping to remove larvae. — The area under the apron conveyor
was swept daily to remove the larvae before they developed into adults.
An average of 40.6 percent reduction in the number of flies was noted
when compared to a previous 3-day control period. This reduction is
considered to be a minimal value. It was significantly lower than
expected since previous estimates indicated that 67 percent of the
larvae that migrated into the plant escaped under the apron conveyor.
The difference between the observed and predicted reduction may have been
influenced by the short test period. Since the larvae entering the plant
required 8-10 days to become adults the 15-day study period may not have
been long enough to ascertain the true results of cleaning the area.
Regular cleaning over a longer period should reduce the adult flies by a
factor approaching the percentage of larvae escaping into the area.

A second factor influencing these results was the operation of the
plant during the test period. Mechanical problems prevented regular
operation of the plant and refuse remained in the receiving area for

36
several days. This resulted in larval migration patterns differing
from those encountered under normal conditions.

Since the larvae entering the plant required 8-10 days to become
adults it is reasonable to assume that cleaning the area once a week
would produce the same results as daily cleaning at a reduced cost. The
effects of cleaning over a long period were not investigated.

The area under the apron conveyor could be cleaned once a week at
a cost of about 4 man-hr.

Mai t bai t. — A 51.2 percent reduction in the number of flies was
observed over a 7-day period with the application of a dichlorvos malt
solution. This bait was found to have several disadvantages; (1) it is
not available commercially, (2) it must be stored under refrigeration,
(3) it costs more and was less effective than dry sugar bait, and
(k) its syrupy consistency made it inconvenient to use.

Fogg ing. -- The grassy areas of the compost were fogged for 3
consecutive nights producing an average reduction of 68.9 percent of
the number of flies trapped on the following 3 days. The effects of
fogging were minimal after 1 day as shown by the post treatment counts
in Table 5. Thus, an effective control program would include a minimum
of 3 foggings per week. This would cost $15.00 plus 3 man-hr per week.

To determine if this fogging procedure was effective on _P. cupr ina,
100 adults were caught at night by a sweep net at the compost plant and
placed in a gauze cage. The cage was placed in the center of the grass
hill during the fogging operation. After the area was treated the flies
were transferred to a clean cage provided with fly food and water and
held for 2k hr. A control cage was set up and the fly r,,orta', ity obsc ved

37
in each. This procedure was 'or e3ch treatment. An average

of 97.2 percent of the treated flies were c„ad after 24 hr v-.h i 1 e 6.1
percent mortality was observed in the control cages.

Res idua js. —As :ion of dimethoate gave better

control - e Flies for 1 week and remained e . :tive

for 10 days as sho.;n in Table 5. The cost of one appl ication was
approximately $7. CO plus 0.5 man-hr.

dona was ineffective as a rc^'dual spray for the control of
blow flies as shown in Table 5.

!_arv icides. — Green (22) demonstrated that 99. 1 percent of the
larvae escaping from standing refuse trains could be controlled by dusting
the area twice weekly with DDT. However, the application of a larvicide
under the apron conveyor to control blew flies was not attempted because
'.arge amount of debris falling daily ir.to this area. The effects
of the 1 arv'cide would be short-lived since incoming larvae probabl y would
not be exposed after 24 hr.

Rear inc 51 ow Fl ies

Methods

To screen Insecticides in the laboratory for their effectiveness
against _P. cu. .- " ,- it w« , first necessary to find a suitable rearing
medium so large rs would be available. _P. cupr in a are easily reared

the laboratory on a die . ^caying meat but this medium is odoriferous

and also ex pens i\ ibers of flies ere required.

t i-
gat ion was stai

38

substituted for meat. Two series of tests were carried out which varied
the amount and kinds of test media used. In the first series the. test
medium was placed in waxed paper cups (88.8 ml) with 200 _P. cupr ina eggs
collected from wild flies captured at the Gainesv i 1 le landfill. Each
cup was then placed in a waxed paper cup (0.9^+6 1) containing approximately
20 gm of dry builders sand. The larger cup was then covered with a
black cloth and secured with rubber bands. Eight days later the mature
larvae had pupated in the sand and the pupae were removed from the
medium by sifting the sand through an 18-mesh sieve. The pupae were
counted and the number recorded. One hundred of these pupae were randomly
selected, washed, dried on paper towels, end weighed on a laboratory balance
(Mettler, Evanston, Illinois) to determine differences In the size of the
pupae reared on the various test media. Six replicates were prepared
for each med ium.

The media tested included the following: lean ground beef; Alpo,
an all meat dog food; Chunx, a dry dog food; Strongheart, a canned grain
base dog food; and Chemical Specialist Manufactures Association house
fly rearing medium (CSMA) . Various amounts and combinations of these
media were used as shown in Table 7. Meat was added to several test
media because _P. serr icata was reared on CSMA fly rearing medium when
provided with sufficient meat for the larvae to develop to second
instars (35).

In the second series of teits 1 ml or approximately 6,500 P. cupr ina
eggs collected from wild fl ies were placed with the test medium into
k x IS x 30 cm enamel trays. Each tray was placed on approximately 5 1
of dry builders sand in a kO x 55 x 25 cm plastic tub. A piece of one-fourth

35

en

c

i_

CO

o

T3
O

5

-Q
<0

3

to

O

E

o

o

c

*I
a
cj

o

E

en

c

V

L_

n

O

c

>

•—

o

1-

in

<—

3

i-_

u

c

'J

in

• —

•—

u

m

• —

>~

c

. —

o

IB

c

C

—

<

c^

o

.a

(0

„ ,

Q.

F

3

en

<J

4J

^-^

.c

s_

en

0)

CJ

■—

<0

Q.

u

O.

(0

3

3
O-

Q.

c

*—

10

O

F

CJ

O

2:

CO

CO
CO

—

CJ

o.
o

"oi

>
a
■o

o

a
3
0.

o

PA

X

CT\

E
3

■o
a

E

CJ

pa -3- r-^ — -3- r-. ~-

.— LA v£> O — — •—
LA .— O LA LA CM pa 1
I

— CN CM _ — r- —

PA , —

PA O

LA CM

■O

O

• •

O

»— p— ■

ID

co vo ca ca 00 r»» md

o cm co — r-»oo w—

pa CM vO r— O r-- -3"

CM CM _ — , — ^_ _T

"O
CJ

o

E
3

•a

CJ

E

t/i
CJ

(/)
en
en
CJ

ro

c

o
o

CM

•a

CJ

E

1/1

— — CO CM CO O —

PA O -3" O cm r— vO o
vO vo vo mo i>--3" cm

LA LA LA

LA O -3" — -3" LA O

— PA CM o vO PA PA O

co co 00 00 co r--\o

(/)

CD

CO

O

en

•

•

CJ

PAvO O O

CM 00

, —

0

CA

CM vO vO -3"

CA O

CA

^y

1 —

ID

p-« CM — O

0 —

PA

C.
3
O

— CM PA-3-

PA —

PA

-cr CO

LA CO MD •— vO O —

0

<+-

TO

c

CJ <4-

5

*-—

CJ CJ

<

_Q CJ

.a

1

£

E

en

en c
en

LA

•

1 —

■—

r^

+

+
+

+

L.

i_

•_

CJ

CJ 1_

u

L,

X

+-I

+j 0

4-1

O

c

L-

L-

to

fO +J

<0

+J

3

C-

CO

3

3 <o

2

to

—

CJ

0)

3

5

0

-Q

-J

•>—

.

w-

E

E E

E

.—

E CJ

T

-0

en

£

cn CJ

C

c

LA LT

-A

jQ

3

-

fmm

— O

. —

O

LA

O

G

CM

OJ

• F

s_

*—

+

+

+

r^ en

C7i

Ol

T

+

X

X

:<

T wmm

4->

C

C

O

c

c <r

C

<

I_

ro

<TJ

C_

3

3 S

D

--"

< +

to

-

O

1 —

JC

-C CO

-C

LO

21

0

"—

1

<

(_>

<_> <_>

u

(J

0

—
cn

F

F

E

E

E E

E

E

c

01

OI

Ol

en

en en

£n

si

F
en

G

0

LA LA LA LA O

u>

0

w

CM

CM

LA

b 1

O CA

O

CO LA

O
LA

MO

■J-,

•

10

CO

1_

•

4J

O

N — '

"3

. —

F

t=

10

c

>—

0

0

-3-

CO

CM

r-^ r^

CM

CN

PA-3" vO

'*

—

LA

L.

O

<*-

CJ

Q.

0

>4-

4-1

^m

0

O

to

<

-J3

J3

3

E

E

. —

cn

a

E
cn

E

O

0

O

LA LT

0

LA

LA

-3-

+

+

+

+

1_

u

I_

O

0

I_

a)

<

+->

4-1

0

4-1

y

(0

Q

— >

ro

Co

14-

3

3

10

2

0

O

^

0)

^"

■ —

- — -

E

-i

E

E

1

E

cnu-
CJ

■a

O

0

0

LA OJ

c

O

0

0

O

CM _Q

3

-3" -3

0 -3-

!—

G

LA

E

L.

+

+

+

+ en

OI

+

X

K

:■'

X O

C

O

c

C

<

C

C LA

10

c_

3

3

3

3

0

1 —

£

~

1/1

c

-C +

—

<

(_>

0

<_;

^J

O

E E E E E E E
cn cn cn cn cn cn cn

O-3-OOOOO
LA LA O O LA O O

CM -3" -3" -3" CM -3" CM

40
inch plywood with a 25 cm diameter circle cut in the center and covered
with muslin cloth for vent i 1 at ion was placed over the tub and secured
by k bricks. Eight days after egging the medium the pupae were removed
by sifting them from the sand and the total number recorded. One hundred
pupae were then randomly selected, washed, dried, and weighed. Six
replicates were prepared for each test medium.

The test media included lean ground beef, Alpo, Chunx plus Alpo,
Chunx plus ground beef, CSMA plus ground beef, Chunx, and Chunx plus
CSMA and ground beef.

Rearing tests were conducted on the screened porch of University of
Florida building number 61 8 which is located northwest of the medical
entomology laboratory. The porch was screened on 3 sides and covered
with a roof with 1 m eaves. Light, temperature, and humidity were
ambient. These tests were conducted during May and June of 1S70.
Results

The results of the rearing tests are presented in Table 7. These
data show that immature _P. cupr ina reared on a diet consisting only of
meat were larger than those reared on the other diets. When large
numbers of larvae were reared, as in the second test series, k of the
diets produced more flies than did the all meat diets.

The diet of the dry dog food, Chunx, plus water and 50 gm of ground
beef was chosen to rear the flies used in the laboratory chemical
screening tests. This diet was superior to all other diets tested in
the numbers of pupae produced and cost less than the all meat diets
without producing offensive odors. Although the pupae were not as large
as those reared entirely on meat, these size differences were not

41
considered great enough to adversely affect the tests or offset the
advantages of the dog food diet.

Adult blow flies used ' ical screening tests were rec

from eggs collected - : the

flies were re :ion on th diet cc

400 gm Zr.^r.s., 400 ml tap water, and 50 gm lean ground beef in
described above for the second test serie Adult flies were helc
1 5 x 24 x 50 cm gauze— covered caces and provided with fres -er and
fly food daily. The fly food consisted of 6 parts granulated sugar,
6 parts non-fat dry milk, and 1 part cried egg yolk. The cages were
held in the University of Florida medical entomology laboratory
environmental control chamber with 16 hr of artificial day light
provided by incandescent lights. Temperature and humidity were main-
tained at 26 C and 70 percent R

Laboratory Screening of Insecticides for
Control of ?. cuprina

Methods

Five-day-old female _P. cuor ina adults were exposed to space sprays
of 12 commercially available insecticides in the wind tunnel described
by Davis and Gahan (15). The insecticide solutions were prepared by
dissolving each chemical in acetone to attain the desired concentrations
(w/v) . The original range of concentrations ror each chemical was based
on the LC-„ values obtained for an insecticide susceptible strain of

42
The tests followed the procedures outlined by Bai 1 ey _et aj_. (7, 8).
Twenty adult females were confined in test cages made of metal sleeves
closed with screen wire at each end. These cages were placed in tne wind
tunnel. One-fourth ml of the insecticide solution was atomized at 1 ps i
into the mouth of the machine, and drawn through the cages by a 4 mph
air current. Duplicate cages of flies were treated with each concentration,
immediately after treatment the flies were transferred to clean holding
cages and a cotton pad saturated with a 10 percent sugar water solution
was placed on top of each cage as a source of food and water. The
treated flies were held under constant light at 25°C and at 70 percent
RH for 24 hr when mortality was recorded. If the concentrations of the
chemical tested produced greater than 90 or less than 10 percent mortality
these data were discarded and other concentrations selected until a
minimum of 4 concentrations were used that produced mortalities within
the acceptable range. These data were used to calculate LC 's by the
probit analysis technique described by Finney (19).

Twelve compounds were evaluated in 13 tests, each of which included
from 4-7 insecticides, acetone, a dimethoate standard, and an untreated
check. The chemicals tested were as follows: dimethoate, parathion,
naled, diazinon, fenthion, ronnel , propoxur, carbaryl , malathion, Dursban
[0,_0-diethyl 0- (3 ,5 ,6-tr ichl oro-2-pry idyl ) phosphoroth ioate ], Gardona
[2-chloro-l- (2,4,5-tr ichl orophenyl) vinyl dimethyl phosphate], and Bayer
41831 [Sumithion] [0,0-d imethyl 0- (4-n i tro-m-tol yl) phosphorothioate].
Resul ts

The insecticides tested as space sprays are listed in Table 8 in
ascending order of the LC-g values obtained by probit analysis. The
fiducial limits (P=0.05) are also listed. Dimethoate was the most effective

43

Table 8. LCco of 5-day old Phaenicia cuprina females to insecticides

in'

a w ind tunne> .

Insect icide

<&°

F

iducidal 1 Smi t:
P=0.05

s LC-r susceptible
hodse fly (%)a

d imethoate

0.0259

+

0.0064

0.04

parathion

.053 2

.0068

.05

Dursban

.0567

.0063

.74

nal ed

.0648

.0065

.018

d iazinon

.0857

.0063

.062

Gardona

.126

.0063

.06

f enthion

.133

.0065

.15

Sumithion

.183

.063

.074

ronnel

.246

.065

.13

propoxur

.264

.092

.95

carbaryl

8.42

.67

>2.5

mal thion

>50.

™

.81

Data obtained from the U.S.D.A. Gainesville laboratory.

chemical tested and along with parathion, Dursban, naled, and diazinon
demonstrated potential for use as a chemical control of £. cuprina.
Gardona, fenthion, Sumithion, ronnel, and propoxur were less effective.
Carbaryl and malathion were ineffective with 50 percent malathion failing
to kill 87 percent of the exposed flies. Appendix 3 shows the concen-
trations and percent mortalities used in the probit analysis to calculate
the LCj. 's. The Chi square tests for chance variation of a homogeneous
population were acceptable at the 5 percent confidence level for all
tests and are listed in Appendix 3.

kk

The LCcn values obt JSDA Goinc-v;

the Orlando suscepi

tested are listed !n lese \ lues when compared to t -„'s

obtained wit . -n

of the cr. -at - . ss for he

blow flies within a factor of 2. The tolerance ase

insecti ~ared to t s those of the sus

house fly strain colonize ago.

sir.ee the blew . been generally exposed to insect icidal press

over a /idespread area in the United States.

The ineffectiveness of malthion to kill JP. cupr ir.a was unexpect
as rnalathion re- sprays . recommended to control blew flies

."lorida dumps (3^, 79). This becomes less startling, ho/tfc r,en

one considers that n r.c control _P. cupr ;na on shtep in

Australia (57) and that lion has induced a very specific resistar

in the house fly, in Cul 1 is Coq. , and in the blow fly, C.

putoria Wie< II). In the case of the blow fly, complete resistance
was induced within 6 months.

JP, cupr ina are controlled in Australia and widespread dieldrin
resistance has been reported. Wild flies .. _s more resistant

to dieldrin than a susceptible strain and resistance was also ob:
to aldrln, endrln, isodrin, chlordane, ■ cyclodlenes, and BHC (32,

67, 63). Since the general use of chlorinated hydrocarbons is illegal
in Florida these chemicals were not te

A shi t c phos|

in Austral ia 1

45
used and according to Shanahan (70, 71, 72, 73) no resistance was found
after 6-8 years of use. He terms a 3-5-fold increase in the Lnrn values
of wild flies as tolerance. Schuntner and Roulston (65) found resistance
to diazinon in blow flies and identified it as the breakdown of the
in vivo pool of free diaoxon. A perusal of the literature revealed that
resistance to any insecticide by _P. cupr ina has not been reported in
the United States.

SECTION I I I

DENSITY AND SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS OF
HOUSE FLIES AT THE COMPOST PLANT

Observations conducted during 1968 revealed that blow flies and
house flies were present in large numbers in the receiving area and
around the sorting platform, while house flies predominated in the
digester building. These flies annoyed the workers and posed a possible
public nuisance if the plant proved to be a source of flies to the
surrounding community.

A house fly sampling program was begun in January, 1969, to determine
the density and seasonal fluctuations of the house fly population at the
compost plant. The purpose of this survey was to determine the magnitude
of the house fly population, the necessity of a fly control program, and
seasonal changes that may affect such a program.

Rearing House Fl ies

All stages of house flies used in this and the following section were
obtained from the insecticide susceptible or Orlando strain maintained by
the USDA Gainesville Laboratory. These flies were reared in a 10 1 plastic
tub in a mixture of 1 part CSMA fly rearing medium and 2 parts water. A
6.5 x 6.5 x 10 cm sponge saturated with water was placed in the bottom of

k6

47
the tub to maintain proper moisture. The tub was covered with a black
cloth secured with rubber bands. Pupae were collected 7 days after
egging the medium and placed in 1 5 x 24 x 50 cm gauze cages. The adults
were provided with fresh water and fly food which consisted of 6 parts
granulated sugar, 6 parts non-fat dry milk, and 1 part dried egg yolk.

The flies were reared at the USDA laboratory in rooms with 16 hr of
artificial light provided by fluorescent lamps. Temperature and humidity
were maintained at approximately 26 C and 70 percent RH.

Seasonal Fluctuations of House Flies

Trapping

The digesters were selected as the primary sampling area for adult
house flies at the compost plant for 2 reasons: (l) initial observations
showed that adult house flies were usually more abundant near the
digesters, and (2) equipment operation in the receiving and sorting
areas made sampling procedures difficult.

The grill method of sampling house flies, developed by Scudder (66),
was initially selected for use in the seasonal fluctuation study. This
sampling procedure results in an index of the population and not an
actual measure of population density (43). The reliability of grill
sampling is debatable. Murvosh and Thaggard (43) reported a high correla-
tion between grill counts and the total number of house flies in kitchens
on the Island of Mayaguana, while Schoof (62) found that grill counts did
not increase linearly with the population sampled. Welch and Schoof (Si)
reported that grill counting was subject to individual error and was no
more accurate than visual estimates.

48
Grill counting was ineffective at the ccmpost plant because of the

large volume of attractive materials present.

2
One-foot- square (32.4 cm ) masonite boards covered by a thin layer

of St I (Michal and Pelton Co., Emryville, California' :ed

for trapping fl ies i s attached

1 m in nere then driven ir.co t pest i

This procedure was discarded because such large numbers of flics were

trapped that the boards became ineff -fore 2- .d passed. Also,

more than 1000 flies per board were trapped and a population reduction

this great may have significantly reduced the total populati

:ky capes (Aeroxon Produc - :« 5

■
for trapping t ies. Raybould (54, $5, 56) n .at sticky tapes

were more accurate than counts in s. house ions

in Africa because they were less depend_.it on human judgment, took Into
account temporary Fluctuations in densities, and allowed for the identi-
fication of the fl ies. Sticky tapes have also been shown to be more
accurate than vacuum collections and v counts at poultry farms (2),

and baits at dairy barns (51). Tests during December, 1963, revealed that
sticky tapes were acceptable for tr-pping house files at tne ccmpost plant.

se flies were sampled in the digesters from January 12 to
December 31, 1969, using sticky tapes sus . from 1.2m wooden stakes

driven Into - ..ployed daily and each stake

placed in a v age of compost v ) from 1-5 days o.

G.I

The mean number of flies caught per sticky tape per week was ca', . -
:ed by i ng the numbe.' of caught per week by the n of
sticky tapes. These data are shown in Fig. 14.

Eff Jj razors

m inimum ir ratur

at t -age treatment facility ch . as Iocat -lately ad.

to the compost plant. These cata were made av£

easy of Mr. C. R. . , manager of the treatment fac'. Ity. The

weekly means of the maxir. daily air temperatures were calculated and

are shewn ir. Fig. I

A comparison c. ; mean weekly catch of fl ies in the di ss ters ;
imum air temperatures showsan apparent correlat
betwec. tl jse d - from January to June. The compost plant was closed
to replace the primary grinding mill on June 15, 1969. When operations
resumed on July 6, : finite numbers of trapped flies was

observe.. check with tne plant foreman .^vealed that the operating

procedures were the same as those before the plant closed for repairs.
The only observable difference was th< t the refuse discharged into the
digesters was slightly smaller in size. There was no reason to believe
that this would greatly affect the number of flies in the area.

It was observed that temperatures in the digester buile jre

higher than the ambient air temperatures because of the heat generated in

composting process and the construction of the metal digesting
building. A ^raph was placed on a platform 15 cm above the

compost in the dig« perat I icr sever I

iods. how that the ..-,ean da i ly

Weekly mean of maximum daily
air temperature °C

50

LA O

LA O

LA

CA
vO

ro cr\

CM CM

cn

'"'" " 1

oo

en

o

•'

CM

c

o

■

i_

o

■

J"

Q

3
TJ

o

o \

O
" ca

0)

©

|

0)

•

MO

2

•

E

a

o

k

- CM

Z

a.

•

\

o\

Q)

•

a.

O

I

CO
4->

o

•

I

- LTV

- CM

o

>-

o

o

+j

e

[

- r-~

I/)

in

•

J

^r

l_

•

- CM

V

o

I

O

<

Q. •
4-1

•

"• w—

tj c

o

i

r.

<L> ro
1- _

o

■

- CM

3 CL

o

«

4-1
O. 4->

•

o

" ^m

-J

TO cn

O

o

o O
Q.

rA

o

— - i

.2

0)

<G 5

LA

e

I

^-

3

— o

•

" F—

-5

r—

0)

•

00

l|_ 0)

c

3

o

tmm

CA

4-1 t—

-J

e

•

'*

X.

*3 >

TJ </)
TO <D

i/i

l~.~

!_

o

•

i

o

" CM

C

14_ ._
O TO

TO
Q.

•

vO

<

o

1_

•

•

e
c

o

•

O

o
•
•
o

ft

rA

:

N CM

1

r m

L CM

21
Li.

14. Mean number
digesters at

u
O

y-

TJ

0
(/>

o
u

4-1

c
TO

51

o

CM

•

•

-5

cn
Li.

TO

1

i

o

LA

o

UA O

LA

c

D

LA

CM

o

1 — LA

CM

jsd pajnjdeo ssi i^ .jo jsqiunu ueaw A[>)8a^

51

c
to

10

o

(J

TO

>

TO

C

TO

o

(0
in

to

+j
in
TO

en

■a

c

o

Q.

o

u

a
>

o

-Q
(0

U
LA

TO

-o

1_

o

o

to

l/>
to

o

Q.
E
to

TO

TO

-Q

+j <u

.c a.

cn to

rj -M

TO

o >-

j*:

i/l u

0

<J\

0

PA

CN

— +->

tT\

a\

OA

r-»

^

— (/)

t—

r^

LA

>4-

1-

C? TO

Z Q-

>- TO

— !_

I- 3

D +J

O TO

f—

a\

LA

LA

O

.c j-

B

•

a

•

•

o

r-»

-a-

-cr

00

-3"

c a.

oa

OA

OA

CN

CM

to E

to <u

2: +J

>~

r—

•_

ID

, —

-3-

MD

CM

1 —

■°a

J-

CN

J"

O

c —

PA

co

oa

cn

CN

TO

<1>

SI

>«

»—

mm

Q .c

vO

Lft

OA

I~->

OA

TO CD

•—

i—

r-

r-»

rA

OA

c x:

•it

m

OA

OA

OA

TO

TO

ST

U-

O

v

0

1 —

0

r>»

CN

0"V

vO

t —

:s

—

_

■—

—

CN

cr\

•

•t-J

•

•

«

vO

CJl

Q.

■*->

>

O

cr\

3

0

0

O

CD

—

<

l/>

Q

Z

O

to

03

S_

cn

o
0

in

<u
to

s_
cn
TO

"TO

■o

TO

+J
i_
0)

>

c
o

u

TO
s_
cn
O

E
s_
TO

sz
*->
O

s_

c
o

-o

TO

-a
i_
O
o

TO

U

TO

.c

C
TO

c/i

a

TO

• —

TO

u_

1-

cn

TO

TO

TO

a

i/>

52
maximum air temper;. . n the digester ouilding could be expected
exceed 37 C during the summer months. Apparently these
discouraged the f 1 i . m entering the bu i Id ing> resul t ing in a
jer of flies trap he sticky tapes.

The number ^
-.-ease was observ
in t

- f 1 i es repel 1

! .-ease in the number
was ob. in December.

This inv. on was or
ctuatlons of house files at :ompost The temper
the .cr building where the traps were located affected the number of
flies caught d^r - ths and this study railed 1 .

original goal. However, these eata do show a general trend during the
cooler months an; .strated that the building design reduced the
number of flies present in iter building during the period when
fly r i were potentially the greatest.

The number of flies ca~_..>: or, sticky tapes placed in the dif

st are shewn in Tab": a 10. These data demonstrate .hat
flies prefer -eshly ground refuse. Greater nt of the

■ in the ...ally congregated in the area of the -day-

old compost.

53

ru

o

c
u

Q.

CO

o
1/1

o +->
1/1

>» o

CM O

XI *->

— in

O O

Q.

Q O

Q O

I

1/1

i_
o

I/,
0)

o

c.

a

LT\

O
O

o
crv

cr-OvOI^CCn^ffM^OOOOOvOLAOOONCAin-J-

I — CM LA O^ — h>C^O WvO OvO^ CM 00 c\ o I^O^C4- ro
-3" LA LA -3" -3" MD r~-r^vO\X3vD\D trwO LA LA LA LA LA -3" LA LA

LA 00 CX\-3" — LA LA O -3" •— LAr^-.CMrACM-3"LA-3"r^»0-3"VO

CM ^ cv-> CM CM <w-3- LA-3- -3"

CTv-cr-^OOOO^COvOMD — —
oa CM (v-vc-vcv'ir'-v— r>A CM CM ir\ o^

rv(riLn>-oN(M(r\Ncoi — cvivot^cn — oo — — r-^c^i —

U3 -- O u"i M 4" UMvvfl CA rr\(v-i^ coMACO vO <N CT\vO —
<v\i — . — .— >— ■ — (v^ N C N

O — -3" vo- vo — la ! d"— vOvDvO — CPiQ 00 — -3" r-^-3"

ommc^^omiAiANc uma-?-J(t»won o n

cr\ . — . — . — . — -v LA CM -3" .3- r>A

-3" pa . J-, — U\c^MMCOOI^Ln4-^-CTiLA — vOLANN

CM vO LA-3"

^T r- _

— .— .— CM

M^OIANO^-UM — LAvQ vO 00 MD — -J N 0\ c^4" -
— 00 lavO CM. rA CM OvO -J LA O -3" CM — OO f*-v CT\ vO r«~\ — M3
-3" >— — — 0A LA rA 0A — , — — _ 0A LA f^»-3"

CT\ vD — 4"CO-J CA CA — O OMa Mv£ ivmA^OCO r-r^-..— o
CMvO-3"r««.CMLALA — O (A<AOOCO I — N oooco o n^.oo
vO cm N — la -3" LA ["■>• ____ _ -3" vO CJ\ MD

CM v£) rA O O

— CM CT> CM C7\ CA CM

rA r>» o -3" r*» cm

O0 — — CM _ CM

CA \0 O -3"
LA — cm ,_ oa —

c
ru

Q tt> i>

ro ro

a.
<

ro ro d

— i — oi oi a o. +j -.J

_)_><<uiooOO

> > > <J

o o o o
z z z a

Evaluation o~ Fly St'c'-.'

pels

A known number
screen cage with sticky tapes to dete

could be correlated wltl The c ge

was located in a partially sha< 3d 1 in bu i '.

Gainesville laboratory. The c - a 5 x 5 m base

roof 3.5 m high. The floe.- c .ed of soil and was kept cleaned

weeds and grasses during the tests. Two*' 1 . 2 m stakes were driven into the
ground on the center 1 ine of the cage 1 m from each end. A =
as hung on each stake and ed daily. A 30 x 120 x 120 en 3 -shelf

etal stand was pieced in the center of the ctge to hold the food and
ater supplied daily and to provide shelter for the flies. Tests were
■Ing June. July, and August of 1369.
Test insects were obtained as pupae from the LSDA's insect ic.
susv. e house fly colony and were held in cages until ac es

ere beginning to emerge. At the onset of eclosion approximately 200
pupae were placed in a 1 5 x 2k x 27 cm gauze cage. After 24 hr the
remaining pupae were removed. The a ire proviced daily with fresh

fly food and water and were held in a room provided with 16 hr of arti-
ficial daylight by fluorescent lamps. Temperature and humidity were
maintained at 26 C and 70 percent R. .

Fl les used in the test were removed from th« d

with carbon dioxide and counted. A 1:1 ratio of males to females was

ha lar.g

V.

m

'.-.

w

55
the flies. Twenty-four hr later the tapes were collected and the numbers
of flies counted. All flies regaining in the cage following a test run
were killed using a fly swatter. Pupae, 1-, 3-, and 5-day old house flies
were released in the cage in numbers of 100, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000.
Duplicate tests were conducted for all ages and numbers of flies tested.

One-day old flies were released in the outdoor cage 2k hr after
placing the emerging adults in the small cages. This procedure provided
flies which were 1/2 - 2k hr old at the start of each test. Three-day
old flies had emerged 48-72 hr prior to release and 5-day old flies had
emerged 96-120 hr prior to release.

In one series of tests, mature pupae were counted and placed in the
large outdoor cage. Sticky tapes were hung on the stakes and 2k hr
later the number of adult flies which had emerged during the test was
determined by counting the number of remaining pupae.
Resul ts

The number of flies caught on sticky tapes was linearly correlated
to the total number of flies present in an outdoor cage as shown in
Fig. 15. A high degree of correlation was noted for flies of the same
age while there was a smaller though acceptable linear relationship in
the combined values of all ages between number caught and number present.
The slope of the correlation was calculated following the procedures
outl ined in Dixon and Massey (16).

The percentage of flies released as pupae, 1-, 3~, and 5-day old
flies caught on the sticky tapes were 11.9, 24.8, 17.1, and 19.2,
respectively (Fig. 15).'

56

<U

m

to

d)

o

_

o

<U

o

i_

csj

L.

<U

<u

(U

<U

1-

L.

l_

3

3

3

4->

J->

•M

Q.

Q_

a

a>

(0

<d

(D

u

O

o

o

3

£

CM

Q.

•

•

•

O

J"

cr\

CO

CNJ

• —

—

5^

CTl

^

•*

■1

•

"O

"D

XI

^—

t—

pM

^_

o

o

o

>~

>-

>-

<U

HJ

(D

<D

<0

X)
1

T3
1

x>
1

ex

3

^B

LA

rr\

Q-

o
o

o
o

O

o

LA

pajrudeo S9i[.j ^o JsqwriN

57
The smaller number of flies trapped when pupae was allowec
,-ge in the outdoor cage were not surprising since a higher mortality
rate was expected.

Deterr: ' . ^ier r.~ ... c ;___-_ :se F": y ?c--ui at ion

( i pds

The total number of house flies in the digester building was
estimated by determining tne p; ge or marked flies captured

sticky tapes that were released in that area, Three-day ole
from the USDA susceptible colony were anesthetized by carbon diox.
placed into smal '. screer holding cages. These flies were marked by
.^_ing one-half teaspoon of DayGio (Switzer Brothers Inc., Cleveland,
irescent djst to ape- nately £00 flies ar.d gently rotating
cages. The flies wer. t tr< — :erred to ox Ik x 27 g^uze cages.

Following a 1-hr period to allow the flies :o recover, the flies were
transported to the compost it and released in the digester buildin

releases war- mad« 10:00 - 11:00 am on a Saturday or a

Sunday when the plant was not in operation. Although all the doors in
the building were closed, flies were not confined to the digester building
because the siding did not fit \ to the base of the building leaving

a 25 cm opening.

ie flies were ... by 5 sticky tapes suspended from stakes in

the digesters and were the same as described previously for the seasonal
flue >n survey. The sticky t vere collected 2k hr aftei

rel e id the marked .

-Iving i 500 fl ie.
and 3 '•• f 1 ies each.

Results

An average c.T 1.8 percent of the laboratory-reared house flies
released in the digesters v. ere captured on sticky tape. le 11).

The capture of house flies on sticky tapes in a large outdoor cage was
/lously to be ... , ies pres-

erver the per. - r^~ is 1 ?

flies released ir. an outdoor cage as shown in Fig. 15 or 1.8 perce t
as shown in Table 11, would - en the ci." -nces. Admittedly,

any value assign jld be questionable due to -sal, and

sntal factors. Hew ever, in t
percent is given cr^^. nee sin id Thaggard (43) counted 1.25

percent of the house flies present in a similar partially open situation,

re (1.8 percent) can be used to estimate the total number
of house flies present in the digesters based on the numbers caught on
the ->.;c.sy tapes. For example, Fig. 15 shows that 48.9 flies per stake
per day were caught the week of April 27, 1959. An estimate of the
total number of flies present can be calculated by ICO percent t 1.8
percent x 5 stakes per day x 48.9 flies per stake and is equal to 13,569

-se flies per day present in the digester building during the week of
April 27, 1S69.

59

-

•— '

V

o-i

- —

c

. —

3

• —

X

-•

in

in

a)

1)

c

_

•—

ID

TO

+J

o

;-

a

_:

£

u

+j

m ro

>. to

xi o

i_

in to

— e)

v- tD
in
O

in O
3 x:
O +j

x:
c

■o —
a)

to a)

G) .-

>«

•- W-

O O

■*->

to a>

i- in

O TO

Xi <D

fO ^-

— O

to

CO

c

■o
<u
-M

ra 6 on.

E — O
— On

-O O —
.— H-

O en

L- c

>>x —

to l.

-O -3" 3
I CM -O
en

•_ 4->
<4- O C

O v-

0) in Q.

3 CJ +J

Cl in O

to o a.

u ai p

o — o

a: -a o

x>

TO

10
(U

-d a.
-o o ra

<0 Q.4J

.* a.

i- to >-

to j- -^

E -u o

c —

3 w +->

0) in
• •—

o — c

"D

U

L.

+J

3

c

■i->

u

a.

o

10

l_

U

<U

o

QL

u

in

a

4- CJ

TO

E

in

a

■a

-o <u

<u in

-^ TO

i_ o

TO —

E <U

TO

a

CM O en v£> CO VO o

J- en. en on la on La

en O vO -3"

o

CO

o

LA

r--

CO

„

CO

•»*

—

—

CN

—

•—

—

0)
en

TO
1-

>
<

o

csi

la r^ en —

- (^ CO -f

en

VO

o o o o o o

o o o o o o

LA LA LA LA O O

,— — — — LA LA

O
O
O
LA

LA

O

CM CO O

en

o
o

o
o

TO TO O

2: Z a

in

3
■o

c
o
o
m

(D

o

3

10
o

TO

SECTION IV
HOUSE FLY BREEDING IN COMPOST

Observations conducted during 1968 and early 1969 revealed that
house fly larvae were present in the compost in the digesters and
along the conveyor belts where spillage had occurred. The ability of
house flies to breed in compost presented the possibility of great
numbers of flies reproducing in the enormous amounts of compost avail-
abl e.

An investigation began in April, 1969, to determine the extent and
some of the limiting factors of house fly breeding in compost in order
to devise procedures that may be used to prevent or hamper house fly
breeding.

Moisture and Age of Compost

Methods

Composts of various ages and moisture (%) were evaluated to determine
their effects on house fly breeding. Compost 0, 1,3, 5, and 10 days of
age was tested at 30, k5, 60, 75, and 90 percent moisture. The age of the
compost was determined by the length of time the compost had been in the
digester. The 0 days of age compost was freshly ground refuse taken off
the conveyor belt just prior to discharge into the digester. Compost 10

60

61
days of age was tested prior to and after it had passed through the final
grinders.

The samples taken from the digesters were removed from a depth of
30-60 cm and placed into a plastic bag. A minimum of 5 areas were
sampled for each bag. The bag was then sealed and the contents thoroughly
mixed. A 10 gm sample was removed from the bag and the moisture content
determined with a moisture determination balance. The moisture content
of the compost in the digesters usually varied from 35 to 55 percent moisture.
Since this was greater than the lowest moisture content tested, a portion
was removed from the bag and placed into a plastic screen mesh bag. The
mesh bag was then placed in an oven maintained at 80 C. After a short
drying period, the compost was transferred to a separate plastic bag. A
10 gm sample was taken to determine the remaining percent moisture.

The desired moisture content was obtained by adding tap water. The
amount of water added was calculated by the following equation:

x = (v) noo-z)

X (100-y)

x = ml of water added per 100 gm of compost
y = moisture content desired (%)
z = moisture content of sample (%) .

After the amount of water needed for each desired moisture content was

calculated, the compost was divided into 100 gm portions and each portion

placed into a separate plastic bag. Tap water was added in the amounts

calculated and the bags were sealed and the contents mixed. Fifty gm dry

weight samples were removed from the bags and placed into waxed paper cups

(0.9^6 1) which were marked for identification. Either 100 eggs or 100

^8-hr old larvae of M. domest ica were added to each cup. The cups were

then covered with black cloth and secured with rubber bands. Temperature

62

and humid: .ained at 26 C and 70 percent RH. Sevc

after egginr or 5 cays after placing the larvae in the cc jps

e emptied into a pen of water and th ting pup£.

ted! Each test was repl icated 6
cor. j 66 perc>. -"; .

Resul ts

Moisture content and t
th« turat J house fly larv - (Tal le 12). I _e

snee the deve
ages of compost tested contain 3 znd 75 percent moisture supported

house fly development to some extent. Ninety -.loisture inh

house fly development while kS percent moisture isuf 1 ic 3 roar

house flies. Forty-five percent moisture in freshly ground refuse
resulted in 1 . percent survival to pupae. It should be noted

that these tests were s :ted to ambient RH (70%) and moisture

fluctuations dur . t period were not measured.

age of the compost -.:.Tv-^_ .-elopment but this was

secondary to moisture in Tabl There was a significa.

reduction in the number of eggs that developed to pupae in 3-day o
compost at 6j percent moisture but no significant reduction occurre
the ages of compost tested at 75 percent moisture.

:ts of moisture on hous^ opment from eggs was extended

to define more clos_ sture of compost for fly b rig.

In this test series 100 M. d ernes t ica ergs were placed in 3-day old compost
cor..

63

c
o

c

OJ

o

0)

Q.

o

lT\

o

LA

-4"

o

u

<J

1/1

0

a.

^-^

G

IT,

u

R)

■a

o

' — '

E

-- un^vDvD vD

J- <M O (^ M N
<J\ o\ <Tv CT\ <Tv <X\

v£> \^3 v£> CO la rA
• ••*••

o i^odct o oo
co co r^vo co co

C0_
T3

1- O OO- i- LAC\

I — o o o CO o
co vo la oo r-» la oo

-3"

o
>

co

vO -3" 00 \D CA
• • • • •
LTV O

O

o

OJ

CL

■o

OJ

kD la rovO (A LA

.— (A CO — O O
CO CA 00 CT\ CT\ CA

</)

cn
en

OJ

o
o

caCO 0O O — LA
(nroQ G"\ la 00

-4" (A-? CA CNJ

00 V0 cavO vO O
o ••••••

OJ 4 00 04vO(T\
•— CO LACOCOCOCO

"o
u

o

CO

a.

O- O (A cavO vO vO
i*- 0O — -3" O CA \£>

O r-^oo r^oo r-^oo

LA CA CA O vO CO

OJ 4 J" V£> — CM

oo la oo r^oo oo

o.
-a

OJ

+J U\rf\N ' — ■— <A

o

CJ VO • — — CA CA

"o

o

OJ
CO

a.

Q- 0O
U- O O O O O O

o o o o o o

O — CA LA O O

O — ca LA O O

OJ

l_

3

+J

in

0

E

•

+j

t — ^

r

+j

a

u

u

3

S_

■a

O

0

Q.

L-

a

V0

O

■a

V

cn jz

c

U)

c c

10

c

l_

o -o

0)

o c

u

•—

i/l

E L-

U

D cn

•

O)

•—

l/>

• —

T3 —

OJ

■a

OJ CD

+J

E #c

CD

c

O

•—

cnii-

• —

c

■ —

a

— x:

a.

J

i- cn

OJ

CO D

i_

4J

OJ O

L_ L-

vO

V-

.c

o

>- *-«

i<-

^~

o

AZ

U- "U

4-1

OJ

c

Ol

<t l/l

CO

c

2! w

OJ

1)

I/) co

z:

_l

<_) o_

CD -Q O -O

Gk

10 times. CSMA fly rearing medium containing 66 percent moisture was
used as a control. The optimum moisture content for house fly develop-
ment was 75 percent (Table 13).

Sludge and Grinding

Methods

A test similar to the preceding experiments was conducted to deter-
mine what effects the addition of raw sewage sludge and the grinding of
refuse had on house fly development. In these tests either tap water
or sludge (approximately 98 percent moisture) was added to various
grinds of refuse to obtain the desired moisture content. The sludge
was obtained from the storage tank at the compost plant which was main-
tained by the city sewage treatment facility. Sixty and 75 percent
moisture contents were chosen to be tested with the various grinds.
The amounts of water and sludge added to achieve these moistures were
calculated as in the previous study.

Four sizes of refuse particles were evaluated in this study. These
were obtained from refuse taken immediately after primary grinding,
refuse taken after secondary grinding, a 1:1 mixture of refuse from the
primary and secondary grinders, and refuse that had passed through a
small laboratory mill with a 0.63 cm grid. These samples were placed
in plastic bags and mixed with water or sludge in the same manner as
described for the previous experiment.

One hundred M. domes t ica eggs were added to 50 gm dry weight of the
test materials and placed in waxed paper cups (0.5^+6 1). The cups were
covered and the pupae collected by flotation 7 days later. CSMA fly

65

Table 13. Influence of moisture on maturation of immature house flies
reared in 3-day old compost.

Percent No. of pupae collected per

moisture 100 eggs

55 1^.0

60 21.7

65 23.7

70 30.2

75 39.4

80 21.6

Controlb 80.3

Mean of 10 replicates.

CSKA fly rearing medium containing 66 percent moisture.

rearing medium brought to 66 percent moisture by adding either water or
sludge was used as a control. Six replicates were prepared for each
test.
Resul ts

The addition of raw sewage to compost of all size ranges produced
a higher yield of house fly pupae than the addition of an equal amount of
water as shown in Table 1 k. Such an increase is not surprising since the
total organic content was increased and since Olson and Dahms (kS) found
sewage sludge an ideal breeding medium for house flies.

The effects of grinding compost were not clearly demonstrated. The
results shown in Tables 12 and ]k indicate that the larger particles were
more conducive to house fly survival. However, the size of the refuse

66

o

rO

in

01
W

3
O

-C

0)

i_
3

C

o

(0

u

3

ro

E

C

o

0)

I/)

3

V-

0)

CD

c

X

C

x

c

Q

O
CD

XI

3

■J

in

u

0

c

a.

11

c

3

6

u

XI

<o

-Q

x

t —

-C 1-

o

x

cd en

1/1

o

3

3

10

o r

14-

1/1

i- -?

O

ro

-C \

0£

a

4-1 —

4-" -3"

VI- >-

fa i- en x
ro c

o-D-:

3 O C
«♦- U — •

0) (I L ID

oc in en u

P ^2

0J o —

i_ i_ •—

3 v*_ -o E

4-> C

X <D ffl >»

•—in v.

2: 3 >» TO

«4- I- X

O O ro C

LA v. E O

— U

O <+- v. <D

lA O Q. in

CD

C

• —

X

1_

C

0

•— —

4J

v. CO

ll-

CD

IO

X

>.

u

i- z

l/,

ro CO

3

E

v>-

— •

O

i_ ro

ac

a. u

0

— >

i_

c

3

u

m

u

j,

l_

• —

<u

0

a.

X.

00 00

CM* cK

t-A
00

II

i_

o

«J o

c
G
U

u

3

O

E

X

1/1

o
x

X
O

x

x

ro

o\ o

— r^i

LA —

O
cm

crv

CM

VA

00

CO

0
u

4J

c
o
u

o

l_
3

+J
in

"o

E
x>

CD

l_

in

o

X)

XI

o

XI
X
(0

<U

CD
X

3

to

CO
CM

vA

pa \£>

CM

CD
X

c

3

CT>

C

ro
U
O
CL

o

c

a

O
Q.

U

a

E

>.
i_
o

ro

s_
O

ro

O

LA

in

ro

<U

E

•

C

in

CD

•—

l_

<0

ro

3

0

.c

in

<D

tn

•—

.c

3

O

+j

O

L.

E

+->

.n

■w

ro

4->

in

X

0

t—

a>

L_

CO

LA

,—

in

<u

•

•

•—

in

a.

MD

<J\

E

ro

CM

oa

CD

C

a.

vO
vD

•—

*—

CD

X

•—

c

c

E

•—

•—

c

l_

CD

•—

CD

C

ro

■M

E

X

c

O

c

0

u

t—

0

M_

1_

CD

E

C

3

O

>-

.*

!_

X

ro

ro

<D

-4->

X

E

CTi

O

C

•

•

in

O

01

—

r~-

OJ

u

c

ca

-4"

f—

0)

Q.

in

l_

E

•

ro

ro

00

E

(U

1/1

c
0

u

1.

CD

»—

v>-

>-

c

w

— -

•—

—

O

VV.

X

—

in

c

C

3

^

•—

O

Vi-

^

1_

0

0

en

0

ac

VJ

ro

E

Xi

O

O

LA

0

vO

!*«.

c

67
particles varied with the daily wear of the grinding mills and the exact
size range was difficult to ascc

re

The temperatures occurring in house fly rearing containers
investigated to determine the tem| srature preferred by

line prot is H 51 -X semiconductor .

(Atkins Inc., Gainesvill - placed in a 10 1 p tic r< "i

ng CSMA he cent

probes were placed in sositic in 7 . c . 16.

3 temperatures were recorded every 2k- '. r 6 Jays,

was replicated 3 times.

The mean temper recorded in the rearing tubs at each positic

are presented in Tab . e . 5 . The bl cc.;cd data in Tab. e 15 represent
those probes in areas occupied by larvae. The maximum tempei
observed ii larval region was ko.] C. These data indicate that larvae

develop in a temperature range of 28 - ko. 1 C.

The maximum temperature in which immature house flies can develop
is not known. There are many references dealing with temperature studies
on house flies but little definite information was found concerning this
particular area. West (82) stated that house fly eggs cannot survive
a temperature above 46.1 C while Roubaud (59) reported that larvae died
in 3 minutes when exposed to 50 C.

To determine if the temperatures attained in tl
t house fly deve compos:. is H 51 -X s

■

68

level of
med ium

Fig. 16. Position of temperature probes in house fly rearing
containers (distances in cm).

o

-
ro

"O Q

O

•u

o

o ■

O en
■~ cr.
G
o

(0 C
•_ (5

en

— — .

c •—

0 U

cj r

01 <D

O '_

cr>
u

Q

LO

no

— u

■

u

o

-cr

LO

CM

o

■3

-

•

•

.

.

o

o

a

•

•

oo

CO

, —

CM

CO

.

CO

.

CM

CM

CM

1

CO

cr-.

CM

CO

CO

?f\

—

CO

CO

CO

i-O

CO

CO

—

CM

•

1 —

CO

, —

-C~

uo

CO

MO

o

-cr

co

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

PO

co

CO

oo

MO

-cf

^j-

co

o

o

r»

o

CO

CM

r-»

\o

, —

CO

r-.

— ^

CO

CO

CO

co

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

co

CM

r»

r~-

CO

CM

CO

CO

r~-

r*«.

CO

,

_3"

-=r

CO

MO

CO

CO

CO

^

— »

CO

■4-

CO

CO

P-»

CO

r.

J-

CO

CM

O^i

CM

f~

L.O

, —

CM*

v "»

L.O

CO

Q

OO

MO

CO

-3-

■4"

■4

■4"

PO

-d"

CO

CO

OH

r-.

co

co

CM

-cr

co

r~

•

o

§

u\

CO

MO

ir\

r~~

CO

-CT

-3"

-cr

CO

— -

CO

CO

'—

'_

o

+->

■J

c
o
o

0)

it)

>

c —

_j

>>

•^

J3

<

■a

c

<D

Q

Q.

>~

3

ja

O

J

■d

o

CD

-o

CO

'—

<D

o

i_

u

(D

<0

!_

(U

l/l

+J

(0

•l-J

o

•—

O

"O

—

c

r -

•—

C

•

fO

CM

u

•i-J

CO

"O

«

C71

<+-

—

•—

O

O

Li.

-*

c

(J

o

u

. —

oo

cn

r— CM OO -C" "-~V -i t*»

70
placed in 4-day old ccmpost at depths ranging from 1 . 27 - 15.24 cm and
allowed 10 minutes to equilibrate. The temperatures were then read and
recorded. Twenty-five readings were made at each depth over a period of
several weeks. The temperatures ranged from a mean of 38.2 C at a depth
of 1.27 cm to a mean of 59.4 C at 15.24 cm (Table 1 6) . Information on
the temperature in the digesters at greater depths was supplied to the
author by Dr. D. T. Knuth, Environmental Engineering, Inc., Gainesville,
Florida, and is presented in Appendix 4. From these data it can be
concluded that temperature woul d prevent house fly breeding in the
digester except in the top 2.5 cm of the compost.

71

to

i_
o
+J
in
03
en

-a

c

in
o

a.

u
-a
o

03

"O

I

-a-

03
>

l_
O
l/l
J3
O

10

o

!_
3
4-1

TO

l_
O

a.
£
o

vD

J3

(0

in

c
0

03

>

o

IS)

o
la

CM

c

CO

a)
-u
ra
i_

C
03

o

1/1
0)

o

a
a)
o

E
3

X

to

5
E

IA N (T>

ca cm

en

LA

CO

LA

LA

ca

LA

CA -3-

-3" -3

CO
CA

LA LA CA

— CM

vO vO

en

LA

en

LA

LA

LA vO
LA vO

LA

CM

CM

(A t»"» -3"

CO

LA

-3" -S- CO CA O
LA LA -3" -3" -3"

LA

CA

o

Q.
O
O

j- o o

CM I — —

LA CM

CM

CO
O

-3

LA

I —

CM

i.

o

03

Q.

-3"

TO
O

■o

c

(0

in
O

O
o

c

03
4-J

o
o

o

E

•

if"-

c

LA

o

LA

•—

1

+j

O

03

LA

S_

03

03

ro

>

03

i_

•—

O

.c

u-

o

CO

-o

03

o

■—

+->

|Mi

CL

■a

O-

03

3.

■o

l/l

"O

CO

03

in

03

3

oiv-

-o

03

3

i_

l/l

n-

O

03

OCT"!

Q

+j

3

>i-

03

CO

L.

CO

03

a.

SECTION V
MIGRATION AND DISPERSAL

Compost plants and other similar types of refuse handling systems
are centrally located to lower the transportation costs. These facilities
are optimally designed to operate in these central locations without
causing a nuisance to the surrounding community. The Gainesville compost
plant has previously been shov;n to produce approximately one-half million
adult flies per week during the summer months. These flies may disperse
into the surrounding community, thus discounting the value of central
location. An investigation to determine the extent of fly dispersal
from the compost plant was begun in 1969. When the plant closed in
December, 1969, these dispersal studies were completed at the city land-
fill.

L i terature Review

House Fl i es

There is an undue prominence often attached to the maximum distance
of dispersal of flies (63). Flies released from a central location and
recaptured later at some distance in very limited numbers imply that the
area covered is subject to infestation from the release point. Although
this may be true, it should be noted that those one or two flies

72

73
recovered at some great distance were among the except ic,

ie element of chance, managed to /e this distance. The dis

of the mass of the fly pc than that of a few indivicu-

is the s ignif leant criteri gard to

(&3) . The c 1 at ion is expected to

expended '.. 1/2 - 2 miles :

house fly movement (13, 48, 50, 53 , 63, 64, 75). /moves

-id of a stimulus causing a : F another (33).

A fly may travel 15 miles to reach a distance 1 mile from its origin (63

r

tr ctiveness of the release site may greatly influence disper!
Pickens et al. (50 recaptured 13 percent of the liberated house

at the rel ease s ite '

flies in an open area located a center of a 1/2 mile circle c

■ns only 4.1 percent of t .^_e flies were recaptured. Schoof (63) found
that in many instances flies dispersed from a location despite the
presence of an apparent excess of feeding and breeding areas.

There are confl ictl _ports of the effects of wind on fly dispersal

(25, 40, 52). However, the more comprehensive studies of Schoof and
Silverly (64) found that house fly movement was not equal in magnitude in
all directions and Plckensjet _ _. (51) revealed that fly dispersal was
random when the wine was variable and upv. the wind blew pre-

dominantly from 1 quarter.

Ogata _et _aj_. (46) demonstrated that house fly dispersal was not
influence- oy h;,_,nways, rice fields, or mountains. Dispersal is influenced
by the t_v_ a of the fly. rer.ee

- - ay old fl ies w

Schoof and Silverly (64) concU at the i characteristic of

fly di. sic randomness of movement influenced by 5 conditions:

(1) population pressure, (2) differentially attr- , (3) geograpr

barriers, (4) prefer it tendency of fl

to d isperse.

ax i mum flight range of

usually the maximum distance - >ping. The maximum record [ght

Fl ies is 20 mi 1 es (83) .

Fi ies

r

I more et al. (21) fc at £. cjpr '.: . released at ."al point
•e distr ily after 2 days in open sheep country. Kzc~.

y (3^, 39) conclude . cw fly dispersal was random t
that aggregat i _."e formed producing a c id distribution. These
aggregations were due to d jnt degrees of attraction offeree' to those
individuals in their rar.dc.-n movement across the activity areas. These

hors later decided on two types c ..a sustained

dispersal flight, independent of the envi. ., and an interspersal
Ight which may ir.voive no net dis D) .

Gurney a. 1 (25) .:c. . c u p r . ,i a tended to fly down or
across while MacLeod and Donnelly (kO) found no evider.-

of wind affecting blow fly fl ight. ^haen icia spp. has de d a
seasonal n on in -est to the cities in FinL

(47) and from the fc .1 Great Britain (36). .: - -

spp. was un sp slopes of a valle ..pland ! try

■ and a - . ide
t fly
daily

75
activity in Australia. _P. c Jal in Japan, being mos

numerous in the afternoon peak (7~0 . £. cuor ina was recorded -.-.7 mil —
frc ir "iberati-n site with I).

Comprehensive reviews of re ^s on blow fly dispersal and
migration are p;-„. ted .-St.

-r iis

Fl ight mills provi ;harac

.;s^c,: :'. ght under controlled environ : ..-._. Since _
c _a was the domir.-.".. Fly sp ~ . .3 at le - mpost plant, laboratory-
reared specim^.-.. were ... iched .c ^ flight r c determii - I : aximum

distance they may ..ravel in disperse'; flights.

A simply constrLc:_c f 1 ighl mill was used by Atkins (3) with the

sco";ytid, Der.ii.'OCucnus p ae H . ... This devirewas improved :

th and Furniss (77) and Rowley __ aj_. (60) by automatically recorc .

.-.ions of the mills by means of phecoel ectr i c cells and electric
counters. Chambers and O'Connel (1-2) further improved this tec s by

oir.g the friction of t Is by .he pivot between 2

■

mills uScd in ... are onerously provided by

Dr. i. L. Bailey, JSJA, G.. arms of these mill

constructed fr~.vi 0.52 mm chr^ teel . '.n length. One env-

this wire ^as - .s as si 17, so that .he

1 1 l . 5 mm of 1 1 'p€ t h « t o .-

A3 r and soldered t

76
the end of the rotor arm to produce the double end shown In Fig. 17. A
pivot was fastened 16 cm from the end of the arm so that the circle it
described had a circumfrence of 1 m. The pivot was a No. 0 insect pin
with its head removed which was glued, point upward, to the rotor arm
between two 6 cm circles of paper. The pivot was suspended between two
6 x 25 mm magnets (stirring bars) so that the pin was in contact with
the upper of the 2 magnets and was stabilized by the lower magnet. The
magnets were supported by 2 wooden dowels connected to a steel rod frame.

The revolutions of the arm were counted and recorded by a method
similar to that described by Smith and Furniss (77). A 6 volt lamp was
attached to the wooden dowel holding the lower magnet as shown in Fig. 17.
A photoelectric cell was positioned above the lamp so that a 2.54 cm
black paper disc glued on the rotor arm would interupt the beam of light
with each revolution of the arm. This paper disc was 7 cm from the pivot
on the short end of the rotor arm and also functioned as a counterbalance.
The photoelectric cell was connected to a power unit which operated an
electric counter.

Flies used in this study were reared on a diet of lean ground beef
in the method described previously. The flies were anesthetized in a cold
room maintained at 2-4 C. These flies were then attached to the radius
of the mill with a drop of rubber cement on their pronotum. The rotors
were then immediately mounted on the mills. In one series of tests,
P. cupr ina of various ages were placed in constant light provided by
fluorescent lamps for 2k hr and the distances flown recorded. Ten male
and 10 female flies were used for each test.

A second test involved 10 male and 10 f emal e P. cupr ina which were
attached to the rotor arm approximately 4 hr after they emerged as adults.

77

Fig. 17. Diagram of insect flight mill, a-rotor arm; b-magnet;

c-counter-balance; d-1 ight source; 3-photoel ectr ic cell; f-metal
plate; g-cotton bal 1.

73
These insects were allowed to fly until death. The flies were allowed
to fly from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm each day under constant light. In the
evening, the rotor arm was fastened to a magnet placed on the metal plate
as shown in Fig. 17, and the flies were allowed to feed on a cotton ball
saturated with a 10 percent sugar solution. The lights were turned off
and the flies remained in this position overnight. All tests were
conducted at the USDA laboratory in a room where temperature and humidity
were maintained at 26 C and 70 percent RH.
Resul ts

The mean distances flown by various ages of _P. cupr ina attached
to a flight mill for 2k hr are presented in Table 17. The greatest
distance travelled by an individual male was accomplished by a 5-day
old fly that flew 24,129 m. The greatest distance travelled by an
individual female was 19,603 m by a 3-day old fly.

Male and female _P. cupr ina flew an average of 19,405.4 m and
25,235.2 m and a maximum of 30,127 m and 45,030 m respectively, when
attached to a flight mill until death, as shown in Table 18. Assuming
these were less than ideal conditions, flies in the field could be
expected to travel these distances and further, especial 1 y when taking
advantage of the winds.

Blow Flies Released at Compost Plant

Methods

Four releases of wild flies were conducted at the compost plant
during September, 1969, to determine their dispersal patterns in this

79

Table 17. Mean distancesaf 1 own in 2k hr by adult Phaenicia cuprina
attached to an insect flight mill.

Aae 0f fiY Males Females ■ r

(Days)

1/2

3,671

(2.28)

2,914

(1.81)

1

8,356

(5.19)

7,725

(4.82)

2

11,335

(7.04)

10,168

(6.32)

3

6,3^1

(3.94)

8,289

(5.15)

k

5,559

(3.45)

10,776

(6.70)

5

10,273

(6.38)

11,438

(7.H)

6

5,556

(3.45)

7,785

(4.84)

7

5,476

(3.40)

7,849

(4.88)

3Mean of 10 replicates.

area. The wild flies were captured by sweep net from the grassy areas
surrounding the compost plant and placed into a large plastic bag. They
were immediately anesthetized by carbon dioxide supplied from a portable
lecture bottle. One teaspoon of DayGlo fluorescent dust was placed in
the bag and the flies were marked by gently rotating the bag. The flies
were volumetr ical ly counted by pouring them into a 50 ml beaker. This
volume represented approximately 500 flies. The flies were then placed
into gauze cages, allowed 1 hr to recover, and then transported to the
release site. Two releases of 1000 flies each were made at the compost
plant, and 2 releases involving 1500 flies each were liberated at the city
animal shelter. The flies were captured around 9:30 pm and releases were
made about 11:00 pm that same night.

80

Table 18. Distance flown until death by adult Phaen ic ia cupr ina attached
to an insect flight mill.

Females Mai es

Age of Insect Age of Insect

Meters (Miles) At Death (Days) Meters (Miles) At Death (Days)

26,651 (16.6) 5

16,931 (10.5) 3

13,283 ( 8.3) 3

15,445 ( 9.6) 4

45,030 (28.0) 6

23,386 (14.8) 8

26,195 (16.3) 9

13,994 (11.8) 9

25,599 (15.9) 7

40,838 (25.4) 7

29,546

(18.4)

3

19,892

(12.4)

5

16,601

(10.3)

4

6,477

( 4.0)

3

23,658

(14.7)

5

30,127

(18.7)

3

21 ,698

(13.5)

5

14,361

( 8.9)

5

9,126

( 5.6)

3

22,568

(14.0)

4

X - 25,235.2 (15.7) X = 6.1 X = 19,405.4 (12.1) X = 4.0

A sample of approximately 200 marked flies was taken from each
release and identified. Greater than 99 percent of these flies were
_P. cupr i na.

The marked fl ies were recaptured by sweep net after they were
identified by examining the blow fly roosting areas surrounding the
compost plant with a portable battery powered ultraviolet light. Baited
cone traps, described previously, were placed behind the receiving buildjng,
at the city animal shelter, and in the backyard of an apartment 200 m east
of the plant. These traps were checked every 24 hr for 4 days after

81
each release. The trap at the animal shelter was removed for those
releases at that location.
Resul ts

An average of 10.7 percent of the blow flies released at the compost
plant were recaptured in the same area 2k hr after liberation as shown
in Table 19. Traps baited with 1-day old fish heads at the city animal
shelter and behind the apartment failed to capture any marked flies for
these 2 releases. Flies released at the city animal shelter were
recaptured at the compost plant at an average of 5.65 percent. The trap
behind the apartment failed to trap any marked flies in these releases.

Fly Releases at the City Landfill

The compost plant closed December, 1969, forcing the completion
of the dispersal studies to be conducted at the city landfill. The
landfill presented a situation different from the compost plant but
similar in the large amounts of attractive materials present and the
generation of a large number of flies. It was concluded that dispersal
patterns observed in this area may be interpolated as to general trends
which may be applied to the compost plant.
Location of City Landfill

The landfill was located on a 30-acre tract of land north of the
Gainesville Municipal Airport. This area was surrounded by pine flat-
woods and the closest residence was located 1.2 mi south of the landfill.
The Gainesville Industrial Park was located 1 mi west of the landfill
and the airport runways began 1/2 mile southwest of the landfill. Three
residences were located 1.5 mi north of the landfill whi 1 e woodl ands
extended for several miles to the east.

82

o
i/i
ns

o

1-

u
0)

-3"
CM

in
a.
<o

i_

CJ

C

c

CL

o

o

2
i/i

>-

.a

(0

■a

■o

V

1_

C 4-"

CJ Cl

o ro

l- o

CJ 0)
0. L.

c
to n
cj .—
i- a.

3

D- ol

(0 O

U CL

^

oa

CM

2! §

CNJ

CT\

O

1 —

^"

O -M

I/)

■o

-a o

a m

-* ro

1- CJ

ro •—

E <U

ID

2

O

0)

!_

Q.
ro
O
ID
a:

CPi

(0

CJ

m
ro

o

— oa

• •

cm cr\

oo

-3-

vO

O
O
O

O
O

o

o

o

LT\

o
o

i_

L.

o

CJ

+J

+->

w—

( —

o

CJ

£

.c

Art

4-<

m

in

c

c

ro

ID

|M

,—

*—

<D

IT)

Q.

CL

E

E

• —

• —

*->

■w

c

c

in

in

ro

(0

O

O

a.

a.

>-

>-

S S £ £

CTi

CTV

ON

CTV

vO

O

VO

VJD

>s

"»N

\

\

o

PM

-^*

r-~

pH

4-<

—

PM

*—

CM

n>

\

*s

v»

\

o

ON

CT\

<T>

a\

•

<o

+■>

c

in

•—

3

L.

■a

Cl

3

4->

U

c

CJ

•

o

Q-

I/I

<u

+J

u

c

o

CJ

3

o

,m

1_

VI-

CJ

Q.

O

i —

as

CD

a\

>-

«0

A

a

83
Operation of the Landfill

The refuse was brought to the landfill by truck and dumped into
trenches 15 m wide and 5 m deep. A bulldozer was supposed to crush and
pack the refuse into the trenches and then cover it with soil at the
end of the day. Such an operation would be in compl iance with the
standards of the American Public Works Association for the operation of
a sanitary landfill (l). Unfortunately these procedures were seldom
complied with because of equipment failures. Refuse was observed to
remain uncovered for several days on many occasions.

A separate area of the landfill was used to dispose of dead animals
and the maintenance of this area was poor. Too frequently animals were
not completely covered with soil or else not covered at all for several
days. This resulted in large numbers of flies developing in this area
(Fig. 18).
Fly Behavior Patterns Observed at the Landfill

Before a general discussion of the releases can be undertaken some
observations concerning fly behavior at the landfill should be reported.

Blow flies and house flies were inactive at night, roosting on the
refuse or on vegetation surrounding the refuse until sunrise (Fig. .13
and 20). As the roosting sites were exposed to the sun the fl ies crawl ed
about the plant or refuse to position themselves in direct light where
they groomed themselves for 15-90 minutes. The flies then left the
roosting sites, flying as it seemed, an orientation flight. These flights
occurred in all directions, with the majority of the flies finally appearing
at a sunny, sandy area, absent of vegetation. The sunny sides of the
mounds of sand used to cover the refuse were preferred sites. The flies

8k

Fig. 18. Fly larvae in arums' disposal area of city landfill

Fig. 19. P. cupr ina roosting on grass tassel at night at city
landfill.

85

Fig. 20. Predominantly M. domest ica roosting on weed at night at
city 1 andf i 1 1 .

Fig. 21 . Predominantly _C. macel lar ia with some M. domest ica roosting
on dead brush in refuse at night at city landfill.

86
remained in these areas 45-60 minutes and mating was widespread during
this period. The activity diminished and flies began appearing on the
refuse where they remained until dusk when they returned to the roosting
sites. House flies and _P. cupri.-.a were both observed to follow this
pattern and both occurred in the same mating area simultaneously.

The roosting sites were centered around the most recently dumped
refuse. M. domestica rested on the refuse, especially brush in the
refuse, and on the surrounding vegetation immediately adjacent to the
refuse. There appeared to be little selection of plant species chosen
as resting sites but there was a preference of height. House flies
appeared most often on plants 1/2 - 1 m in height. House flies have
previously been reported to roost preferably on ceilings, trees, and
shrubs in rural areas (2, 33, 41).

Cochl iomy ia macel lar ia were observed to roost on leafless or dead
branches 1-3 m in height. Brush in the refuse and plants immediately
next to the refuse were preferred (Fig. 21).

P. cupr ina was seldom observed roosting on the refuse and rested
almost exclusively in grasses and weeds up to 1 m in height. Green (22)
and Maier _et aj_. (41) observed similar behavior at a slaughterhouse as
well as in urban areas. These flies roosted at a greater distance from
the refuse than did the house flies. If one walked from the refuse
through the surrounding vegetation, he would first pass through a belt
2-5 m wide of plants containing roosting house fl ies. This zone would
give way to a mixture of house f 1 ies and blew f 1 ies and f inal ly to an
area where the blow flies were in the majority. The number of flies
decreased rapidly with increasing distance from the refuse. Flies became
relatively scarce after about 20 m.

87
Mortal i ty

The determination of the natural rate of fly mortality in field
populations is almost impossible since flies are such mobile insects.
The determination of mortality rates of marked flies released in the
field is even more difficult. Some observations on the effects of
environmental factors and predation of marked and wild flies which may
provide some information for the estimation of fly mortality are given
in this section.

Flies at the landfill were preyed upon extensively by toads, spiders,
ants, beetles, earwigs, dragonflies, and birds. Flocks of cattle egrets
were observed feeding on adult flies and blackbirds were often seen
feeding on the larvae in the refuse. Numerous toads inhabited the area
and appeared to have little difficulty in acquiring a meal of flies in
the grass and weeds at night. Earwigs hunted the fly roosting sites at
night. These insects would grasp a resting fly with its pinchers
and then feed on its struggling prey. Numerous spiders and ants patrolled
the weeds and attacked the roosting flies. Ants were especially numerous
in the early morning hours. Dragonflies hunted the area catching flies
in flight during the day. It appeared that different species hunted at
different hours of the day with tremendous numbers of dragonflies
appearing at dusk.

To determine the effects the marking procedure had on the flies
samplesof approximately 500 flies from several releases were taken to the
laboratory. The flies were anesthetized in a cold room (2-k C) and 50
male and 50 female _P. cupr ina and M. dar.es t lea were placed into a gauze
cage. Fresh fly food and water were supplied each day. The dead flies

88
were removed daily and the number and species recorded. A control cage
was also set up which contained wild flies that had not been marked. The
marked flies suffered mortalities of 10-15 percent within the first 2k hr,
15-25 percent within 48 hr, and 33-^0 percent within 7 days. The
control mortalities were 2-k percent, k-G percent, and 10-25 percent
respectively. These results were similar to those of Murvosh and
Thaggard (43) where 25-30 percent mortality was recorded for marking
flies by shaking anesthetized flies with a dust.

The above data show that the largest percentage of flies were
killed within the first 48 hr, indicating that the marking procedure
killed or mortally injured 15-25 percent of the flies marked. It should
be noted that these results were under laboratory conditions and a greater
loss could be expected in the field. This becomes more apparent since
it was observed that the marked flies released at the landfill often
groomed themselves approximately 2 hr longer than the unmarked flies
in the area. These marked fl ies were physically weakened and more subject
to predation. Ants were particularly injuriousat this time as they were
observed to attack roosting flies by grasping their legs and the
weakened flies were less likely to shake free.

The physical operation of the landfill also contributed to fly
deaths. Fiies in their search for food and breeding sites in the refuse
would crawl into every available opening in the refuse. The crushing
of the refuse by the bulldozer and the covering of the refuse with soil
trapped and killed numerous flies.

89
Flies Released Around the City Landfill

Methods. -- Four releases were made at sites 1 mi or more from the
center of the landfill. The purpose of these releases was to determine
if fl ies would travel that distance to the landfill.

Flies were captured by sweep net at night on the vegetation
surrounding the landfill. These fl ies were placed in 15 x 24 x 27 cm
gauze cages with approximately 3>000 flies in each cage. After a
sufficient number of flies were captured, they were transferred to a
large plastic bag by placing the sleeve of the cage in the bag and
rapping sharply on the aluminum bottom of the cage. Because of the large
number of flies in the cage and dampness of their wings, the flies
tumbled into the bag. DayGlo fluorescent dust was placed in the bag
at a rate of approximately 1 teaspoon per 2,000 flies, and the bag
gently agitated. These marked flies then were counted by volumetric
approximation in which a waxed paper cup (0.946 1) filled with flies
was equal to 12,000 flies and a 50 ml beaker was equal to 500 flies.
Approximately 8,000 flies were then placed in one of several 45 x 45 x
50 cm release cages. These cages were designed for fly release studies
as the rear panel of the cage was hinged to facilitate removal of the
flies. These cages were transported to the release sites and the flies
released. Capture usually began around 9:30 pm and the releases were
made about 1:00 am the following morning.

A sample of approximately 500 marked specimens was removed from the
release cages and taken to the laboratory for identification. The
percentage of each species in that sample was taken as representative of
all the flies in that release and was used in conjunction with the total
number of flies released to calculate the number of each species released.

90

The marked flies were recaptured at the landfill by sweep net after
they were located by systematically examining the refuse and the sur-
rounding vegetation with a portable battery powered ultraviolet light.
These areas were examined for 7 nights following the release.

Each release employed a different colored marking dust. The sites,
dates of release, and numbers and species of flies released are given
in Table 20.

Resul ts. — Flies were recaptured at the landfill from 3 of the k
release sites as shown in Table 20. These data show that an average of
0.097 percent of the _P. cupr ina and 0.07 percent of the M. d cm est ica
released at the last 3 sites were recaptured. The flies released at
the 39th Avenue location were subjected to several attractive loci and
this may explain why no fl ies were recaptured from this area. A cow
pasture was located immediately across the road from the release point
and 10-15 residences were in the area as well as a hog farm. A direct
line of flight from this release point to the landfill would require a
fly to pass 3 residences, the hog farm, and 1.1 mi of woodland. The
remaining release points were at least 0.1 mi from any residences and a
direct line of flight passed only through woodlands.

The results of these tests agree with other published reports that
these 2 fly species can travel and infest areas over 1 mi from the
release or breeding site. Releases at greater distances were not
attempted.
Flies Released at Landfill

Methods. — Wild flies were captured, marked, and released at the
center of the landfill in the manner described previously. Baited traps

- a
a. v

a —

o o
a) en
cc

in O

O — «

— <

I/I

■o ■—

-

N

"O
0)

Q.

to
o
o
a:

c

o

r-

o.-

*b

— -.- O O cv-v O

,z —

r-~

M- —

O 4-

*J

i_ c

. _

c

CM

3 +->

z re

■a

4- l/l

W> i —

— c:
u

CD <D

E i-

o

o

o o
o o

LTV -3"

o >

l/> —

— — cr\
E 4-

— o

r-. —
o —

LTl

o

o

o

OO^NICMOCO —

o o •— ooooo

ooo — ooo —

OO-^OOrACMO

OOCSJOOcv-v — O

C. CTv

o o

o o

Lf\ o -C" —

O O Cs. , — OO^JO

O -C"

o o
o o

o
o

o
o

—

o o

O O
CM

O

o
o

o
o

o

3

CA

lA

CA

O ~"

<0

o

o

—

(0

•—

•-.

c

—

•—

u

■a

u

■a

re

(0

to

-

• —

•—

u

!_

• —

fD

• —

ID

w

■

. —

+J

r—

•—

t—

•—

in

t— •

«

<D

u

0)

0)

(0

g

O

Q.

3

§

u
ra

E

-D

E

U

■a

E

-.

A- 1

IE I

<->l

Q

o

— — O

CM C ♦

— .— v*

ro

c

.--

—

• —

- -

>»C-

E

v_

i_

i_ • —

o

r

10

1

1

o

V.

CM

E **-

o c

■a
i

_:

3

o

0

(/)

3

■o

C

o

3

92
were used in addition to the sweep net capture method described above to
recapture the marked flies. The traps were modified cone traps con-
sisting of two 1 quart (0.946 1) plastic freezer jars taped together at
the mouths. The bottoms were removed and replaced by an inverted screen
cone. A putrified fish head was placed inside each trap as an attractant.
The traps were placed at the 4 points of the compass in concentric
circles 1.5, 1.0, and 0.5 mi from the center of the landfill for the
first 2 releases. The outer circle was moved to 0.25 mi from the center
for the remaining 5 releases. Captured flies were removed and fresh bait
added daily.

Resul ts. -- The results of the marked flies released at the landfill
and later recaptured in the same area are given in Tables 21 and 22. An
average of 8.26 percent of the _P. cupr ina and 1.89 percent of the !■',.
d on est ica released were observed at the landfill 24 hr after liberation
and these numbers decreased with each suceeding observation. In Table 23
these data are divided into the average percentages of flies observed
for releases followed within 24 hr by rainfall and those where no rain-
fall was recorded (Table 24). These data show that releases followed
by dry days resulted in 10.17 percent recapture of _P. cupr ina and this
number decreased s ign if icant ly with each suceeding observation. Those
releases followed by rain resulted in an average of 6.84 percent
recapture of P_. cupr ina and this number had a significantly lower rate
of decrease. Norris (43) reported that rainfall inhibits dispersal of
_?. cupr ina and these data support that observat ion.

The majority of the flies released were not .-^covered. This was
because of recovery error, mortality, and dispersal. The method of
locating and counting the marked flies was exhaustive but it could not

93

10
fO

o

-a

c

CO

>

l/l
0)

to

(0

3

C

a

O

TO

■o

u
ro

E

c
o

Q
>

!_
<U
10
.£>
O

CM

C
+J o
CO O

1-

-o o
<u a,

>

o o

1/1 10

O

vD

LA

(O CJ.

14- o!

to h-

(0

E

ifl

>J

"0

O —

s_ —

O 14-

-O TO

S c

3 (D

■a
a>

10

to

4)

*o

l_

r- — o

o

M0
O

la

CO

CA

VO

CO

O

— o

ex

o

MO

M0
O

00
CM

CM CO

-4" —

CO • CA CM CO

\T) — . ,— r--.

. ,— CM .

^o

en ca r>~

CO -3" r».
MO

LA
co

LA

LA CA CM
LA .— CA
CM CM rO

CO

o

LA

o

vO

O0
CM

r~ en —

— o CO

CM

CO CM

.— LA LA CO CM •—

f- - O O CO CA f"^ —

mo -c la en r-~ r-- -d"

-3" CO — -4" -4" MO —

^-^ LA LA CO *~* ^— » y—~

^O CO • • LA LA VO

• o «Cj* -J" • • •

CA CO • — — CO LA MO

_ _ _ vD
vO vO — co
cm la P» r-»

O O O O
O O O O

— r~- r-. co

ro LA CM CO

\Q — —
— co ■ —

CA

O

u

o

o

o

o

o

o

1/1

r»»

o

r-»

r^

r^-

r*.

r^.

r,

\

r>»

\

\

\

v.

N,

o

a>

r-»

V.

CO

r*.

. —

M0

^—

+->

CM

CO

1—

r—

CM

CM

CO

a)

03

■s.

•v.

->.

\

\

»s.

"N

Of

o

r^

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

LA

CA
CO

CM

LA

M0

CM

CO

CJ

en

O O O 0)

o' o o >

O <N — <

— CM

LA \£>

9*t

o
l/l
ra

0)

o

c
ra

>
c

O

+->
f0

CD

=

ra
u

o

-I
■a

i/i

c
o

ra
>

o
in
XI
O

cm

CM

Q

o

ra

Lft

c
o
u

I-
-o <u
a a
> -—
■_

(U o

(/) </>

_q ra

O o

o l_

<4- a -3"

T

it.

U

<"v

_'

■_

l/l

ra

;-

F

Q

■a

M-

0

^»

. —

!_

•—

a)

'--

XI

-j

::

c

^

It]

o
l/l

. o

o

o
i/i
ra

H) o

— — •

o ra

o ca o o o o o

CM

o
o
o

o

O
CM

o

o

CO

•

-3"

r»

CM
G\
LA

ca

J-

("A

LA

—

OA

•

•

CA

CM

o —

,— CM ^O
CA

ca
CXI

ca

^T CM • •— •

rA .— vD O LA CX\

CM \£> LA •— CA CA

LT\ — LA

O

CA

LA ,■ —
CM CM

— * J""

,-> — ,— co

CM -J LA CO

CM CA C7\ LA CA — ■—

\u -T o r^ oa en —

. — ca .— -3" — —

o

LA

o
o
en

o

I —

CM

o
o

CA

o
o

OA

o

o
o

CM
00

o

o
o
o

o
o

CO

— CM
. CA •—

o

I —

o

I —

o
o

CA

o

CTl

co

CTl

ra

i_

>

<

CO

*>«

00

CA I — — VO ■—

i _ CM CM rA

\ \ -v. \ \

oo co oo co co

_ cm rA -3" LA vO

95

c
o

X)

c
o
u

TO

o

3

+■>

c
o
■_

4)

U

o
x>

c

3

x>

c

TO

o

en

c

to

e

l/l
a)

<D

en

TO

■~>
c
o
o
l_
o

Q.

o
en

ID

L.
0)

>
<

CM

X>

■a

o

CJ

l/l

>

re

l_

o

o

|_-

in

u

JQ

u

O

i_

(/)

O

o

— 1

•—

<4-

I—

ra

<4-

o'-,

U-

>.

o

to

^s-

a) <4-
cnx>

to c

i_ to

CJ —
>
<

CT\

ca
o

Lf\
LA

CT\
CM

vD

C~l

CM

J"

o

j- -a-

en r-«

-3" —

-3" r>»
co —

vo

o vO

) -Q TO XI

+J >~ 4J >■

CJ i_ CJ i_

3 X> S "o

(t)

c

•»

U

Q.

Zl

U

(0

• —

in

o

<D

•—

•—

c

o

CJ

<u

TO

Q.

JZ

LO

a.

u

l/>

3 1

l/l
0)

TO

vO

-a
c

05

10
CJ
in
TO

cj

-3-

CM

c

TO
<+-

c

TO

J3
XI

§

m

0)
in

TO
CJ

in
CJ

J3
TO

XJ

C
TO

l/l
4)
in

TO
O

u

csl

c

JZ

TO

C
TO

-Q

XI

a)

O

c

i/>

0)

l/l

TO

CJ

0)

0)

en

en

TO

TO

i_

u

CJ

CJ

> .

>

•

< ^

<

3 CM

XI

rM

CM

PJ

XI

TJ

c

-

TO

TO

c

CO

Ifl

O

XI

3

LA
oa

C7\

-3"

— O

S6

o

ID

o

vO

(0
1)

en

CN

en
O

— o

LA

-4-

cn

c

o

1_

1_

o

Q.

(3

D.

3

>

LO

o

c

CO
o

x>

o

X)

l_

o
o

o

L.

•1

CO

-3"
CM

CD

LA

i/i
>

X)

CO

o

O

c

LL.

c

CO

vO

CA

vO
O

oo

en

CN

CN

-3"

LA

I —

00

CN
Cn

CN

CN

o

cn

LA
CA

cn cn

oa -a-

P-. LA

— -3-

I — —

cn ca

cn

CN

cn
o

— o

o
i —

o

oa vO
CN CN

CO

o

o

I —

1-^.

CN

o

oo

o

o

o

o

o

o

o
i —

ca r»- —

— — CN

vO —
CN oA

I^> csj

— CN

o

VO
CN

f^ oo oo co oo oo oo cncncn

c
o

o
o

LO

1/1

<

c
o

>

<

3
o
t_>

LA
CN

XI

c

CO

CN
CN

o

CN

LO
0)

-Q
CO

I—

CO

I- 10

O o

X) L0

<U CO

Li. 0)

14- «)

</)

CD

in
1)

ID
O

97
be expected to identify all of the flies present. Marked flies resting
on the underside of leaves were difficult to locate and isolated patches
of vegetation used as roosting sites may have been overlooked. Marked
house flies roosting on the refuse were particularly difficult to find
because of the tremendous quantities of refuse present. Mortality
from marking was previously discussed and could be expected to amount to
15-25 percent of the released flies. Mortality from predatation and the
natural death rate of the flies and dispersal accounted for the remaining
flies. The assignment of any figure to each of these factors would be
conjecture.

Information concerning dispersal patterns was minimal. Only 2
marked flies were captured in the traps surrounding the landfill. These
were both _P. cupr ina females captured in the same trap on the same day
1/2 mi from the release site.
Release of Laboratory Reared _P. cupr ina

Wild _P. cupr ina caught at the landfill were reared to the F„
generation in the laboratory on a diet consisting of Chunx and ground
beef in a manner described previously. Two-day old adult flies were
anesthetized in a cold room maintained at 2-k C and marked with DayGlo
fluorescent dust as described previously. The flies were counted
volumetr ical ly and placed into 45 x 45 x 50 cm release cages supplied
with fly food and water and allowed to recover about 8 hr. The flies
were transported to the landfill and released about 10:00 pm. Flies
were recaptured with sweep nets and baited traps as described previously.

Laboratory reared releases were followed by 2k hr periods of no
rainfall (Table 2k). The results of these releases are shown in Table 25

98

>

in
<U

c

rt)

o

C7>

c

CO

u

c
o

-Z

a.

"D

a>

u

ID

a>

L.

>-

1-

o

*J

(0

i_

o

-O

<U

—

-a

a

-*

L.

IU

E

•o

O

B

O

>-

in

<0

Q

■a

a>

i

r—

cm

0)

i_

l*-

O

i_

<u

</>

+■>

c

4-

o

co

— 1

ig

>

—

i_

4>

o

T3

10

C

-2

fD

O

•

ur\

tN

O

»—

-O.

(0

h-

v£>

■o

c

(0 C

-O O

<D

> a)

1- D.

<U — .

-Q O

O W

10

i/> <u

o —
— <D

14- 0) <v>

o

1- <D
O
-Q

vO —

O O

0O

CM _

o o

ro — —

oo

vO -4" —

rA ■— vO

CM ~-

r-- cm .j-

• • •

MD — —

cm oo

00 LA

o

— 00 00

00 — —

*-A ca ca

cm ca en

cm m —

•o
a
in
co
o

o
L.

<0

o

o
en

nj

1-

>

<

o
o
o

o
o
o

cr\ LA

— -3"

o

a\

o

CM
CM

en

o
o
o

-a-

CM

O

vD

CM

CT>

99

and are similar to those recorded for wild _P. cupr ina 1 iberated during a
dry period (Table 23). No laboratory reared flies were captured in the
baited traps.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Investigations revealed that fly breeding at the compost plant
was minimal under normal operating conditions. The major fly source
was from larvae migrating from the refuse in the receiving building to
protected areas where they developed into adults. This situation is
not unique to composting facilities. Other disposal systems as central
incineration or refuse transfer stations have similar problems. Any
time refuse is centralized, transferred, or remains standing for any
length of time, insects in the refuse may escape into the holding area.
Thus, the results of the present investigation could be applied to
other similar refuse handling operations.

The number of insects escaping from the 1 arvae- infested refuse
stored in the receiving building often exceeded 500,000 larvae per week
during the summer months. As high as 88.8 percent of these larvae may
become adults resulting in approximately 450,000 adult flies per week
released into the environs. These flies were predominantly the green-
bottle blow fly, Phaenicia cuprina.

The reduction of these large numbers of flies can be accomplished
by procedural changes in the handling of refuse and application of the
axiom that good sanitation is the most effective method of fly control.

Greater than 35 percent of the larvae escaping into the compost
plant could be eliminated by not storing refuse overnight in the

100

101
receiving building. Such a procedure may involve increasing the capacity
of the equipment at the Gainesville plant. Although impractical in
this case, this should be considered in the construction of new facilities.
The problem of having insufficient refuse to begin operations in the
morning could be eliminated by starting the working day at a later time.

The construction of the receiving building greatly influences
larval survival. Refuse falls behind the wooden retaining walls and
provides food and harborage to rodents, roaches, and fly larvae. The
construction of a solid retaining wall that would prevent the accumulation
of such wastes or one that provides access for easy cleaning would be
more des i rable.

The construction of a fly larvae trap behind the retaining wall
would reduce the number of escaping larvae. Such a trap could be
made by the construction of a sunken trough in the floor between the
retaining wall and the building wall. This trough filled with water
would drown migrating larvae. The trough could be cleaned by flushing.

The concrete floor of the receiving building has been chipped by
the loading tractor at the edge of the receiving hopper producing an
opening between the hopper and the floor. The construction of a lip
over the edge of the hopper would reduce the debris and number of larvae
escaping into this area. This lip could be either metal or several
inches of re-enforced concrete.

it was shown that a 40.6 percent reduction in the number of adult
flies occurred when the area under the apron conveyor was cleaned and a
possible reduction of 67 percent was predicted. This demonstrates the
value of good housekeeping. Not only are the number of fl ies reduced by

cleaning but the dangers c ;ng with poisons and the potent:,
of insect resistar.ee and pollution are ei :d.

A combination of cleaning the . apron conveyor .

eliminating the pre in the r

building would r. the ensuing

adult pop. ies by snt The application of a

,ecticie_ would reduce the number cf the remaining fl

The daily applicati- ~r bait re

flies caught ited traps at the compost plant by £5.7 percent.
gging were 1 ei :ive and not recommended,
ication of a residual insecticide to che night-time rcos; . .es
-d the number cf fl ies at re than S9 percent.

better than SO percent control for one week. Gardona
was ineffective as a residual.

The laboratory screening of 12 commercial insecticides re.

- .. parat Dursban, nalee, azlnon were effective

against female J?. _c It! posed in a wind tunnel. These results

-icate that parathion, Dursban, naled, and diezir.cn may also be

or the 1 of P. cuor ina.
A diet consisting c ry dog food, and ground beef was

ind superior to the - o„s!y been used to

eg food d i _ in total

iess, and it produced less offensive odors th
the et.

r of he

.

indicates that the fly population may be estimated by the number tr
When a known number of marked house flies was released in the digester
building an average of 1.8 percent were recaptured on sticky tapes.

.he total number of flies present in the digester building may be
estimated by the multiplication of 1 . & percent times the number c;

f 1 ies trapped.

A one-year study of house files in the digesters revealed the. .

number of house flies fluctuated seasonally and that high t -es

in the digester building during the sun :ouragec

entering that area.

abilit compos : oduction of sects

presents the ial problem that a great

method of refuse disposal. Observations re id that house

;es were the predominant - capable c. ig in compost ar.d th«

were limited by several factors. Temperature was the primary factor

limiting house fly Ing in compost. Temperatures in the digesters

prevented house fly development except in the top 2.5 cm of compost.

The moisture content of the compost was a major factor affecting
adult development from eggs in compost. Seventy-five percent moisture
was the optimum moisture content. It should be noted that cc
moistures above 65 percent could not oe processed because of equipment
limitations. The moisture content of the compost in normal operations
ranged from nt which gave 1-14 percent survival of eggs to

pupae in laboratory t

r

The length < tec a1

Surviv
cc. :ent.

104
The addition of raw e sludge to th refuse ses

the ability of compost to support he. effects of th

of the refuse par on survival .

adults produc. .

oistur^ ad r.o e

maturation of 48-hr ol e fly larv

in the refuse that survived the grinding pro.

to areas wher.. tempere es were ... .develop to £..

was demonstrat . survive normal

gr inding.

Fly larvae were .he co:. .iters dur

April, May, June, Cctober, November, and December of 1969, and mc
than S9 percent of 'chose insects identified v. sre _. .lestica.
flies may be controlled by removing and grinding the compost before
the house fly can complete its life cycle. Th i also be controlled

by mixing the compost in the digester by the Agi-Loader so th-.
larvae are exposed to lethal temperatures.

Flight and dispersal studies were conducted to determine
d patterns from an attractive si P. ci-or ir.a males

average of 19,405.4 m (12.. and a maximum of 30,127 m (13.7 mi)

attached to a f 1 .-, average

25,235.2 m (15."; of 45,030 .0 mi). e data

ght distanc ow fly under

t i ons .
their r.
char

105
displacement may exceed the laboratory distances when flies are blown
with the winds.

Wild P. cupr ina and M. domes t lea released 1 mi or more frc,
city landfill were recaptured .. i

of w!',c j'.c. -la, _?. '- city animal

recaptured at the c. Thase i cte th<

attracted from the surrounding areas.

An average of 10.7 d £• i

.'ia.nt were recaptur. :er. An c of

10.17 p< Ina and '. . ~i percent c : v '. . ^ _.

released at the landfill on days . / 2k hr without rain we

rec-;^ tured 2k hr a 11.3 ;

reared _?. cinr '. r,a r^'iasac at the landfill were recaptur < 2k hr after
rel easu.

Baited traps located at an apa.- : 200 m east of the compost

plant and at the city animal sh....: .-II ed to re any marked

release at the compost plant. Baited traps surrounding the city land-
fill captured only 2 flies after the release of 255,000 marked specimens.

th were _P. cj::in:i females captured 1/2 m m the landfill the

same day in the same trap. data appear to indicate that the

flies do not disperse greatly from these very attractive loci.

Th«_ j are .- ~.ror composting:

1. ^st be J the same day it is delivered.

2. The refuse receiving area must be constructed to preclude t
mk

3.

the .3 hopp^ id be :

per we.

The daily ap "vos sl

weekl y ap::

5 beca

5. The moisture level St. for a

;ed by the breed inc . ich increases as

moisture approaches 75 pe

r

6. The grl ng of th« ..se must be thorough to insure X.\
death of larv- incoming refuse,

7. Lar .-ceding in the digesters s .royed oy either
re-grinding or t -he compost in the digesters.

Aani should be centrally located to lover costs

preferably in an area at least oi ile from residences to

reduce the nuisc. ..-used by flies migrating into the surrounding crea.

Furth *eas of fly dispersal from a

composting plant and fiy b.-eeding in compost should be conducted.

APPENDIX

108

Appendix J. -- Test for the precision of the counting technique used

to determine total number of larvae collected under the
apron conveyor.

Weight of sample Number of Larvae. per

(gm) larvae

gram

514 3064

566 3279

708 4217

430 2720

642 3842

5.96

5.79

5.95

6.33

5.S8

X = 6.00 + .2

109

Append ix

2. — Fl'

y larvae trc

ipped under apron conveyor durin

g 1969,

at

the Gainesville compi

DSt plant

•

Number

Spec i es

present

(%)

Phaen i c ia

Hermet i a

Cochl iomyia

Musca

Sarcophaqa

Week of

caught

cupr ina

i 1 1 ucens

mac el i ar

ia

domes tica

spp.

Jan. 12

0

IS

4

100

26

2

100

Feb.. 2

0

9

0

16

1

100

23

1

100

Mar. 2

0

9

0

16

0

23

12

100

30

130

91.5

4.2

4.2

Apr. 6

102

90.5

4.7

4.7

13

78

96.5

1.8

1.8

20

131

100

27

285

91.0

6.4

3.2

May 4

614

95.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

11

1297

97.5

.4

2.2

18

592

94.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

25

1629

96.0

.1

1.2

1.8

.9

Jun. 1

2004

96.5

.9

.6

1.5

.6

8

4554

97.0

.1

1.0

1.5

.3

15,22,

29a

Jul. 6

3945

96.4

.4

.7

1.2

.3

13

4387

93.5

.1

6.0

.2

.1

20

4500

96.5

1.6

1.8

27

4482

96.6

.8

1.9

1.5

Aug. 3

3366

96.4

1.2

1.2

.8

.4

10

5669

98.4

.1

.7

.2

.4

17

5749

99.2

.1

.1

.1

.5

24

3534

98.7

.7

.7

31

4350

98.3

.2

.5

.2

.8

110

Appendix 2 (Continued)

Week of

Species present

Number
caught

Phoenicia Hermetia Cochl iomyia Musca

cuprina il lucens macellaria domestica spp

Sarcophaga

Sept. 7

6116

97.8

.1

14

4156

94.0

1.3

21

2621

98.8

.2

28

1611

92.5

Oct. 5

3597

99.0

12

3371

97.5

.7

19

1638

94.7

.4

26

639

97.8

1.1

Nov. 2

212

93.0

2.3

9

173

100

16

18

100

23

78

100

30

77

100

Dec. 7

2

100

14

0

21

2

100

28

0

1.3

.3

4.7

2.8

.8

1.3

.2

.4

.5

.7

1.6

1.3

2.0

.3
1.7

.5
.7
.4

1.1
4.7

Plant closed for repairs.

Ill

3
in
O
a.
X

ro

-3"

CM

in

a

U

o

.—

c
o

10

-C

-a

•

^—

. —

o

<D

c

>-

c

to

3

-a

■j-j

LA

—

c

M-

• —

O

^

>•

■0

4-1

•—

c

w—

•—

(D

+->

in

1-

HI

O

-j

F

•—

o

*-"

■ —

c

— 1

<u

U

o

<u

1_

</)

<D

c

O-

• —

-o

c
o

Q.

a.
<

"O

O O O

■— -3" ca

(0 >— -3"

n vo

ra [*>•

_Q O ^ CA

in vO 1-3"

i_ .— r-^ .

3 CA
Q

c
0

5 3

O OJ
CA O

(0

u

a.

55

O

o
E

o

o —

O LA O

CM i O

CM LA •

LA

U

C

0

o

in

— o

ID —

O — 4-1

— 14- C

s

.C

. o
o a.

en

■v.

CD

O
LA

Q CM

_l X

CM

o

o

LA

CO

o

o

r-

•

•

•

•

vO

LA

LA

ca

P»»

vO

-3"

LA

CA

LA

CM

o

r^

vO

la

•—

o

O

o

CXI

o

CA

CO

O

CA

LA

CA

CA

o

•

•

•

•

•

<J\

CM

CA

CT\

o

CO

oo

vO

LA

CA

LA

LA

CM

r».

o

r-~

vO

LA

CA

o

O

O

o

CO

CM

ca la \D <—

oo co vo t*»

crv o r- —

CO VO CA CM

LA

LA r^ LA

o r-» LA CA *vl

r- O O O O

oo

-3"

vO

LA

CA

VO

VO

vO

LA

CA

•

•

•

•

•

o

OO

r~~

-3"

r»»

CO

LA

-3"

CM

LA

r--

LA

r~-

LA

CA

CM

w—

^

O

O

O

o

o

112

c

o

•—

o

.c

r^

•w

Q

L£>

CT\

•—

3

1

o

e

.—

o

•

3

LA

CO

eg

c

O O

-C O rA P>J

■m cm I O

c — oo o

C

o

X)
l_
ID

O
CM

O

o

o —

LA O

I •

o
o
o

-3"

C

o
c
— o

N VD
H) —

O
O

vO

XI

3
C

C
O

o

XI

c
o

Q.
Q.
<

in

— o

<D .-
O —

en

E

E
o

—

c o

. — LA

O O O CM

2 Q. _J X

O
O

O

CT\

O
O

O
LA

O
LA

O r-~ cm
r-. -3- —

LA LA

r-- la r-- o
pa cm — —

o
o

O

o

rA

LA

rA
PA

LA
CA

o

o

CA

00

PA

LA
CVI

LA

o

LA

r-~

00

o

LA

o

o
o

PA

oo

o
o

o
o

oo
oo

•
LA

•
OA
0A

•
LA

LA
Csl

LA

o

LA

1 —
o

vO O
— LA

O
LA

LA
CM

CA
00

LA

rA ■—

vT>

o

LA

LA

v£>

c

r^

o

r>»

LA

o

*—

o

O

<_>

•

■

•

•

113

c
O

TO

o

CM

o
o

00
CM
I
LA
CO
CO

>.

vO

!_

CO

-3"

TO

o

CTv

ca

-O

CM

1

•

1_

tmm

r-»

LA

TO

o

O

CA

u

c
o
o

l_

3

X

LA

o

O

r-^

VO

CL

CM

,—

CA

o

W-m

i

•

L.

LA

Q-

CA

u

c
o
o

LA

r_

CM

<D

o

O

c

vO

CA

CA

c

^

1

CM

o

MO

•

a:

o

CA

0)

3
C

C
O

■D

c
o

Cl
Q.

<

S^

c
o
o

\

CXI

l/l

^

f—

<u

\

*D

•—

a>

U

< —

^E

•—

i+-

4-*

§

c

o

•

•—

LA

-C

o

o

Q CM

o

z

Q.

_1 X

— vO o

• • •

PO CN .—

o

O

O

o

•

o

LA

•

LA
CM

•

O

•

LA

O
CM

CA
CO

CA
CO

CA
CA

•
CM
LA

•

o

-3"

•

O
CA

00

O

o

LA

o

•

O

LA

•
CM

•

CM
vO

P^

vO
vO

VO
vD

•

LA
CO

CA

•

VO

•

VO
CM

O
LA

LA
CA

LA
CM

LA

O O CA
O LA CA

LA

CO

O
LA

3

O vO

O —

• •

o en

CA

LA LA

r-~ la I*- o

CA CM — .—

to
O

<D

4->

3
(J
TO

TO
1_

C
O

o

LA

o

TO

]]k

</>

<D
-Q
O

a

3 a-injejadiuai
o

>

•

</)

■o

0)

L "^

o

c

CM

CO

(D

C3

. o

ai

•

CM

1/1

O

c
ai

. 00

<L)

c

CD
CO

cB

i_
0

vO

m

c

■ *~~

O

E

c

UJ

. -J-

o

"rD

CM

c
O

E
c
O

. CM ,/,

1

>— >-

i_

CO

+J

•—

a

-O

-C

>

*

CT>

c

CO

•—

LU

. o

•

<U

^~

-C

-C

CO

4->

+->

+J

(/)

3

(/)

o

C

0

a.

*:

" oo

ai

g

•

XI

o

\-

c

i —

-a

. v£)

"—

CO

>

o

■M

CO

i_

•—

o

3

c

4->

_

i

. -3"

CO

i_

1_

a

0

<J\

Q.

vO

y-

E

cr>

o

0)

•—

1—

>~

' CM

•

r-.

in

0)
4J

-d"

>^

1-

X

D

3

•—

~>

<_>

o

LTV

T3

C

a)

Q.

a

CO

-Q

<

LITERATURE CITED

1. American Public Works Association. 1966. Municipal Refuse Disposal.

Public Administration Service, Chicago. 528 p.

2. Anderson, J. R. , and J. H. Poorbaugh. 1964. Observations on the

ethology and ecology of various Diptera associated with northern
California poultry ranches. J. Med. Entomol. 2:131-1^7.

3. Atkins, M. D. 1961. A study of the flight of the Dougl as-f ir beetle,

Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Ill
Flight capacity. Can. Entomol. 61 \kG~]-k~lk.

k. Bailey, D. L. 1969. (Personal communication).

5. Bailey, D. L. , G. C. LaBrecque, and P. M. Bishop. 1967. Residual

sprays for the control of house flies, Musca domestica, in
dairy barns. Fla. Entomol. 50:161-163.

6. Bailey, D. L. , G. C. LaBrecque, D. W. Meifert, and P. M. Bishop.

1968. Insecticides in dry sugar baits against two strains of
house flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:7^3-7^7.

7. Bailey, D. L. , G. C. LaBrecque, and T. L. Whitfield. 1970. Laboratory

evaluation of insecticides as contact sprays against adult
house flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 63:275-276.

8. . 1970. Resistance of house flies (D iptera:Muscidae) to

dimethoate and ronnel in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 53:1-5.

9. Bailey, D. L. , D. W. Meifert, and P. M. Bishop. 1968. Control of

house flies in poultry houses with larvicides. Fla. Entomol.
51 :107-111.

10. Brady, U. E. , Jr., D. W. Meifert, and G. C. LaBrecque. 1966.

Residual sprays for the control of house flies in field tests.
J. Econ. Entomol. 59:1522-1523.

11. Busvine, J. R. , J. D. Bell, and A. M. Guneidy. 1963. Toxicology and

genetics of two types of insecticide resistance in Chrysomy ia
putor ia Weid. Bull. Entomol. Res. 5^:589-600.

12. Chambers, D. L. , and T. B. 0'ConneJ. 1969. A flight mill for studies

with the Mexican fruit fly. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 62:917-920.

115

13. Cragg, J. E.

J. B. , and G.

75.

15. Davis, A. N. , <

: -

Oixo.-,, , and F. J. Massey. 1963. In

p.

I 7. Ecke, D. H. , and

■
and c

. H. , D. ... ■ .

Vector V

19. Fii D. J. :S:-7. • Analys! tment of t

id Resc lurve. University .-.-ess, Cambridge. p.

20. Gainesville 2rs ion Authority. 1959. .ville

.post Plant. . U.S. Dep. Health

and We 39 p.

21. Gilmcur, D. , D. F. W :yre. I< i account

n to dc :ural p^

density of the sheep b. , Luc:l ia cuprii. ull. Cc

Sci. ... . 195. 35 p.

, A. A. 135'. Th ;ting s :er-

J observ is of ti jlow flies

>pl. Biol. 38:475-494.

. Green, A. A., and J. Kane. control of blew flies ing

slaugl - Ml. Large- at a domestic-

• onel 1 a

- Hies tc J. HygT 156.

■

27. Howard, L. 0. IS1. 2. The House Fly Disease Carrier, an Account

Its Dangerous Activities and the Means of Destroying It. John
, London. 31 2 p.

James, M. T. 1 otes on the distribution, syste - position,
and varie. th particular reference

to the species of west err. North ica (Diptera, Callipher
Entomol. Soc. Wash. Proc. 55 : ". -.-3-1 48.

Johnson, C. G. 1969. Migration and Dispersal of Insects by Flight.
jn and Co., London, 763 P«

30. -I, S. , and 0. Suenaga. I960. Studies of the methods of collect

flies. III. On the effect of ^faction of baits (fish).
Enc^ . ". iv. 2:

3 . Keller, J. C. , H. G. Wilson, and C. N. Smith. 1955. Poison baits

for the control of blow flies and house flies. J. Econ. al .
48^563-565.

3 2. \\err, R. W. 1964. Notes or. arthropoc resistance to chemicals used
in their control in Australia. J. Ajst. Agr. Sci. 30:33-3^.

33. Kil patrick, J. \1. , and K. D. Q.uarterman. 1952. Field studies, on
resting habits of flies in relation to chemical control. P.
II. in rural area::. r. J. Trcp. Med. Hyg. 1:1C26-1031.

3^. LaBrecque, G. C. ":95o. Application of insecticides at dumps. Public
..or.v3. : 2:92-9] .

35. . '■. -.. •".) .

36. MacLeod, J., and J. Donnelly. 1957. ical relationships

of natural populations of calliphorina blow flies. J. Anim.
Ecc", . 5-170.

37. . 1953. Local distribution e paths of bl

flies in hill country. J. Anim. Ecol . i:7:5i.-3-3.

_ . .960. Natural features of blow fly movement. J. Anim.

Ecol. 29:85-93.

. 1962. Microgeographic aggregation in blow fly populations.

Ecoi.

40. . 19o3. Disperse sal of blow fly popuK.

J. Anim. -.0.. .-. I: . -32.

41 . M

-
•. J. 1

118

42. Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. 1968. Ecology of Insect Vector Populations.

Academic Press, New York. 174 p.

43. Murvosh, C. M. , and C. W. Thaggard. 1966. Ecological studies of the

house fly. Ann. Entomol . Soc. Amer. 59:533-547.

44. Norris, K. R. 1959. The ecology of sheep blow flies in Australia.

Monogr. Biol. 8:514-544.

45. . 1965. The bionomics of blow flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol.

10:47-68.

**6* . 1966. Daily pattern of flight activity of blow flies

(Cal 1 iphor idae:Diptera) in the Canberra district as indicated
by trap catches. Aust. J. Zool . 14:835-853.

47. Nuorteva, P. 1966. Local distribution of blow flies in relation to

human settlement in an area around the town of Forssa in South
Finland. Ann. Entomol. Finland. 32:128-137.

48. Ogata, K. , N. Nagai, N. Koshimizu, M. Kato, and A. Wada. I960.

Release studies on the dispersion of the house flies and the
blow flies in the suburban area of Kawasake City, Japan. Jap.
J. Sanit. Zool. 11 :l8l-l88.

49. Olson, T. A., and R. G. Dahms. 1945. Control of house fly breeding

in partly digested sludge. J. Econ. Entomol. 38:602-604.

50. Parker, R. R. 1916. Dispersion of Musca domest ica (L.) under city

conditions in Montana. J. Econ. Entomol. 9:325-354.

51. Pickens, L. G. , N. 0. Morgan, J. G. Hartsock, and J. W. Smith. 1967.

Dispersal patterns and populations of the house fly affected
by sanitation and weather in rural Maryland. J. Econ. Entomol.
60:1250-1255.

52. Quarterman, K. D. , J. W. Kilpatrick, and W. Mathis. 1954. Fly

dispersal in a rural area near Savannah, Georgia. J. Econ.
Entomol. 47:413-419.

53. Quarterman, K. D. , W. Mathis, and J. W. Kilpatrick. 1954. Urban fly

dispersal in the area of Savannah, Georgia. J. Econ. Entomol.
47:405-412.

54. Raybould, J. N. 1964. An improved technique for sampling the indoor

density of African house fly populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 57:
445-447.

55. . 1966. Techniques for sampling the density of African house

fly populations: I. A field comparison of the use of the Schudder
Grill and the Sticky fly-trap method for sampling the indoor
density of African house flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 59:639-644.

115

56. . 1966. Techniques for -ling the density of African

house fly populations: II. A field cc - ;on of the Schudder

Grill and the Sticky -pi ing the outdoor

density of African house Flies. ol . 59:644-648.

57. F.iches, J. H. , end P. J. 0' . ' - value of t

organic phospho the

protection c strike. Vet.

34-j

Roth, D. L. ";. :". y • - cans.

Cal if. Vector V . — 6.

59. Rouband, E. 1915. P.- : -•" de

cheval - - - .as. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Par. .

161 :325-327.

60. Rowley, W. / I R. E. Williams. 1968. A flight n

system for the 1 at ..- tory study -,: -. itc

ol . Sec. -.61:15 ••-

61 . Rul ■ ) .

62. Schoof, H. F. 1951. on~

ip bet rill counts, - elation levels

sce.-,s . iary

. iealth,
t ion, and

. . 1959. How far go flies fly? Pest Control. 27:16-18,

20, 22, .

5c., cov, H. ?., end R. E. Silverly. 195**. Multiple release studies
on the dispersion of Musca domes tica at rv.oenix, Ari-cr.e. ^.
2 con . Ent c.v.o 1 . 47 : 33 ..

-^. Schuntner, C. A., and V.'. J. RoLiszon. ,568. A resistance mechanism
in organophoschorus-res istant strains of sheep blow fly
(Llc I '. i i cuor ' -st. J. Biol. Sci. 21:173-176.

66. Scudder, H. i. 1947. A new technique ie density of

house fly populations. Public Health Rep. 62:631-.

\, G. J. 1958. Resist:. and aldrin in Luc il ia

c_ ... it. Inst. Agr. Sci. 24:15?-

. . d i el d r i n cupr ina 17 i ec . ,

Australian sheep blow fly. . 361.

. 1965. A re\- p in

Al ;tr

70. . . 1st

71. . 1366. Developr. in Luci 1 ia cupr ina

fed.) to organophosphorus insecticides I
Bull. Entomol. Res. 57:93-1 0(

72. . 1966. Crganophcs nee in blow flies. .

*cz. New Soi

73. Shi . i, G. J. , and R. J. Hart. 1! of

L i.i z i 1 i c cupr ina Wied. to orgai in

Austral la sh -7.

Shinoda, 0., and 7. Ando. 1935 . Bot. Zool.

3:117-121.

75. Shi ra, B. L. , E. V. 3va,

and A. D. Shaikov. >f fly c of

mass b

76. Smith, C. N. , and J. rol for Cities. PuL.

.

77. Smith, / record ing

ight mill.

'ooze, and J.
~:ca North of

C . C .

D. L

. Fly la containers

in the city of r.-^_.-.:. Cal if. /ector .. -

Water iov. 1350. The status o two

(Diptera, Cai 1 iphor idae) att. eep in
Austral ia. . J. Sci. Res., : Eiol. Sci. 3:31 0-2

Welch, S. F. , i oof. 1. ility of "visual

survey" in evaluating fly densities for cc ity con.
Br. J. Trc . /g. 2:1131-11.

82. West, L. S. 1951. The He. ;tock Publ : Co., Ithaca,

N.Y. 584 p.

, S. Butts. 1352. Furth :ies
of dispersion o. phosphoric acid.

J. Econ. E

sle Alvarez was : /ll le, Florida, t

and s
gradua. School in June, 1961.

In August, , h«

was an active reservist until his d -7.

antere th ity of Flori -y, 196:

received < r of Science cz^-raa with ology in

April, i$5C, and a Master f Science degree a major in entomology

1968, to the pre he ited

States Public th Service Trainee worl d i\ decree of

Doctor of Philosophy.

He is . slogical Society of America and t

Florida Society.

former Judith Gaynell Marable of Newport News,
^inia, on May 7, IS

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

Dr, F. S. Blanton, Co-chairman
Professor of Entomology and Nematology

1 certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

Dr. H. D. Putnam, Co-chairman
Professor of Environmental Engineering

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

°) <?• X<3.

'■y^*-

Dr. G. C. LaBrecque
Associate Professor of Entomology
and Nematology

This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of
Agriculture and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

March, 1S71

(0

i l Li

ean, College of Agriculture

Dean, Graduate School