Repellents for protecting animals from the attacks of flies

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

DbULEE TIN Or THE

(Be) USDEPARIMENT OF AGRICULTURE

No. 131

Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology, L. O. Howard, Chief.
September 10, 1914.

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM
THE ATTACKS OF FLIES.’

By H. W. GERAYBILL, D. V. M..,”
Assistant Zoologist, Zoological Division, Bureau of Animal Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

During the warm season of the year cattle, horses, and mules suffer
a great deal of annoyance and more or less injury as the result of
the attacks of various biting flies, and numerous requests are received
in this department concerning methods of relieving the animals from
these attacks. The flies that cause the greatest annoyance to domes-
tic.animals are the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans L.) and the horn-
fly (Lyperosia irritans L.). The horseflies (Tabanide) are of some
importance and individually their attacks are sanguinary, but they
are not the cause of as much injury as either of the two species of
muscids that have been mentioned. The bot flies (CHstride) affect-
ing horses, cattle, and sheep are not biting flies and only visit these
animals to deposit their eggs. The larve of these flies, however, are
parasitic and are the cause of considerable annoyance and more or
less loss, and for this reason repellents are sometimes applied to ani-
mals to prevent the adults from depositing their eggs. In the case
of the horse and the ox, parasiticides are applied to the skin to
destroy the eggs of bot flies that have already been deposited.

The screw worm (Paralucilia macellaria Fab.) likewise is not
parasitic in its adult state, and visits animals only to deposit its eggs
in wounds where the larve, when they emerge, may find nourishment
and complete their growth. There are also various other species of
flies that may deposit their eggs in wounds and whose larvee become
parasitic.

In the United Kingdom and Holland a bluebottle fly (Lucilia
sericata Meig.) deposits its eggs on the soiled wool about the anus,

1The investigations reported in this paper were undertaken by the Bureau of Ani-
mal Industry incidentally during the progress of other investigations concerning stock
dips. Although comparatively few repellents were tested, it is believed that the data
obtained concerning substances which may be applied to live stock to protect them
from flies are of interest and value to the live-stock industry.

2 Resigned, April 16, 1914.

51293°—Bull. 1831—14——_1 1

Q —Ss« BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

chiefly in young sheep, sometimes in adult sheep when badly kept,
and the larve hatching from the eggs become parasitic in the skin.
In Australia several species of blowflies (Calliphora oceanice Desvy.,
C’. villosa Desv., and C. rufifacies Desv.) produce a similar condition
in sheep. Recently a cutaneous invasion of sheep with dipterous

larvee occurring at Cobham, Va., was reported to this department,

but the fly responsible for the trouble has not been identified. The
application of repellents and parasiticides is indicated in case sheep
are subject to the attacks of such flies.

The house fly (fusca domestica lu.) commonly visits wounds on
animals to suck up the exudates that occur there. It is the cause of
considerable annoyance to animals in this way; it prevents wounds
from healing and may introduce into a wound agents of infection
adhering to its body. Repellents are therefore indicated and are
frequently used on wounds to keep house flies away and also to
keep away such flies as may deposit their eggs in wounds, such, for
example, as the screw-worm fly.

The use of fly repellents is resorted to largely for the purpose of
relieving animals of the torment of biting flies or of preventing
infestation with the larve of flies, without any reference to the con-
trol or eradication of such pests. In the case of such flies as the
stable fly and the hornfly, the use of repellents can be of only sec-
ondary importance as an eradicative measure, since a much more
effective means of getting rid of these pests lies in preventing them
from breeding. This may be done by preventing access of the flies
to materials such as manure, etc., in which they deposit their eggs,
and by destroying the young stages that may be present in such
materials. However, the eradication of these flies in most instances,
or even a reduction in their numbers in many cases, is out of the
question, so that it is necessary to resort to the use of repellents or
other means to give relief to animals.

In the case of the horseflies, preventing them from biting is
probably as important a factor as can be taken advantage of in
bringing about control, yet it must be admitted that this means
can be of only very little.-importance. In the case of the bot flies
and the screw-worm flies, the use of repellents against the adults
and of parasiticides against the eggs and larve is an important
method of eradication as well as a valuable means of protecting
animals.

INJURY CAUSED DOMESTIC ANIMALS BY BITING FLIES.

Aside from the transmission of various animal diseases by biting
flies, a matter of much less importance in this country than in the
Tropics, flies are generally assumed to be responsible for enormous
losses to farmers and stockmen. Because of the great numbers in

ee

PU geese

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 3

which flies occur, the irritation they cause animals, the blood they
abstract, the movements they cause animals to make in fighting them,
and the unfavorable influence they have on the temper of dairy cows,
it is believed by both scientist and layman that flies are responsible
for very great financial losses.

According to Delamare (1908), a German professor named Leh-
mann is stated to have established that the supplementary expendi-
ture of energy corresponding to the agitation caused horses by the
attacks of flies amounts to a pound of oats a head per day. Moore
(1903), of the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, says:
“When we consider the intimate relationship existing between the
milk yield and the physical comfort of the cow, no question can be
raised as to the benefit obtained by mitigating so far as possible the
annoyances of these pests.” Hopkins (1891) states that the hornfly
so annoys cattle by its bite that the cows fail in milk and other cattle
fail in flesh. Garman (1892) says: “ The injury done to cattle has
been greatly overestimated in some instances; yet there can be no
doubt that the yield of milk from cows greatly worried by hornflies is
much reduced, and growing and fattening stock are doubtless re-
tarded by their attacks.” Marlatt (1910) states: “ During the first
years of the hornfly, when it was a new and little understood menace
to cattle, the losses occasioned by it were undoubtedly much exagger-
ated. Nevertheless, the loss when the fly is abundant is still very
considerable, showing in reduced vitality, lack of growth, or less-
ened yield of milk, the production of milk often being cut down
from one-fourth to one-half. In Canada the late Dr. James Fletcher
estimated the loss in Ontario and Quebec at one-half the product of
meat and milk.” Bishopp (1913) describes an unusual outbreak of
the stable fly in 1912 in northern Texas and refers to various other
outbreaks that have occurred in the United States. In referring to
the injury due to the fly he states that many horses and cattle became
so weak that they gave up the fight against the pest. In a few cases
in which the animals were not protected they succumbed in a short time.
Texas fever was rekindled in an acute form in cattle that became
weakened as a result of the flies, and in many cases death resulted.
The influence of the flies on the milk production was marked, the
reduction being from 40 to 60 per cent, and in some cases cows were
completely dried up. Horses and mules lost 10 to 15 per cent in
weight during the outbreak. Cattle likewise suffered a great reduc-
tion in weight. It is estimated that in northern Texas over 300 head
of cattle, mules, and horses were killed directly or indirectly as the
result of the fly attack. This loss is estimated at $15,000, and the loss
in the milk production is placed at $10,000, and other losses are stated
to surpass these.

4 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Fuller (1918) has described an outbreak of the stable fly along
the east coast of South Africa. All classes of animals are said to
have suffered greatly from worry and anemia. Many cattle were
killed, and horses and cattle stampeded into the sea and into rivers
to obtain relief. The outbreak followed heavy rains.

The experimental evidence with regard to the losses due to flies
that is available in this country does not seem to indicate that they
are as a rule of such serious consequence as the foregoing statements
would lead one to believe. The seriousness of such outbreaks as
Bishopp and Fuller refer to can not be questioned. Carlyle (1899),
at the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, conducted an
experiment relative to injury due to flies in which two lots of seven
cows each were used. Lot No. 1 was kept during the day in a pad-
dock provided with shade trees, while lot No. 2 was protected from
flies by being kept in a screened stable. The cattle in both lots
were kept on the pasture during the night and taken off at 9 o’clock
in the morning. The experiment was continued for a period of
four weeks. The cattle in the lot protected from flies ate 835 pounds
more green corn than those that were unprotected. All the cows
lost in weight, but the protected cows lost nearly three times as
much as the others. In comparing the milk and butter production
of the first two weeks of the experiment with that of the two weeks
just preceding the experiment it was noted that there was a decrease
in both milk and butter. The milk reduction was greater for the
protected animals and the butter reduction was greater for the
unprotected animals. The conclusion reached was that the greater
amount of butter yielded by the protected lot was not sufficient to
pay for the increased trouble and expense entailed in stabling the
cows during the greater part of each day.

Kent (1903), in an experiment at the Oregon Agricultural Col-
lege and Experiment Station, used a proprietary repellent on four
dairy cows. Four untreated cows served as controls. The treated
cows gained a total weight of 265 pounds while the untreated ones
gained 212 pounds. In comparing the milk and butter records of
two cows from each lot that were in about the same stage of lacta-
tion with the-records of the same cows during the two months just
preceding the experiment it was found that the treated cows lost
about 10 per cent less than the cows not treated.

Beach and Clark (1904), at Storrs Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, Conn., tested a proprietary fly repellent which the manufac-
turers claimed would effect a tremendous saving during the fly
season. The experiments covered a period of two seasons and the
cows were sprayed thoroughly once a day. The conclusions reached
by the authors are as follows: “1. The annoyance of cows by flies
seems to be overestimated. 2. Certain proprietary ointments known

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 5

as ‘fly removers’ will protect the animal to a greater or less extent,
but their use has little or no effect on the milk or butterfat secre-
tion.”

Kekles (1905) carried on experiments for two seasons at the Mis-
souri Agricultural Experiment Station with a proprietary repel-
lent for the purpose of determining whether the use of a repellent
on dairy cows would have any influence on the amount of milk and
butter produced. During the first season 16 cows were used and
during the second season 22 cows were used. The fly season was
divided into periods of two weeks. and the herd was sprayed each
morning during alternate periods. A comparison was made be-
tween the sprayed and unspraved periods. ‘The conclusion reached
by the author was that the use of the fly repellent was fairly effec-
tive in preventing the annoyance from flies if applied every morn-
ing, but that the yield of milk and fat was not appreciably affected
by its use. The only advantage observed was that the cows stood
more quietly during milking. With regard to the shrinkage in
milk production during hot weather, the author has the following
to say: “'The rapid shrinkage that occurs in the yield of a cow
during the hottest summer months is a well-established fact, but is
probably not so much on account of flies as to failure to graze sufh-
ciently, if on pasture, on account of the heat.”

THE INFLUENCE OF COLOR ON FLIES.

Several years ago Dr. Schroeder, of the Bureau of Animal In-
dustry, called my attention to some pictures of Holstein cattle he
had taken in connection with some tuberculosis work, in which the
flies on the animals were confined almost exclusively to the black-
colored spots. Beach and Clark (1904) state that some animals
suffer more from hornflies than others and that dark-colored animals
suffer more than light-colored ones. Marlatt (1910) states that the
hornfly exhibits a certain preference for red or other dark-colored
cattle, and that such animals are more thickly infested has been
frequently noted. He states, however, that when the flies are abun-
dant this preference is not so strongly marked.

Marre (1908) refers to a discovery which a farmer in the vicinity
of St. Cyr made relative to the influence of color on flies. The
farmer had 170 cows in a number of stables and noted that flies had
a marked aversion for blue. The idea came to him to add blue to
the whitewash with which he coated the walls of his buildings each
year. After doing this the flies left his cattle stables.

The formula used for the wash is as follows:

A SESE 2 age et ge 100 liters (105.6 quarts, or 26.4 gallons).

fame..¢Slaked)) 2202s 3 5 kilos (11 pounds).
Ultramarine blue___-__-- 500 grams (1.1 pounds).

6 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Two applications, one in June and one in August, are recom-

mended. The present writer is not aware whether this observation ©

has been corroborated or not.

INTERNAL REMEDIES FOR REPELLING FLIES.

Tt would hardly seem likely that a drug could be administered to —

animals that would prevent flies from making their customary
attacks. However, Ochmann (1911) has recommended potassium
tellurate for this purpose. According to him this chemical does not
affect the general health of animals. The hair, however, becomes
temporarily rougher, paler, and drier. The expired air, the per-
spiration, and the feces take on an intensely offensive garlic odor
which persists for a long time.

Two dogs received on two successive days each 0.25 gram of po-
tassium tellurate. The results appeared on the day of the first ad-
ministration and lasted three to four weeks. The olfactory sense of
one dog suffered considerably. One of the dogs formerly troubled
with ticks was no longer affected. The dogs were protected from
flies.

An ass was given 0.25 gram of the chemical in the feed for three
days. The action was negative. Another ass received on three suc-
cessive days 0.25 gram. On the second day the odor appeared in
_ the breath and disappeared one day after the last dose.

A mule received on three successive days 1.5 grams. The odor
appeared on the day following the first administration and gradu-
ally disappeared in 10 days. There were no unfavorable results. An-
other mule was given on three successive days 0.5 gram. The odor
appeared on the day following the second dose and disappeared one
day after the last dose. A mule received on two successive days 2
grams. An intense odor appeared on the second day and disap-
peared after six days.

The author states that flies Hetbinh on the animals were repelled.

Mayer (1911) conducted experiments for the purpose of verifying.

Ochmann’s results, and reached quite different conclusions. Ten ex-
periments were carried out, nine on horses and one on a cow. Each
animal received in all 10 grams in single doses of from 1 to 5 grams.
The best method of administering the drug was to dissolve the salt
in drinking water. Subcutaneous administration leads to dry ne-
crosis. The drug was taken unhesitatingly and caused no ill results
except occasionally a staring coat in fine-haired animals. The garlic
odor of methyltellurid appeared in the breath of the cow and was
present for a long time. The odor appeared to a very slight degree
in the breath of three of the horses, but disappeared very soon.

Fe

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 7

The author states that the administration of potassium tellurate in
all cases failed to protect animals from flies.

It would therefore seem hkely that this internal remedy is not
efficacious. If it or any other internal remedy were found efficacious,
it is doubtful whether it could be administered to dairy cows with-
out imparting an odor to the milk. On the whole, therefore, the use
of internal remedies seems to be an extremely unpromising means of
repelling flies.

EXTERNAL REMEDIES FOR REPELLING FLIES.

There are almost innumerable homemade and proprietary ex-
ternal remedies for repelling flies. They contain various substances
that are distasteful to the insects. Many of them contain strongly
odoriferous ingredients that have a repelling influence on flies. The
qualities to be sought in a satisfactory repellent are: Absence of
toxic and other detrimental properties when applied externally to
animals; a marked repellent action on flies; and a duration of this
action for a reasonable length of time. A common defect of many
otherwise rather good repellents is the very short period during
which they are effective. Some repellents are undoubtedly toxic
and must be used with care.

METHODS OF APPLYING REPELLENTS.

Repellents as a rule are in the form of liquids and may be applied
by means of a dipping vat, a pail spray pump, an atomizer such
as that commonly used in gardens and greenhouses for applying
insecticides to plants, or by means of a rag or a paint brush. The
method employed necessarily depends to a very large extent on the
number of animals to be treated, the physical character and toxicity
of the preparation, its cost, and the individual preference of the
farmer or stockman. Some preparations, either because of their
cost or their toxicity, or for some other reason, are not adapted for
use in a dipping vat or for application by means of a spray pump.
Others may be applied by any one of the methods mentioned.

Marlatt (1910) describes a special splash board for vats, devised
by J. D. Mitchell. By means of this board the splash caused when
the animal plunges into the vat is thrown back into the vat in the
form of a spray and many of the flies are wetted and carried down
with the dip. It is said that with vats equipped with such splash
boards from 75 to 80 per cent of the hornflies are killed.

EFFICACY OF PROPRIETARY REPELLENTS.

Lindsey (1903), at the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment
Station, tried out 10 proprietary fly repellents. He found that four
were quite satisfactory, four others were less satisfactory, and two

8 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

were unsatisfactory. The chief defect of the second group seemed
to be that they were not lasting. It is stated that these fly repel-
lents are sold at retail from $1 to $1.50 a gallon.

POWDERS AS REMEDIES.

Smith (1889), of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Sta-

tion, found by experiment that two powders were adapted for de-
stroying hornflies and stable flies, namely, pyrethrum powder and
tobacco powder. Pyrethrum acted promptly, but was objectionable
from a practical standpoint because of its expense and because it
lost its strength soon after application. Tobacco was found very
much more satisfactory though the killing power was less. He
recommended a proprietary powder having for its base tobacco dust
and containing crude carbolic acid or creosote. The method of pro-
tecting cattle from the hornfly that he suggested was to apply
carbolated fish oil to the belly, udder, and those parts of the animal
where powder could not well be used, and to apply tobacco powder
to the base of the horns, the back, and at the root of the tail. The
effect of the oil is to repel and that of the tobacco to kill flies that
attempt to feed.
OILS AS REPELLENTS.

Almost any kind of oil, whether it has a pungent or disagreeable
odor or not, will repel flies to a certain extent. The mere physical
condition of the hair and skin of an animal treated with oil seems
to be repugnant to flies. Oils are used pure or in the form of an
emulsion, or in combinations or mixtures. Crude petroleum, cot-
tonseed oil, fish or train oil, and light coal-tar oil may be used pure.

Crude petroleum may be used in the form of an emulsion. The
formula and method of preparing it so as to make 5 gallons of
80 per cent emulsion are as follows:

In preparing the emulsion the soap should be shaved up and
placed in a kettle or caldron containing the required amount of
water. The water should be brought to a boil and stirred until the
soap is entirely dissolved. Enough water should be added to make
up for the loss by evaporation during the process. The soap solu-
tion and the required amount of oil are then placed in a convenient
receptacle and mixed either by stirring or by means of a spray
pump. If properly prepared the stock emulsion will keep indefi-
nitely. When required for use the stock emulsion should be diluted,
one part of the emulsion to three parts of water being used. The
dilnted emulsion does not remain uniformly mixed, so if allowed to
stand it should be thoroughly mixed by stirring before using.

i i Py

i eg

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 9

Jensen (1909) recommended the following mixture containing
crude petroleum for dairy cows. He states that it remains on cattle
for at least a week.

Sonunon: laundry: Soape— > — <<! ae ees ee 1 pound.
NAC U He) Rae ole hs eh. SRS eee eee Eo Sot FED ee ce 4 gallons.
Srudey PeEToleuinpeces 2) 1 2F seen ov cee AR eas peg teed Pe 1 gallon.
Pawoercde ha pin adam 54 3s ee eae a 4 ounces.

Cut the soap into thin shavings and dissolve in water by the aid
of heat; dissolve the naphthalin in the crude oil, mix the two solu-
tions, put them into an old dasher churn, and mix thoroughly for 15
minutes. The mixture should be applied once or twice a week with
-abrush. It must be stirred well before being used.

A mixture of cottonseed oil and pine tar in the proportion of two
parts of the former to one part of the latter has been recommended
to relieve cattle of flies.

Fish or train oil is generally rated as one of the best repellents.
Its protective action is said to last from two to six days, depending
on the temperature and humidity. A great many mixtures have
been recommended in which fish oil occurs as an important ingre-
dient. Moore (1903) recommended the following mixture for use
on dairy cows:

EASES TM a a Ba eI ce me 100 parts.
Oi Gh bares sta Pee ifs Oe ee ee ee ee 50 parts.
C@Eude pen RHOne a Cras Te ee he 5 5 en Se ee 1 part.

The cost of the mixture was about 35 cents per gallon. The mix-
ture was applied with a small hand spray pump. One application
was effective for two days.

Bishopp (1918) gives the following formula for a mixture that is
said to be very effective in keeping flies from live stock, when applied

lightly:
VETSED CUTE Sse ag SS eee NP 1 gallon.
Rear Sted Tym ioe we SS ye oS ee ee eee 2 ounces.
hrmrepeapeC NTT OVall =e 82 Fs eh ne ee ee Ses eee 2 ounces.
UR Sle 2A ee ee eee Le ees eee 3 pint.

Parrott (1900), at the Kansas Agricultural College, found that
repellents were not as effective in Kansas as they were said to be in
other States. Fish oil was effective for less than two days.

The following formula is recommended by him as being as effec-
tive as fish oil, and at the same time cheaper and more lasting:

PRGePIZeUy Cesin 2k) 2 eee 2 parts (by measure).
See Hel wT eo! 12 ee Sega Oe 1 part.
Eras Hem eu Li Seal iy Fo at 2S ek ee 3 part.
HuSi-Gule se Lee eI pe Ee et 1 part.
CET FSG ea renee nce part.
LETRAS SE ES ST alee SU ne cee 1 part.
TES a es ee ee 3 parts.

51293°—Bull. 181—14—_2

10 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Place the resin, soap shavings, the one-half part of water, and fish
oil together in a receptacle and boil until the resin is dissolved.
Then add the 3 parts of water, following with the oil of tar mixed
with the kerosene. Stir the mixture well and allow it to boil for
15 minutes. When cool the mixture is ready for use and should be

stirred frequently while being applied. Application should be made ~

with a brush. One-eighth to half a pint is required for each animal.
The cost of the mixture is given as 30 cents a gallon.

The present writer has not made or used the above repellent. Its
formula and method of preparation seem too complex for wide
use. It would appear that great caution should be exercised in boil-
ing the mixture because of the inflammability of some of the in-
gredients.

he same author recommends the following formula for horses.
Tt is said to be effective for three to four hours and even longer:

1 CUVIES) a Wee Riese ee cee NE ta Wd gi acl Se Mia a Cae 2 quarts.
Carbolie wed “(erudejes! Stes as ae Ee a ee i ping

Benny roy alas ace 2a pasts 2 Lok Sry ees tek ae 1 ounce.
GGT L, <1 ERE 0 1 aR race OS LIM RTA Sakata UN viet ok Soh ee tae 8 ounces.
TCOROSEME Se. Oe ee eee eae *1% quarts.

The cost is given at about 80 cents a gallon. The mixture must be
applied with an atomizer and not with a brush.

Carlyle (1899), of the Wisconsin Experiment Station, states that
fish oil to which is added a little oil of tar and a little sulphur will
‘serve to protect cows from hornflies for four to five days if the
weather is fine. He states that none of the remedies seem to be
effective against the stable fly an hour after being applied.

Otis (1904) recommends a repellent worked out by the entomologi-
cal department of the Kansas station. The formula is as follows:

BES ST oN Tee Ry ac eee 13 pourds.
TUM, ISO aps SS oe es ak ee a EI ae 2 cakes.
| COURS) ger 1H (ect coomieae napa ioe ent? Lae Obrien! Py OU A ate oss 3 pint.
Watersenoush::to. make. sous ee ee eee 3 gallons.

Dissolve the resin in a solution of soap and water by heating.

Add the fish oil and the rest of the water. Apply witha brush. If
to be used as a spray, add one-half pint of kerosene. The cost is 7 to
8 cents a gallon.
Fish oil containing a small admixture of carbolic acid has been

used with good success as a repellent.
_ Lindsey (1903), at the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment

Station, found light coal-tar oil quite satisfactory. This oil is de-
scribed as the lighter of two oils derived from tar. It is a dark,
thin oil with a strong creosote odor. It was applied as a spray.

1Or enough to make 1 gallon of mixture.

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. Tl

Kerosene mixed with cottonseed oil or in the form of an emulsion
may be used for repelling flies. Spencer (1904), at the Virginia
station, used an emulsion of kerosene in a special spraying apparatus
for destroying the hornfly. The formula and method followed in
preparing the emulsion are given below:

WEES VO ge ah 6 ces se ee i A tL LON TE On Oa + pound.
PSROMEE RSCTU OS) Seis Seca ee mom gags DY alae ee Cai 1 gallon.
IREEO SCOT: Oi iese et a ek Le eee on ee Se a ONS:

Shave the soap fine and dissolve in water at boiling temperature.
Place the kerosene in a barrel, add the hot-soap solution, and by
means of a spray pump agitate for 15 to 20 minutes, or until emulsi-
fication is complete. One gallon of water is added to prevent the
solution becoming thick. This is a stock solution and should be
diluted in the proportion of 1 to 5 of water. The diluted emulsion
tends to separate, so only the amount needed should be diluted each
time.

It is stated that at the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station
daily sprayings for a period of two weeks reduced the hornflies to
a point of insignificance. The flies were killed in passing through
the spray.

A milk emulsion of kerosene may be made as follows: To 1 part of
milk add 2 parts of kerosene and mix by means of a force pump, or
in some other way. The creamy emulsion that results 1s to be diluted
with 8 or 10 times the bulk of water.

Mayer (1911) found that laurel oi! applied to the skin of cattle and
horses repelled the flies. The oil produced an inflammation of the
skin in some of the tests. The oil applied to bedsores of horses re-
pelled the flies and produced no change in the sores.

Laurel oil and linseed oil in the proportions of 1 to 10 repelled
flies from a bedsore on the foreleg of a horse for five days. The
entire right side of a horse was rubbed with the oil. No flies were
seen on the right side and great numbers were present on the left
side. The action lasted for 12 days. A light application of oil to a
horse was effective for only two days. This mixture produced no
inflammation of the skin.

The following mixture was also tested by Mayer:.Laurel oil, 1
part; dilute alcohol, 4 parts; and olive oil, 5 parts. In place of
dilute alcohol denatured alcohol with water may be used, and in
place of olive oil linseed oil may be used. The mixture was tried on
horses, but the results were not so good, as the mixture did not stick.
The action lasted five days. /

Rancid oil should not be used on account of its irritating action.

12 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
REPELLENTS FOR APPLICATION TO WOUNDS.

Jensen (1909) gives three formulas of repellents for application
‘to wounds:
Formula No. 1:
Oil. of tars S228 ce = 6 ee a eo eee S ounces.
Cottonseed: ol to make 2 See ee ee 32 ounces.

Formula No. 2:

Powdered naphtha lime 222 es ee eee as Oe 2 ounces.
Eiydrous-cwool station fs. sae see ae eee 14 ounces.
Mix into an ointment.

Formula No. 3:

Choa lis Pate fos ee OR pee ate oe 12 ounces.
Carbon: disulphid 227s Fae See ee pe ee eee 4 ounces.
Mix; keep in a well-stoppered bottle and apply with a brush.
- Mixtures Nos. 23 and 8 are said to adhere to moist surfaces, and No.
3 is said, in addition, to form a coating over raw surfaces and protect
fram the screw-worm fly.
The editor at the close of the article in which the above formulas
are given adds the following formula:

Oilmok turpentine. 2-22 spe USS als Ta cae, ern ane er EE 1 dram.
1 El OVS} 0 YG) Me Saleeies eave tae ite Ae ap Met Roem Se aI Men Me RMR Se De Reet 1 dram.
Cottonseed< oils to - make- 35 = 45 es ee ee pee 4 ounces.

Mix and apply freely to wounds.

It is stated that this remedy is highly effective and is used widely
in the South. It is said to induce healthy granulation of wounds.

EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF VARIOUS SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
FOR REPELLING FLIES.

For the purpose of determining the efficacy of various substances
and mixtures for repelling flies, a number of tests were made by the
present author at the Bureau of Animal Industry Experiment Sta-
tion during the summers of 1912 and 1913. The results of these tests
are given below. In making various mixtures for the purpose of trial
the plan adopted was to combine a pungent or odoriferous substance
with an oil which served mainly as a vehicle.

CRUDE CARBCLIC ACID.!

The following tests were made with 10 per cent crude carbolic acid
in cottonseed oil:

On July 22, 1912, a calf was sprayed with a mixture of 10 per
cent crude carbolic acid in cottonseed oil. About 2 quarts of the
mixture were applied. The calf was discovered down about 7 to 10

1A sample of the crude carbolic acid used in these tests was examined in the Bio-

-chemic Division of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and was found to contain 21.8
per cent phenols.

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 13

minutes later with symptoms of carbolic-acid poisoning. There was
salivation, dyspnea, trembling, paralysis, inability to rise, rapid
breathing, and rapid and irregular beating of the heart.

Another calf was sprayed on the same date with about 14 quarts
of the mixture. The calf showed distinct symptoms of carbolic-acid
poisoning in 6 minutes. It showed a tendency to fall in 8 min-
utes, and fell in 14 minutes. The symptoms in the order in which
they occurred were: Salivation, dyspnea, muscular tremors, loss of
muscular control, and finally motor paralysis. The breathing was
rapid and shallow.

It was necessary to destroy both of the animals.

July 15, 1913, applied the mixture to a calf by means of a brush.
Used 22 ounces of the mixture. The repellent action was very
marked. July 16, about 18 hours later, the animal was worried as
much by flies as were the controls. Oil was present only along the
back. There was only a very faint odor of carbolic acid. The pro-
tection was practically nothing. There were no symptoms of poi-
soning.

The results obtained with crude carbolic acid may be summarized
as follows: In the case of the first two calves treated it shows that
carbolic acid in cottonseed oil is absorbed through the skin. It is
well known that carbolic acid, when combined with oil, loses its
caustic properties, but its toxic properties still remain, as evidenced
by the above cases of poisoning. It seems certain that in the case of
any such mixture, no matter how small the content of carbolic acid,
a certain amount of the same must be absorbed. The amount ab-
sorbed will depend, other things being equal, on the amount of the
mixture applied. In the third test that was made, the same strength
(10 per cent) mixture was used, but 1t was applied with a brush and
only to the amount of 23 ounces. There were no symptoms of poison-
ing. It is therefore evident that a 10 per cent mixture of crude car-
bolic acid (21.8 per cent phenols) in cottonseed oil may be used with
safety if the application is very ight. It is undoubtedly true that
a very much weaker mixture of carbolic acid if applied liberally
would produce toxic symptoms.

The repellent action of this mixture, however, does not endure.
Its action was very marked at first, but lasted less than 18 hours.
It would be necessary therefore to apply this mixture every day. In
order to ascertain whether daily applications of the mixture could
be made without danger to the animal, a calf was treated with this
mixture on October 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 18. The mixture was
applied with a brush. There were no symptoms of poisoning or other
untoward results.

14 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
PINE TAR.

TEN PER CENT PINE TAR IN COTTONSEED OIL.

July 29, 1912, sprayed a cow with 10 per cent of pine tar in cotton-
seed oil. Used 34 quarts of the mixture.

July 30, the cow was looking droopy. The ears were hanging.

July 31, the hair was still oily. There was no odor of tar. The
animal was bright and perfectly normal. No hornflies were observed.
A few stable flies were present on the legs and body. The animal
was not fighting the flies, whereas unsprayed animals were con-
stantly switching their tails.

August 1, some oil was still present. Some stable flies were pres-
ent, especially on the legs. Animal does not fight flies as much as
do the untreated animals.

August 3, oil still present on the back, croup, and thighs. It is
very sticky. There is little or no protective action.

TWENTY PER CENT PINE TAR IN COTTONSEED OIL.

July 15, 1913, treated a cow with 20 per cent pine tar in cotton-
seed oil. Used 54 ounces of mixture. It was applied with a brush.

The protection was marked but not quite so effective as either 10 per

cent crude carbolic acid or 10 per cent oil of tar in cottonseed oil.
July 16, about 18 hours later, the cow fought flies as much as did
the controls. There was some oil present on the neck, back, and on
the fore legs. There was no odor of tar. There was little or no pro-
tective action evident at this time. ’

A HALF-AND-HALF MIXTURE OF PINE TAR AND COTTONSEED OIL.

July 31, 1912, sprayed a calf with a half-and-half mixture of pine
tar and cottonseed oil. Used about 2 quarts of fluid. The mixture
was too thick to spray well in pump. The animal was sprayed very

unevenly and some spots were not covered. ‘Two types of nozzles

were used, but a satisfactory spray was not developed.

August 1, there was plenty of oil present and also an odor of tar.
Tar was visible here and there on the hair. No flies were observed.

August 3, some oil was still present. There was a slight odor of
tar. A repellent action was still noticeable on the back, croup, and
thighs.

July 31, a second calf was sprayed. Used about 2 quarts, which
was not enough to cover the animal properly.

August 1, there was plenty of oil present, and there was a strong
odor of tar. No flies were observed.

August 8, the oil and tar odor still present. A distinct repellent
action on stable fiies was still noticeable.

oe

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 1d
FIFTY PER CENT PINE TAR IN BEAUMONT OIL.

August 19, a cow was treated with 50 per cent pine tar in Beau-
mont oil. The mixture was applied with a brush.

August 20, the mixture had been rubbed off the sides and abdo-
men. The odor of tar was still present. The hair was rather untidy.
Fhles were present only on underside of abdomen.

August 21, the cow was stiff. The mixture was still present on the
back. There was no repellent action.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS WITH PINE TAR.

It is noted from the first test made that a hberal application of
10 per cent pine tar in cottonseed oil caused the animal to look
droopy. It is probable that this was due to a toxic action of the tar.
The odor of the tar had disappeared on the second day following the
treatment. The repellent action lasted for three days. Some oil
was present five days after the treatment.

In the test in which 20 per cent of pine tar was used, the mixture
was appled with a brush and only 54 ounces were used. The repel-
lent action was marked, but not so great as in the case of 10 per
cent crude carbolic acid or 10 per cent oil of tar. The repellent ac-
tion lasted less than 18 hours. The odor of tar had disappeared at
that time.

In the third test in which a half-and-half mixture of pine tar and
cottonseed oil was used, the mixture was applied liberally by means
of aspray pump. The repellent action lasted more than three days
in the case of both animals treated. The mixture is too thick to be
used in a spray pump.

In the last test, in which a half-and-half mixture of pine tar and
Beaumont oil was used, the repellent action lasted less than two
days. This mixture had a detrimental effect in that it caused the
animal to become stiff. ;

There seems to be no danger to animals in applying tar in cotton-
seed oil for the purpose of repelling flies. In the first test there
were slight symptoms of poisoning, but the amount of 10 per cent
mixture applied (34 quarts) was much more than would ever be
applied to an animal to protect it from flies.

Tt is evident from the second test that when a pine-tar-cottonseed-
oil mixture of moderate strength is applied in quantities such as it
is economical to use, the applications will have to be made every day
in order to provide protection.

16 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
OIL OF TAR.1

TEN PER CENT OIL OF TAR IN COTTONSEED OIL.

July 22, 1912, sprayed a calf with 10 per cent oil of tar in cotton-
seed oil. Used about 2 quarts of the mixture. |
July 28, the oil was still evident. No hornflies were observed.
Stable flies were seen to light on the hair but left immediately. Some

stable flies were seen on the legs of the animals.

July 25, the odor of the oil of tar had entirely disappeared. The
hair was still oily but flies were seen to light on the oily spots.

July 29, there was no oil present.

July 15, 1913, applied 33 ounces of the mixture to a calf by means
of a brush. The repellent action was very marked.

July 16, about 18 hours later, the calf did not fight the flies quite
so much as did the controls. There was no odor of tar. There was
a very slight evidence of oil on the sides and back but no repellent
action could be observed.

HALF-AND-HALF MIXTURE OF OIL OF TAR AND COTTONSEED OIL.

August 22, 1912, sprayed a calf with a half-and-half mixture of oil
of tar and cottonseed oil. Used about 2 quarts of tht mixture. The
animal almost immediately began to show signs of sickness. The
eyes were half closed. The skin about the eyes, on the face, and at
the corners of the mouth was wrinkled. There was slight salivation.
These symptoms were followed by a slight swaying in the hind quar-
ters when the animal walked. Finally the gait became staggering
and the animal fell from time to time and arose again only with the
greatest difficulty.

August 26, when the next observation was made, the animal had
entirely recovered. There was no repellent action noticeable.

TEN PER CENT OIL OF TAR IN BEAUMONT OIL.

July 22, 1912, sprayed a calf with 10 per cent oil of tar in Beau-
mont oil. Used about 2 quarts of the mixture. |

July 23, oil was present on the hair. There were a very few stable
flies on the legs. No hornflies were observed.

July 25, more oil was present on the hair than in the case of a
calf sprayed on the same date with a mixture in which cottonseed
oil served as the base.

July 29, oil was present on the back and rump. No hornflies were
observed.

1A sample of the oil of tar used in these experiments was examined in the Biochemic

Division of the Bureau of Animal Industry and was found to contain phenols, volatile
with steam, 14 per cent.

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 1

August 7, 1913, a calf was treated with 10 per cent oil of tar in
Beaumont oil. The mixture was applied with a brush. The repel-
lent action was marked.

August 8, no odor of tar was noticeable. The oil wasrubbed off the
abdomen, the sides, and outside of the thighs. Some stable flies were
present on the legs. Only a very few hornflies were present.

FIFTY PER CENT OIL OF TAR IN BEAUMONT OIL.

August 19, 1918, a cow was treated with a mixture of 50 per cent
oil of tar in Beaumont oil. The mixture was applied with a brush.
There was a slight salivation, and the cow remained rather quiet fol-
lowing the treatment. It seems certain that there were symptoms
of phenol poisoning.

August 20, the odor of the oil of tar was still present. Only a few
stable flies were present on the legs. Other animals in the same pen
were covered with flies. The mixture had disappeared from the
sides and abdomen.

August 21, the cow was a little stiff. Oil was still present on the
back. The cow was protected very little from the flies.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS WITH OIL OF TAR.

In the first test with 10 per cent oil of tar in cottonseed oil the
mixture was applied with a spray pump. About 2 quarts of the
liquid were appled. The repellent action lasted less than three
days.

In the second test the mixture was applied by means of a brush,
and 8% ounces were used. The repellent action, which was very
marked at first, had nearly disappeared at the end of 18 hours.

In the third test a half-and-half mixture of oil of tar and cotton-
seed oil was applied with a spray pump. About two quarts of the
mixture were used. There were symptoms of poisoning. The next
observation was made four days later, at which time there was no
repellent action.

In the fourth test 10 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil was
applied with a spray pump. About 2 quarts of the mixture were
used. There were no symptoms of poisoning.

In the fifth test 10 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil was applied
with a brush. On the following day the odor of tar had entirely dis-
appeared and the repellent action had almost entirely ceased. 7

In the last test 50 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil was applied
with a brush. The protection lasted about two days. There were
mild symptoms of poisoning and the animal became slightly stiff.

The repellent action of 10 and 50 per cent of oil of tar in cotton-
seed oil or in Beaumont oil is very marked, but when applied in

18 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

such quantities as it is economical to use the action lasts less than
a day when cottonseed oil is used, and about two days when Beau-
mont oil is used. As shown by the third test, 50 per cent oil of tar
is dangerous when applied in large quantities.

The last test shows that 50 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil
when applied in small quantities with a brush is also dangerous.
The increase of the content of oil of tar from 10 to 50 per cent does
not seem to increase the duration of the repellent action materially,
as indicated by tests 1 and 3, but the 50 per cent Beaument oil mix-
ture protected twice as long as the 10 per cent mixture.

For the purpose of determining whether daily applications of 10
per cent oil of tar in cottonseed oil would produce poisoning or other
untoward results, a calf was treated with the mixture on October 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, and 14. The mixture was applied with a
paint brush. No symptoms of poisoning resulted, and the skin
remained unaffected.

THE MOORE FORMULA.

October 4, 1912, a calf was sprayed with the following mixture:

HUSH oie rth ye Mae anaes Ee 00 sete!
Oil Ot ptare. ss wa ei save eats SUN UO 50 parts.
CU Carlo OL eh CU eI SRO TA RE age OE 1 part:

About three quarts of the mixture were used. The animal appeared
sick after being sprayed. It was restless and there was salivation.

October 7, the animal was very oily. There was present an odor
of tar and fish oil. Flies were still repelled.

July 16,1913, a bull calf was treated with the above mixture, which
was applied with a brush, and 6 ounces were used. The repellent
action was marked. There were no symptoms of poisoning.

It is noted from the first of the above tests that the application of
the Moore mixture in large quantities is dangerous. Such a liberal
application, however, would never be made in practice. The repel-
lent action was still evident on the third day. In the second test a
small quantity of the mixture was applied to a calf by means of a
brush and no symptoms of poisoning resulted.

TEN PER CENT OIL CF CITRONELLA IN COTTONSEED OIL.

June 19, 1913, a calf was treated with 10 per cent oil of citronella
in cottonseed oil, applied with an atomizer. A few hours later all
protection had ceased.

July 2, 1913, the above calf was again sprayed. An hour or so
later a repellent action was still noticeable. The calf was not trou-
bled much with flies as compared with the untreated animals.

July 3, 1913, a cow was sprayed. Used 14 ounces. ‘There was a
very marked repellent action, but an hour or so later this had become

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 19

greatly reduced. There was a very slight odor of citronella at that
time.

July 10, 1913, applied the mixture to a cow by means of a brush.
Used about 6 ounces of oil. July 11, about 22 hours after applica-
tion, oil was present on the neck and along the back. There was
no odor of citronella. There was little or no protection as indicated
by the presence of many hornflies on the underside of the abdomen,
and the presence of many stable flies on the legs.

It is noted from the above tests that the mixture used is a powerful
repellent, but that its effect does not last more than a few hours.

TEN PER CENT OIL OF SASSAFRAS IN COTTONSEED OIL.

June 19, 1913, a mixture of 10 per cent oil of sassafras in cottonseed
oil was applied to a calf by means of an atomizer. There was a pro-
nounced repellent action which, however, had disappeared at the
end of a few hours.

July 2, 1913, the same calf was again treated. An hour or so later
a repellent action was still present. The calf was troubled very
little with flies as compared with the other animals. July 3, there
was no odor or protective action noticeable.

July 3, 1913, treated a cow with the mixture. Used about 3 ounces.
The repellent action was marked. An hour or so later the repellent
action was greatly reduced and there was no odor of sassafras.

July 10, 1918, applied the mixture with a brush to the above cow.
Used about 54 ounces. July 11, about 22 hours later, a little oil was
present on the neck, withers, and just behind the withers. Many
hornflies were present on the front legs and on the underside of the
abdomen.

The above tests show that the mixture has a marked repellent ac-
tion, but that this only lasts for a few hours.

TEN PER CENT OIL CF CAMPHOR IN COTTONSEED OIL.

June 19, 19138, a mixture of 10 per cent oil of camphor in cotton-
seed oil was applied to a calf by means of an atomizer. A few hours
afterward some protective action was still noticeable.

July 2, 19138, the same calf was again treated. An hour or so later
the calf was still protected from flies.

July 8, 1913, no protection was noticeable in the case of the above
calf. A cow was sprayed with the mixture. Used 24 ounces. There
was a marked protective action. An hour or so later the protective
action was greatly reduced. There was no odor of camphor.

July 10, 1913, applied the mixture tc the above cow with a brush.
Used 5 ounces. July 11, about 22 hours after application, a little
oil was present on the neck and along the back. There was no odor

20 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of camphor. Some hornflies were present and many stable flies were
on the legs.

The immediate protection rendered by the above mixture is
marked, but its action lasts only for a few hours.

HALF-AND-HALF MIXTURE OF KEROSENE AND COTTONSEED OIL.

August 7, 1913, a cow was treated with a half-and-half mixture
of cottonseed oil and kerosene. The mixture was applied with a

brush. The flies were repelled.
August 8, the oil was rubbed off the sides, abdomen, and the out-
side of the thighs. Very few flies were present.

KEROSENE EMULSION.

August 21, 1913, treated a cow with kerosene en:ulsion made ac-
cording to the formula on page 11, diluted 1 to 8. The emulsion had
only a very slight repellent action.

BEAUMONT OIL.

August 7, 1913, a calf was treated with Beaumont oil. The oil was
applied with a brush. The repellent action was marked. August
S, the oil had been rubbed off the abdomen, the sides, and the outside
of the thighs. Stable flies were present on the legs. There was
plenty of oil present on the neck, shoulders, and back. There were
no hornflies on the animal, although they had been numerous the
day before. :

FISH OIL.

July 22, 1912, a calf was sprayed with fish oil. About 2 quarts of
- the oil were used. July 23, the oil was present on the hair. Flies
frequently lit on the animal but left almost immediately. A few
stable flies were noted on the legs. No hornflies were observed.

July 25, considerable oil was still present. Some flies were seen
_ to light on and crawl over the greasy hair. There was a very slight
fishy odor.

July 29, oil was present on the back and rump. No hornflies were
observed. Stable flies were observed on the legs.

August 6, rear portion of body very sticky and dirty. There was
a loss of hair in spots on the back and sides.

July 15, 1913, applied fish oil with a brush. The protection was
very marked. July 16, about 20 hours later, there was an abundance
of oil present on the upper half of body, and a repellent action was
noticeable in this region. There was still a very shght amount of oil
on the legs, but it was not sufficient to keep the flies off.

In the first test with fish oil the oil was applied by means of a
spray pump. Two liters were used. The repellent action lasted be-
tween one and three days. The liberal application of the oil caused

Fae .

ee aye

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 91

the hair to become sticky and dirty in places. There was also a loss
of hair. These unfavorable results were not noted in the second
test, in which a light application of oil was made with a brush.

LAUREL OIL.

June 19, 1913, a calf was rubbed with laurel oil. The protection
was very marked. "

July 2, 1913, the oil was applied to a calf with a paint brush.
There was a very marked repellent influence on both the hornflies
and the stable flies. An hour or so later the repellent action was
only very slightly reduced.

July 3, 1918, the same calf was treated. Used about 2 ounces.
The mixture was applied with a paint brush. The repellent action
was marked.

July 10, 1913, applied the oil with a brush to all parts of the body
except the head. Used 5 ounces. July 11, about 22 hours later,
there was an abundance of oil present on body and neck. There
were no flies on the body and neck. Some stable flies were present
on the legs.

July 15, 1913, a severe exfoliation was noted on the shoulders and
neck. There was a slight exfoliation on the head. A similar ex-
foliation was noted on the withers shortly after the first treatment
on June 19.

August 19, 1913, a calf was treated all over with laurel oil. Appli-
cation was made by means of a brush.

August 20, there was an abundance of oil present. It was rubbed
off the abdomen. The repellent action was marked, but the odor of
the oil was not as strong as at first.

August 21, some oil was present on the back and sides. ‘There was
a repellent action still evident.

August 7, 1913, a cow was treated with 10 per cent laurel oil in
cottonseed oil. The mixture was appled with a brush. The repel-
lent action was marked.

August 8, oil was present on the neck, shoulders, and back. It was
rubbed off the sides and abdomen. There was no odor of laurel oil.
Stable flies were present on the legs. Hornflies were present on the
abdomen where the oil had been rubbed off.

Laurel oil has a very marked repellent action on both hornflies and
stable flies. No observations were made to determine the limit of the
duration of the repellent action, but it undoubtedly as a rule con-
tinues for several days. On account of the fact that the oil has a
tendency to produce an exfoliation of the skin it should be applied
very lightly to the hair. As indicated by the last test, in a 10 per
cent mixture of Jaurel oil and cottonseed oil the laurel oil disappears
by evaporation in less than 24 hours.

22 BULLETIN 1381, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

PYRETHRUM POWDER.

July 25, 1912, a cow was dusted with pyrethrum powder along

the neck and back. Used about 24 ounces of powder. Flies were

observed to light frequently on the treated portions of the body and
remain for a time.

July 26, an attendant reported that there was plenty of powder
still present and that it seemed to repel the flies.
August 9, 1913, pyrethrum powder was applied to the skin of a

cow. The repellent action was very marked. August 10, only a very
slight protective action was noted.

Pyrethrum powder when applhed to the skin of cattle has a very
‘marked repellent action, but this lasts only for about a day.

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.

The experimental tests are summarized in the following table:

Summary of experimental tests.

nee Duration ane -

uration | of repel- z Tethod of 3

Substance used. Ghodon jent ence sof application. Effect on animals.

BOM stance.
Gio Days. Days. Days.
10 per cent crude carbolic acid in cot- |..........]........--]--2-020--- Spray pump.| Phenol poisoning.
tonseed oil.
MD Oeste Sse ieee eae oe aes eae eee Sceee ame eee AS Bea Beeeeea ona Hacoe dorsssass Do.
DOQo eee eee te) ne aceite Bene Uae i— i+ Brush 2 eee None.

10 per cent pine tar in cottonseed oil... 2— 34+ Kee Spray pump.| Caused depression.

20 per cent pine tar in cottonseed oil... 1— 1— 1+ Brusheisie None.

50 per cent pine tar in cottonseed oil... 3+ (SBE 3+ Spray pump. Do.

JE iste S Gees 5 She Seabee see oe Shee, Snr 38+ SP hs Tene do swat Do.
50 per cent pine tar in Beaumont oil... 2— = 24 Brush....... Gansed stance
10 per cent oil of tar in cottonseed oil. 3— 3— 3+ Spray pump.| None. :

1D Soa ae BOSE es aa oe engl dhe Se iss Brushes aes Do.
50 per cent oil of tar in cottonseed Oil._|-.-..-.... Aes hie er Spray pump.| Phenol poisoning.
10 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil -.}.-........|.......... Tee eater: dozsiiae: None.

ID Ouse eee Sanna Ss seaooSo Sees eBel! de La les BLUSnee eee Do.

50 per cent oil of tar in Beaumont oil-. 1+ 2 AAAS Sadist pak ee do.......| Slight symptoms of
poisoning. On
second day ani-
mal was stiff.

heyMoore fOrLmMitlarsee eee aces ee eae 3+ 3+ 3+ Sprayed..... Phenol poisoning.

ID Osteo 8 ee See lek Salsas ante Serer ae evens | aera Brush St) a. None.

10 per cent oil of citronella in cotton- |.........-. Ee Hi Seepeeedic Atomizer... Do.

seed oil.
Can JS Tak Pace i Oe en lye Se CE ee 1— 1— i+ Brushes ees Do

10 per cent oil of sassafras in cottonseed !|......-.-- Dak sal eRe eae es 2 Atomizer... Do

oil.
IDOte Sa eeoi ees. eS ee 1— ete eee cee eee do:aes-33 Do
Ch re ae ee pee cere BES Se | ESE ees 1— I+ Brusheccses Do

10 per cent oil of camphor in cottonseed |........--. DST Pee Sa. Eee ee eee Do

oil.
DOM See e as). 4S eas eee ee ee ee ae erp eae ...-| Atomizer.... Do.
1D oy hot eee ery reic ne oie BAe ae 1— 1— I+ Brush enesee Do.

50 per cent kerosene in cottonseed Oil ..|......-.-- hts | eee eee | ed Gosia ee Do

Bertin On pO Sees se eee ree 1+ 1+ Ee Damen (0h S doses Do.

PD ISHUOTMEEH Es hae epee ee ERT ES Bee 3+ 3— 7+ Spray pump.| Slight loss of hair.

TB ies eae A aT eee Re ee ne es ae Led ON ee oh BRushe soe None.
GAUKOMOUE Rts sce 2. Dae tin eee eee 1+ 1+ iE ae Gree S| doe Severe exfoliation.
ID Yas See ee man See mee Ae ee ga 2-+- 2+ ae epee aan REL ce do.......| None.
10 per cent laurel oil in cottonseed oil. . 1— 1+ 1 ae g tl le dortaaes Do
Pyieiinum pow dere: 252852 2 hae eae ee 1+ 1+ Hae ea ae Cop Do
OR Segh ei ET SSCL ic RCS | ee eae sac 1+ Lp FSIS t ee ee Do

a

\
ee

— se.

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. ya

GENERAL SUMMARY.

The biting flies that annoy domestic animals most in this country
are the stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans, and the hornfly, Lyperosia
erritans. The bot flies are not biting flies, but are a menace to do-
mestic animals because of the parasitic habits of their larve. This
is also the case with the screw-worm fly, Paralucilia macellaria,
which deposits its eggs in wounds, and a bluebottle fly, Lwcilia seri-
cata, occurring in the United Kingdom and Holland, and certain
species of Calliphora occurring in Australia, the larve of which
invade the wool and skin of sheep.

Repellents are more or less effective against all of these flies.

_ Opinions differ with regard to the injury by biting flies. The
common opinion seems to be that these flies are responsible for great
losses. However, a limited amount of experimental evidence relating
to cattle seems to indicate that the losses, when they occur, are not
great.

The repellent action of certain colors has been noted by various
investigators. Light-colored animals suffer less from flies than dark-
colored ones. One author (Marre, 1908) has recorded the observa-
tion of a farmer in France who found that a blue color apphed to the
inside of stables repelled flies. This observation seems to have re-
mained uncorroborated.

Potassium tellurate has been recommended by Ochmann (1911)
as an internal remedy for repelling flies. However, Mayer (1911)
failed to obtain results with the remedy, and it seems safe to assume
that internal remedies will never prove practicable in repelling flies.

Liquid repellents may be applied by means of a dipping vat, a
pail spray pump, an atomizer, or by means of a rag or a paint brush.
The method to be employed depends on the individual preference
of the farmer and the nature and cost of the preparation used.

The powder remedies that have been used are pyrethrum powder
and tobacco powder.

Various oils, emulsions of oils, and mixtures of oils are used in
repelling flies. Crude petroleum, cottonseed oil, fish or train oil,
and light coal-tar oil may be used pure. Jensen (1909) recommends
for dairy cows an emulsion of crude petroleum containing an admix-
ture of powdered naphthalin.

Fish oil is rated as one of the best repellents and has been used
alone and in combination with various other substances. Other sub-
stances that have repellent qualities and that have been used in vari-
ous mixtures are pine tar, oil of tar, crude carbolic acid, oil of penny-
royal, and kerosene.

Jensen’s formula is said to protect cows for a week. The pro-
tective action of fish oil is stated to range from less than two days

24 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(Parrott, 1900) to six days. Moore’s formula is said to protect for
two days. This mixture is safe when applied lightly with a brush,
but not when applied liberally with a pail spray pump.

Laurel oil is a very effective repellent. Mayer (1911) found that

the protection lasted from 2 to 12 days. The oil when used pure has

an irritating effect unless it is applied lightly. According to Mayer
the irritating effect may be overcome by combining it with linseed
oil in the proportion of 1 to 10. The present author found that
10 per cent of laurel oil in cottonseed oil was active for less than a
day.

A number of formulas for repellents for application to wounds
have been recommended by various authors.

In experimental tests carried out by the present author the follow-
ing results were obtained:

A 10 per cent mixture of crude carbolic acid (21.8 per cent
phenols) in cottonseed oil has a very strong repellent action on
flies, but this lasts less than a day, in consequence of which it is nec-
essary to apply the mixture every day. The mixture should be ap-
plied lightly with a brush, since a heavy application with a spray
pump is likely to cause phenol poisoning.

Mixtures consisting of 10, 20, and 50 per cent of pine tar in cot-
tonseed oil have marked repellent qualities. They should be applied
lightly and it is necessary to apply them every day. A liberal ap-
plication of a 10 per cent mixture is deleterious to animals. This
is also the case with a half-and-half mixture of pine tar and Beau-
mont oil when apphed hghtly with a brush.

A mixture of oil of tar (14 per cent phenols, volatile with steam)
in cottonseed oil and in Beaumont oil has a very marked repellent
action. A 10 per cent mixture of oil of tar in cottonseed oil is safe.
A half-and-half mixture of oil of tar and cottonseed oil when ap-
plied liberally with a spray pump and 50 per cent oil of tar in Beau-
mont cil applied with a brush are not safe. Ten per cent oil of tar
in Beaumont oil is safe. When applied lghtly it is necessary to
apply 10 per cent oil of tar in cottonseed oil or 10 per cent oil of tar
in Beaumont oil every day.

Mixtures of 10 per cent of oil of citronella, oil of sassafras, or oil
of camphor in cottonseed oil are powerful repellents, but they are
active for less than a day.

A heavy application of fish oil causes the hair to become sticky
and fall out. A hght application did not produce these results.

Pyrethrum powder is an effective repellent, but its action lasts
only for about a day.

«Deh oiagqorte: Resiicaetmy

REPELLENTS FOR PROTECTING ANIMALS FROM FLIES. 25

LITERATURE CITED.

BeacyH, C. L., and CuarK, A. B.
1904. Protecting cows from flies. Bul. 32, Storrs Agric. Exper. Station,
Storrs, Conn., Dec., 14 p., fig. 15.
Bisuopp, F. C.
1913. The stable fly. Farmers’ Bul. 540, U. S. Dept. Agric., Washington,
July 14, 28 p., figs. 10.
CARLYLE, W. L.
1899. Protecting cows from flies. Jn 16th Ann. Rep. Agric. Exper. Station
Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, p. 92-96.
1904. Protecting cows from flies. [Summary of 1899, pp. 92-96.] Jn 20th
Ann. Rep. Agric. Exper. Station, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, p. 105.
DELAMARE, M.
1908. Destruction des mouches et des moustiques par le formol. In
Archives de méd. et de pharm. mil., v. 51, no. 4, April, p. 297-301.
ECKLES, C. H.
1905. Test of a fly repellent. Jn Bul. 68, Missouri Agric. Exper. Station,
Columbia, July, p. 35-389.
FULLER, CLAUDE.
1913. Fly plagues. An unusual outbreak of Stomoxys calcitrans follow-
ing floods. Jn Agric. Jour. Union South Africa, Pretoria, vy. 5 (6),
June, p. 922-924.
GARMAN, H.
1892. Some common pests of the farm and garden. Bul. 40, Kentucky
Agric. Exper. Station, Lexington, Mar., 51 p., figs. 28, pls. 2.
HopkKINs, A. D.
1891. Department of entomology. Jn 3d Ann. Rep. West Virginia Agric.
Exper. Station, Charleston, p. 145-180, pls. 12-18. The horn fly,
p. 159.
JENSEN, H.
1909. [Fly repellents.] Jn Missouri Valley Vet. Bul., Topeka, Kans., v. 4
(5), Aug., p. 30; note by editor, p. 30-81.
Kent, F. L.
1908. Department of dairying. [Report dated June 30.] Jn 15th Ann.
Rep. Oregon Agric. College and Exper. Station, [Corvallis], p.
29-33.
LINDSEY, J. B.
1908. Dairying and feeding experiments. Jn 15th Ann. Rep. Hatch Exper.
Station, Massachusetts Agric. College, Boston, Jan., p. 57-68.
MarLaTT, C. L. ‘ety
1910. The horn fly (Hematobia serrata Rob.-Desv.). Circular 115, Bureau
Entom., U. S. Dept. Agric., Washington, Apr. 15, 13 p., figs. 6.
[MS. dated Nov. 17, 1909. ]
MARRE, FRANCIS.
1908. Les mouches n’aiment pas la couleur bleue. Jn Jour. d’agric. prat.,
Paris, an. 72, n. s., t. 16, sem. 2, no. 33, 13 aofit, p. 215-216.
MAYER, A.
1911. Ueber die Wirkung des tellursauren Kaliums als Fliegenmittel. Jn
Monatsh. f. prakt. Tierh., Stuttgart, v. 23 (2-3), 25. Nov., p. 49-50.
Moore, E. L.
1903. Flies. In Bul. 81, South Dakota Agric. Exper. Station, Aberdeen,
June, p. 41-42.

26 BULLETIN 131, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

OCHMANN.
1911. Kalium telluricum. In Ztschr. f. Veterinirk., Berlin, v. 238 (4),
Apr., p. 1938-195.
Otis, D. H.
1904. Experiments with dairy cows. Bul. 125, Kansas Agric. Exper.

Station, Manhattan, May [issued September, 1904], p. 59-161,

pls. 1-89 [i. e., figs. 1-39].
1905. Experiments with hand-fed calves. Bul. 126, Kansas Agric. Exper.
Station, Manhattan (May, 1904), Mar., p. 163-198, figs. 1-14.
Parrott, P. J. ;
1900. Horsefly remedies. [Letter to editor.] Jn Wallaces’ Farmer,
Des Moines, Iowa, v. 25 (15), Apr. 18, p. 415.
SMITH, J. B.
[1889a] The horn fly (Hematobia serrata). Bul. 62, N. Jersey Agric.
Exper. Station, New Brunswick, Nov. 6, 40 p., figs. 11.
SPENCER, JOHN.
1904a. The horn fly (Hamatobia serrata). In Bul. 158, Virginia Agric.
Exper. Station, Blacksburg, v. 18 (4), Dec., p. 71-77, 5 figs.

O

ids Rice eg oe acciie Re ate