Evaluation of three strategies for insect control on a commercial swine farm
J. A. Schurrer, BA; S. A. Dee, DVM, MS, PhD, Diplomate ACVM; R. D. Moon, PhD; J. Deen, DVM, PhD, Diplomate ABVP; C. Pijoan, DVM, PhD
Complete article is available online.
PDF version is available online.
Objective: To assess the efficacy of three intervention strategies for control of insects on a commercial swine farm.
Methods: The study was conducted on a commercial finishing facility that contained four rooms. Three strategies (treatments) were evaluated: insect screening of sidewall inlets, application of pyrethroid-based insecticide to the walls and floors of the building, the combination of inlet screens and insecticide, and no treatment (negative control). Each room was assigned a treatment for a 2-week sampling period. Specific parameters measured biweekly included numbers of flies and mosquitoes per room, number of insect bites per pig, number of fly spots per room, and level of carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity (RH) per room.
Results: Significant differences in numbers of flies and mosquitoes per room and number of insect bites per pig were observed in rooms treated with screens or screens plus insecticide compared to negative control rooms. Rooms that used screens had significantly fewer flies than rooms that used insecticide alone, although screened treatments did not differ from each other. No differences were observed across treatments in the number of fly spots per room or the level of CO2, temperature, or RH per room.
Implications: Under the conditions of this study, better on-farm insect control was provided through the use of insect screens with or without insecticides. However, no conclusions can be drawn as to whether these strategies can prevent introduction of insect-borne pathogens.
Keywords: swine, insects, insect control, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
Cite as: Schurrer JA, Dee SA, Moon RD, et al. Evaluation of three strategies for insect control on a commercial swine farm. J Swine Health Prod 2006;14(2):76-81.
Search the AASV web site for pages with similar keywords.