Effectiveness of Naturally Occurring Substances Added to Duck Litter in Reducing Emergence and Landing of Adult<i>Musca domestica</i>(Diptera: Muscidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poultry barns provide an ideal breeding environment for Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) owing to the controlled temperatures and litter (manure plus bedding material) accumulation. Management techniques that render the litter less suitable for immature stage development, such as the addition of naturally occurring insecticidal substances, could reduce fly infestations. The effectiveness of acetic, boric, and citric acids; diatomaceous earth; and hydrated lime at restricting female landing and growth of house flies in duck litter was evaluated. Litter treated with 1.9% and 4.7% by weight of acetic or boric acid had significantly lower adult emergence rates compared with the same concentrations of citric acid, diatomaceous earth, hydrated lime, or the untreated control litter. The pH of duck litter treated with acetic or citric acid was significantly reduced and remained significantly lower than the control litter (pH 8.7) for 10 d. Significantly more house flies landed on a house fly-rearing substrate (wheat bran, powdered milk, bloodmeal, water, and yeast) than litter treated with any of the other test substances or the control. The LC50 for boric acid was estimated to be 0.01% by weight, which was lower than that of acetic acid (1.42%). Similarly, the LC90 of boric acid was estimated to be 0.12%, which was lower than that of acetic acid (10.03%). Acetic acid and boric acid have the potential to be incorporated into litter as a pest management tactic to reduce house fly populations in duck production facilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".