Feeding preference of the larvae of Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and Ravinia belforti (Prado e Fonseca) (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) concerning different diets

Abstract

tion, two with the 4th, three with the 5th, and one with the 6th generation).The tests were done in a 15cm diameter Petri dish containing a layer of 1cm of pure agar (2g for 20ml of water) so the larvae could move. Nine 2cm circular holes, were opened in the agar eight being equally distant from the central hole ( Fig.). We dropped melted agar in the newly opened holes, which after getting cold, formed a thin layer that sealed the space between the glass and the agar. Thus, preventing the larvae from escaping from the hole under the agar layer.In the four holes indicated by letter "A" (Fig.) were placed the diets to be tested (mashed fish, minced meat with 24 hr of environmental exposure, recent human faeces and mashed aged banana). The holes "B" remained empty and in the central hole designated as "C" recently hatched larvae were placed. For each test a newly prepared Petri dish was used.The testing dishes with the larvae of C. megacephala and R. belforti were kept in a chamber with temperature of 27 o C, 80±10% UR, for a period of 6 hr. Afterwards, the larvae were counted in each hole containing the diets. The experiments were carried out from May to October 1993.The results obtained were statistically analyzed through the adherence test of χ 2 at 1% probability.The Table shows that 69% of the larvae of C. megacephala and 47% of the R. belforti were found in the holes containing mashed fish, indicating that this particular diet is highly attractant to the larvae of these flies.It has been demonstrated that adult flies of C. megacephala are attracted to fish. It has been proved not only by faunistic surveys (AX Linhares 1981 Rev Bras Entomol 25: 189-215, JM d'Almeida, HS Lopes 1983, but also in studies about the preference for ovipositional substrates. In addition, meat is an attractive diet for the C. megacephala larvae but less attractive than fish (Table ).The larvae of C. megacephala were not attracted to faeces or banana (1.2% and 0.5 % respectively). When these diets were used as baits to attract flies and as ovipositional substrates, they proved to be ineffective (d'Almeida, Lopes 1983 loc. cit., JM d'Almeida 1988. Nevertheless, KR Norris 1965 (Ann Rev Entomol 10: 47-68) reports that faeces is a good environment for rearing C. megacephala.The Sarcophagidae R. belforti, is frequently bred in human and animal faeces (JM d'Almeida 1989 Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 84: 257-264, HS

Regulatory Action Criteria for Filth and Other Extraneous Materials

“…A disease-causing filth fly that is not attracted to human food as well as to potential reservoirs of pathogens is unlikely to represent much of a threat in terms of (Hall, 1948;Bohart and Gressitt, 1951;Greenberg, 1973;Skidmore, 1985;Daniel et al, 1989). Most of these flies are also attracted to seafood and fisheries products (Bohart and Gressitt, 1951;Okaeme, 1986;Walker and Donegan, 1988;Haines and Rees, 1989;Olsen and Sidebottom, 1990;Esser, 1990Esser, , 1991Olsen et al, 1992;d'Almeida and de Mello, 1996;d'Almeida and Salviano, 1996). Many have been isolated from foods examined by FDA scientists (Hamm and Olsen, 1979;Olsen, 1988;Olsen et al, 1993;Olsen, 1996).…”

Effect of the climate and some different protein diets on the visitation pattern of flesh and blow flies of Gebel Al- Baher, Al- Baha Province, Kingdom Saudi Arabia

“…preferred faeces as collection substrate. D'Almeida and Barbosa (1996) reported that, mashed fish was a highly attractant diet to the larvae of the sarcophagid fly Ravinia belforti (Prado & Fonseca, 1932).…”

Papel das moscas (Insecta, Diptera) na Entomologia Forense

“…Apesar disso, estudos sobre biologia (Oliveira-da-Silva et al 2006), ecologia (Almeida & Salviano 1996) e sucessão (Barros et al 2008) em carcaças de animais dos Sarcophagidae ainda são raros. Um dos fatores limitantes é a diagnose complicada das espécies, pois é baseada majoritariamente em caracteres da terminália dos machos, enquanto chaves para fêmeas são raras (Vairo et al 2011(Vairo et al , 2015a.…”