: 619:616.995.1:636.

1

- -
alliphoridae

. . *1, . . 2
1
, -,
. , , ;
2
,
, . ,
*Corresponding author. E-mail: anshevch74@gmail.com

.
- .
Lucilia sericata Meigen, 1826,
alliphoridae, 60 , 6,6 % ,
.
- 40
. - 76,6786,67 % .
60- 100 %
180 -. -
100 %.
: , -, , , ,
, alliphoridae, -.

. ,
,
, ,
, -
[1, 12].

[2]
. ,
,
[3].
.
(Z-9- 9-- .). ,
, , .
, , 10 % , 0,1 %
( 0,25 %) 1 % , ,
510 [4].

(, , ,
..), [5, 6].
, , -
(, , , , , ,
, ..), ( , , ,
, , ..) (Z-9-
..) 6 1,5 ,
[79].

- ( , )
(, ),
10 WG ( , KWIZDA GmbH, ) ,

* , , ,
- () . .
 ( , ) .
[10].
,
.
,
,
, ,
. [11, 12].
, - ()
-
.
,
- .
, ( Musca domestica),
, , ( )
( ,
).
.

- Lucilia sericata alliphoridae
-.

.
, , . -
, - ,
.
- ( ) ,
-
. . -
Lucilia sericata Calliforidae (
). 60 .
1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 30, 40, 50 60- .
, () -
() . 60- 180 (3-
). .
(, , %) 2700 L.
sericata.

.
(. 1), -
- 60 .
 1. -
-, (Mm)


, (.
, .
(. (. -), -), -,

), . -, . .
300 1,670,10 3,330,10
,
0 24,000,46 24,670,20
0-
0 4,330,40 2,000,15
300 1,670,10 0,670,10
1- 0 22,330,96 23,670,20
0 6,000,91 4,330,40
300 1,330,10 3,670,36
3- 0 24,670,40 22,000,30
0 4,000,46 4,330,56
300 1,000,15 1,330,10
7- 0 23,330,41 24,000,61
0 5,670,36 4,670,51
300 1,330,10 0,670,10
14- 0 24,330,25 26,000,15
0 4,330,25 3,330,10
300 1,330,25 1,000,15
21- 0 24,330,41 25,670,10
0 4,330,56 3,33025
300 1,330,10 1,000
30- 0 24,670,25 26,000,30
0 4,000,15 3,000,30
300 2,330,10 0,670,10
40- 0 23,330,20 25,330,10
0 4,330,25 4,000,15
300 1,000,15 1,330,10
50- 0 25,330,10 24,000,30
0 3,670,10 4,670,20
300 1,000,15 1,000,15
60- 0 24,000,15 23,670,20
0 5,000,30 5,330,25

- Lucilia sericata ,
12,2320 %, , 60
(12 ) 24 . ,
-, 74,43 84,43 %
27 , 1- 21- .
( -) 6,67
17,77 %, 8 ., 3- 7- .
- 73,3386,67 % , (
), 27 .

. -
2,16 , ,
(14,43 6,67 %, ). , -
(80,0 82,23 %
).
24 , 6,0 0,91
., 38,56 % , ,
. - 22,33 0,96 . 5,66 %
 -, -.
74,43 78,90 % .
72 (3- ) . -
73,33 % .
12,14 % , (24,67 0,40 22,00 0,30 .
, ). , , 8,25 %
-.
7- 40- , ,
. ,
21,41, 30,03, 30,03, 33,33 8,25 % 7, 14, 21, 30 40-
, . ,
4,00 0,155,67 0,36 .
10,0 15,57 % . , 7- ,
, 18,9 15,57 %
60 .
- 30- .
13,33 %, 10,00 %
.
, ,
- (. 1).
2,87, 6,86, 5,50, 5,39 8,57 % 7, 14, 21, 30 40-
, , .
, -
77,7782,23 %. 80,0 86,67 %.
30- ,
- 60 82,23 %
. 14- 30-
86,67 %.
7- 40- .
50- , , 12,23 %
. 27,24 % ,
. -
84,43 % , 5,54 % ,
.
60- -
60 , 6,6 % ,
.
17,77 % 5,33 0,25 . . , 2,67 ,
. 16,67 %, 15,47 %
.
- 80,0 78,9 %
, , 1,39 % ,
.
, ( ),
60- 180 , -
100 % . - 100 %.
Lucilia sericata (),
.

.
1. -
Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae 60- .
2. 60 , 20 %.
120 ,
-, -. -
180 100 %.

1. 3 . . Muscidae. . . .
.-.: . 1951. .18. . 4. C. 1285.
2. Plimmer J. R., Inscoe M. N., McGovern T. P. Insects Attractants. Annual Review of Pharmacology
and Toxicology. 1982; Vol. 22:297-320 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pa.22.040182.001501
3. . ., . ., . . . , ,
. : , 1999. 319 .
4. . .
. / . . , . . , . . , . . // . .
. . 1983. 1. . 6062.
5. . . -
// . . 2004. 4. . 5763.
6.
/ . . , . . // . I . . , . ., 2006.
. 9093.
7. . . // . 1981. 7.
. 2427.
8. . ., . ., . . . //
. 1977. . . . 2223.
9. . ., . .
Musca
Domestica L. // . 2007. 12. . 5662.
10. http://old.vet.gov.ua/db/drugs.
11. . ., T. H.
// . 2007. 7. . 8891.
12. . .
// . 2008. 2. . 5256.
13. Sargison, Neil. The Management of Ectoparasitic Diseases of UK Sheep. World Veterinary
Congress. Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Easter Bush Veterinary Center, Roslin, Midlothian,
Scotland. 2731 July 2008.
REFERENCES
1. Zimin L. S. (1951). Family Muscidae. Flies. Fauna USSR. Diptera insects. Moscow Santk-
Peterburg, Nauka, Vol. 18 (4), 1285 [in Russian].
2. Plimmer J. R., Inscoe M. N., McGovern T. P. (1982). Insects Attractants. Annual Review of
Pharmacology and Toxicology, 22:297-320 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pa.22.040182.001501
3. Dremova V. P., Putintseva L. S., Khodakov P. E. (1999). Medical pest control. Fundamentals,
principles, tools and methods. Ekaterinburg: The Putived, 1319 [in Russian].
4. Smirnova S. N., Dremova V. P., Frolova A. I., Belanova N. M. (1983). Comparative effectiveness of
two species of bait for synanthropic flies in different regions. Medical Parasitolology and parasites disease,
1:60-62 [in Russian].
5. Bakanova E. I. (2004). Modern preparations of insecto-acaricides and some aspects of their usage.
Disinfection. 4:57-63 [in Russian].
6. Kostina M. N., Novikova E. A. (2006). Effective and safe formulations of insecticides and methods
of determining the active substances. 1st Russian summits Works of blood sucker insects. St. Petersburg, 90-
93 [in Russian].
7. Vesiolkin G. A. (1981). Zoophilic flies and methods of control and prevention. Veterinaria Journal,
7:24-35 [in Russian].
8. Gvozdeva I.V., Kayumov Sh. G., Talipov M. Z. (1977). Experience with the usage of DDVV against
flies. Institute Scientific Works. 3:22-23 [in Russian].
9. Ibrahimkhalilova I.V., Eriomin O. Yu. (2007). Creation of a method for assessing poisoned baits and
comparing the contact and intestinal effects of insecticides on the example of a house fly Musca domestica L.
Agrochemistry Journal, 12:56-62 [in Russian].
10. http://old.vet.gov.ua/db/drugs.
11. Roslavtseva S. A., Didenko T. H. (2007). New in the problem of arthropod resistance to
insectoacaricide drugs. Agrochemistry Journal, 7:88-91[in Russian].
12. Roslavtseva S. A. (2008). The danger of resistance development to insecto acaricide drugs in carriers
of pathogens of infectious diseases. Disinfection. 2:52-56 [in Russian].
 13. Sargison, Neil. (2008). The Management of Ectoparasitic Diseases of UK Sheep. World Veterinary
Congress. Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Easter Bush Veterinary Center, Roslin, Midlothian,
Scotland. 2731 July 2008.

Peculiarity of the residual effect of suspension concentration of the new insecticide Mukho-mor
on different test-samples in experiments on a laboratory culture flies of the family Calliphoridae
Anatolii M. Shevchenko, Raissa O. Slobodian
Abstract. The article presents the results of determining the residual effect of the suspension of a new
insecticide Mukho-mor on glass and wooden surfaces of test-samples against laboratory flies culture of
Lucilia sericata Meigen, 1826, of the family Calliphoridae. The residual effect of the suspension of the
experimental preparation on flies deposited on the wooden plate at 60 minutes exposure was 6.6 % higher,
compared with the action on the glass surface. At the same exposure on glass test-samples, the lethal effect
of the insecticide had a lasting effect of up to 40 days. The knockdown effect was observed in 76.6786.67
% of laboratory insects. The insecticide showed 100 % efficacy to the laboratory flies culture on the 60-th
day of the study at an exposure of 180 minutes of each test-samples. Intense- and extenceefficacy of
insecticide Mukho-mor was 100 %.
Keywords: insecticides, Mukho-Mor, attractants, muscalur, alpha-cypermethrin, laboratory culture
of flies, the family Calliphoridae flies, test-samples.