Long-term residual efficacy of commerical formulations of 16 pesticides toTyphlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) inhabiting commerical vineyards
The long-term residual efficacy of 16 pesticides to the predatory phytoseiid mite,Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten, inhabiting commercial sprayed vineyards in South Moravia, Czchoslovakia, was evaluated in laboratory bioassays. Omethoate, chlorpyrifos-methyl and esfenvalerate were assessed as harmful and should not be sprayed. Mancozeb-efosite-Al mixture, diazinon, dicofol, bromopropylate, azinphos-ethyl and phosmet were assessed as moderately harmful. Fenitrothion, phosalone and mancozeb were assessed as slightly harmful and some of them had delayed detrimental effect on the predatory mites. These pesticides can be used only cautiously in IPM programs. Sulphur, penconazole, trimorfamid and endosulfan were assessed as harmless and can be recommended for vineyards withT. pyri.
Investigation and treatment of ovine psoroptic otoacariasis.
BACKGROUND
Psoroptic otoacariasis has been described worldwide and is caused by a mite morphologically indistinguishable from the sheep scab mite Psoroptes ovis. A single treatment of affected sheep with 200 μg/kg of injectable ivermectin is reported to be curative.


CASE REPORT
Psoroptes mites were isolated following treatment with ivermectin, but treatment with moxidectin at 1 mg/kg caused complete cessation of clinical signs. Affected animals were seropositive to Pso o 2 antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and had serum haptoglobin concentrations that overlapped with those described for field infections of classical sheep scab.


CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
Psoroptic otoacariasis is not controlled by single treatments of injectable ivermectin but resolves after a single treatment with injectable moxidectin. Pso o 2 ELISA can detect infection with Psoroptes spp. mites but cannot distinguish between sheep scab and psoroptic otoacariasis.
Relationships Between Food Preferences and Food Acceptance Ratings
A study was conducted to assess relationships between food preference ratings and food acceptability ratings. Acceptability ratings for each of two discriminably different samples of nine food items were obtained using the 9-point hedonic scale. Regression analysis indicated that no linear relationship existed between these ratings and either hedonic or frequency preference ratings of the foods. In addition, the range of acceptability ratings was smaller than the range of corresponding’preference ratings. Panelists’expressed preferences had no effect on their assignment of differential acceptance ratings to different samples of the items. Correlations between preference ratings of laboratory panelists and military field panelists were good, in spite of higher absolute preference ratings assigned by the laboratory panel.