DIPTERA. —6© 89 
The results obtained by the Farmers’ Review in its recent investi- 
gation are summarized as follows (Insect Life, Vol. I], p. 157): 
From the reports received the approximate percentage of grubby cattle and the 
average loss on grubby hides for the principal stock-raising States of the Mississippi 
: Valley have been estimated as follows (August 7, 1889): 
grubs. The average loss on a grubby hide is one-third. 
Iowa.—Seventy-one per cent of the cattle in the majority of counties are grubby in the season 
specified. Loss on grubby hides one-third. 
Indiana.—Forty-eight per cent of the cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
Wisconsin.—Thirty-three per cent of cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
Ohio.—Fifty-six per cent of cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
Missouri.—Fifty-seven per cent of cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
Kansas.—Sixty per cent of cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
Kentucky.—Fifty-seven per cent of cattle grubby. Loss on hides one-third. 
In Minnesota and Dakota grubs are practically unknown among cattle. 
In Nebraska they are not very bad where found; twelve counties report an average of 40 per cent. 
The rest heard from are free of the pest. Grubby hides are ‘‘ docked’ one-third of their value. 
In Michigan 61 per cent of the cattle are infested with grubs in the southern and middle counties. 
In the northern counties they are unknown or very scarce. Grubby hides sell for one-third less than 
sound ones. 
Illinois.—_Seventy-three per cent of the cattle marketed in the grubby season are infested with 
; 
> 
The amount of this loss can be better appreciated perhaps by reproducing in con- 
densed form the approximate estimate of the loss on the hides of cattle received at 
the Union Stock Yards of Chicago during the grubby season, which includes the 
months from January to June. Using the reports by States above given as a basis 
it is estimated that 50 percent of the cattle received are grubby. The average value 
of a hide is put at $3.90; and while from the report referred to one-third value is 
the usual deduction for grubby hides in this estimate, but $1 is deducted, or less 
than one-third. The number of cattle received in 1889 for the six months indicated 
was 1,335,026, giving a loss on the 50 per cent of grubby animals of $667,513. When 
to this is added the loss from depreciated value and lessened quantity of the beef, 
the amount for each infested animal is put at $5, indicating a total loss on these 
animals from the attack of the fly of $3,337,565. 
LOSS IN MILK AND BEEF FROM ATTACK OF BOT-FLIES. 
In trying to present any estimate of loss from this source we are con- 
fronted by the fact that many other flies with these serve as a constant 
source of annoyance to cattle in pasture, exciting them at times to a 
wild frenzy, when they go chasing about trying to avoid their enemies, 
and not only losing the opportunity to feed peaceably, but using up in 
useless activity the nutriment which should go to form milk or flesh; at 
other times driving them into ponds or streams of water or into the 
Shade of trees or sheds, where they remain for hours at a time, only 
partially relieved from the torments of their foe and losing the oppor- 
tunity for feeding which is essential to growth or production of milk. 
It is, of course, impossible to separate the losses due to each kind of 
fly, and even if it were possible it would be difficult to state in exact 
figures the sum lost. The following note, quoted by Miss Ormerod, is 
perhaps as good an illustration as we can select to show approximately 
this loss as estimated by a practical breeder and dairyman: 
ys 
We all know, to our cost, how greatly these irritating flies torment and madden 
the cattle, causing them to gallop or run asif for their lives to get away from the 
buzz and presence of their tormentors. Feeding cattle can not grow in flesh with- 
out quiet and rest, and milking cows must suffer to a greater extent than we are 
rt _ 
er 
EE eee eee 
