logo
The US plans to begin breeding billions of flies to fight a pest. Here is how it will work

The US plans to begin breeding billions of flies to fight a pest. Here is how it will work

Independent4 days ago
The U.S. government is preparing to breed billions of flies and dump them out of airplanes over Mexico and southern Texas to fight a flesh-eating maggot.
That sounds like the plot of a horror movie, but it is part of the government's plans for protecting the U.S. from a bug that could devastate its beef industry, decimate wildlife and even kill household pets. This weird science has worked well before.
'It's an exceptionally good technology,' said Edwin Burgess, an assistant professor at the University of Florida who studies parasites in animals, particularly livestock. 'It's an all-time great in terms of translating science to solve some kind of large problem.'
The targeted pest is the flesh-eating larva of the New World Screwworm fly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to ramp up the breeding and distribution of adult male flies — sterilizing them with radiation before releasing them — so they can mate ineffectively with females and over time cause the population to die out.
It is more effective and environmentally friendly than spraying the pest into oblivion, and it is how the U.S. and other nations north of Panama eradicated the same pest decades ago. Sterile flies from a factory in Panama kept the flies contained there for years, but the pest appeared in southern Mexico late last year.
The USDA expects a new screwworm fly factory to be up and running in southern Mexico by July 2026. It plans to open a fly distribution center in southern Texas by the end of the year so that it can import and distribute flies from Panama if necessary.
Fly feeds on live flesh
Most fly larvae feed on dead flesh, making the New World screwworm fly and its Old World counterpart in Asia and Africa outliers — and for the American beef industry, a serious threat. Females lay their eggs in wounds and, sometimes, exposed mucus.
'A thousand-pound bovine can be dead from this in two weeks,' said Michael Bailey, president elect of the American Veterinary Medicine Association.
Veterinarians have effective treatments for infested animals, but an infestation can still be unpleasant — and cripple an animal with pain.
Don Hineman, a retired western Kansas rancher, recalled infected cattle as a youngster on his family's farm.
'It smelled nasty,' he said. 'Like rotting meat.'
How scientists will use the fly's biology against it
The New World screwworm fly is a tropical species, unable to survive Midwestern or Great Plains winters, so it was a seasonal scourge. Still, the U.S. and Mexico bred and released more than 94 billion sterile flies from 1962 through 1975 to eradicate the pest, according to the USDA.
The numbers need to be large enough that females in the wild can't help but hook up with sterile males for mating.
One biological trait gives fly fighters a crucial wing up: Females mate only once in their weekslong adult lives.
Why the US wants to breed more flies
Alarmed about the fly's migration north, the U.S. temporarily closed its southern border in May to imports of live cattle, horses and bison and it won't be fully open again at least until mid-September.
But female flies can lay their eggs in wounds on any warm-blooded animal, and that includes humans.
Decades ago, the U.S. had fly factories in Florida and Texas, but they closed as the pest was eradicated.
The Panama fly factory can breed up to 117 million a week, but the USDA wants the capacity to breed at least 400 million a week. It plans to spend $8.5 million on the Texas site and $21 million to convert a facility in southern Mexico for breeding sterile fruit flies into one for screwworm flies.
How to raise hundreds of millions of flies
In one sense, raising a large colony of flies is relatively easy, said Cassandra Olds, an assistant professor of entomology at Kansas State University.
But, she added, 'You've got to give the female the cues that she needs to lay her eggs, and then the larvae have to have enough nutrients."
Fly factories once fed larvae horse meat and honey and then moved to a mix of dried eggs and either honey or molasses, according to past USDA research. Later, the Panama factory used a mix that included egg powder and red blood cells and plasma from cattle.
In the wild, larvae ready for the equivalent of a butterfly's cocoon stage drop off their hosts and onto the ground, burrow just below the surface and grow to adulthood inside a protective casing making them resemble a dark brown Tic Tac mint. In the Panama factory, workers drop them into trays of sawdust.
Security is an issue. Sonja Swiger, an entomologist with Texas A&M University's Extension Service, said a breeding facility must prevent any fertile adults kept for breeding stock from escaping.
How to drop flies from an airplane
Dropping flies from the air can be dangerous. Last month, a plane freeing sterile flies crashed near Mexico's border with Guatemala, killing three people.
In test runs in the 1950s, according to the USDA, scientists put the flies in paper cups and then dropped the cups out of planes using special chutes. Later, they loaded them into boxes with a machine known as a 'Whiz Packer.'
The method is still much the same: Light planes with crates of flies drop those crates.
Burgess called the development of sterile fly breeding and distribution in the 1950s and 1960s one of the USDA's 'crowning achievements.'
Some agriculture officials argue now that new factories shouldn't be shuttered after another successful fight.
'Something we think we have complete control over — and we have declared a triumph and victory over — can always rear its ugly head again,' Burgess said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scientists find PROOF of a formula for happiness: Find joy in the small things
Scientists find PROOF of a formula for happiness: Find joy in the small things

Daily Mail​

time5 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Scientists find PROOF of a formula for happiness: Find joy in the small things

It's often said that happiness is finding joy in the little things in life – now scientists appear to have found the proof. Just five minutes a day performing 'micro-acts of joy' that foster positive emotions is enough to banish stress, boost health and improve sleep quality, psychologists discovered. Listening to laughter, admiring a flower on a neighbourhood walk or doing a nice thing for a friend can measurably improve people's emotional wellbeing and attitudes toward life, according to Dr Elissa Epel. 'We were quite taken aback by the size of the improvements to people's emotional well-being,' said Prof Epel, an expert on stress and ageing who oversaw the new research. Her team at the University of California San Francisco studied nearly 18,000 people, mainly from the US, Britain and Canada, for the web-based 'Big Joy Project' over a two-year period to 2024. It was the first study to look at whether small, easy-to-do acts that take minimal time could have measurable and lasting effects on people. Participants were asked to perform five- to 10-minute acts of joy for a week. Prof Epel said the thousands of people who took part in her project for a single week matched the positive results achieved by programmes that required months of classes for hours at a time. The study, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, asked participants to perform seven acts over seven days. The acts included sharing a moment of celebration with someone else, doing something kind for another person, making a gratitude list and watching an awe-inspiring video about nature. Prof Epel said her team picked tasks that were focused on promoting feelings of hope and optimism, wonder and awe, or fun and silliness. Each task took under 10 minutes, including answering short questions before and after. Participants were quizzed about their emotional and physical health at the start and end of the week-long project, providing a measure of their emotional well-being, positive emotions and 'happiness agency', along with their stress and sleep quality. The psychologists explained that emotional well-being includes how satisfied people are with their lives and whether they have purpose and meaning. Happiness agency is how much control they feel they have over their emotions. The team found improvements in all areas, and the benefits increased depending on how fully people participated in the programme, meaning those who completed all seven days saw greater benefits than those who only managed two or three. Ethnic minority participants saw even greater benefits than white participants, while younger people reported more benefits than older people. Prof Epel said it was not clear yet why these micro-acts appear to have such a profound mood-boosting impact. She suggested it may be that these small acts break up 'negative thought cycles' – such as excessive worrying or self-criticism – and redirect mental energy in a more positive way. While further research was needed, said Prof Epel, it's clear that a daily dose of joy could help people in these trying times. 'All of this well-being stuff, it's not a luxury,' she said. 'We often say that we'll let ourselves be happy once we've reached some point or finished some task. Well, we want to flip that – we need the energy of joy to get through the hard parts. These are really necessary skills.'

Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?
Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?

The Guardian

time9 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?

Do people from different cultures and environments see the world differently? Two recent studies have different takes on this decades-long controversy. The answer might be more complicated, and more interesting, than either study suggests. One study, led by Ivan Kroupin at the London School of Economics, asked how people from different cultures perceived a visual illusion known as the Coffer illusion. They discovered that people in the UK and US saw it mainly in one way, as comprising rectangles – while people from rural communities in Namibia typically saw it another way: as containing circles. To explain these differences, Kroupin and colleagues appeal to a hypothesis raised more than 60 years ago and argued about ever since. The idea is that people in western industrialised countries (these days known by the acronym 'weird' – for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic – a summary that is increasingly questionable) see things in a specific way because they are generally exposed to highly 'carpentered' environments, with lots of straight lines, right angles – visual features common in western architecture. By contrast, people from non-'weird' societies – like those in rural Namibia – inhabit environments with fewer sharp lines and angular geometric forms, so their visual abilities will be tuned differently. The study argues that the tendency of rural Namibians to see circles rather than rectangles in the Coffer illusion is due to their environments being dominated by structures such as round huts instead of angular environments. They back up this conclusion with similar results from several other visual illusions, all supposedly tapping into basic brain mechanisms involved in visual perception. So far, so good for the cross-cultural perceptual psychologists, and for the 'carpentered world' hypothesis. The second study, by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone, takes a sledgehammer to this hypothesis, but for the much better-known illusion: the Müller-Lyer illusion. Two lines of equal length seem to be different lengths because of the context provided by inward-pointing, compared with outward-pointing, arrowheads. It's a very powerful illusion. I've seen it on thousands of occasions and it works every time for me. There are many explanations for why the Müller-Lyer illusion is so effective. One of the more popular is that the arrowheads are interpreted by the brain as cues about three-dimensional depth, so our brains implicitly interpret the illusion as representing an object of some kind, with right angles and straight lines. This explanation fits neatly with the 'carpentered world' hypothesis – and indeed a lot of early support for this hypothesis relied on apparent cultural variability in how the Müller-Lyer illusion is perceived. In their study, Amir and Firestone carefully and convincingly dismantle this explanation. They point out that non-human animals experience the illusion, as shown in a range of studies in which animals (including guppies, pigeons and bearded dragons) are trained to prefer the longer of two lines, and then presented with the Müller-Lyer image. They show that it works without straight lines, and for touch as well as vision. They note that it even works for people who until recently have been blind, referencing an astonishing experiment in which nine children, blind from birth because of dense cataracts, were shown the illusion immediately after the cataracts were surgically removed. Not only had these children not seen highly carpentered environments – they hadn't seen anything at all. After you absorb their analysis, it's pretty clear that the Müller-Lyer illusion is not due to culturally specific exposure to carpentry. Why the discrepancy? There are several possibilities. Perhaps there are reasons why cross-cultural variability should be expected for the Coffer but not the Müller-Lyer illusion (one possibility here is that the Coffer illusion is based on how people pay attention to things, rather than on some more basic aspect of perception). It could also be that there are systematic differences in perception between cultures, but that the 'carpentered world' hypothesis is not the correct explanation. It's also worth noting that the Kroupin study has some potential weaknesses. For example, the UK/US and Namibian participants were exposed to the illusions using very different methods. All in all, the jury remains out and – favourite scientist punt coming up – 'more research is needed'. The notion that people from different cultures vary in how they experience things is certainly plausible. There's a wealth of evidence that as we grow up our brains are shaped, at least to some extent, by features of our environments. And just as we all differ in our externally visible characteristics – height, body shape and so on – we will all differ on the inside too. As the author Anaïs Nin put it in quoting the Talmud: 'We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.' For me, an important implication of this line of thought is that there are likely to be substantial differences in perception within 'groups' as well as between them. This will probably hold however these 'groups' are defined, whether as different cultures or as a contrast between 'neurotypical' and 'neurodivergent' people. I believe that paying more attention to within-group perceptual diversity will help us to better interpret the differences we do find between groups, and equip us with the tools needed to resist relying on simple cultural stereotypes as explanations. More research is needed here too. But it's on the way. In the Perception Census, a project led by my research group at the University of Sussex together with professor Fiona Macpherson at the University of Glasgow, we are studying how perception differs in a large sample of about 40,000 people from more than 100 countries. Our experiment includes not just one or two visual illusions but more than 50 different experiments probing many different aspects of perception. When we're done analysing the data, we hope to deliver a uniquely detailed picture of how people experience their world, both within and between cultures. We'll also make the data openly available for other researchers to explore new ideas in this important area. One critical insight lies behind all these questions. How things seem is not how they are. For each of us, it might seem as though we see the world exactly as it is; as if our senses are transparent windows through with the world pours itself directly into our mind. But how things are is very different. The objective world no doubt exists, but the world we experience is always an active construction, a kind of 'controlled hallucination' in which the brain uses sensory signals to update and calibrate its best interpretation of what's going on. What we experience is this interpretation, not a 'readout' of the sensory information. For me, this is the key insight that underlies any claim about perceptual diversity. When we take it fully on board, it encourages a much-needed humility about our own ways of seeing. We live in perceptual echo chambers, just as we do in those of social media, and the first step to escaping any echo chamber is to realise that you're in one. Anil Seth is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Being You: A New Science of Consciousness

‘The American system is being destroyed': academics on leaving US for ‘scientific asylum' in France
‘The American system is being destroyed': academics on leaving US for ‘scientific asylum' in France

The Guardian

time14 hours ago

  • The Guardian

‘The American system is being destroyed': academics on leaving US for ‘scientific asylum' in France

It was on a US-bound flight in March, as Brian Sandberg stressed about whether he would be stopped at security, that the American historian knew the time had come for him to leave his home country. For months, he had watched Donald Trump's administration unleash a multipronged attack on academia – slashing funding, targeting international students and deeming certain fields and even keywords off limits. As his plane approached the US, it felt as though the battle had hit home, as Sandberg worried that he would face reprisals over comments he had made during his travels to the French media on the future of research in the US. 'It makes you think about what your status is as a researcher and the principle of academic freedom,' he said. 'Things have really changed … The entire system of research and higher education in the United States is really under attack.' Soon after, he became one of the nearly 300 researchers to apply for a French university's groundbreaking offer of 'scientific asylum'. Launched by Aix-Marseille University, the programme was among the first in Europe to offer reprieve to researchers reeling from the US crackdown on academia, promising three years of funding for about 20 researchers. Last week, Sandberg was revealed as one of the 39 researchers shortlisted for the programme. 'The American system is being destroyed at the moment,' he told the 80 reporters who turned up to meet the candidates. 'I think a lot of people in the United States and as well as here in Europe have not understood the level to which all of higher education is being targeted.' As reports began to emerge of funding freezes, cuts and executive orders targeting institutions across the Atlantic, institutions across Europe sprang into action, announcing plans to lure US-based academics. At Aix-Marseille University, hundreds of applications came in from researchers tied to institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, Nasa, Columbia, Yale and Stanford. Three months after they launched their programme – named Safe Place for Science – the university said it had received more than 500 inquiries. It was a glimpse of the 'historic' moment the world was facing, said Éric Berton, the university's president. 'More than 80 years ago, as France was under occupation and repression, America welcomed exiled researchers, offering them a helping hand and allowing them to keep science alive,' he said. 'And now, in a sad reversal of history, some American scientists have arrived in France in search of a space for freedom, thought and research.' Last week, the university opened its doors, allowing reporters to meet a handful of the Americans who were in the final running to join the programme. As high-profile battles play out between universities such as Harvard and the White House, all of them asked that their institutions not be named, citing concerns that their employers could face reprisals. Some declined to speak to the media, while others asked that their full names not be used, offering a hint of how the Trump administration's actions are sowing anxiety among academics. 'The worry is that we've already seen that scientists are being detained at the border. Granted they're not US citizens, but they're even saying now that if you speak out against the government, they will deport you,' said a biological anthropologist who asked to be identified only as Lisa. 'And so I don't need anything against me at the moment until I can officially move here with my family.' Together the researchers painted a picture of a profession that had been plunged into uncertainty as the US government slashes spending on research grants and dismantles the federal institutions that manage and hand out funding. Months into Trump's second presidency, politics is increasingly blurring into academia as the government works to root out anything it deems as 'wokeism' from the post-secondary world. 'There's a lot of censorship now, it's crazy,' said Carol Lee, an evolutionary biologist, pointing to the list of terms now seen as off-limits in research grant applications. 'There are a lot of words that we're not allowed to use. We're not allowed to use the words diversity, women, LGBTQ.' Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion While the swift pace of change had left many nervous about what may lie ahead, many were not taking any chances. 'People are moving, for sure,' said Lee. 'A lot of top people have already moved to China. And China is laying out the red carpet. If people are getting an offer from Canada, people are moving to Canada.' For Lisa, the biological anthropologist, the reality of dismantling her life in the US and moving her husband, a schoolteacher, and their two kids across the Atlantic was starting to sink in. 'It's excitement, but it's nerve-racking,' she said. She knew she had to get out when it became clear that Trump had won a second term. Months later, she has found a potential path to do so, but is still wrapping her head around all that taking part in Aix-Marseille University's programme would entail. 'It is a big pay cut,' she said. 'My kids are super gung-ho. My husband is just worried that he won't find a job. Which is my worry too, because I don't think I'll be able to afford four of us on my salary.' But for her, and several others on the shortlist, the view was that there were few other options. 'It's a very discouraging time to be a scientist,' said James, a climate researcher who asked that his full name not be used. 'I feel America has always had a sort of anti-intellectual strain – it happens to be very ascendant right now. It's a relatively small proportion that doesn't trust scientists, but it's unfortunately a very powerful segment.' His wife had also been shortlisted for the same programme in southern France, leaving the couple on the brink of uprooting the lives and careers they had spent decades building in the US. 'I have very mixed feelings,' he said. 'I'm very grateful that we'll have the opportunity, but really quite sad that I need the opportunity.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store