- Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Download available
Content available from Parasites & Vectors
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E V I E W Open Access
Poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae)
infestation: a broad impact parasitological
disease that still remains a significant
challenge for the egg-laying industry
in Europe
Annie Sigognault Flochlay
1*
, Emmanuel Thomas
2
and Olivier Sparagano
3
Abstract: The poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, has been described for decades as a threat to the egg
production industry, posing serious animal health and welfare concerns, adversely affecting productivity, and
impacting public health. Research activities dedicated to controlling this parasite have increased significantly.
Their veterinary and human medical impact, more particularly their role as a disease vector, is better understood.
Nevertheless, red mite infestation remains a serious concern, particularly in Europe, where the prevalence of red
mites is expected to increase, as a result of recent hen husbandry legislation changes, increased acaricide resistance,
climate warming, and the lack of a sustainable approach to control infestations. The main objective of the current
work was to review the factors contributing to this growing threat and to discuss their recent development in
Europe. We conclude that effective and sustainable treatment approach to control poultry red mite infestation is
urgently required, included integrated pest management.
Keywords: Poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, Ectoparasite, Acaricide, Zoonosis, One health, Occupational
safety, Salmonella, Vector, Drug resistance
Introduction
It is well established that the poultry red mite, Derma-
nyssus gallinae (De Geer, 1778), is the most damaging
parasite of laying hens worldwide. The impact of red
mite infestation in Europe has been thoroughly
described in scientific literature, for over 20 years. Red
mite infestations pose serious animal health, welfare and
public health concerns, and affect the productivity of the
egg industry [1–6]. Access to effective and safe medical
treatments has been an unmet need. This review
describes the factors contributing to this omnipresent
impact and discusses their recent development in Europe.
Poultry red mite infestation poses increasing
animal health and welfare concerns
Prevalence
The first source of concerns associated with red mite in-
festation is the extremely high and increasing prevalence
of this disease in Europe. A recent epidemiological re-
view reports that 83% of the European farms are infested
by D. gallinae. This prevalence reaches 94% in The
Netherlands, Germany and Belgium [1]. Poultry red mite
infestation affects all production types, from backyard or
organic farms, to more intensive, enriched cage or barn
systems [2]. The impact of poultry red mite infestation
has been increasing in Europe for the past decades and
is expected to further increase.
One of the first factors contributing to this increase is
the recent transformation of housing systems in laying
hen husbandry in EU member countries. Directive 1999/
74/EC on egg production and egg trade has banned the
use of traditional cages for poultry birds since 2012.
* Correspondence: annie.flochlay-sigognault@merck.com
1
Merck Animal Health, 2 Giralda Farms, Madison, NJ 07940, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2292-4
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Although designed to improve the welfare of laying
hens, this legislation has resulted in the move to housing
systems incorporating more complex environments
which appear to favor mite proliferation and exacerbate
the problem of red mite infestation [7–10]. For instance,
enriched cages give far more hiding places for red mites
to escape effective treatments. Mite infestation rates
have been described to be much lower in hens kept in
traditional cage systems compared to alternative ones
[10, 11]. In 2009, before the first banning of conven-
tional cages (Austria and Germany prohibited such cages
from 2010 onwards), 74.4% of the laying hen housing
systems still consisted in conventional cages in the Euro-
pean Union. In 2013, all member states had been able to
complete the transformation process from conventional
cages to mainly enriched cages, barn systems, and free
range housing systems [12], meaning that within four
years after 2009, the high majority of laying hens was
transferred from a system unfavorable to mite prolifera-
tion to a system favoring it.
Another environmental factor expected to favor the
proliferation of red mite infestation in the future is
climate warming. During extreme weather events, red
mite increased populations have been implicated in the
deaths of large numbers of hens during the summer heat
wave of 2003 [13].
Finally, the removal of several acaricide products from
national markets due of safety concerns and the
sustained lack of new effective control methods may
have aggravated the D. gallinae prevalence in Europe.
This factor is further described later in this review.
Clinical effects of mite infestation
In addition to the high prevalence of the disease, another
concern is the severity of the effects induced by D. galli-
nae parasitism on the birds’health and welfare. The first
clinical sign observed in infested animals is sub-acute
anemia due to repeated mite bites. A laying hen can lose
more than 3% of its blood volume every night [3]. In
extreme cases, D. gallinae infestation burdens may be so
heavy that hens may die from severe anemia [14–16].
Two reports, detailing the effects of heavy mite infesta-
tions in layer farms in Poland and Romania, describe a
6.2% and a 10-fold increase in hen mortality due to red
mite infestations [14, 15].
Disease vector role of D. gallinae
Besides this direct effect of hematophagous parasitism,
D. gallinae has also been implicated as a vector for a
number of avian viral and bacterial pathogens of animals
and humans. These include the paramyxovirus that causes
Newcastle disease, the Eastern, Western, and Venezuelan
equine encephalomyelitis viruses, and bacteria such as
Escherichia coli,Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae,Pasteurella
multocida,Salmonella gallinarum and S. enteritidis and
avianinfluenzaAvirus[5,6,17–22].
Poultry mites often serve as a long-term host of viral
and bacterial pathogens, thus becoming a reservoir for
these agents and exacerbating the vector potential of D.
gallinae. For example, eastern equine encephalomyelitis
virus and P. multocida were isolated from mites 30 days
and two months, respectively, after ingestion of blood
meals from infected chickens [21]. The ability of the
mite to survive between successive flocks and its persist-
ence in a fasting state for extended periods of time en-
hance its vectorial role in maintaining pathogen agents
on poultry farms [23].
Impact of mite infestation on bird’s welfare
First, the presence of mites in a production house in-
duces a high level of stress in the birds. Stress is induced
by pain and skin irritation associated with repeated mite
bites favored by the very high parasite load typical of red
mite infestations, with mite densities ranging from
25,000 to 500,000 mites per hen [1, 3, 24]. In addition,
mite infestations induce aggressive feather-pecking and
cannibalistic behavior, increased feed and water intake,
and decrease general animal health [3, 4, 25, 26]. Higher
noise volumes are typically observed by farmers in mite
infested houses. Increased self-grooming, a characteristic
symptom of anxiety, is observed in artificially infested
hens [24]. The severity of injuries resulting from such
behavior is currently limited by beak-trimming, but is
expected to increase following the scheduled ban on
beak trimming across several European member states
in 2016 [1]. Kowalski & Sokol [27] showed that mite in-
festation led to a 1.5-fold increase in corticosterone
blood levels and a 22% decrease in β-globulin levels,
indicating somatic stress and immunosuppression. The
adrenaline levels were also more than twice as high as in
the control animals, indicating psychogenic stress. For
all these reasons, poultry red mites infestation is widely
recognized as an animal welfare issue by the scientific
community [7], and was a major topic at the June 2009
European Symposium on Poultry Welfare [28].
Growing impact of red mite infestation on public
health
In addition to its effects on chicken’s health and welfare,
red mite infestation also poses public health concerns,
due to the role of D. gallinae as a disease vector of
zoonotic diseases, and its medical impact on humans
living or working in close association with poultry.
Role of D. gallinae in transmission of zoonotic diseases
As described above, D. gallinae is involved in the
transmission of numerous poultry pathogens, includ-
ing zoonotic pathogens like Salmonella enteritidis
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357 Page 2 of 6
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
[17–19, 26], which is responsible for one of the most
widespread zoonoses worldwide, non-typhoidal sal-
monellosis. This disease has the highest global human
mortality rate of any zoonotic disease, with most
cases being of food-borne origin, and poultry prod-
ucts being one of the most common sources of the
disease [18, 20]. Mites become carriers of Salmonella
either by external cuticular contact or ingestion of a
bloodmealfrominfectedbirds[19].Salmonella has
been found to survive internally in D. gallinae for up to
four months [21], with bacterial reproduction occurring
within the mites [19]. D. gallinae may transmit Salmonella
to poultry when birds orally ingest infected mites [17, 19].
Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme
disease, and avian influenza A virus, mentioned above as
part of the avian pathogens, have been recently added to
the list of zoonotic pathogens potentially transmitted by
D. gallinae [6, 22].
Medical impact of red mite infestation
Red mites are of growing concern in human medicine.
D. gallinae infestation is increasingly responsible for
human dermatological lesions, namely gamasoidosis,
particularly in people living or working in close proxim-
ity to poultry [5]. A recent survey reported an increasing
incidence of gamasoidosis worldwide, and that the dis-
ease is underdiagnosed [6]. The survey showed that the
severity of the disease is exacerbated by the persistency
of the infestation, the frequent treatment failures, and,
as described above, the potential transmission of zoo-
noticdiseasesbythemites,suchasBorrelia burgdor-
feri,Babesia and Bartonella.Completeprevalencedata
on gamasoidosis in poultry workers are not available.
However, the 19% incidence of contact dermatitis re-
ported in a two-year survey of workers on 58 European
poultry farms is probably a reasonable indication of
occupational risk [29]. Many gamasoidosis cases are
misdiagnosed or go unreported [30], suggesting that
actual incidence is higher than commonly assumed.
Poultry red mite infestation is therefore definitely a
matter for the “One Health”initiative [31], an ap-
proach that considers both veterinary and human
health implications of mite infestation which is one of
the central working areas the European Cooperation
in Science and Technology (COST) conference for
sustainable Control of the poultry Red Mite (COR-
EMI, http://www.coremi.eu/home.html) [32]. In 2011,
a group of European researchers in this field claimed
that they “wholeheartedly support the inclusion of the
red mite as a zoonotic agent in all regulations regard-
ing occupational safety, and poultry red mite infest-
ation as an occupational hazard for individuals
working with poultry”[29].
Productivity losses due to red mite infestation
have significantly increased
Economic losses from poultry mite infestation severely
affect the productivity of the egg industry. Consequences
of red mite infestation in a layer operation include pri-
marily a negative impact on feed conversion ratio, a drop
in egg production, an increase in downgraded eggs, a
higher susceptibility to poultry diseases, and more dead
animals [1]. A still widely quoted estimate for the cost of
mite control and production losses is €130 million
annually [3]. Because this commonly used number was
calculated in 2005, it underestimates the cost of red mite
infestation in Europe at the present time. First, the
laying hens population, estimated at 350 million heads
in 2005 [3], has increased significantly. In 2013–2014,
the Statistics Division of the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations has estimated the
number of layer chickens in the 17 largest egg-
producing countries in Europe to be 431 million [33].
Second, the high infestation rate in European farms has
become an increasingly important concern. Several
European countries have recently reported prevalence
rates of more than 90% [1], versus 80% for the most
affected countries about a decade ago [3, 8].
Van Emous (2005) [3] estimated the impact of mite in-
festations on productivity to be €43/hen, including €0.14
for mite treatment (direct costs), and €0.29 for product-
ivity losses (indirect costs). The estimation of the evolu-
tion of direct treatment costs is complex due to the
changes in the acaricidal treatments arsenal available to
farmers in the past decades, as described later in this re-
view. Recently, in 2017, the same author [34] estimated
that the current total cost of red mite infestation is
€0.60 per hen per year in the Netherlands (€0.15 for
direct costs, and €0.45 for productivity losses), which
represents an increase of about 40% compared to 2005
for the total cost of mite control per layer head. Overall,
the damage caused by mites in Europe is now estimated
at about €231 million [34]. Van Emous explains this
higher damage by the conversion of traditional cages
to alternative housing systems, the longer production
life-cycles of the animals, and the ban of beak trim-
ming [34].
Control of mite infestations remains a major
unmet medical need
The increased need for a sustainable approach to control
poultry mite infestation has been thoroughly described.
A very limited number of chemical treatments are cur-
rently available to treat mite infestations [2, 35]. Many
conventional mite products have been withdrawn from
European markets or banned in the past few years
because they did not comply with European or national
regulatory requirements for human consumer and user
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357 Page 3 of 6
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
safety. The main product classes affected were carba-
mates (carbaryl, methomyl, propoxur), organophos-
phates (dichlorvos, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon),
and pyrethroids (cyhalothrin). At the time of writing, the
organophosphate phoxim (Byemite®, Bayer [36]) is the
only veterinary medicinal product registered in Europe
for the treatment of D. gallinae infestations (since 2010).
However, it is not licensed in countries with the largest
layer industries like Germany, Poland, Spain and the
UK, where the prevalence of D. gallinae infestations
exceeds 80% [1, 3, 8]. Although this spray treatment is
allowed for application in the presence of birds in the
infested house, it should not be sprayed onto the birds.
This required precaution of use may prevent the active
compound to reach mites hidden in the refuges located
very close to the birds. Furthermore, an egg withdrawal
period of twelve hours has to be observed after treat-
ment, which makes this product unsuitable for use in
large caged layer farms. Finally, the use of organophos-
phates as a solution to control mite infestation is limited
by the widespread resistance of D. gallinae to this class
of acaricide [35, 37].
Besides phoxim, several acaricidal spray products are
available in some European countries, mainly for use
during the unoccupied cleaning period between two
flocks, for the treatment of the poultry house and equip-
ment. For example, pyrethroids (cypermethrin, permeth-
rin, deltamethrin), carbamates (bendiocarb), abamectin
and spinosad are available as formulations for spray ap-
plication. Some of these products have no recommended
egg withdrawal time, which poses a serious human food
safety risk if used off label, in the presence of birds. Only
a few compounds,e.g. spinosad (Elector®) and cyperme-
thrin (Intermitox®) in Germany, can be applied in the
presence of birds. Misuse or even illegal use of acaricidal
compounds (e.g. amitraz, fipronil, ivermectin, diazinon,
carbaryl, and other pesticides used in agriculture) for the
treatment of D. gallinae in poultry houses are suspicious
of common use in certain areas. This poses critical risks
to consumer safety, but is also a reason for resistance
development as a result of underdosing [38–41]. A
recent survey in Poland revealed that 50% of the 32 en-
rolled laying farms use products with “unknown ingredi-
ents”to treat D. gallinae infestation [37].
Successful chemical treatment is also hampered by
resistance development to multiple acaricides [4, 42] due
to creation of resistant mites as a result of improper
treatment application [35, 36]. Uneven spraying, espe-
cially inside crevices and cracks or litter (Fig. 1) may
lead to exposure of mites to sublethal concentrations.
Additionally, currently marketed acaricidal products
have only short residual activity [43], which is a problem
when targeting D. gallinae mites that may not encounter
treated surfaces until several days after application.
Furthermore, these products are applied only once, and
are either not substantially active or inactive on mite eggs,
so eggs develop into further stages, enabling regrowth of
mite infestation burdens in the poultry houses.
Some non-chemical methods of control are used, but
none has a satisfactory risk-benefit balance. Although
silica-based products are widely used, their purity and
the size of their particles vary greatly between products,
and they pose serious safety threats for user and animal
due to the irritation of the respiratory tract caused by in-
haled silica particles, which justified the recent ban of
these products in the Netherlands. Natural acaricides,
including essential oils or plant-derivatives may have
variable concentrations as active ingredients and may be
harmful to humans and animals [26]. Predator mites
have not shown satisfactory efficacy so far [2]. The
development of new vaccine-based control strategies is a
promising approach; a vaccine under development
reduced mite counts in infested birds, but not to an ad-
equate extent [44, 45]. Heating of the house up to 60 °C
Fig. 1 Environmental infestation with poultry red mites. aRed mite cluster on the ceiling of a cage at a laying farm. bRed mites and mite eggs
hidden in straw litter from a laying-hen building. High infestation densities make it difficult to successfully control Dermanyssus gallinae using
environmental control alone
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357 Page 4 of 6
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
during the unoccupied period has been described as
effective; however, this is perceived as expensive and not
suitable for farms with plastic equipment components
[26]. The use of diesel oil or washing-up liquids to treat
mite infestations has also been described [46].
Access to an effective, convenient and safe medical
treatment for red mite infestation has been an unmet
need for nearly two decades: as early as 1998, the need
for a systemic substance was expressed to avoid stressing
chickens and uneven spray distribution [4]. Since then,
only one veterinary medicinal product against poultry
mite infestation has been licensed in a few European
countries (phoxim, Byemite®, Bayer). As detailed above,
all other solutions currently available are non-chemical
products with efficacy not scientifically researched, or
chemical sprays with limited value due to their mode of
application or the widespread development of resistance.
Several unlicensed (or even banned) products are still
widely employed in Europe [2]. A recent survey showed
the presence of pesticides banned by the European
Union (carbaryl) or not licensed for use on layers
(permethrin) in the tissues of laying hens slaughtered for
human consumption [41]. This further emphasizes the
severe risks that the lack of effective and authorized
products pose to human food safety.
This unmet medical need and the urgent need for in-
novative treatment approaches have clearly been recog-
nized by the scientific community, the layer industry,
and the European Union. The absence of an effective
treatment is stated in most of the scientific papers and
has been recognized by the EU Commission, which
created and funds the COST Action FA 1404 Research
Platform (COREMI, Control of Red MItes) to “rid laying
hens of a common disease-spreading pest”. This four-
year project started in December 2014 and involves rep-
resentatives from almost all European countries, Turkey,
and Israel. One of the major conclusions from recent
COST conferences was that no single treatment method
is sufficient to control D. gallinae. Increased use of inte-
grated pest management, improved biosecurity measures
to prevent transmission of mites, and mite infestation
monitoring are considered the best current methods to
control D. gallinae infestation. There remains a great
demand for developing more useful, effective and in-
novative treatments to keep red mite infestations under
control, including newer generation acaricides [35].
Conclusion
Since the last reviews on the impact of D. gallinae in
Europe, research activities dedicated to controlling this
parasite has increased significantly. However, poultry red
mites remain a significant animal welfare concern and a
serious threat to the egg production industry. Their vet-
erinary and human medical impact, more particularly
their role as a bacterial and disease vector, is better
understood. The significance of poultry red mites in
Europe is expected to increase as a result of recent hen
husbandry welfare legislation, increased acaricide resist-
ance, and the lack of a sustainable approach to control in-
festations. Work is urgently required to develop effective
and sustainable treatment approach to control poultry
mite infestation, included integrated pest management.
Abbreviations
COREMI: Control of the poultry red mite; COST: European Cooperation in
Science and Technology; FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Melissa Peng for her assistance in preparing
the manuscript.
Funding
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Authors’contributions
AFS analyzed the review data, and was a major contributor in writing the
review. ET analyzed the review data, and was a major contributor in writing
the review. OS was a major contributor in writing the review. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
AFS is an employee of Merck Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA. ET is an
employee of MSD Animal Health, Schwabenheim, Germany. OS declares that
he has no competing interests.
Author details
1
Merck Animal Health, 2 Giralda Farms, Madison, NJ 07940, USA.
2
MSD
Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Zur Propstei 55270, Schwabenheim,
Germany.
3
Coventry University, Vice-Chancellor Office, Alan Berry Building,
Coventry CV1 5FB, UK.
Received: 27 March 2017 Accepted: 13 July 2017
References
1. Mul M. Fact sheet: The Poultry Red Mite, Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer,
1778) A small pest that packs a big punch 2013. In: . https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/258553789_Fact_sheet_Poultry_Red_Mite_in_
Europe. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
2. Sparagano OA, George DR, Harrington DW, Giangaspero A. Significance and
control of the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae. Annu Rev Entomol.
2014;59:447–66.
3. van Emous R. Wage war against the red mite. Poultry International.
2005;44:26–33.
4. Chauve C. The poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae (de Geer, 1778):
current situation and future prospects for control. Vet Parasitol. 1998;79:239–45.
5. George DR, Finn RD, Graham KM, Mul M, Maurer V, Valiente Moro C,
Sparagano OA. Should the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae be of
wider concern for veterinary medical science. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:178.
6. George DR, Finn RD, Graham KM, Mul MF, Maurer V, Valiente Moro C,
Sparagano OA. Of mites and men: should the poultry red mite Dermanyssus
gallinae be of wider concern for medical science? 1st COST Conference and
Management Committee Meeting Proceedings. 2015. p. 27–28.
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357 Page 5 of 6
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
7. European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research
(COST). Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of a
European Concerted Research Action designated as COST Action FA1404:
Improving current understanding and research for sustainable control of
the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae (COREMI). COST 036/14. 2014.
http://w3.cost.eu/fileadmin/domain_files/FA/Action_FA1404/mou/FA1404-e.
pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
8. Sparagano O, Pavlicevic A, Murano T, Camarda A, Sahibi H, Kilpinen O, et al.
Prevalence and key figures for the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae
infections in poultry farm systems. Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;48:3–10.
9. Chirico J, Tauson D. Traps containing acaricides for the control of
Dermanyssus gallinae. Vet Parasitol. 2002;110:109–16.
10. Höglund J, Nordenfors H, Uggla A. Prevalence of the poultry red mite,
Dermanyssus gallinae, in different types of production systems for egg layers
in Sweden. Poult Sci. 1995;74:1793–8.
11. Anon. Red mite confirmed in 60% of units. Poultry World. 2003.
12. Windhorst HW. The European egg industry in transition. International Egg
Commission Special Economic Report. 2015;
13. Skuce PJ, Morgan ER, van Dijk J, Mitchell M. Animal health aspects of
adaptation to climate change: beating the heat and parasites in a warming
Europe. Animal. 2013;Suppl. 2:333–345.
14. Cosoroaba I. Massive Dermanyssus gallinae invasion in battery-husbandry
raised fowls. Revue Méd Vét. 2001;152:89–96.
15. Wojcik AR, Greygon-Franckiewicz B, Zbikowska E, Wasielewski L. [Invasion of
Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer, 1778) in poultry farms in the Torun region.]
Wiad Parazytol. 2000;46:511–51. (In Polish).
16. Pilarczyk B, Balicka-Ramisz A, Ramisz A, PająkB.Wpływ inwazji Dermanyssus
gallinae na zdrowotność i produkcyjność kur niosek. Med Weter.
2004;60:874–6.
17. Valiente MC, Chauve C, Zenner L. Experimental infection of Salmonella
enteritidis by the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae. Vet Parasitol. 2007;
146:329–36.
18. Valiente MC, de Luna CJ, Tod A, Guy JH, Sparagano OA, Zenner L. The
poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae): a potential vector of pathogenic
agents. Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;48:93–104.
19. Valiente MC, Fravalo P, Amelot M, Chauve C, Salvat G, Zenner L.
Experimental studies on the potential role of the poultry red mite
Dermanyssus gallinae, as a vector of Salmonella serotype enteritidis. In:
Sabelis MW, Bruin J, editors. Trends Acarology: Proceedings of the 12th
International Congress. Springer Science + Business Media B. V.;
2010. p. 521–525.
20. Majowicz SE, Musto J, Scallon E, Angulo FJ, Kirk M, O’Brien SJ, et al. The
global burden on non-tyhphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis.
2010;50:882–9.
21. De Luna CJ, Arkle S, Harrington D, George DR, Guy JH, Sparagano OA. The
poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae as a potential carrier of vector-borne
diseases. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1149:255–8.
22. Sommer D, Heffels-Redmann U, Köhler K, Lierz M, Kaleta EF. Role of the
poultry red mite (Demanyssus gallinae) in the transmission of avian
influenza a virus. Tierärztliche Praxis Grosstiere. 2016;44:26–33.
23. Sylejmani D, Musliu A, Ramadani N, Sparagano O, Hamidi A. Associations
between the level of biosecurity and occurrence of Dermanyssus gallinae
and Salmonella spp. in layer farms. Avian Dis. 2016;60:454–9.
24. Kilpinen O, Roepstorff A, Permin A, Nørgaard-Nielsen G, Lawson LG, et al.
Influence o f Dermanyssus gallinae and Ascaridia galli infections on
behaviour and health of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus).
Br Poult Sci. 2005;46:26–34.
25. Kilpinen O. How to obtain a blood meal without being eaten by a host: the
case of poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae. Physiol Entomol.
2005;30:232–40.
26. Mul M. Control methods for Dermanyssus gallinae in systems for laying
hens: results of an international seminar. World Poult Sci J. 2009;65:589–99.
27. Kowalski A, Sokol R. Influence of Dermanyssus gallinae (poultry red mite)
invasion on the plasma levels of corticosterone, catecholamines and
proteins in layer hens. Polish J Vet Sci. 2005;12:231–5.
28. The Poultry Site. Poultry Mite Problem Addressed at Welfare Conference.
2005. http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1739/poultry-mite-problem-
addressed-at-welfare-conference/. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
29. Cafiero MA, Galante D, Camarda A, Giangaspero A, Sparagano O. Why
dermanyssosis should be listed as an occupational hazard. Occup Environ
Med. 2011;68:628.
30. Cafiero MA, Camarda A, Circella E, Santagada G, Schino G, Lomuto M.
Pseudoscabies caused by Dermanyssus gallinae in Italian city dwellers: a
new setting for an old dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol.
2008;22:1382–3.
31. van der Poel WHM. One health, an interdisciplinary approach. 1st COST
Conference and Management Committee Meeting Proceedings.
2015. p. 25–26.
32. Sparagano O. The background and the COREMI project. 1st COST
Conference and Management Committee Meeting Proceedings.
2015. p. 12–14.
33. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2016.
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.
34. Van Emous R. Verwachtte schade bloedluis 21 miljoen euro. Pluimveeweb.
nl. 2017. https://www.pluimveeweb.nl/artikelen/2017/01/schade-bloedluis-
21-miljoen-euro/. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
35. Abbas RZ, Colwell DD, Iqbal Z, Khan A. Acaricidal drug resistance in poultry
red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae) and approaches to its management. World’s
Poul Sci J. 2014;70:113–24.
36. ByeMite 500 mg/mL concentrate for spraying emulsion for laying hens.
Summary of Product Characteristics. Last renewal November 2013. The
Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) website (https://www.hpra.
ie/img/uploaded/swedocuments/LicenseSPC_10021-057-001_
07022014152940.pdf).
37. Zdybel J, Karamon J, Cencek T. In vitro effectiveness of selected acaricides
against red poultry mites (Dermanyssus gallinae, de Geer, 1778) isolated
from laying hen battery cage farms localized in different regions of Poland.
Bull Vet Inst Pulawy. 2011;55:411–6.
38. Beugnet F, Chauve C, Gauthey M, Beert L. Resistance of the red poultry mite
to pyrethroids in France. Vet Rec. 1997;140:577–9.
39. Marangi M, Cafiero MA, Capelli G, Camarda A, Sparagano OA, Giangaspero
A. Evaluation of the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae (Acari:
Dermanyssidae) susceptibility to some acaricides in field populations from
Italy. Exp Appl Acarol 2008;18:11–18.
40. Thind BB, Ford HL. Assessment of susceptibility of the poultry red mite
Dermanyssus gallinae (Acari: Dermanyssidae) to some acaricides using an
adapted filter paper based bioassay. Vet Parasitol. 2007;144:344–8.
41. Marangi M, Morelli V, Pati S, Camarda A, Cafiero MA. Acaricide residues in
laying hens naturally infested by red mite Dermanyssus gallinae. PLoS One.
2012;7:e31795.
42. Nordenfors H, Höglund J, Tauson R, Chirico J. Effect of permethrin
impregnated plastic strips on Dermanyssus gallinae in loose-housing
systems for laying hens. Vet Parasitol. 2001;102:121–31.
43. Mul M. Validation of an automated mite counter for Dermanyssus gallinae in
experimental laying hen cages. Exp Appl Acarol. 2015;66:589–603.
44. Bartley K, Wright HW, Huntley JF, Manson EDT, Inglis NF, et al. Identification
and evaluation of vaccine candidate antigens from the poultry red mite
(Dermanyssus gallinae). Int J Parasitol. 2015;45:819–30.
45. Harrington D, Canales M, de la Fuente J, Robinson K, Guy J, Sparagano O.
Immunisation with recombinant proteins subolesin and Bm86 for the
control of Dermanyssus gallinae in poultry. Vaccine. 2009;27(30):4056–63.
46. Maurer V, Perler E, Heckendorn F. In vitro efficacies of oils, silicas and plants
preparation against the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae. Exp Appl
Acarol. 2009;48:31–41.
Sigognault Flochlay et al. Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:357 Page 6 of 6
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
