Bilham Ramadhan, Agus Kharmayana Rubaya, Sarjito Eko Windarso, Rizki Amalia

The Effectiveness of Galltrap Compared to Commercial Fly Trap

Introduction

The effectiveness of galltrap compared to commercial fly trap. Galltrap vs. commercial fly traps: discover which is better for fly control. This study reveals Galltrap, an economical & eco-friendly alternative, significantly outperforms the Ranch Fly Trap.

Abstract

Background: Synanthropic flies such as Musca domestica are capable of transmitting pathogens that cause diseases in humans, including diarrhea, cholera and dysentery. One effective method for controlling adult flies is the use of baited fly traps. The Ranch Fly Trap is a widely used commercial trap but has drawbacks such as being difficult to clean and relatively expensive. Galltrap was developed as an alternative made from disposable gallon containers (5L water bottles), offering a more economical, easy-to-use, and environmentally friendly option. Method: This research was an experimental study with a post-test only control group design, comparing Galltrap (experimental group) and Ranch Fly Trap (control group). Data collection was carried out over 16 repetitions at a poultry farm in Karanganjir, Sleman, in May 2025. Data were analyzed using an Independent Samples T-Test with significance level (α) = 0.05. Results: A total of 1,108 flies were trapped during the study, with 699 caught by Galltrap and 409 by Ranch Fly Trap. The average number of flies caught per day was 43.7 for Galltrap and 25.6 for Ranch Fly Trap. The T-test revealed a significant difference (p = 0.025), indicating that Galltrap was more effective, with a 71% higher daily catch rate compared to the Ranch Fly Trap. Conclusion: Galltrap demonstrated significantly greater effectiveness in capturing adult flies and offers a promising, low-cost solution for vector control in resource-limited settings.

Review

This manuscript presents a highly relevant and timely investigation into alternative methods for controlling synanthropic flies, a critical public health concern due to their role in pathogen transmission. The proposed 'Galltrap,' an innovative solution derived from repurposed materials, addresses key limitations of existing commercial traps, particularly regarding cost, ease of use, and environmental impact. The abstract clearly articulates the study's objective: to compare the effectiveness of Galltrap against a commercial counterpart, setting the stage for a practical and impactful contribution to vector control strategies. The methodology outlined, an experimental study with a post-test only control group design, appears sound and appropriate for comparing the two trap types. The clear presentation of results, including total flies caught, average daily catches, and the statistical significance (p=0.025), strongly supports the conclusion that Galltrap is significantly more effective, achieving a 71% higher daily catch rate. This robust finding underscores Galltrap's potential as a superior and more sustainable option, particularly appealing for resource-limited settings where cost-effectiveness and accessibility are paramount. However, a critical discrepancy in the abstract is the stated data collection period of "May 2025," which implies the study has not yet taken place, contradicting the reported results. This temporal error must be corrected immediately. Furthermore, while the effectiveness is clearly demonstrated, the abstract could benefit from briefly mentioning the type of bait used in both traps, as bait composition is a crucial factor in fly trap performance. Despite this temporal anomaly and the minor omission, the study offers compelling evidence for Galltrap's utility, representing a valuable step towards developing accessible and effective vector control tools. The full manuscript should elaborate on the practical implications, including the cost-benefit analysis and potential for widespread adoption.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.