Treating Livestock with Insecticide to Control Malaria

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Researchers have developed a new strategy for combating malaria in South Asia, according to a report in the current issue of the Lancet. The standard approach to malaria control in this region focuses on the indoor spraying of houses with insecticide. This method, however, is proving prohibitively expensive, as it requires large quantities of these expensive chemicals. The new study suggests that people should instead give their livestock what basically amounts to insecticide sponge baths.

Unlike malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in equatorial Africa, those in South Asia are zoophilic-that is, they feed mainly on domestic animals and only secondarily on humans. Mark Rowland of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and his colleagues thus reasoned that applying the pesticide directly to the insects' favorite hosts might be more efficient and cost-effective than indoor spraying. To test the strategy, the team organized a trial involving six Afghan refugee settlements in Pakistan. Local veterinarians explained to the refugees that the insecticide was safe and effective, and needed to be reapplied to their cattle and goats every four to six weeks. Treatment teams recruited from the population then undertook the sponging regimen.

By all accounts, the method proved successful. In one village where malaria is particularly rampant, the treatment reduced the incidence of infection by more than 90 percent. Furthermore, the cost of the sponging regime was 80 percent lower than that of indoor spraying. Perhaps most important, the community remained enthusiastic about this malaria control campaign. This, the authors note, "probably had less to do with the health benefit to the community than with the veterinary and economic benefits to individual households." Treating the livestock with the insecticide, it turns out, eliminated many of the other parasites that plague the animals. As a result, their health and productivity increased visibly.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"The technology is simple and can be safely implemented by the community," the authors conclude. "We recommend livestock sponging as a substitute for indoor spraying wherever malaria transmission due to zoophilic mosquitoes is a risk to public health."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe