Spring IPM Conference registration opens

For anyone who needs structural or ag CEU credits in the area of turf and ornamental pest management, 2020 Spring IPM Conference registration is now open.

This year's program will focus on how pesticides accomplish the challenging task of controlling pests. It's not as easy or as simple as you might think!

Dr. Christopher Bibbs with Central Life Sciences will talk on how insecticides work. Our Dallas turfgrass extension specialist, Dr. Chrissie Segars, will cover modes of action of herbicides.  And Scott Smith, Bell Labs, will review rodents and how rodenticides work. In addition, Janet Hurley, our school IPM program specialist, will be providing the latest updates on what's going on with re-certification rules and pesticide regulations.  And I will review those common, and not-so-common insects associated with turfgrass.

Our challenge every year is to make sure when you attend an IPM Conference, you leave with at least one useful piece of knowledge. There will be lots to learn at this meeting, so register now by going to https://agriliferegister.tamu.edu/IPM.  As usual, a great lunch will be provided.

Unnecessary trauma: Fire ants in nursing homes

Nursing home patient with with fire ant stings.
(Laquna Ross)

This week Vietnam veteran Joel Marrable died at a Georgia VA Hospital following a vicious attack by fire ants.

According to his daughter, Mr. Marrable was found by staff last week covered with ants. Even worse, family wasn't notified by the hospital after the attack. His daughter learned of the incident only after inquiring about the red bumps on her father's body. Although Mr. Marrable's death has not been directly blamed on fire ants, the incident was traumatizing to all involved.

This story would be more shocking to me, except I have been involved in at least two lawsuits where fire ants attacked patients unable to respond or call for help. And despite the fact that stinging cases are often hushed up, many other incidents occur every year.

It doesn't have to be this way. Fire ants are highly manageable given our scientific understanding of fire ants, and today's pesticide tools. But fire ant management always requires attention to detail. It also requires cooperation and communication between the health care facility and its pest control provider. 

If your company provides pest control for health care facilities, here are some essential elements needed to keep your customer (and you) out of the headlines.

• Ensure the facility has a policy regarding indoor ants. The plan should include clear staff instructions on how to immediately report signs of ants to your company. 
• Be sure your staff is always updated on what wings/rooms house high-risk patients.
• Require patients to be immediately removed from any room with ants to another ant-free location. In this Georgia incident, the patient was returned to his original room only to have fire ants return and attack again a second day. No patient should be returned to an infested room until the indoor and outdoor areas around the room have been inspected, treated and cleared by a pest control professional.  
• Clean infested rooms with a soap solution and disinfect before allowing any patient to return.  Holes and suspected ant entry points should be either sealed or treated. Cleaning with soap removes traces of trail pheromone that might lure other ants back into the room.
• Conduct periodic staff training classes to let nurses and other caregivers know how to identify fire ants. In this week's incident it is telling that none of the staff interviewed referred to the ants as fire ants, only "ants."  Fire ants pose perhaps the greatest immediate health threat to aphasic patients, and should not be difficult to recognize with training. 
• Inspect outdoor areas regularly for fire ants, and train maintenance staff to recognize and report evidence of fire ant nesting around the facility. 
• Fire ant infestations inside a building can almost always be traced back to a fire ant mound or colony outdoors. It's important to know who is responsible for grounds treatment ahead of time. When one contractor is assigned duty for indoor pest control and another for outdoor pest control, blame-shifting is inevitable. The losers in this game are the patients. Ideally, one contractor should be responsible for both indoor and outdoor fire ant control, so there is no confusion.  
• Don't rely solely on mound treatments for fire ant control. Broadcast applications of either baits or residual insecticides are always a better option. Fire ant baits are ideal for large turf areas and are typically applied once or twice a year. Residual granular insecticides containing fipronil or bifenthrin can be used annually in landscape areas immediately adjacent to buildings.  The idea is to keep fire ant mounds as far away from the building as possible. Fire ant control should start at the property line, not the final two feet to the building.  
• Don't allow unlicensed applicators to apply insecticides for fire ants. In Texas, pest control at health care facilities must be performed by a licensed pest control technician or certified applicator. This includes control of ants and other insects, pest birds, plant diseases, rodents, and weeds.
• Document everything you do in writing on your service report. Document both pesticide and non-pesticide-related actions taken during the visit. Be specific about what pests are found during inspections. Remember, there is no such thing as just an "ant."  Fire ants should be clearly identified. Assume that any of your service tickets could be examined by a lawyer some day. 

If doing pest control around nursing home facilities sounds risky, it is. But a conscientious company can succeed at this business. And a nursing home can be one of the most rewarding accounts you have.  As a friend and colleague points out, the biggest risks happen with "low-bid contractors who are not willing to address underlying problems."  

Mr. Marrable's daughter told the Washington Post that her father "deserved better" than the treatment he received in his last days. Let's make sure all our sensitive accounts, like nursing homes, get the good service they deserve.

For more information about fire ant control in nursing homes, see Extension factsheet ENTO-022.

When a bed bug isn't a bed bug

Entomologists get excited over the strangest things. This morning I got my first bat bug sample ever, and I'm still all aflutter.

The pronotal fringe hairs on these common bed bugs
(see arrow) are short, no longer than the width of
the bed bug's eye. This feature is visible with a
hand-lens even through a plastic zip-loc bag, as in
this photo. Image by Mike Merchant.

Bat bugs and swallow bugs are relatives of the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius--the species you are most likely to encounter on a daily basis in the pest control business. There are approximately 100 species in the bed bug family, referred to as cimicids (sigh MISS ids).  Most are specialists on certain types of birds and bats. Generally, these bird and bat feeders have little interest in human blood, and cannot survive without their normal winged hosts.

Most of these other species of cimicid bugs look much like our common bed bug.  They will be flat, oval-shaped and reddish-brown, with adult forms about the size of an apple seed.

Current thinking among biologists is that cimicids that specialize in birds and people are spin-offs from ancestral, bat-loving bed bugs. The data suggest that the switch-over from bat feeding to human feeding may not have been that long ago in evolutionary time. It's not difficult to imagine our ancient ancestors scratching from the first hungry bat bugs checking out other food choices in dark caves.

Today, it's rare to find our common bed bug feeding on bats, though it seems this species is less choosy about hosts than most other cimicids. Cimex lectularius has been found feeding on chickens, pigeons, swallows and even pets (though its clearly preferred host seems to be humans). 

Distinguishing common bed bugs

Though bed bug identification is definitely a job for specialists, fortunately it's not difficult for any PMP to tell the difference between bat bugs and the common bed bug with a hand lens or office microscope.  It has to do with the haircut. 

Common bed bugs, our main human bed bug pest, have a fringe of short hairs on the edges of the pronotum, that "shield-like" plate behind the head (see first picture).  

The pronotal fringe hairs of bat bugs and most
bird bugs (see arrow) are longer than the eye is
wide. Image of an eastern bat bug, Cimex adjunctus,
by Mike Merchant.

Bat and swallow bug fringe hairs are longer (see lower picture). This shouldn't be hard to remember if you think of bats as being hairier than people.  Though this character won't necessarily help you tell a bat bug from a swallow bug or pigeon bug, it is a reliable way to tell one of these non-people feeders from the common bed bug.

Don't walk away

Just because your customer has bat bugs instead of bed bugs, it doesn't mean your job is done. While treating bedrooms with a conventional bed bug treatment is unnecessary (bat bugs do not aggregate around beds, nor reproduce on people), there is still pest control to be done. Bat and bird bugs are best controlled by eliminating their preferred hosts from the structure and possibly treating the roosting/nesting sites for bed bugs.

Host elimination is not as simple as closing entry points for bats or birds. Most birds and all bats are federally protected and cannot be killed, nor active nests destroyed.  Instead, they must be excluded at the end of nesting season.  If you have questions about bird and bat exclusion, it's best to check with your state wildlife department. Nesting season for protected birds and bats varies from one area to another.

Unlike common bed bugs, it's unlikely that bat bugs and the various bird bugs will exhibit high levels of insecticide resistance. Any of the pyrethroid or pyrethroid-combination insecticides for common bed bugs should provide good control of bat and bird bugs around suspected harborages and entry points into living areas.

Bat bug and swallow bugs are not that common in our business. The sample I received today was, I learned later, collected from a home in Indiana.  But if bed bugs are being found in unusual places, especially away from bedrooms, keep in mind that other bed bug species are out there. Remember that pest identification is always the starting point for good pest control. And it can be fun too; ask any entomologist.

Moving Beyond Mallis: Young Entomologists at NCUE

The biannual National Conference on Urban Entomology (NCUE) is always a treat.  It’s a relatively small conference with a personal feel. Many attendees know each other personally, and new students get to learn more about urban entomology outside their labs and classrooms. This year’s meeting in Raleigh, NC attracted about 200 students, university faculty and industry urban entomologists, including a score of researchers from the joint invasive pest ant conference.

When I attend NCUE I see folks whose lives and careers I’ve followed for many years, as well as new faces who are the future of our industry.  I hear controversy in discussion sessions as researchers politely prod speakers to think more deeply about their research results (entomologists are almost always polite); and sometimes I hear talks that will change the way I view structural pest control. While there were no real revelations at this meeting, many of the talks I heard this year fell into the category of “baby steps” toward better pest control and deeper understanding of the biology of structural pests.

Every NCUE meeting has a Distinguished Achievement Award recipient. This year’s honor went to Brian Forschler, a respected termite researcher from the University of Georgia. It was his job to open the meeting with a tribute to Arnold Mallis, who many of you know by his “ten-pound” Handbook of Pest Control. 

In the 1940s and 50s Arnold Mallis was a
rising star in the field of urban entomology.

Forschler noted that Mallis filled a desperate need at the time for science-based information on household insect pests. Though he had little to say about IPM (the concept hadn’t been formally proposed), in his books he summarized critical biological information upon which IPM programs could later be built. Mallis taught us that urban entomology is built upon a firm foundation of education and engagement with its stakeholders. Forschler urged each attendee, especially each student, to consider new ways to engage outsiders with urban entomology, while being the same consummate entomologist, naturalist and observer of insects as Arnold Mallis.

After Forschler’s session, the meeting began with papers from student award winners.  When I listen to students I always keep in mind that today’s students are tomorrow’s experts.  In just a few years these will be the folks making the rounds at CEU meetings for NPMA and other professional gatherings, so it pays to listen and make note of the new faces.

Emily Vernon, Bachelor of Science Student Award winner came from North Carolina State University where she studies Blattabacterium, a genus of symbiotic bacteria that live within special bacteria-hosting cells of cockroaches. These bacteria, she proposed, are essential to the German cockroach’s ability to survive in nitrogen-poor environments. In her research with 16S ribosomal RNA primers she detected high levels of variability in Blattabacterium in field populations of cockroaches, leading her to pose the question: “if we can manipulate Blattabacterium in the cockroach, might we be able to control cockroaches in the field?” I don’t know the answer, but I do know that when I was her age my most profound questions dealt with where to go for pizza on Friday night. Wow!

Master’s Student Award winner, Danielle Hoefele, Simon Fraser University, tackled a whole new structural pest, the European fire ant, Myrmica rubra. Think of it as a fire ant for the north.  The European fire ant is spreading into British Columbia and Washington State, as well as New England and eastern Canada.  It’s an aggressive ant with a sting that itches up to 10 days.  Danielle looked for different food sources that might work well in a fire ant bait. She found that baits combining carbohydrates and proteins were most attractive. Ultimately, she hopes to design a custom bait to provide a much-needed control option for this pest.

The herb thyme is a natural source for the monoterpene oil,
thymol, which has promise as a natural insecticide against
bed bugs. Relatively few plant oils have been investigated for
use in urban entomology. 

Sudip Gaire from Purdue University was the Ph.D. Student Award winner for his studies on the effects of plant essential oils against bed bugs. Sudip is pursuing more effective, safer, natural insecticides for bed bugs.  By looking at plant essential oils that have not previously been tested, he hopes to discover better options for controlling insecticide-resistant bed bugs.  He found carvacol, thymol, and citronellic acid to have to be the most toxic plant oils, none of which is currently in use against bed bugs. It may be years before these products are successfully brought to market, but Sudip is starting the process, and he reminded me that the field of essential oils for pest control is ripe for mining.

In another student paper, Sanjay Basnet from the University of Nebraska, is looking at ways to turn the bed bug’s own genetic material against itself. Interference RNA, or RNAi, are small RNA strings found naturally in the cell that help block expression of target genes. A few years back, someone got the bright idea that if we could find the right RNAi strings we might be able to use them as insecticides to turn off genes that are critical for an insect’s survival or reproduction. Sanjay thinks he may have found such an RNAi strand—one that can reduce egg production in bed bugs.  When injected into bed bugs this natural and biodegradable molecule reduced average daily egg production from 6/day to 0/day at 3 and 4 weeks after treatment. Much more work is needed to bring this kind of technology to your company; but its always encouraging to hear about any progress in this area.

One of today's rising stars of urban entomology is Zach DeVries, PhD student at North Carolina State under major professor Coby Schal.  DeVries is looking at a previously ignored component of bed bug aggregation pheromone called histamine.  You’ve probably heard of histamine. It’s an important chemical that our bodies produce to regulate our local immune response. On the positive side, histamine allows capillaries to become more permeable to our white blood cells so they can engage pathogens during an infection.  On the downside, it’s the chemical that causes inflammation and itching after an insect bite or exposure to an allergen. That’s why you may take an antihistamine drug for a runny nose or itchy eyes. Histamine also affects numerous organs, causes increases in heartrate, and difficulty breathing.

DeVries and colleagues inspected house dust from homes with and without bed bugs. They found up to 25X higher levels of histamine in bed bug-infested homes. They also found that histamine persisted for 3-6 months after an infestation had been eliminated. Whether these relatively low levels of histamine associated with bed bugs will have chronic effects on human health is unknown. But if significant, DeVries’ team’s discovery could be as important to pest control as the discovery of the link between German cockroaches and asthma in the 1990s.

DeVries also gave a second, more controversial, paper on progress towards developing a liquid bait for bed bugs. He suggests that liquid baits might offer an alternative insecticide-delivery method that could bypass at least one of the resistance strategies used by bed bugs (such as thickened, pesticide resistant cuticles).  So far, De Vries has identified good active ingredients (such as fipronil, neonicotinoids, and DMSO) for such a bait.  The feeding attractant for bed bugs is more of a challenge, however. Bed bugs eat blood of course, which is not likely to be stable in a bait formulation. And who wants blood-filled bait stations around their home?  He found that simple salt water, with or without the natural cellular compound adenosine triphosphate (ATP), made an attractive feeding stimulant for bed bugs.  The challenge, he argues, is to come up with a way to deliver this tasty insecticide to hungry bed bugs.  

But some listeners gently challenged DeVries to demonstrate how baiting might be more effective than a good trap, say.  The reason that most cockroach, termite and ant baits are so effective, is that they don’t just kill the individuals that come to the bait. They are effective because they kill the feeders and their companions. This happens when other cockroaches eat the feces or dead bodies of bait-fed cockroaches, or when ants and termites share their toxic meals with nestmates. At this point it’s hard to see how you might get secondary kill with bed bugs. Time will tell whether NCSU researchers will demonstrate the practicality of blood-mimicking bait stations; but it’s a thought provoking idea, and I’m glad someone is exploring it.

Whew. That was just some of what I learned from students at NCUE last month.  In my next installment, I’ll cover some of the highlights from veteran urban entomologists in Raleigh. 

Lessons from Rodent Academy

Dr. Bobby Corrigan delivers his introduction to rodents sharing his favorite Sherlock Holmes quote. Much of the class is
devoted to training students to be better observers of rodent behavior. 

Bobby Corrigan refers to himself professionally as a rodentologist, though he's slow to admit as much to just anyone. He describes the typical conversation with someone next to him on a plane, or at a casual encounter at a party:

"So, what do you do for a living?" 

"I'm a rodentologist."

"Oh, how nice!" [crickets]... End of conversation.

I for one am glad the world has rodentologists. Because we need them. Without a rodentologist we couldn't have offered the three day course held last week at the Texas A&M AgriLife Center at Dallas. And without rodentologists we wouldn't have a clue about how to manage these intelligent but unwelcome house guests.

When I first met Corrigan at Purdue University in the early 1980s he was the only grad student working on rodents in a department of entomologists, a pattern that seems to have continued throughout his career.  

"Despite their acknowledged importance from a public health perspective," Corrigan said, "I saw there was little in-depth information about how to control rodents for people working on the city, county and school level." While there seemed to be lots of money and resources for insect-related pest problems, Corrigan was always asking "What about the rodents?"

Corrigan's persistence  paid off in 2003 when he was awarded a $5 million grant working with the City of New York to help establish the Rodent Academy course. Since then, the NYC Academy has been offered twice a year, filling up every time it's offered. The classes have become legendary for their intense classroom sessions and nighttime tours of Norway rat-infested streets, parks and alleyways of the big Apple. Since it was first offered the Academy has trained over 2,000 people in rodent management.

In recent years Corrigan has helped put on Academies in other locations including Seattle, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Washington, DC. Last week was the first time the course was offered in Texas.  And if the response of this year's attendants of the first Texas Rodent Academy is any indication, the Academy will be offered again.  

Corrigan seemed pleased with his first Texas class. Very well organized [by Extension program specialist Janet Hurley], excellent faculty, "Almost like an experienced academy," he said.

Although Dallas differs from NYC in the density and intensity of infestations, rodent problems are based on the same template, says Corrigan. "Even though the two cities feel different and look different, from the rodent's perspective both make good homes.  Both produce garbage and have plenty of food in dumpsters, and both cities have people who litter, so the Academy curriculum works [in Texas as well as New York].  

An important part of the class arrives when students break into
groups to develop a rodent management plan for the IPM House.

One way that Texas does differs from New York is in rodent species composition. New York has massive problems with the large, bold Norway rat, as well as the adaptable and highly invasive house mouse.  While both rodent species are present in Texas, the secretive and acrobatic roof rat predominates in most urban communities here. One of the guest speakers for this year's Academy was Mike Swan, of Entex Pest Solutions in Richardson.  Swan showed pictures and described a recent encounter with a massive roof rat colony in a local suburb.  After an intense baiting campaign, the company ended up removing over 700 dead roof rats from several adjoining businesses in an upscale neighborhood.

Emory Matts, of Steritech/Rentokil in Dallas also assisted Corrigan with his talk on protecting our food supply from rodents.  Touting the U.S. Public Health Service Food Code as "a good read," Matts surveyed many of the laws protecting food safety and provided IPM tips for inspection and control programs.  He emphasized the importance of knowing who is auditing your customer's food handling premise, because standards for indoor and outdoor bait placement and service frequently differ depending on the auditing agency.

Application Rates

After establishing that nearly everyone in the class regularly used rodent baits in their business, Corrigan stumped the group with a simple question, "What's the appropriate application rate for rodent bait?" [crickets]...  The number one reason for poor rodent control, he said, is failure to estimate rodent density, and follow label application rates (oz. bait/area treated) based on the estimated rodent population.  Typical rodenticide labels require users to apply 3 oz bait/30 ft (for low infestations), up to 16 oz bait/15 ft (severe infestations). Very few PMPs know these application rates, with the result that few apply sufficient bait when going after an established rodent population.

Dry Ice

One of the biggest developments in rodent management in many years occurred this summer, Corrigan said.  After prolonged discussions with the National Pest Management Association, in late June 2017 the U.S. EPA approved a label for "Rat Ice," dry ice for asphyxiating rodents in burrows. When placed into a rodent burrow and covered with soil, pelleted dry ice is an extremely effective and low-risk treatment for ground-nesting rodents.  Until now, the only barrier to its use was that dry ice was not registered as a pesticide and technically could not be used in commercial pest control.  

While there is still some confusion about where and how to purchase dry ice legally for rodent control, an EPA-approved label for "Rat Ice" is now available. Bell Labs is sponsoring the new label as a service to the industry and says it is working on state registrations.  Bell Labs will provide a more comprehensive update, including launch details, soon, according to a recent news update in PCT magazine. [Note: According to Texas Department of Agriculture regulator, Michael Kelly, the Rat Ice label has been registered in Texas.]

Biomonitoring

In Corrigan's opinion, another one of the most significant improvements in rodent management in recent years is non-toxic baits for biomonitoring. These non-toxic baits allow PMPs to minimize risk of baits to non-target organisms while identifying when and where rodents are present. Many of the newer baits also include bio-luminescent dyes that become brilliant "glowscats" when captured in the glow of one of the new LED blacklight flashlights.

Jose Dolagaray from Arrow Exterminators
in Georgia displays a dead roof rat discovered
during his outdoor inspection of the IPM
Experience House.

These non-toxic, bio-luminescent baits now act as tracking baits, providing information about three critical items: a) high-activity rodent trails; b) distances traveled, and; c) possible zones where nests are located. Consequently, glowscats provide clues to help you maximize effectiveness of trap and bait stations placements. Another benefit is when bioluminescent baits are placed outdoors only, glowscats found indoors provide evidence of penetrations in the building envelope.

As an added bonus, Corrigan said that in every instance that he's observed, rats prefer these toxicant-free baits. They are inevitably the first baits eaten from a bait station. He believes they can help jump-start bait-shy rodents to feed when placed in stations on the outside of rodenticide-containing blocks and soft-baits.

IPM House

The IPM Experience House provided the hands-on setting for excursions on each of the three days. Because the house is situated next to an un-mowed culvert, and bounded by a minimally maintained tree nursery and garden area, rodent life outside was... interesting. Students caught glimpses of cotton rats, Sigmodon hispidis, and saw unmistakable roof rat burrows, runways and rub marks around parts of the building perimeter. A water filled bucket proved deadly for an inquisitive roof rat and provided an opportunity for participants to practice their rodent ID skills. Most agreed that being able to practice their new observation skills around the IPM House was a valuable part of the training.

The class covered much more than can be covered here, exhausting students by the end of the third day. If you want to learn more about rodents before the next academy comes along, consider purchasing a copy of Corrigan's very informative book: Rodent Control: A Practical Guide.

For more information about IPM Experience House and upcoming PMP classes, check out the website and consider signing up for the mailing list. A new listing of 2018 classes is coming soon.

Highlights of NCUE

Albuquerque, NM was a beautiful (and tasty)
location for this year's NCUE meeting.

One of the first professional meetings I attended as a newly minted PhD entomologist was the National Conference of Urban Entomology. Held that year in College Park, Maryland, the meeting was a revelation.  Finally, I thought to myself, a gathering of people who understand what I do for a living--like a Cheers bar for entomologists!

We've all been to parties and been asked what we do for a living. Answer that you're "an entomologist who specializes in structural insect pests", and if you're lucky you'll get a wan smile. Rarely does anyone get it. Not so at the National Conference of Urban Entomology. The NCUE is a gathering of very friendly, slightly nerdy, science-oriented people who love to talk about urban insects and pest control.  No one in this group needs bother with common names when discussing Periplaneta americana, or Coptotermes formosanus. Talks like "Gut bacteria mediate aggregation in the German cockroach" are guaranteed to draw a crowd.

This year's NCUE meeting was held in Albuquerque, NM, and it did not disappoint.  Besides a short, but packed agenda of buggy stuff, Albuquerque was a wonderful place to meet.  Not a whiff of Breaking Bad drug labs, but lots of clear skies, mountain and desert views, and great New Mexican cuisine. (Oh, and The Donald was even in town one night!)

To give you an idea about what all of us bug scientists talked about in the sessions and hallways this week, here are some of my notes to self:

• Pest exclusion was the dominant topic for one session and was revisited throughout the meeting.  Imagine if homes and offices could be designed to keep pests out, or at least make them uncomfortable.  Dr. Jody Gangloff-Kaufman from the New York State IPM Program talked about two relatively new working groups dedicated to promoting better building standards to resist pests.  They call their project SCOPE (Scientific Coalition of Pest Exclusion), and the two groups focus on residential and commercial buildings, respectively.  The group has been meeting for approximately 2 years and has about 120 members.  Goals are to assemble a database of literature that supports pest exclusion (PE) concepts, and to provide checklists for builders and architects to promote better PE. A bit of controversy arose when a session speaker suggested that perhaps the typical pest control business model would not willingly embrace pest-resistant buildings. A PMP participant objected saying that offering pest proofing was an important part of their business model and how their company remained competitive.
• Dr. Chris Geiger, with the City of San Francisco, spoke about how IPM and PE principles have influenced the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program. LEED remains one of the most influential and successful certification programs ever, contributing $80.6 billion to GDP between 2011-2014 and changing the way architects design modern buildings. Dr. Geiger noted that 59% of LEED-for-existing-buildings applications take advantage of points for having an IPM program in place.
       Although LEED recognizes the importance of IPM to environmentally sound construction and maintenance of buildings, it has not provided strong leadership on pest exclusion. Consequently, in 2013 Geiger led a group to produce a guidance document for architects and builders to provide specific examples of how to make buildings more pest resistant.  These guidelines are being put to work in some major public housing renovations in San Francisco, and have been offered to builders as a standard to reference when trying to achieve IPM points in LEED projects.
       Dr. Geiger hopes to update these guidelines this year, and is actively seeking experts in pest control, engineering, entomology, and architecture to be a part of the process.  If you are interested in joining his group, go to this web form to add yourself to the list of participants.
• Dr. Tim Husen with Rollins Corporation suggested that PMPs needing fast access to a listing of low toxicity products acceptable to LEED certifiers can use a mobile phone app called PestSmart, available through the Pesticide Research Institute. I found and downloaded this free app quickly on the App Store for my iPhone.  The listing is based on criteria used by the City of San Francisco in their (now extinct) Tier III list of low toxicity pesticides.  This famed list is no longer supported or updated by the City of SF, but is still sometimes referenced by architects, especially under the now dated, V3 (2009) LEED credits.  Keep in mind that the PestSmart app provides an assessment of likely toxicity, but does not take into account risk of exposure, an important component of hazard (toxicity X exposure = hazard).  
• Famed "rodentologist," Dr. Bobby Corrigan, also spoke on rat exclusion, and provided a case history from the National Park Service's African Burial Ground Monument.  A highly sensitive, historically significant site in New York City, the property was heavily rodent infested prior to Corrigan's consultation.  Xcluder Geo Mesh was installed under sod at the site, and burrows were gassed with dry ice (2 lbs per burrow system) to successfully rid the property of these "diabolically clever" pests, as Corrigan described them. Though initially more expensive, Corrigan believes the use of CO2 and advanced mesh barriers like this could be very useful for eradicating rodents from sensitive locations.
• Not surprisingly, mosquitoes were a hot topic of discussion this year. PMPs are beginning to shift their company business models to include mosquito control. Orkin's Dr. Ron Harrison noted that mosquitoes are his company's number 1 annual service offering. Rick Bell, with Arrow Exterminating, reported that his company's mosquito revenue has gone from $39,000 in 2004 to $6.5 million in 2015, all with little reliance on automated backyard mosquito misting systems.  He noted that Arrow's mosquito control customers are among their most loyal, with a 92% annual retention rate. 
• Dr. Joe Barile of Bayer Environmental Science cautioned the industry about how mosquito control is marketed. He recommended use of the term "nuisance abatement" rather than any language that implied disease elimination or protection from mosquito borne disease.
• Dr. Grayson Brown from the University of Kentucky summarized some of the latest promising technologies for residential mosquito control. He reported that the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), a group founded over 10 years ago to seek solutions to mosquito borne disease, is currently evaluating 9 new classes of active ingredients for vector control. If even a few of these insecticides prove safe and effective, it could revolutionize adult mosquito control. He also noted that essential oils are also receiving more study as insecticides, repellents and excitatory agents to enhance the effectiveness of other products.
• Although it appears that most pest control companies rely largely on barrier sprays as a core of their mosquito control programs, pollinator and beneficial insect concerns are an issue. Consequently, there is much interest in alternatives to backyard sprays for mosquito control. Among the promising alternatives, according to Brown, are autocidal gravid oviposition (AGO) traps.  These are artificial breeding sites for Aedes mosquitoes which trap, kill, contaminate or sterilize any female mosquito lured in to lay eggs.  In one study in Puerto Rico, 3-4 large AGO sticky traps per yard were sufficient to reduce Aedes mosquito populations 53-70% and prevented mosquito outbreaks following rain in 81% of homes. 
• Pyriproxyfen, the insect growth regulator in Archer® and Nygard® insecticides, is also being tested as an active ingredient in some autocidal traps.  Research suggests that besides killing their mosquito offspring before they emerge from treated water or cups, pyriproxyfen residues in these traps transfer via the mosquito herself to other breeding sites through a process called auto-dissemination. This is one of the coolest and most selective mosquito controls I've heard of.  If proven in the field, a PMP or homeowner, could put a few gravid traps out in the yard for minimal cost and get season long mosquito suppression with no risk to bees, butterflies or other beneficial insects.  In combination with sprays and other control methods, it might be possible to achieve a high level of control and reclaim mosquito infested backyards with minimal harm to good bugs. Currently few lethal ovitraps are commercially available; but watch for new products to enter the market soon.
• No gathering of urban entomologists would be complete without a few papers on bed bugs. Though the number of bed bug papers was down this year, those presented were oriented towards the practical.  Three papers came from Virginia Tech.  Dr. Dini Miller presented on bed bug vacuums. She found that all the battery powered vacuums she tested (several Black and Decker, and Dyson models) were surprisingly effective at removing adults, nymphs, exuviae and eggs. Besides offering a cleaner and more allergen free environment, it is notable that vacuums remove the exuvia (cast skins) of bed bugs.  This is important for control, she noted, as cast skins may be used by bed bug nymphs as a refuge from sprays.  She also recommended using disposable, knee high, nylon stockings over the mouth of your vacuum (which she colorfully called "condoms for your vacuum") to isolate your catches and reduce the risk of bringing bed bugs back to the office.
• Katlyn Amos, graduate student at VT, tested two multi-action insecticides against pyrethroid resistant bed bugs.  Both Tandem and Crossfire, a new product from MGK, performed well against these resistant bugs. 
• Molly Stedfast reported on mattress encasements for bed bugs.  One of her most important findings was that not all bed bug encasements were bite-proof. After stretching encasement fabric over the mouths of glass jars filled with bed bugs, and applying the fabric-covered mouths to the arms and legs of volunteers, many of the bed bugs were able to successfully feed. But as Stedfast noted, bite resistance is not an issue for box springs.  Nor may it be that critical for bed mattresses either.  Bed bug mouthparts are only about 1 mm long, so once covered with a mattress protector and sheet, the average sleeper should be well protected from any bed bugs trapped in a tight encasement.  Tight zippers and rip resistance are probably more important features when selecting an encasement. 
• In the category of really-interesting-science-that-may-not-have-an-immediate-application, Dr. Rachel Adams, University of California-Berkeley, talked about the microbial diversity of homes.  The ability of science now to take DNA swabs and identify 40 microbes from one's forehead has rapidly progressed from my college microbiology class where "cutting edge" meant plating out and isolating a few microbe colonies on Petri dishes. This new technology means we can now isolate hundreds or thousands of fungi and bacterial DNA from the average home. The challenge we have today is understanding what these microbes are doing.  Are they reproducing, or just there because they floated in from outdoors?  And what are their human health impacts, if any? We know that microbes can positively or negatively affect our health, allergies and possibly ability to ward off disease.  One example Dr. Adams gave was the so-called 'farm effect', where children who grow up exposed to bacteria associated with cows and manure have asthma rates as much as 4X lower than urban-raised children. Insects may play a role in delivery of some of these microbes, good or bad, into homes.
• Finally,  Dr. Coby Schal, one of the most interesting and creative urban entomology researchers in the country today, spoke about the gut bacteria in German cockroaches (Blatella germanica to us entomologists!). His research has shown that it may be bacteria that are responsible for much of cockroach aggregation behavior.  Cockroaches with their full gut bacterial complement grew up faster, reproduced faster, found mates faster, and were more efficient foragers compared to cockroaches without their gut microbes.  In addition, cockroaches were more attracted to the poop of other cockroaches with buggy guts, suggesting that these microbes might hold the key to developing a better cockroach attractant for trapping and control purposes. And you might be surprised how much cockroach feces humans are exposed to. A colony of 1,000 German cockroaches (a moderate infestation in some restaurants and apartments) produces an estimated 5 grams of feces per night, or nearly 2 Kg (4 lbs) of feces a year. These same feces contain 7.5 million units of Bla-g antigens, which can cause allergies or asthma in humans in amounts as little as 8 units.

Now you know what urban entomologists talk about when they get together. The subject matter may be boring, humorous or even distasteful to the average person; but be thankful that someone is interested in this stuff.  As for me, I'm glad there's at least one place where everyone knows my name. Cheers!

Managing bed bugs in multifamily housing--insights from ESA

The Minneapolis, MN Convention Center hosted this year's
annual conference of the Entomological Society of America

It's been almost 15 years since bed bugs started as a hot symposium topic at the annual conference of the Entomological Society of America. And following this year's meeting in Minneapolis, it seems like solutions are still elusive, especially when it comes to multifamily housing.

As usual for me during these marathon meetings, I attended as many talks about bed bugs as I could.  But this year I was especially attracted to discussions about bed bug management in multifamily housing, a.k.a. apartment complexes.  There were several interesting papers related to the topic, but three of them seemed to do an exceptional job of illuminating the issue and possible solutions.

Virginia Tech and Apartment Managers

I know of no one who exhibits more passion about bed bug management in multifamily housing than Dini Miller of Virginia Tech University.  In fact, to keep up with the overwhelming education demands in this area, her group recently established a Bed Bug and Urban Pest Information Center to better educate Virginians (and especially apartment managers) about bed bug control.

According to Miller, a big part of the reason that bed bugs are such a problem in apartment complexes is that they are not just a pest problem. Bed bugs are also a social problem with a unique human dimension. In her ESA talk Miller observed that in her experience the worst bed bug infestations seem to occur with individuals who have problems that are much worse than bed bugs (e.g., health issues, finances, safety and security).  Such tenants, for a variety of reasons, are less likely to complain to management about bed bugs.  On the other hand, the most vocal complaints often come from those with relatively small-scale bed bug problems. Therefore, when an apartment complex bed bug control program is primarily complaint-driven, the program is doomed to miss what should be the highest priority units.

Miller believes that good apartment management is key to an effective bed bug program. To be successful, she argues, (1) managers must be committed to solving the problem, (2) the response needs to be proportionate to the problem (less money and time on small infestations and more effort on finding a eliminating heavy infestations), (3) apartment preparation requirements must be reasonable (with assistance provided for the elderly), and (4) managers must be better informed and involved with the pest control company in the IPM process.

For managers who don't feel that bed bugs are that big an issue, Miller notes that one 4,000 unit complex she works with spends $500,000 annually on bed bug control.  And liability is also a big issue. In Iowa in 2014, residents of a public housing complex successfully sued management for $2.45 million for an uncontrolled bed bug infestation.

Rutgers and Bed Bug IPM

Climbup interceptor cups were effective at detecting bed bug
infestations 95% of the time in the Cooper study. Pitfall traps
like the Climbup detect 3X as many low level infestations
than would otherwise be reported by tenants.  

Another leading bed bug researcher, Changlu Wang from Rutgers University, offered his own perspective on reasons for the ongoing bed bug crisis in multifamily housing.  He said that the biggest challenges come from (1) heavy infestations associated with clutter, (2) widespread resistance to insecticides among bed bugs, (3) the small size and difficulty in finding bed bugs (thus determining whether an infestation is eliminated), and (4) the need for cooperation from residents.

As background, Wang and his laboratory have undertaken some ambitious field trials in the past few years.  I say ambitious because it is extraordinarily difficult to do large scale control studies in apartments.  Not only do researchers have to work with the same unpredictable clients you work with daily, they also have to get approval from a group called the Institutional Review Board (IRB).  Each University has an IRB that oversees any research done with humans or animals, ensuring that the research is done ethically and without harm to its subjects. Getting through the process requires lots of paperwork and is enough to make you crazy.

In a study just published by Wang's recent Ph.D. student, Rick Cooper, an IPM program was pilot tested at a four building complex with 358 units housing elderly and disabled residents.  The IPM program consisted of resident education, initial monitoring with ClimbUp® interceptors to determine which units were infested, encasements, vacuuming, steam, laundering assistance, and insecticide applications with diatomaceous earth and chlorfenapyr.  Units with less than 5 bed bugs received non-chemical treatment only.  Units that continued to be infested with more than 5 bed bugs after the first treatment received spot treatments with Transport GHP.  Followup treatments in all originally infested units were continued every two weeks until no bed bugs were captured in interceptors, seen, or reported by the residents for three consecutive visits.

Relationship between the initial number of bed bugs in a treated
apartment and the number of treatment visits needed to eliminate
the problem.  An initial infestation of 100 bed bugs required  ca.
10 visits to verify elimination. From Cooper et al. Jan. 2015.
Pest Management Sci.

Cooper's experiment is the first research to document the success of a bed bug IPM protocol in an entire apartment complex. Key findings of the study were:

• Management was aware of only 29% of the infestations before Climbup interceptors were used.
• It took an average of 2 to 4 minutes (they got faster throughout the study) to install approximately 10 interceptors per apartment.
• It took less than 4 minutes to inspect Climbups compared to over 15 minutes to conduct a visual inspection of an apartment.
• Because of the difficulty in detecting low levels of bed bugs, the authors defined "elimination" as three consecutive visits with no live bed bugs detected by Climbup counts, visual inspections and resident reports. The authors considered the stringent elimination protocol an essential part of the IPM program.
• Researchers estimated the overall infestation rate of the apartment complex was reduced from 15% to 2.8% at 6-months and to 2.2% at 12-months, an 85% improvement. 
• In infested apartments the mean number of bed bugs trapped was reduced by 96% and 98% after 6- and 12-months, respectively. 
• Heavily infested apartments at the beginning of the study required the most visits to achieve control, hence costing the complex more. 
• 62% of residents with bed bugs were not aware that they had bed bugs, including one oblivious resident whose apartment had over 4,000 bed bugs, many of which were openly crawling on the bed during inspection.
• 76% of residents who thought their bed bug problem was solved through treatment still had bed bugs detectable with Climbups, supporting the idea that customer satisfaction should not be the sole criterion for determining when treatments can be stopped.
• Average labor and chemical costs for the 12 month treatment for 66 apartments was $456 per apartment, a figure in line with other programs and which the authors believe can be reduced in subsequent years of a contract.

A full copy of Cooper's excellent study can be accessed here.

University of California Survey

In contrast to what ought to be done about bed bugs, Andrew Sutherland of the University of California's Statewide IPM Program, reported on what is being done for bed bugs in the western region of the U.S.  He surveyed 114 PMPs in California and other western states and provided some useful insights into current industry bed bug practices.  His study confirmed Miller's observation that compared to hotels and single-family homes, multifamily housing was rated by respondents as having the worst infestations, the most-difficult to control infestations, and being the most often treated kind of account.  When asked about monitoring methods used for bed bugs, 98% of respondents employed visual inspections "most of the time".  Pitfall traps were used at least once by about 75% of respondents; but only 20% said they used this tool "most of the time".  About 40% of respondents used canine detection at least once.  Surprisingly, glue boards had been used by about 75% of respondents, at about the same frequency as the far superior pitfall traps.  

Regarding control methods, insecticides were used "most of the time" by 94% of respondents. Desiccants were used to some extent by 85% of respondents, but only by 57% "most of the time". Encasements were used "most of the time" by 50% of respondents.  And 53% of respondents never used volumetric heat treatment--not surprising given the relatively high initial cost of the equipment. 

Among liquid sprays, the insecticides used "most often" by respondents were neonicotinoid+pyrethroid combination products (53%), followed by chlorfenapyr (20%), followed by pyrethroids (17%). Among dusts, pyrethrins (surprise to me) were most commonly used, and least used were the highly promising silica aerogels.  A copy of the PMP portion of his survey results has been published in PCT magazine.

In addition to PMPs, Sutherland surveyed 167 housing management professionals, and the results were also revealing. Eighty-seven percent of respondents said that bed bug service in their facilities was complaint-based, just what the Rutger's and Virginia Tech entomologists said doesn't work. Also, 72% of respondents make their tenants responsible for preparing for a bed bug treatment--not a good idea for elderly and disabled who are often unable to perform prep tasks.  And 69% of respondents said they used a bed bug addendum as part of their lease agreement.  Such addenda generally put responsibility for bed bugs back on the tenant, discouraging many from reporting infestations when they are small and easily treated. These latter results, especially, suggest that the pest control industry, and we in Extension, have some work to do.

These three talks for me illustrated why bed bug management, especially in multifamily housing, remains a challenge.  Within the industry better IPM protocols are needed, especially protocols that rely on proactive monitoring and early intervention, sanitation, physical and mechanical controls, and conservative, targeted use of carefully chosen pesticides. I think we also need to take a closer look at desiccant dusts, perhaps an underused, low toxicity tool in the bed bug tool kit.  Within the apartment industry, managers and tenants need to be educated about the importance of monitoring-based protocols, minimum prep models, and reversing the "blame the tenant" mindset. All research shows that the sooner a bed bug infestation is detected, the better the prognosis for a quick and less-costly response.

Given that approximately 26 million households reside in multifamily rental housing (2014 data from National Multifamily Housing Council), there is hardly any pest control issue in the U.S. today that affects more people in a more personal way. The way that pest management and multifamily housing businesses respond to the challenges of bed bugs in the coming years will say a lot about the character of these two industries.

A large scale problem

This wax scale-infested holly could be the
key to controlling ants around your customer's
home.

Ask most PMPs who specialize in structural pest control what they know about scale insects, and you'll get a blank stare. Pest management techs are typically taught little about insect pests of plants, especially tiny, non-descript pests that are frequently well-camouflaged from all but the most highly trained observers.

This is a mistake. A well-trained commercial or residential pest control PMP needs to know about plant pests, especially scales and their cousins the aphids, whiteflies and mealybugs. The key reason is that scales are part of the ecosystem surrounding the home or business, and can play an important role in insect life coming indoors...especially when it comes to ants.

You know ants. Only one of the most important pest issues for the industry around the world. The vast majority of indoor pest ants are sugar-loving.  But these ants don't get their sweet tooth from sheer gluttony (like us!); ants have evolved with a heavy reliance on sugary foods in the form of honeydew.

Honeydew is the sweet excretion product of many plant feeding insects, including scales, aphids, mealybugs, whiteflies and others. Most of us have experienced honeydew when parking a vehicle under a tree during the summer months. Those sticky drops all over the windshield were honeydew, or less delicately, insect poop.

Much like our obsession with sugar, ants have an interesting relationship with honeydew producing insects. It turns out that ants have been relying on the scale insects for so long that both scale and ant have become co-dependent. The ant gets a free, long-term, stationary food source. The scales benefit from the ants keeping down excess honeydew and mold on the old leaf, and even get protection from predators like lady beetles and parasitic wasps.

Ants that naturally feed on honeydew include carpenter ants, crazy ants, odorous house ant, Argentine ants, acrobat ants, rover ants and fire ants...and probably several others I'm forgetting at the moment.  If you're battling any of these critters on a regular basis, you might need to know something about why ants are attracted to your accounts in the first place.  In many cases it probably has something to do with the presence of scale insects around the building perimeter.

Sticky, shiny leaves are one tip-off that scale-like insects may
be feeding on your customers' plants.  Also look for waxy crusts
often associated with aphids, scales and mealybugs.  Honeydew
also serves to grow a black mold called "black sooty mold",
another unsightly clue to a problem.

A few years ago when industry giant (at the time) American Cyanamid was searching for an improved bait for carpenter ant control they turned to experts in insect honeydew for insight. Researchers found that mimicking some of the natural constituents of insect honeydew in an artificial bait was a good strategy for designing a more effective bait.

I'm not suggesting that all ants are attracted to your accounts just because of sugar-pooping pests, but I guarantee you that, when present, these insects will contribute to an ant problem. So what can be done? First of all, learn the signs of honeydew producing insects, and how to select some of the excellent control products on the market.

There's a lot to learn about scale insects--more than I can cover here; but if you're interested in learning a little more, check out this link to a PowerPoint presentation I'll be giving this week on the subject.  The topic is scale insects and their control. I hope the pictures and notes will give you an interesting introduction to the subject and a taste to learn more.  Speaking of taste, I think I hear a KitKat bar calling my name.

Forget the rats...fix the problem

Sometimes pest problems can be so daunting that it's easy to overlook the obvious solution. This was the case for many private and governmental PMPs in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Fortunately, the obvious didn't escape the attention of Claudia Reigel, with the New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Board.

Reigel was recently featured in a National Public Radio (NPR) piece on the huge city rat problems after the hurricane.  While the city and many PMPs were scrambling to dump enough rodent bait in bait stations and sewers to plug the Mississippi levees, the problem wasn't getting better.

Reigel's solution was simple in concept.  "Forget the rats; fix the problems!"

By problems, of course, she meant the overgrown vegetation, poorly sealed buildings, overflowing trash dumpsters other sanitation lapses. In other words, integrated pest management (IPM).

As the story correctly points out, consistently successful pest control has to start with making the environment less hospitable to pests. And for some pest problems, until we do this, all the pesticide in the world isn't going to make a big difference.  This is not to say that rodenticides (or any pesticides for given pests) shouldn't be used; but they should be used in the context of changing the pest's environment.

New Orleans' rodent problems, I'm sure, haven't gone away. And they didn't improve overnight either. But the improvements are tangible, according to Reigel.  Maybe there's a daunting pest problem you're facing right now. The answer could be to "forget the pest for a moment, and fix the problem".

Critiquing insecticides as a last resort

Pesticides may not always be the worst environmental choice
when considering pest control options, according to a
recent scientific society position paper.

Two weeks ago I wrote about a recent position paper by the Entomological Society of America and its sister societies, American Phytopathological Society and the Weed Science Society of America. The paper critiqued some popular integrated pest management (IPM) concepts, including the idea that IPM programs should use only "least toxic" pesticides.  The same paper also addressed the widely adopted idea that pesticides should only be used "as a last resort" in an IPM program. Today I wanted to elaborate on use of pestcides as the last resort.

The concept of "last resort" pesticides is tricky because it's meaning is open to different interpretations. On the one hand, using pesticides as a last resort could mean that pesticides are used only when pest numbers or damage from exceed some pre-determined threshold. The use of thresholds is usually invoked in combination with a pest monitoring program and with an integrated control strategy including non-chemical tactics such as habitat modification, sanitation and quarantine. This is a proven IPM approach that has been used since the earliest days of IPM.  As the Societies' position paper points out, however, this is not the only possible interpretation.

Many agencies and regulators have interpreted the "last resort" imperative to mean that when a pest problem occurs, all non-chemical controls must first be attempted. Only when all else fails, should pesticides be considered. There is a subtle but important difference in these two interpretations. In the latter case, thresholds are made secondary to a process of trying first one non-chemical control, then another and then another, before finally turning to a pesticide. Such delaying tactics, according to the statement, can lead to unacceptable pest buildups and damage.

From my perspective, this approach was used last summer in my community during an outbreak of mosquito-borne, West Nile virus (WNV). While medical doctors in our city were worried that too many human cases of WNV had already occurred, and that aerial pesticide spraying was needed break the epidemic, those in the community with deep misgivings about pesticide use were insisting that not enough had been done in the areas of public education, breeding site removal, and larvaciding. They requested that the cities and county wait until everything that could conceivably be done before resorting to spray planes.  They were essentially invoking the "last resort" concept.

While this approach may seem reasonable on the surface, it's consideration resulted in delay and ultimately nearly 400 (serious) human cases of the virus in my county alone.  A predetermined threshold (say, to commence aerial spraying when education, source reduction and ground sprays fail to prevent mosquito infection rates from reaching levels likely to result in human cases) would have alerted the community that preventive tactics had already failed, and more aggressive controls were needed.

The ESA position paper provides links to a number of similar cases where following the "last resort" approach led to out of control pest problems and higher control costs. Many of these examples illustrate that waiting to control a pest may result in missing the ideal time to treat, and may ultimately result in the need for higher concentrations and more applications of pesticides to control a pest infestation.

Finally the position paper points out that the "last resort" concept implies that pesticides are always the worst choice, which is not true. Non-chemical techniques are sometimes more expensive, require more labor and energy, and result in lower levels of control than chemical pesticides. An example cited from Texas was conventional tillage to control weeds in arid farmland.  A study showed that herbicide use not only was more effective in conserving critical water, but it was less costly.

Rather than talking about "using only least toxic pesticides as a last resort", I believe we remain truer to the original spirit of IPM if we talk about "minimizing risks" and "using pesticides only when necessary" to prevent or control damaging levels of pests. Integrated pest management has never been easily distilled to a simple formula or prescription.  Each pest and situation is unique and deserves a flexible approach to do the right thing. This flexibility of IPM is both its greatest strength and, perhaps, its greatest weakness.  Flexibility is a weakness because IPM is difficult to codify, and develop rules for that fit all situations. But flexibility is a strength because IPM is adaptable to many settings--not just agriculture for which it was originally developed.

A critique of the IPM gospel

The three largest U.S. scientific associations with strong professional connections to integrated pest management (IPM) recently posted a news release that should be of great interest to anyone in the business of pest control. The Entomological Society of America, Weed Science Society of America, and American Phytopathological Society published a position paper last November that, while it has not received a lot of attention in the press or the industry (let's face it, IPM is not the sexyist topic), takes careful aim at some favorite concepts embraced by the  IPM community.  While the statement may read like heresy to some IPM supporters, I believe their arguments are well-thought out, and worthy of consideration by everyone with a stake in pest control.

First, a little historical background.  The IPM concept was first embraced by agricultural scientists, and later by those involved in urban pest control. The earliest versions of IPM emphasized the use of both chemical and biological methods of pest control. As IPM matured, it accepted that the judicious use of pesticides was desirable, as long as every effort was made to minimize the environmental and safety impacts of pesticide use--an approach still followed by most of those in production agriculture.  

As IPM evolved it was embraced by the environmental community and by regulators, and eventually by urban pest management professionals. Along the way IPM jargon, and the way it was implemented, also evolved.  One of the most influential modern attempts to articulate the IPM concept for human-occupied structures was the 1993 EPA publication, Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. In this publication (painstakingly crafted by environmentalists, the EPA and the National Pest Management Association), the judicious use of pesticides was endorsed as long as the "least toxic and most effective and efficient technique[s] and material[s]" were used. This seemed to be a compromise that all parties could live with, and everyone seemed happy.

Over these past twenty years the idea that "least toxic methods" should be part of the definition of IPM has reached the status of gospel. The term "least toxic pesticides" and "least toxic methods" is ubiquitous in IPM policy statements and even governmental rules and regulations. Its authority is rarely challenged by industry, academia or politicians--after all who wants to argue that schools or government agencies or your local PMP should use anything but the least toxic products?

Most of us have been taught to avoid "rushing in where angels fear to tread", but that's just what these three societies did by taking a stance against the "least toxic pesticide" concept.  It's not that my scientific colleagues are against the use of low toxicity pesticides, their argument is with the increasingly common insistence that "only 'least toxic pesticides'"' be used in IPM programs.

I encourage all to read the statement, but their objections boil down to the following:

• The term "least toxic" is too imprecise, and subject to misinterpretation by the public and by professionals alike. I can personally attest that many people wrongly equate "least toxic" with "organic" and "natural" (neither of which have any necessary connection to the least toxic concept--many natural chemicals are highly toxic). 
• Toxicity is not the same as "risk". An active ingredient can be highly toxic, but when diluted or made into a formulation that is highly unlikely to result in a human exposure, its use can be low risk. What consumers and regulators and parents should be most concerned about, when it comes to pesticides, is risk. 
• Least toxic to what? If an insecticide is low in toxicity to bees is it necessarily low in toxicity to dogs or humans or song birds? The least toxic concept presumes that pesticides fall neatly into a gradient of products range from those low in toxicity to everything to those that are high in toxicity to everything. They don't. 
• If only the least toxic products are used, this limits what can be done to manage pesticide resistance. A policy that rejects the possible use of 90%, say, of the available pesticide products leaves a much depleted tool belt, increasing the risk of pests developing resistance to the one or few remaining products. 
• The least toxic products are not always the most effective products. Indeed, if toxicity is the main selection criterion, then effectiveness is by necessity relegated to a secondary role. In many cases this means more applications of the least toxic product will be needed. Fuel, labor, pesticide exposure times and materials costs (none of which are environmentally desirable) will always increase with the need for more frequent pesticide interventions.

In case you think this is much ado about nothing, consider the wording of the Texas Occupations Code where it lays out the requirements for school IPM in my state.  The language of this code has been used as a model for other states' IPM regulations.  It directs the state to "include in standards adopted under this section: (1) a requirement to use the least toxic methods available to control pests, rodents, insects, and weeds..." The potential negative impacts of this language were blunted when Texas state regulators adopted a liberal set of regulations that allowed use of any pesticide in schools, but required schools to justify in writing the use of products identified as higher risk pesticides. In practice, this soft-handed approach has resulted in schools using lower risk insecticide approaches, without restricting choices. Other states and communities have seen regulatory language not so friendly to pesticide choice.

I have great sympathy with policy makers trying to encourage homeowners and pest management professionals to use the lowest risk, effective pesticides.  On the other hand, I agree with the ESA/WSSA/APA critique of the "least toxic" concept. The hard part is coming up with better approach that encourages pesticide applicators to use good judgement when selecting pesticides and pesticide formulations to supplement biological and other non-chemical controls.

For their part the societies point readers to the National IPM Roadmap as a source of guidance. The Roadmap was developed ten years ago and used as a guidance document by the USDA in developing a national plan to improve and encourage the adoption of IPM. Significantly, this roadmap does not use the term "least toxic" or "use of pesticides as a last resort", but emphasizes IPM as a process that identifies and reduces risks from both pests and pest management related strategies (including pesticides).

The second target of the society position paper is that idea that pesticides should be used only as "tools of last resort". But that will be the topic of another post.

Pest Prevention by Design

Imagine a community where the newest buildings were pest resistant. It would be a place where architects and engineers worked hand in hand with pest management experts to take pests into consideration during building design and construction. Foundations of these new buildings would be reinforced with termite barriers, kitchen walls could be opened easily for inspection and treatment, access points to electric utility chases would be easily reachable, exterior doors and utility penetrations would be rodent-proof, and birds would find few easily accessible perches or nesting holes. Now imagine schools and government buildings, homes and shopping centers with features that greatly simplified pest control and reduce the need for pesticides.

That's the idea behind the new Pest Prevention by Design Guidelines published this month by San Francisco Environment, a department of the city and county of San Francisco, CA. The principal author and leader of this effort is Dr. Chris Geiger, a trained entomologist and Urban Pest Management Program Manager for the City and County of San Francisco's Department of the Environment. I love Chris' up-front and down-to-earth admission in the report:

"The world is blessed with many charming, pleasurable, glamorous and enticing subjects on which to ponder. Pest management is not one of these."

How true. But of course a world without pest management would be unlivable too.

The format of the report is clean and easy
to follow. The recommendations are based
around 18 building features, and cite technical
references for the guidelines where they exist.

The new publication was and is a team effort, involving a Technical Advisory Committee that included pest management experts, PMPs, architects, and engineers. Universities in the mix included Cornell, Penn State, Texas A&M, UC Davis and Riverside, and the NJ Institute of Technology. The National Pest Management Association was involved, as well as several pest control companies.  My point is, this is not just the wild imaginings of some California tree-huggers (apologies Chris), but a serious effort to start a dialogue between us in the pest control industry and the folks who build both green and not-so-green buildings. The project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control.

I think anyone with an interest in the subject of pest proofing, owes it to themselves to take a look at the report. The authors limited the scope of the document to commercial buildings, and it is far from a perfect or complete document, as the writers will admit. But it's a start.

Looking forward there are several hopes for this project. First, we intended it (yes, I was involved too) to serve as a starting point for better dialogue with architects and engineers--two groups that historically have not been very interested in pest control.  With the current interest in green or sustainable buildings (IPM is actually a part of today's LEED green points rating system) it appears that the time may be ripe to entice these folks to take pest control more seriously. Consider that built-in pest control should mean longer useful lives for buildings, more pleasant and livable indoor environments, cleaner air and less need for pesticides--all admirable green goals.

Second, we hope that the guidelines will be referenced by green building advocates, builders of schools, those in the apartment and hospitality industries, and government officials wanting to reduce the long term maintenance costs of public buildings.  After all, pests are  frequent contributors to building decay and decline--an expensive problem for all.

Last, we intend these guidelines to be a living document. Ultimately it is intended to reside as an editable database, where suggestions and revisions can be made over time. Once a suitable web home is found, it will be easy to update and improve. If, as you read through the document, you see things that can be added or improved, we want to know about it.

I can hear grumbling by some that "if we build pest proof buildings there won't be any work left for PMPs". That I seriously doubt. It's my personal belief that as long as there are people living in buildings, there will be plenty of pests. I think that what this effort does is raise the status and profile of pest management into more of a science and less of a fire station mentality (constantly putting out preventable fires). There will be a need for PMPs to get involved with the building planning and execution process. Yes, if this concept catches on, there might be less for PMPs to do in these newer and greener buildings; but the lost jobs will be the kinds of problems that no one wants anyway--those institutionalized, chronic pest problems that seem to never go away because of filthy conditions or rundown facilities.

As for me, I know I'd rather live in a condominium or apartment, or stay at a hotel, or eat at a restaurant that was built with IPM in mind. Wouldn't you? And that's what pest prevention by design is all about.