Bee protests are cute, but...

A recent protest by organic activists outside a Chicago Home Depot highlighted something of the current debate over pesticides and bees.  It also reminded me that no one wants to go on record as being "against the bees".  Check out the video above.

The folks in the bee costumes in the above video are protesting the retail sale of "bee-killing" insecticides called neonicotinoids. They represent groups demanding that these insecticides not be sold, and that stores begin selling only nursery plants that have not been treated with these insecticides. I've blogged about this issue in the past, and reported on some recent urban incidents that could affect the pest control industry.

Over the past few days there has been some interesting discussion on this subject in a chat group that I belong to. I thought I would share some of the more interesting comments and new studies on the subject.

• Bee experts are mostly in agreement that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in honey bees is not as simple as "bad" pesticides. In fact pesticides may have little to do with bee declines in some areas.  Australia may be instructive in this regard. Australia uses neonicotinoid insecticides like the rest of the world, but Australian honey bees are not in decline. A new Australian government report out this month confirms as much, and concludes that take as a whole, neonicotinoid use has led to an "overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides." 
• A recent collaborative paper in the journal mBio, by Chinese and U.S. scientists, found a virus that has been known for many years, tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), that is infecting honey bees.  This virus is the first known plant virus that has mutated and adapted into an animal-infesting virus.  It appears to be transmitted to bees via pollen, and also by varroa mite. And its presence in bee colonies appears to be associated with gradual declines in bee colony vitality.
• In fact, varroa mites in combination with viruses are currently under close scrutiny as a major explanation for CCD.  According to Dr. Richard Cowles, with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, "When combined with work on Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus and a demonstration that irradiation of hive equipment from CCD could prevent nukes from succumbing to CCD, the strongest evidence for the cause of CCD is the varroa/viral combination."  An interesting side observation is that Australia does not yet have varroa mite, which lends strength to the argument for a mite-vectored virus explanation for the disease.
• Most studies that have found neonicotinoids in pollen have been on herbaceous plants. In one study on red maple trees, a dissertation by Dr. Josephine Johnson at the University of Maryland, no imidacloprid was found in tree nectar and only extremely low levels in pollen (bees feeding on these trees had no evidence of insecticides, nor in hive collected nectar).  So if you do neonicotinoid root applications on trees per label instructions, there is no evidence right now that such applications pose any risk to pollinators.
• Two new Washington State University Extension publications are now available on CCD and neonicotinoids.  The first publication by Lawrence and Sheppard, provides an overview of the problem with an explanation of the various factors thought to contribute to CCD.  How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides is a thorough overview of practical ways to reduce the risk of bee poisoning due to pesticides, and includes a table of most commonly used pesticides with their potential risks to bees. 

None of this is to say that there are no legitimate concerns about the toxicity of neonicotinoids to pollinators. These products are certainly toxic to bees, and at levels lower than previously recognized. But research in this area is ongoing, and our understanding of the possible factors that might be hurting bee populations is much better than it was a few years ago. Despite what you might hear, both EPA and the pesticide industry is taking pollinator concerns seriously and is acting to make sure that you have safe tools to control pests effectively. After all, who wants to be "against the bees"?

A reminder about rat bite fever

"Rat bite fever" does not refer to the latest Hollywood horror film.  Rather it is a little known infection sometimes mentioned when listing to prospective clients the reasons why a good rodent control program is so important.  In a sad story this week, however, rat bite fever has gotten some media attention.

USA Today reports that a San Diego family is suing Petco [the national pet retailer] after their 10-year old son died from rat bite fever allegedly contracted after handling a new pet rat. Results of testing by the Centers for Disease Control have apparently confirmed that the purchased rat was indeed infected with the pathogen.

Rat bite fever is caused by a bacterium known as Streptobacillus moniliformis. According to the CDC, people can contract rat bite fever from bites or scratches from infected rodents, such as rats, mice and gerbils, or even just by handling an animal with the disease without a bite or scratch. It can also be contracted by consuming food or drink contaminated with the bacteria. It is not spread from person to person. Antibiotics, such as penicillin, are highly effective at treating rat bite fever, and it is rarely fatal, according to the CDC.

Nevertheless, as the story implies, rat bite fever is not to be taken lightly. Although this case relates to a domesticated rat, it is no less relevant to pest control on the street.  It would be interesting to learn how the pet rat contracted the disease, perhaps from a Norway or black rat infestation in the store or breeding facility.

How many other serious human diseases are there that we glibly recite as associated with the ants, cockroaches, flies and rodents we control?  Until a personal story like this comes along, it's easy to downplay the importance of our profession. But I'm reminded today how important this work really is.

Running from Little Brown Moths

Little brown moths, like this meal moth,
Pyralis farinalis, can pose an identification
challenge to untrained PMPs.

Skill at insect identification is one of the little things that distinguishes the well-trained from the not-so-well trained pest control technician. And one of the pest problems that stop many a technician in their tracks is the so-called, "little brown moth".  Even entomologists are disposed to run the other way when a little brown moth shows up--so much so that bug experts often use the acronym LBM when sorting these insects from other, more interesting creatures.

But it's really not fair to the moths, or your customers, to give up so quickly on little brown moth identification--especially when the moth is an indoor pest. Household moths are pretty distinctive when examined carefully, and with a little practice identification decisions about indoor moths are not that difficult to sort out.

First a little background.  Moths, along with butterflies, are insects in the Order Lepidoptera--one of the largest insect groups, with almost 175,000 known species. Perhaps the most distinctive lepidopterous feature is the membranous wing surface covered with flattened, modified hairs, called scales.  Scales are what give each species of moth or butterfly their distinctive body and wing color pattern. 

All Lepidoptera go through a complete metamorphosis as they develop.  This metamorphosis starts out with the egg and larval, or caterpillar stage.  After the caterpillar is fully developed there is a pupal stage, then the adult emerges. In moths, it is typically the caterpillar stage that causes the most damage to plants or to stored products; although in pest control the adult stage flying indoors can also be a problem. 

The most common indoor pantry
pest is the Indian meal moth, shown
here resting in its characteristic
push-up position.

Your first job when faced with an indoor LBM problem is to determine the source. Is the moth coming indoors from outside, or is there an indoor source of the infestation?  And secondly, is this a food-infesting pest, or is it a clothes moth?  The first question can be answered to some extent by considering the numbers of moths present (outdoor moths should not be common indoors), but also by familiarity with the important indoor moth pests.  The second question is answered by familiarity with the appearance and behavior of the two major species of clothes moths.

Comparison of sizes and wing
shapes of Indian meal moth (top),
Angoumois grain moth, and
clothes moth (bottom).

The most common types of moths found in residential or commercial interiors are pyralid moths. Pyralid moths include the Indian meal moth, Mediterranean flour moth, almond moth, raisin moth and others. These moths all have a relatively short fringe of hairs on the hind wing.  The Angoumois grain moth is a smaller moth with a 1/2 inch (13 mm) wingspan and a long fringe of hairs on its hind wings shaped like a pointing finger (see right).

Clothes moths are the smallest of the moths likely to be found indoors (3/8-inch or 5-7 mm wingspan). They are covered with light brown to golden scales and have a tuft of hairs on the forehead. The hind wings lack a pointing finger shape. Clothes moths do not readily fly, and prefer to scuttle or run. For this reason, clothes moths can usually be ruled out as the culprit when a client reports seeing flying moths commonly indoors.

If in doubt as to the source of an indoor moth problem, pheromone lures can help. Pheromone lures contain copies of the sex pheromones that these moths use to locate mates. Pheromone lures can be placed throughout an account to help pinpoint moth hot spots. Some pheromone formulations for moths are even available as confusing agents to prevent males from finding female hosts (this approach is not effective for clothes moths, as explained in an interesting article just out in Fumigants and Pheromones newsletter).  Pheromone traps are available for many species and Insects Limited is an excellent source for information on selection and technical aspects of pheromone use.  Another commercial source for pheromones is Trécé Inc.

For anyone with deeper interests in stored product pest identification, including detailed keys to stored product pests, an excellent resource is the USDA Agriculture Handbook 655, Insect and Mite Pests in Food, now accessible online.

With all the great resources available there really is little reason to run from those Little Brown Moths.

Mosquito Training for Cities

AgriLife Extension will be hosting four Mosquito Training workshops this spring in Fort Worth (Mar 10), Longview (Mar 14), San Antonio (Mar 17), and Round Rock, TX (Mar 24).  The program is designed to help orient municipal employees who need to learn more about setting up a mosquito control program, but some of the information could be useful to pest management professionals involved in mosquito control.  These workshops are being held along with the Texas Department of State Health Services, and will include DSHS speakers at some locations.

The programs have been developed by AgriLife extension entomologist Dr. Sonja Swiger. I will be helping with the first program in Fort Worth, and Wizzie Brown and Molly Keck will be assisting with the San Antonio and Round Rock location trainings, respectively.  For a copy of the flier, click here.

Topics being covered include:

• Vector Borne Disease in Humans & Testing 
• West Nile Virus: Summary of the 2012 Outbreak 
• Mosquito Identification, Biology & Ecology 
• Integrated Mosquito Management 
• Putting Surveillance Data to Work 
• Properly Treating Mosquito Oviposition Sites
• Developing an Effective Vector Education Program

Cost for the program is $50 in all locations except Fort Worth, which is free. To register for the Fort Worth program only, click here.  For the other programs contact Dr. Swiger using information on the flier linked above.

It's not easy finding green

Occasionally I get a request from someone seeking a listing of green insecticides. Of course this is a difficult question to answer without knowing exactly what someone means by a "green insecticide".  Green means different things to different people.  To some it means something natural or organic, overlooking the fact that many highly toxic compounds are found in nature. Others might not restrict a list of acceptable insecticides to only products that occur in nature, but might include some man-modified compounds if they were sufficiently easy on the environment.

Personally I prefer the concept of low impact pesticides. I define "low impact" to include any pesticides (man-made or natural) that pose low risk to humans and to beneficial organisms (including wildlife, pets and beneficial insects).  Using this definition, it's not too hard to find products that fit the description from both the organic and the synthetic side of things.

Examples of man-modified or produced insecticides that meet the low impact criteria include soaps and oils, insect growth regulators, microbial-based products, and reduced risk pesticides identified by the U.S. EPA. If the properties of such products were understood properly, most of these insecticides would be acceptable to most people.

So are there any lists of low-impact, or green pesticides?  A few resources come to mind.  First, Texas has a loose definition of green pesticides in its Green Category products that schools are encouraged to use.  For a summary of these pesticides, see http://citybugs.tamu.edu/factsheets/ipm/ent-4003/.

Another resource is the U.S. EPA list of reduced risk products.  This list is tucked away online in an obscure, online EPA cubbyhole on the Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program.  While this is a regulatory concept and not intended as a list of the lowest risk pesticides, it does list some interesting insecticides that might not be otherwise noted by people seeking lower impact alternatives to more conventional products.  For a list of RR pesticides, click here.

One of the frequently cited sources of "acceptable" pesticides in green circles is the City of San Francisco's Reduced Risk Pesticide list.  The list is designed around professional products that can be used by city employees, and is not intended for consumer reference (click here for consumer low-impact options).  It is, however one of the few sites that has some scientific review and is continually updated with new products--a lot of work.  Municipalities and LEED building architects frequently refer to Tier III pesticides on this site as the standard for acceptable pesticides.

Lastly, the EPA's list of Minimum Risk (or 25b) compounds that are considered exempt from standard label requirements bears mention. This list contains ingredients that are "generally regarded as safe" by the EPA.  Unfortunately, being safe doesn't always make for an effective pesticide; but manufacturers continue to roll out new products with these ingredients because of the economic advantages of not having to register with the EPA.

None of these lists are perfect and all are highly arbitrary in some respects. They all have their uses and limitations.  All of them leave out some very useful pesticides that can solve otherwise intractable pest problems at reasonable risk to the environment. Some "green pesticides" may be very green, but not make very good pesticides--a common problem.  For these reasons, my advice would be to not commit oneself to a course of saying that "only these (select, green, organic, etc.) pesticides will be used" in our city, or our school, or our place of business.

Pesticides are power tools.  Like any power tool, along with their advantages, they have potential hazards. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, but that we should choose them and use them with caution.  If you're committed to using pesticides from a green list for your school, city or business, give yourself options. The Texas school regulations and the San Francisco program have both been relatively successful.  But they both allow for exemptions or exceptions for using pesticides not on the preferred lists.  The worst mistake any green pest control program can make is to limit itself so that it cannot effectively or economically respond to all pest problems. That's the quickest way to discredit any green program as impractical.

As Kermit the Frog would tell you, "it's hard to be green".  It's also hard to find the perfect green list of pesticides that will cover all pest problems. Keep this in mind, and these lists might actually help you.

Spring IPM Conference in Dallas

It's hard to believe that the Spring IPM conference is just around the corner.  But in just a little over the month we'll be offering our annual
Spring CEU conference at the Dallas Center.  Speakers this year include Ross Eckstein (Mastering fire Ant Control), Laura Miller (Rose rosette disease and its management demystified), Dr. Casey Reynolds (Sprayer Calibration to Maximize Your Weed Control), Janet Hurley (Pesticide regulatory update), and me talking about Neonicotinoid insecticides and the environment: What you need to know. Talks will provide CEUs for both Structural and TDA in General (Pest, L&O, Weed), Laws and Regs, and General (IPM).

Early registration is $70, and it includes a meal.  In addition to the five presentations, there will be an outdoor sprayer demonstration and a short update on a new pest, spotted wing Drosophila, by our new Extension program specialist, Mr. Erfan Vafaie.

So if you want to get an early start for 2014 on your continuing education, this is the best place to come. To register, go to AgriLife registration site.   For a copy of the brochure with more program information and directions, click here.

Winter Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee

I just returned from the Texas Department of Agriculture's quarterly Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meeting.  The purpose of the committee is to advise the TDA and its commissioner on education and curricula for PMPs, examinations, proposed rules and standards on technical issues related to pest control, fees and other issues affecting the practice of pest control in Texas.

Today's meeting was relatively brief, but informative. We met two TDA staffers that work actively behind the scenes on pesticide-related issues.  Rafael Paonessa is in charge of reviewing and approving the structural pest control CEU courses that all license holders must attend each year.  Rafael is the person I deal with to get approval for CEU classes that we offer.  He is always efficient and easy to work with.  He reported on recent overhauls of forms and procedures used in the re-certification program.

The biggest changes in the recertification process are in how course providers handle class attendance records, a subject I wrote about in detail last November.   The most common issue in getting courses approved, he said, is when providers do not provide enough detail about the planned course(s).  It's important to provide enough information for his office to determine whether the course meets department guidelines. It's also important that class content relates directly to pesticide use or pest management. General horticultural topics, or workplace safety topics (unrelated to pesticide safety), for example, will not be approved. The department does conduct spot checks of CEU classes to make sure the content is being covered and does not consist of advertising for a particular product or company.  Detailed information on putting together a course for CEUs is available in the just revised Pesticide Recertification Course Accreditation Guide, which is available online.

A new EPA-mandated Pollinator Protection Icon
will appear on many new pesticide labels.

The other employee we met today was Dale Scott. Dale handles the pesticide product evaluation and registration system at TDA. Many people believe that EPA is THE agency that approves pesticide labels, but in fact all pesticides must also be registered by each state in which they will be sold. This is why not all pesticides are registered, or legal for use, in all states.  Approximately 16,000 pesticide labels are registered in the state at any time, and his office processes about 3,500 new pesticide registration requests every year.

Dale reviewed information about new pollinator protection guidelines that are beginning to appear on pesticide labels. Four neonicotinoid insecticides will be the first insecticides to come under the new pollinator protection label guidelines. Changes to look for include pollinator protection information under all Directions for Use statements, a new bee icon to draw attention to pollinator protection information, and consistent warning label language about applying insecticides when bees are actively foraging.  This is a topic that all pest management companies and technicians should be aware of. Dale promised to make his PowerPoint on the topic available to the committee.

Also, Maron Finley, IPM in Schools specialist in the department reported on the top ten violations found in school IPM program inspections this past year. Most, he noted, related to inadequate record keeping. In order, they included:

1. No written guidelines that identify pest thresholds.  (155 violations, 39% of schools)
2. Not maintaining records showing approvals of Yellow Category pesticides (93 violations, 23% of schools)
3. IPM program records not maintained for the required time period (64 violations, 16% of schools)
4. IPM Coordinator not conducting periodic facility inspections (63 violations, 16% of schools)
5. No system for keeping records of facility inspection reports, pest control service reports, or pesticide applications (57 violations, 14% of schools)
6. No plan for educating and informing school district employees about their roles in the IPM program (54 violations, 13% of schools)
7. No monitoring program to determine when pests are present (48 violations, 12% of schools)
8. No reference [in the IPM policy] to Texas laws and rules governing pesticide use and IPM in schools (40 violations, 10% of schools)
9. IPM Coordinator training not completed within six months of appointment (32 violations, 8% of schools)
10. Name and license numbers of persons applying pesticides not on file (31 schools, 8% of schools)

A more serious violation, which occurred only 10 times, and did not make the Top Ten list, was applications made by non-licensed applicators.  Maron noted that 9 of these violators were small, class 1A to 3A, schools, and that all were in rural communities.  

Several on the committee commented that the overall violation rates seem low, and that compared to when the school IPM program first started, the state has made very good progress.  Nevertheless, everyone agrees that there is more work to be done to increase compliance.  Stephen Pahl expressed the desire for TDA to do more outreach to school administrators.  TASB, TASBO, and TASA are three school-oriented organizations that have ongoing meetings where school IPM talks can be presented.  George Scherer, of Texas Association of School Boards, was present and commented during public testimony that it is possible to get the names and contact information for school board members if needed during the compliance assistance phase of helping a school district.

Arnold Anderson, from Katy ISD, provided testimony on the subject of violations during the public comment portion of the meeting.  He suggested that schools with little experience in IPM should be encouraged to seek out a mentor school district rather than being fined. A suggestion was made that perhaps the TDA could facilitate mentoring by maintaining a current list of districts willing to mentor other districts in their IPM program development.  This might be another way TDA could reduce the number of school IPM violations without having to resort to administrative fines or penalties.

Finally, we were advised today that there is still an opening on the Advisory Committee.  If you know of someone who is not connected directly or indirectly with the pest control industry, and is interested in serving as a public member of the committee (with no pay or travel reimbursement), Leslie Smith is accepting applicants.