Overview

Information is power. Wars are lost, civilizations fall for the lack of a critical piece of knowledge. And on a more mundane level, many pest control operators are overlooking a valuable source of information that could greatly enhance their effectiveness and their incomes.

PCOs tend to think of insect light traps (ILTs) primarily as control devices. But ILTs can also be used to monitor the infestations they help to control. A properly implemented monitoring program can be a tremendous help in formulating and maintaining successful control strategies. This is especially true where the "environmental management" strategies of an Integrated Pest Management program are appropriate.

Monitoring and the use of "action thresholds" are standard practice in agriculture. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in urban settings, where inconsistent and unfocused applications of the concept have fostered some skepticism and controversy. This is to be expected, because monitoring will be of little benefit if conducted in a random, haphazard manner. It must be part of an integrated systematic approach to achieve real effectiveness.

But there are clearly numerous advantages to retrieving the data available from a light trap. At a bare minimum, it can show whether the control program as a whole is gaining or losing ground. Additional information, such as the particular species present, their relative abundance, and the locations of greatest activity can be used to target control actions, and identify deficiencies in exclusion and sanitation efforts. The cyclical nature of various infestations can be documented over the long term, allowing preemptive measures at appropriate times of the year.

All these benefits could add up to a critical edge in a key segment of the pest control market, namely, the food industry. Here, the scientific approach has arrived, in the form of HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points). It seems like a made-to-order situation for the PCO who can provide quantitative evidence regarding the control of flying insect contamination. Since ILTs provide suppression without introducing chemical hazards, they are ideally suited for these sensitive environments.

There is no denying that conducting a conscientious monitoring program requires additional time and effort on the part of the PCO. But there is surely a more than commensurate increase in the efficacy and efficiency of the service he provides. And better service generally translates into better income in the long run. In the final analysis, PCOs will have to decide whether they can really afford to disregard ILT information -- and the power that it represents.

Effective monitoring does not happen by accident. It requires planning that takes into account the unique requirements of a particular client, and preparation analogous to that needed when assessing a new contract. Initiating a successful program involves three basic elements: interviewing the client, inspection of the facility, and the proper deployment and servicing of traps.

The Interview

The expectations of the customer are an important factor. Management and employee participation and cooperation are essential to realizing the full potential of the program. Monitoring is unlikely to be of much benefit if insect light traps are perceived as a stand-alone solution to control problems. The client will be responsible for correcting many of the conditions contributing to infestation which the visual inspection and the monitoring program reveal.

In general, most of these non-chemical measures will bolster the overall pest management effort. Good exclusion and sanitation are critical for fly control, but are also helpful for a wide variety of other pests.

In larger facilities, especially those with many employees, a pest sighting log can be established to provide the building's employees with a means to report pest activity. This log is used to target areas that need immediate attention.

The workers in food handling accounts are unlikely to be well-versed in pest identification. If management’s approval can be secured, basic information about the flies commonly encountered and their sources can be posted on the bulletin board.

Visual Inspection
An on site inspection will be required to determine infestation levels, locate access points and probable larval breeding sites, and allocate resources and service time according to the risk level of particular areas. Some low risk areas may be designated for service on an "as needed" basis, with monitoring traps serving primarily as "sentinel" devices to ensure that pest activity is not increasing.

The efficacy of the visual inspection can be greatly enhanced by expertise in pest identification, and knowledge of the biology and behavior of the pests that are commonly found in the area. For example, the source of fruit flies is usually different from that of drain flies. Familiarity with basic entomology will improve overall efficiency by enabling the operator to apply control at specific sites.

Deploying Traps
Monitoring with traps is not a random process. A plan must be formulated which determines the areas where traps will be placed, the type of trap to be used and how traps will be identified and serviced. This planning requires an understanding of what the primary and potential pests are in a given area, and the use of the building and its impact on monitoring.

Placement
Many variables must be considered in properly deploying light traps. Care must be taken that traps are not placed where they will invite additional invaders. This could happen if they were placed facing the entrance of a loading dock for instance, rather than at an appropriate angle within the building.

If intercepting invaders is a top priority, wall-mounting at lower heights in areas safe from accidental damage is appropriate. When used primarily in a monitoring capacity for a spacious facility, large ceiling-suspended installations may be preferable. Traps that use pheromones (sex attractants) are suitable for monitoring some species, and are commonly used in applications ranging from food storage rooms to warehouses.

Competing light sources are a major factor in the performance of light traps, and should be kept in mind when evaluating monitoring data. UV-A meters that measure the differential between the ambient ultra-violet light and the ILT’s attractant UV are a handy tool for optimizing placements, as well as for calculating the total bulb wattage necessary to compete with surrounding light sources. They can also determine whether the deterioration of the UV output of the bulbs necessitates replacement before the standard one year period.

Traps may be impractical in certain areas for various reasons, ranging from aesthetics to the presence of small children. The more stylish wall sconce models may be a solution in some of these situations, and also allow the option of switching to decorative bulbs in the "off-season". Other areas may not be suitable for traps because they are damp, dusty or washed regularly. FDA guidelines may apply to the proper installation of electrocuting models in some food-handling situations.

The cost of installation and maintenance, and the time available to the PCO for servicing the system may also be issues. All these factors must be taken into account as the operator devises a practical strategy for trap placement, which type of trap to use, how many traps to use, and a schedule for servicing.

Logs should include data on the species captured, the general numbers of each, and should be correlated with dates and locations. In addition to suggesting appropriate areas and methods for control, the data will chart the progress of specific strategies.

The standard frequency for checking traps is generally once per month unless traps are being checked as a follow-up for previous or current pest activity in that area. Levels of infestation, along with other factors such as the accumulation of dust and debris may dictate variations in the frequency of glueboard replacement and trap inspection.

There are numerous benefits to be gained from a well designed and maintained monitoring system. Let’s examine some of them in two common contexts for PCO operations: Integrated Pest Management and food industry accounts.

Nowhere are the benefits of monitoring more apparent than in the context of Integrated Pest Management. Monitoring is an essential component of most IPM plans, because it is an ideal tool for accomplishing the simultaneous improvement of control and reduction of pesticide use - two primary goals of IPM. And certainly these goals are desirable in themselves whether or not a complete IPM program is in force.

Data available from ILTs can be used to enhance their own suppression capabilities by providing feedback on the effectiveness of different deployments. Identifying particular species will sometimes enhance performance by allowing the use of pheromone lures. For example, detection of the Indian Meal Moth would warrant employing plodia interpunctella.

Species-specific data, combined with knowledge of the habits and morphology of the species involved, can be applied to properly tailoring both chemical and non-chemical control measures to the particular situation. One insect may be resistant to a particular insecticide, while a similar form is not.

The data will also suggest where sanitation and exclusion may be falling short, and also pinpoint areas for treatment. For instance, if bean weevils are identified, only storage areas containing beans and peas are of concern, since this insect only attacks those two hosts.

When species-specific data is correlated with time and location it may reveal cycles of infestation that can be anticipated, and allow timely preventive measures. At the same time it allows the operator to evaluate the progress of whatever countermeasures he employs and adjust them in an efficient manner.

More accurately targeted sanitation and exclusion efforts allow reductions in the frequency of chemical use. And restricting pesticide treatment to the chemicals, areas, and times that monitoring indicates are most effective yields better control with reduced environmental damage.

Monitoring is vital in an IPM program because preventive insecticide applications are not regarded as routine procedure. IPM dictates that the use of pesticides should be directed primarily at active pest harborages. Monitoring is essential to determine which pests, if any, are present, the extent of activity, where pest harborages might be located; and where pests may be entering.

NON-CHEMICAL PEST CONTROL METHODS are the watchwords in IPM. ILTs are a non-chemical method of suppression in their own right and, as we have seen, allow increased reliance on environmentally benign methods. Such methods include:

• Sanitation: Removing food & water sources.
• Exclusion: Effective screens at all access points, properly functioning door closing devices, plastic strips and door sweeps, blowers to counter indrafts.
• Harborage denial: Tight-fitting trash lids, sealed plastic garbage bags etc..
• Harborage removal: Clearing organic debris and vegetation.
• Lighting: Lighting directed away from doorways, sodium vapor lamps for exterior lights to minimize attraction.

A couple of quotes from the FDA 1997 FOOD CODE will illustrate the dilemma faced by the food industry when it comes to insect control:

6-501.111 Controlling Pests: Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting disease to man by contaminating food and food-contact surfaces. Effective measures must be taken to control their presence in food establishments.

6-202.13: Insect Control Devices, Design and Installation. Insect electrocution devices are considered supplemental to good sanitation practices in meeting the Code requirement for controlling the presence of flies and other insects in a food establishment.

Flies in particular have been proven to be mechanical vectors for a wide variety of serious bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens.  (See our list of references.)

But what exactly constitutes "controlling the presence of flies and other insects in a food establishment"?

While it would seem that no infestation is tolerable in food-handling areas, in the real world this is simply not a feasible goal. The only way to avoid arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the regulation is to establish an "acceptable level of infestation" (as incongruous as that might sound). This would be analogous to the "action thresholds" commonly used in agricultural IPM. The only practical way of establishing and maintaining such standards is monitoring. Besides offering greater flexibility and efficiency in establishing control, ILT monitoring offers the unique capacity to quantify and document the status of that control. The PCO can offer apprehensive food industry clients(and their regulators) evidence of the progress of control measures and the maintenance of acceptable levels of infestation.

Long term records can also demonstrate the cyclical variations of some infestations, and offer comparative results for similar conditions. That data could be crucial in proving reasonable diligence on the part of both the client and the PCO when regulators attempt to use inevitable fluctuations as justification for punitive measures. Overall, monitoring provides a solution to the arbitrary nature of individual perceptions of control by documenting it numerically.

The systematic approach inherent in the monitoring process is certainly appropriate in the era of HACCP, now mandated by the 1997 Food Code for the seafood, meat and poultry industries. Since sanitation and pest control are so closely intertwined, HACCP’s rigorous scientific approach to food safety issues is bound to have repercussions for PCOs. Monitoring should be a powerful tool for coping with the new regulatory environment in the food industry.

As we have just seen, monitoring has a great deal to offer in both IPM and food industry settings. So it is no wonder that these days many insect light trap manufacturers have begun referring to their products as monitoring devices. Integrated Pest Management and HACCP are having a dramatic impact on the pest control industry and some of its most valuable clients.

Many government and private sector sanitation contracts require IPM, and some of those contracts involve substantial amounts of money. HACCP methodology is currently in force in the seafood, meat, and poultry sectors, but planning has already started for the fruit and vegetable juice industries - prompted by several contamination episodes.

As regards IPM, there can be no mistaking the trend towards environmentally friendly strategies for pest control.

And monitoring plays a crucial role in the success of these strategies. It is also clear that the advent of HACCP opens new opportunities for PCOs who can offer more systematic, less hazardous control - and at the same time document the effectiveness of that control. All this adds up to one thing: a competitive advantage. The pest control operator who doesn’t utilize the information that is readily available from insect light traps is giving up an edge to those who do. In today’s competitive pest control industry, can he really afford to do that?

Abe Thomas is an international marketing consultant. He currently serves as Director of Marketing for Actron, Inc. and International Marketing Director for Gardner International. He may be reached at Actron, Inc. at 818-654-9744 or our contact form.

* Our toll-free 800 number is occasionally out of order in some areas; if you can't get through, please call 818-654-9744.

Concept, content, navigation by :
Assist Business Solutions
Visual concept, layout and images created by: 
Kim at designplace.com