Progress 11/04/16 to 09/30/19
Outputs
Target Audience:The emphasis in this period was analysis, interpretation and preparation of research results, which will be used for a refereed journal publication, in multiple presentations to industry groups, and in a trade magazine article (solicited by the premiere trade magazine for the pest management industry, PCT Magazine). Therefore, these efforts (that will extend beyond the final reporting) will target a wide audience dealing with pest management and food safety, including academics, educators, researchers, regulators, food safety inspectors, quality assurance managers, and the pest management industry (technical directors, field technicians and salespeople). The intended goal of this multifaceted approach is to affect adoption of recommendations based on the results of this research at multiple levels. For example, reaching practitioners (pest professionals) can lead to adoption of recommendations at the level of implementation, while reaching regulators may lead to further revision of standards for placement of rodent management equipment at food facilities. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project has created a forum to discuss rodent management practices at food distribution centers. While many third-party auditing agencies have modified their standards to accommodate inspection-based placement of devices, observations suggest that pest professionals implementing rodent management programs rarely depart from prescribed (antiquated) interval distances. This maybe be due, in part, to fear of change away from a longstanding approach. With evidence to show that fewer than half of interior devices are utilized by rodents (except when large infestations are present), and that a high percentage of feeding on exterior bait stations is minimal (less than one edge), evidence-based recommendations can be useful in modifying behaviors. Therefore, this research provides opportunities to reach various audiences, including academics, educators, researchers, regulators, food safety inspectors, quality assurance managers, and the pest management industry, including technical directors, field technicians and salespeople. This will occur through various presentations, meetings, and publications. For the primary Co-PI, this project provided opportunities to meet new stakeholders, collaborators, to reach new audiences, inspect and photograph food distribution centers and gain insights into food safety relative to pest management. Early in the process, articles were submitted to, and published by food safety trade publications (Quality Assurance and Food Safety Magazine; Food Safety Magazine), to solicit collaborators. New contacts were established that responded to the request. Furthermore, collaborations were forged with pest professionals working in the New York Metropolitan area, and in Canada, providing opportunities to observe differences (or the lack thereof) in practices and regulations between the two countries. Finally, having heard about the project, an editor from the premier trade magazine for the pest management industry, PCT Magazine, has solicited an article describing the project for a future issue. PCT Magazine has an average subscriber count of 28400 readers in all 50 US states. Readers represent a diversity of job functions, from owners and technical directors at pest management companies, to academics and health department workers. In addition to the US subscribers, an additional 1500 international scribers read PCT magazine, primarily in Canada and India. Undoubtedly, this work will provide opportunities to collaborate with regulators, and third-party auditing agencies whose specifications for pest management at food distribution centers guide interval placement of devices. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, a single presentation about the project, highlighting the need for this work and interpretation of results, has been given to a group of pest management professionals. Currently, six additional presentations are scheduled to reach audiences in the New York Metropolitan area and beyond. As described above, a manuscript and trade magazine article are in preparation that will have broader geographical reach. Development of a guidance/recommendations document will provide opportunities to communicate with Quality Assurance managers and third-party auditors, as well as pest management professionals across the country. Use of social media (Twitter accounts for the New York State IPM Program, the PI and Co-PI; Facebook for the NYS IPM Program; and blogs) will alert stakeholders to the results of this work. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Although this is the Final Report, activities related to this project will continue after the reporting period. These have been discussed in detail above, but will be listed here for convenience: Ongoing presentations to stakeholders regarding the results and implications of this work Publication of an article in the premier trade magazine for the pest management industry Anticipated publication of a refereed manuscript detailing this project Development of recommendations for improving rodent management at food distribution centers Social media posts about published articles and research results
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We used exterior feeding data to show that 100% of bait stations experienced some level of feeding during the 10 to 69 months of study. However, feeding was variable. Of the 2769 observations made on the feeding status of bait, 36.8% represented 'no feeding'. Furthermore, 72.9% of observations were considered 'low bait consumption,' of up to one bait edge. Of the 73 devices, numerous experienced consecutive months without feeding, 12 had one year without feeding, two had two years without feeding. Low and inconsistent consumption of bait supports an alternative approach to monitoring, the use of non-toxic bait blocks. These baits are the same composition as rodenticide blocks, but lack the active ingredient. Alternatively, snap traps can be used in bait stations with non-toxic bait. These practices, as well as using only a single block per station, can reduce the amount of rodenticide waste. On the facility interior, 45.2% of the 610 devices caught one or more rodents during the 10 to 69 months of data collection. When individual sites were considered, fewer than half of all traps caught rodents at two-thirds of sites (8 of 12), and the range in trap use proportion was 13.3% to 91.7%. These data provide evidence that rodents are not evenly distributed within food distribution centers. We recommend facilities utilize site maps to visualize where individual and repeat trap captures occur to hone management interventions to areas with rodent activity. A total of 857 non-mutually exclusive conditions were assigned to the 161 exterior bait stations at nine sites. Some key findings are that 93.8% of devices were located near a feature that provided access to facilities, 56.5% near shelter, and 37.9% were in undisturbed areas. A total of 3588 conditions were assigned to the 610 interior devices. 90.7% were near shelter, 82.5% near access, and 44.3% near a heat source. 82.8% of devices were along perimeter walls. Because rodents only explore objects in their normal activity areas, successful rodent control depends on effective placement of devices. Therefore, the purpose of identifying conditions relevant to rodent management was to determine if interval device placements were near conducive conditions. Our results demonstrate that a high proportion of devices were near at least one conducive condition. The list of conditions may prove useful as a guide for placing devices. Twenty-seven conditions were grouped into 10 categories to describe exterior rodent bait stations. On the interior, a list of 76 conditions in 11 categories were used. Use of categories was not originally planned, but was needed for statistical analysis. For exterior bait stations, proximity to categories of shelter (unmaintained vegetation), and warmth (on the building's west side) increased feeding. Location on the building's east side or near an equipment boneyard (shelter) also increased feeding. Proximity to categories of pathway (in a corner), near pest proof structures (rodent proof single doors and poured cement walls), and warmth (on the south and west side perimeter walls) all increased interior trap capture. Placement along the perimeter wall, location in an undisturbed corner, near hollow racks and equipment voids, and being shadowed during the day increased catch, while location near a non-rodent proof dock leveler, corrugated walls with insulation, or a mechanical room decreased captures. This study showed that conditions on the interior and exterior of distribution centers lead to higher captures/more bait take, and that rodents are not evenly distributed in these settings. Therefore, results can be translated to recommendations adopted at multiple levels including implementation or regulation. Guidelines are in preparation. In the US, the average time to service interior and exterior devices were 1.5 and three minutes, respectively. For sites in Canada, service of interior devices ranged from 1-3 minutes, and cost $1.25-$2.50. Service of exterior devices can take 3-5 minutes, and cost $3-$5. In this study, the overall trap use proportion for interior multi-catch devices was 45.2%, and the average number of interior devices was 51 traps. Using these values as an example, we predict that only 23 of 51 interior devices would experience rodent activity. With an average service time of 2 minutes per trap, departing from interval placements could save 56 minutes of technician time. Rodent feeding data was obtained from 73 exterior bait stations for a combined total of 160 months. Bait blocks are typically replaced monthly, yielding an estimated 11680 blocks used in this study. Because 36.8% of observations represented no feeding, this means that 4298 blocks (266.8 pounds) would have been discarded without any feeding damage. Cost of service may be less important, considering that the goal is not to reduce the cost of service, but to improve the efficiency of service. Therefore, while the cost of service may decrease with fewer devices, it is likely that the price may remain even as technicians spend more time on inspection and interpretation.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Frye, MJ, JL Gangloff-Kaufmann, & RM Corrigan. 2020. Influence of rodent management device placement on trap success and bait take in food distribution centers. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. In prep.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Frye, MJ. 2020. Science-Based Rodent Management in Food Distribution Centers. PCT Magazine, GIE Media, Inc., Valley View, OH. In prep.
|
Progress 10/01/17 to 09/30/18
Outputs
Target Audience: During this reporting period we continued to reach pest management and food safety professionals with articles previously published in trade magazines (2017), through formal presentations and personal interactions. In 2018, principal investigators provided a total of 13 presentations on rodent management and pest exclusion to audiences across the country (presentations took place in six NY counties; Lexington, KY; Lincoln, NE; Atlantic City, NJ; Portland, OR; and two national webinars). During presentations, the goals, progress and current insights of the project were discussed. The project was also mentioned by collaborators at national meetings and in relation to a similar research project on remote monitoring technology for rodents. Because of these efforts, additional research sites are now available for study in 2019. Changes/Problems:In May 2018, investigators made a no-cost extension request for this project. The text below is an excerpt from that letter describing the reasons for the change. "Beginning in October 2016, we started the search to identify research sites for this project. Over the next several months we contacted more than 20 pest management professionals that service food distribution centers in New York State; submitted an e-mail that was disseminated to customers of a regional distributor of pest management products; made cold call visits to more than 30 food distribution centers in the Hudson Valley, NYC and Long Island; and wrote an article that appeared in three trade magazines that reach pest management professionals nationwide. We also enrolled the help of a project collaborator, Dr. Bobby Corrigan, a world-renowned and highly regarded rodentologist to recruit sites for the study. Despite this effort, by April 2017 we were only able to secure two facilities that met our criteria and were willing to partner on the project. Furthermore, for reasons beyond our control, we were not able to obtain the full complement of supplies needed for this project until February 2018. Because of the difficulty in finding sites that met our criteria and were willing to partner on the project, we needed to modify the design of the experiment. The initial design called for a comparison of rodent management devices deployed at intervals along the interior and exterior of a facility to additional devices that would be placed based on our assessment of conditions that favor rodent activity. Due to the limitations in finding suitable sites, our new design will categorize devices already in place based on where they are located (for example: near a door, interval placement along a wall, near dumpster, etc.) and the proximity of conditions that favor rodents. We will then analyze current and historical trap catch data for those placements to determine if there are relationships between the type of placement and rodent activity. With this new design, we will be able to include more sites and have a better representation of the diversity of food distribution facilities. Our goal is to analyze devices at 12 or more sites. We have one partner who has agreed to work with us on this project and has access to dozens of sites. Our plan of action includes: Visit several sites to assess feasibility of new project design [As of May 1, 2018: visited 12 sites in NY, NJ, and CT] Create a list of "placement profiles" that describe the location of devices within a facility (for example: near a door, interval placement along a wall, near dumpster, etc.) [Completed June 2018; modified November 2018] Visit 12 or more sites to assign placement profile to each device in facility [Proposed: March 2019; 7 sites visited November 2018] Obtain trap catch data for devices and analyze data [Proposed: June 2019; obtained data for 7 sites December 2018] Summarize findings in industry publication, technical document, peer-reviewed manuscript, PowerPoint presentation, and for final report [Proposed: September 2019] An extension wass requested for this project because, at present, we have not been able to collect any data. We could not have anticipated the lack of industry participation in this research, especially considering that the outcomes can directly benefit the bottom line of pest management companies and improve food safety for all consumers. Now that we have identified at least one partner willing to work with us, it will take time to coordinate visits to the sites, travel to sites and classify all device placements, obtain and analyze the data. Although the data collection window will be short (approximately one year), our new design allows us to obtain data from multiple years for the analysis - ensuring better results. Using this new design, we are confident that our results will have important impacts on the auditing standards currently used to set up pest management programs in food distribution centers. Based on the request sent to trade magazines to find collaborators, the primary trade magazine has already requested a follow-up article to discuss the results of the research. Furthermore, the National Pest Management Association is interested in this research and how it can be incorporated into their standards for rodent pest management as part of their certification programs. For these outcomes to be realized and reported on, an extension of the grant period is requested." What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The project has provided an opportunity to offer training to staff at RK Environmental Pest Management Solutions, an organization that is collaborating with the NYS IPM Program on this project. In April 2018, an investigator on the project provided education to a group of regional managers at RK Environmental's headquarters for their annual training. Furthermore, field inspections and site visits have provided opportunities to acquire photographs and insight used in presentations and social media outreach, while offering tips for dealing with challenging situations to field-based staff. In February 2019, an investigator on the project will travel to Toronto, Canada to collect data at five distribution centers and offer training to staff at Abell Pest Control, another partnering pest management firm on the project. As a result of involvement in this research, collaborators on the project have been contacted about the challenges of rodent management at food distribution centers and opportunities for improved surveillance. In 2019, investigators will meet with stakeholders from a nationwide pest management firm to discuss ideas on pest management at food distribution centers that directly relates to this research. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, results of this work has not been disseminated to communities of interest. Based on our current timeline, we plan to submit articles summarizing the work to professional and trade publications in September 2019. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? During the next reporting period, we will obtain data from five distribution centers in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and analyze the data from all sites with assistance from the Statistical Consulting Unit at Cornell University. We will then summarize our findings in an industry publication, technical document, peer-reviewed manuscript, PowerPoint presentation for the industry, and for a final report. We hope that through connections with collaborators, we will have an opportunity to meet with agencies that influence guidelines for rodent management at food distribution centers, including third party auditing agencies, but also trade groups such as the National Pest Management Association.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
[Note: the current project has been modified from the objectives listed above. In May 2018 we requested a no-cost extension to the project based on early difficulty in obtaining sites and collaborators. At that time, we proposed a new timeline and objectives that we have since met.] During this reporting period, data was collected from rodent management devices at seven food distribution centers in the NY metropolitan area. Devices were described using a coded list of 63 and 24 characteristics or "placement profiles" for interior and exterior equipment, respectively. Characteristics included features that could affect the attractiveness of the device for rodents, such as sources of food, water, shelter, heat and access to the facility. In addition to recording characteristics observed at the device itself, the distance to nearby characteristics was also measured. For each site, data was obtained from the cooperating pest management company on the pest activity at each device. This data includes the date and time devices were checked, and the number and type of pests captured. Following acquisition of this data, we met with a representative of the Statistical Consulting Unit at Cornell University to consider our options for analysis, refine our data acquisition techniques, and to determine how best to input the data. Based on the results of this consultation, we learned that the data can be analyzed not just to determine what placement profiles are most important for rodent management, but also to investigate possible changes in activity based on the time of year/season, which can lead to enhanced rodent management. We plan to consult further with this group for analysis of the data. Finally, because of a national webinar presentation, a Quality Assurance Auditor from a large pest management company in Canada contacted us. They have offered access to several of their distribution centers that we will include in our study as a means of obtaining a broader perspective on pest management practices in distribution centers, including a component of centers located in colder climates that have more restrictions on pesticide use.
Publications
|
Progress 11/04/16 to 09/30/17
Outputs
Target Audience:Pest Management Professionals: Individuals and companies that provide pest management services to food distribution centers were the primary audience of efforts completed in 2017. In an attempt to identify sites for this research, local professionals were contacted directly, by distributors of pest management products, and solicited through articles in popular trade magazines. The research project was also discussed in professional meetings and on social media. Food Safety Officers: In addition to professionals in the pest management industry, individuals working at food distribution centers and in the regulatory community that oversees food distribution inspections were targeted by efforts in 2017 to identify research sites. Changes/Problems:At this time no changes have been made to the plan, despite the problem of identifying research sites. We hope to overcome this challenge in 2018-2019 with a no-cost extension. However, as described in the previous section, we are considering the possibility of conducting this research in slightly different settings: big box stores or large grocery chains. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?To date, more than 10 food distribution centers have been inspected, often with the pest professional that services the site or the quality assurance liaison. During inspections,opportunities for improving the current pest management program have been discussed, including the selection and placement of equipment, opportunities for pest exclusion and sanitation, recommendations for dealing with ongoing problems, and opportunities to improve record keeping. This on the job training can have important consequencesfor pest professionalsthat implement IPM strategies in other accounts, while training for quality assurance professionals can improve food safety at the site. However, because suitable and long-term research sites have not been found, we have not been able to collect data to support our observations, and therefore cannotsynthesize these recommendations into usable guidelinesthat could impact the food industry. This is an important goal of the program that will hopefully be addressed in subsequent years of the study. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to work closely with a new collaborator and existing data toanswer questions about device placement and effectiveness of rodent management efforts. In addition, we will continue to seek new collaborators that may servicefood distributionsites with active rodent populations for study. A third option is to consider investigating this question in slightly different types of settings that may be more amenable to an academic investigation. Specifically, big box store or large grocery chains often have areas where food is stored before it is placed on shelves. In speaking with pest professionals, these sites are less tightly regulated than food distribution centers, and may therefore be more willing to participatein our program. Furthermore, these sites are notorious for having mouse problems, providing suitable pest populations for study.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Unfortunately this project has met a critical challenge in obtaining access to research sites.Beginning in November 2016, pest professionals in the metropolitan NY area, as well as regional representatives of national firms, were contacted to assist with finding food distribution centers that have active rodent populations. Local representatives of national companies that distribute pest management products sent a request for collaboration to pest professionals on our behalf, and an article was written for Pest Control Technology Magazine, Quality Assurance and Food Safety Magazine, and Food Safety Magazine that described the project and solicited cooperation (the article was also picked up by PestWeb by Univar, a distributor of pest management products). In addition, a list of food distribution centers was obtained from New York State Agriculture and Markets, and more than 30 cold call visits were made to sites throughout the Hudson Valley. A few pest professionals have expressed interest in partnering on this project, mostly because of the opportunity to work with Dr. Bobby Corrigan and to learn new techniques. However, in most cases the sites have not been appropriate due to a lack of rodent pressure. The trend is that sites without rodent problems are willing to participate because they have nothing to hide, while sites with known problems are unwilling to participate because they have something to hide. Interestingly, a colleague has expressed this and other similar challenges in rodent research in an article published in the Journal of Urban Ecology (Parsons et al. 2016). By April 2017, two sites had been identified for the study, but obtaining supplies posed a new complication. The process to order materials was initiated with one national distributor in May 2017, but for reasons beyond our control the order was never filled. A second national distributor was contacted in October 2017, but due to delays in the process of ordering materials, the sites with rodent problems had promptly addressed them, making them no longer suitable for study. A new collaborator has since stepped forward and has offered his sites for study. While these sites seem to have limited rodent problems, detailed record keeping by the company could offer another way of gathering data. Specifically, this company uses electronic monitoring to document trap catches on a facility map. By performing detailed inspections at sites with rodent activity and documenting sources of heat, water, food and entry on the maps, it might be possible to use historic data to determine if rodent activity is concentrated in these areas. This would not be a manipulative study with an intervention, but could provide insight into this question. Our plan at this point will be to request no-cost one year extension on this project to achieve program goals in 2018 and 2019. Reference: Parsons, MH, PB Banks, MA Deutsch, RM Corrigan, & J Munshi-South. 2017. Trends in urban rat ecology: a framework to define the prevailing knowledge gaps and incentives for academia, pest management professionals (PMPs) and public health agencies to participate. Journal of Urban Ecology 3(1): jux005.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
Frye, MJ. 2017. New York PMPs Needed for Rodent Research Project. Pest Control Technology Magazine, GIE Media, Inc., Richfield, OH. URL: http://www.pctonline.com/article/new-york-rodent-researhc-pmp-request/
Note: This article was also published in:
QA Magazine: http://www.qualityassurancemag.com/article/rodent-research-food-distribution-collaboration/
Food Safety Magazine: https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/rodent-research-at-food-distribution-centers-a-call-for-collaboration/
and PestWeb: http://pestweb.com/index.cfm/news/ad3ae0/new-york-pmps-needed-for-rodent-research
|