Progress 06/01/17 to 01/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:If successful, this project will result in a new, more efficient management tool for A. diaperinus, currently the most common insect pests in poultry houses. These insects inflict severe and widespread damage to U.S. poultry growers, an industry that creates an overall economic impact of over $460 billion each year and provides a critical staple of our country's food supply. Treatment for control of A. diaperinus delivers an estimated return on investment of $3,000 per 100,000 birds, but these management practices currently rely upon chemical insecticides, which are threatened by the development of resistance in the target pest as well as growing concerns over the environmental and health risks associated with their use. A more effective, sustainable, and non-toxic alternative to these insecticides, like CLB Repel, would be highly desirable to poultry growers struggling to deal with this pest. First, by suppressing CLB populations in poultry facilities more effectively than current management strategies, CLB Repel could substantially diminish health impacts on chickens and structural damage induced by the pest, both of which will improve net productivity. Because CLB Repel utilizes an organic, food-safe AI, verbenone, the product can be used in the presence of the flock, making the application process simpler, quicker, and cheaper, as well as increasing the value and quality of egg and meat products. CLB Repel could be used on any poultry farm. On organic farms, where the use of conventional insecticides is precluded, CLB Repel will provide a novel and effective control strategy that does not rely on chemical toxicants; while in conventional egg and chicken production facilities, CLB Repel could be applied in combination with conventional control tactics (i.e., after litter cleanout to prevent or minimize re-infestation by CLB; or as part of a push-pull strategy, to aggregate CLB into a confined, specific area for insecticide treatment, rather than spraying the entire poultry house with hazardous chemicals). In light of these advantages and with the involvement of poultry growers and other industry stakeholders in every step of our work (problem identification, discussion of possible solutions, discussion of results, implementation, and pricing), we believe the management tools resulting from this USDA NIFA SBIR project will be highly relevant to the needs of these stakeholders and therefore more likely to be adopted, spear-heading successful commercialization of the final product. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The work proposed here was conducted in response to discussions between university and governmental pest management specialists, poultry farmers, and fellow scientists at regional meetings across the country, field visits and conference calls. Meetings with our collaborators on this project, along with extension agents, farmers and animal husbandry industry representatives have led to a clear and open dialog about the priorities and approaches to address the needs of chicken litter beetle management programs. To ensure that stakeholders remain involved in the annual cycle of this project, we will strive to make our findings available at industry meetings as well as summits involving research, extension, farmers and distributors. This will help shape the future direction of the Phase II project and guide it toward broad implementation of the solutions brought up by the R&D proposed here. Our close links to the current participants in A. diaperinus management programs will enable the animal husbandry community to remain involved as active participants in this project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Task 1: Create a stable, long-lasting repellent formulation incorporating the anti-aggregation pheromone, verbenone [(1S,5S)-4,6,6-trimethylbiclo[3.1.1]hept-3-en-2-one] into ISCA's patented organic controlled-release matrix SPLAT® (Specialized Pheromone & Lure Application Technology), to be subjected to field trials in poultry farms infested with chicken litter beetle, as well as aging trials to estimate the product's field life. To create the base formulation for CLB Repel, ISCA formulation specialists created a serial dilution of verbenone in SPLAT: Prototype 1 contained 0.1% verbenone, Prototype 2 contained 0.3% verbenone, Prototype 3 contained 1% verbenone, Prototype 4 contained 3% verbenone, Prototype 5 contained 10% verbenone, and Prototype 6 contained 30% verbenone; all percentages were determined by weight of the emulsion. The requisite quantity of the anti-aggregation pheromone was thoroughly blended into the SPLAT wax emulsion using a high-shear lab mixer. Two of these prototype formulations were shipped to Brazil, to ISCA Technologies sister company in that nation, ISCA Tecnologias, to begin field trials. Task 2: Perform field trials of CLB Repel in poultry farms using the optimal dosage and application rate identified in Task 1. A series of field studies was performed in a poultry farm in Brazil, known to be under CLB pressure, during which two prototype formulations were applied in a variety of different presentation methods (sealed in blister packs, packaged in unsealed plastic cups), and in different locations in the farm (buried beneath chicken litter in one compartment of the farm, contained within PVC traps placed near chicken feeders), to assess how the formulations performed under varying pest pressure. Efficacy of the treatment was measured on the basis of the number of CLB, both larvae and adult beetles, captured in PVC traps placed within the treated sites, compared to untreated sites within the same poultry farm. The results obtained from these trials were somewhat inconsistent. In the first trial, during which the CLB Repel point sources were applied alone (not contained within a trap) and buried under the litter, larger numbers of CLB larvae were found in the compartment with a higher rate of CLB application, indicating that the formulation may have had an attractant rather than a repellent effect. In the following trial, however, there was little difference observed in the larval capture rates between untreated sites and those treated with CLB Repel: an average of 32 larvae were captured per trap in the former, compared to 34 larvae per trap in the latter. In a third trial at this location, the average number of CLB larvae captured in CLB Repel-treated sites was less than half that captured in untreated control sites (30 larvae/trap vs. 68 larvae/trap). This reductive effect was also observed in a fourth test, though to a lesser degree: traps containing point sources of CLB Repel caught a slightly smaller number of CLB larvae than those without semiochemical treatment (12.8 larvae/trap vs. 19.6 larvae/trap). The number of adult CLB captured in the poultry farm remained low throughout all trials, regardless of whether CLB Repel was applied. While two out of four field studies indicated a repellent effect of CLB Repel, the inconsistency of these results prevents any clear conclusions from being drawn about the efficacy of the CLB Repel prototype at this stage; further testing of this formulation, in a broader range of poultry farms and conditions, is required to collect more data for clearer analysis.
Publications
|