Mechanisms Underlying the Effectiveness of Food Processing

IPM Programs

Michael ToewsJim Campbell and Frank Arthur

USDA-ARS GMPRCManhattan, KS 66502

IPM for food processing

• Incoming inspections

• Product rotation• Periodic fumigation• Sanitation• Residual insecticide

applications• Insect monitoring

Stored-product pests actively move among patches of resource in search of food, mates or places

to lay eggs

Emigration Dispersal Immigration

Uninfested patchInfested patch

Best opportunities for monitoring

Research questions

• What influence does sanitation have on insect capture in traps?

• Do insecticide applications affect monitoring ability with pheromone-baited traps?

• Do insect captures in pheromone-baited traps suggest the same trends as direct product samples?

Field data

1 /1 /0 3 4 /1 /0 3 7 /1 /0 3 1 0 /1 /0 3 1 /1 /0 4 4 /1 /0 4 7 /1 /0 4 1 0 /1 /0 4 1 /1 /0 5 4 /1 /0 5 7 /1 /0 5 1 0 /1 /0 5 1 /1 /0 6 4 /1 /0 6

Pro

porti

on tr

aps

infe

sted

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

Mea

n R

FB/tr

ap/1

4 d

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

Red lines indicate fumigation

n = 25 traps

Model systemRed flour beetle infested food patches

Red flour beetle pheromone-baited traps

46 c

m

= traps; = flour patch; = shelf

2.8 m

5.9 m

46 cm

Types of insect monitoring

• Pheromone-baited traps

• Direct sampling in food patches

• Collection of dead adults on floor

How does sanitation affect insect captures?

• Replicated warehouses were provisioned with 50 RFB adults

• Trt: trap position• Trt: food patches

under shelves vs. no food

• Response variables: number and location of RFB captures in traps

46 c

m

= traps; = flour patch; = shelf

2.8 m

5.9 m

46 cm

Food No food

Cap

ture

s/tra

p/w

k

0

1

2

3

4P = 0.03

B

A

Results

Corner Middle Shelf WallC

aptu

res/

trap/

wk

0

1

2

3

4P < 0.01

A

B

A

B

Pearson correlation coefficients

No food: r = 0.96; P < 0.01 Food: r = 0.50; P = 0.31 Toews et al. 2005a

Do insecticide applications affect monitoring ability?

• Replicated warehouses with food patches and 200 RFB adults, pupae, larvae, and eggs

• Trt: cyfluthrin, (S)-hydroprene, or water

• Response variables: dead adults, captures in traps, live insects in food patches

46 c

m

= traps; = flour patch; = shelf

2.8 m

5.9 m

46 cm

Independent trials

Direct samples

Captures in traps

1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8Control(S)-hydroprene warehouse(S)-hydroprene shelfCyfluthrin warehouseCyfluthrin shelf

F = 2.12; df = 20, 919; P = 0.03n = 36

* *

*

Larvae

1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8 F = 2.55; df = 20, 919; P < 0.01 n = 36

*

*

*

*

Adults

Toews et al. 2005b

Week of study

Do captures in traps indicate the same trends as direct

product samples?• Replicated warehouses

were provisioned with 200 RFB adults, pupae, larvae, and eggs under north shelf only

• Trt: cyfluthrin or water around all shelves

• Response variables: dead adults, captures in traps, live insects in food patches

46 c

m

= traps; = flour patch; = shelf

2.8 m

5.9 m

46 cm

Conclusions• Data suggest that better sanitation will

improve trapping efficiency• Insecticide usage may decrease the

number of insect captures in traps• Pheromone-baited traps are useful tools

for monitoring, but adult captures do not always correlate with the true population

• Presence of dead adults does not necessarily indicate that the population is declining

Acknowledgements

• Technical support• Jackie Rowan, Orrin

Holle, Brian Barnett, Matt Kennedy, Caleb Doll, & Jonathan Staats

• Product donations • Wellmark International• Gustafson LLC

• Financial support• USDA/CSREES/RAMP• USDA/CSREES/PMAP

michael.toews@gmprc.ksu.eduwww.gmprc.ksu.edu