key: cord-0721666-ax3sz0ts
authors: Kaufman, Phillip E.; Reasor, Colleen; Murray, Kathleen D.; Waldron, J. Keith; Rutz, Donald A.
title: Evaluation of a Barrier to Inhibit Lesser Mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Dermestidae Movement in High-Rise, Caged-Layer Poultry Facilities
date: 2005-10-01
journal: J Econ Entomol
DOI: 10.1093/jee/98.5.1744
sha: fc675f176cb409dcf0e905762efdcc810625edac
doc_id: 721666
cord_uid: ax3sz0ts

An evaluation of a mechanical barrier to prevent movement of adult and larval lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer); larder beetle, Dermestes lardarius L.; and hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus De Geer was conducted in caged-layer poultry facilities in New York and Maine. The barrier, a plastic collar wrapped around building support posts, proved highly effective at preventing movement of adult lesser mealworms. Significantly more lesser mealworm larvae were recovered from cardboard collar beetle traps placed below both washed and unwashed barriers than from traps placed above washed and unwashed barriers. Similarly, significantly more adult Dermestes were recovered from traps placed below washed barriers than from above both washed and unwashed barriers. The level of fly specking on the barrier was found to have no significant impact on the numbers of adult lesser mealworms and adult and larval Dermestes recovered either above or below barriers. Fly specking level did significantly impact the numbers of lesser mealworm larvae recovered above the barrier. Although washed barriers provided the greatest deterrent to adult lesser mealworms, the presence of the barrier, regardless of the level of fly specking, provided a significant deterrent to beetle climbing success. Washed barriers further reduced climbing success by lesser mealworm larvae by 17%, Dermestes adults by 7–28%, and Dermestes larvae by 33–38%. The high level of climbing observed by adult lesser mealworms suggests that the impact of adult beetle movement toward birds should be considered in its importance in building damage, disease transmission, feed infestation, and bird productivity and health. Observations on cost and maintenance of the barrier are discussed.

LESSER MEALWORM, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer), is a worldwide pest of poultry facilities (Axtell 1999) . Although the primary habitat for the beetle is in the manure or litter, the larvae climb walls and support posts in caged-layer poultry facilities seeking pupation sites and causing extensive damage to insulation materials (Vaughan et al. 1984 , Despins et al. 1987 . Vaughan et al. (1984) also observed a preponderance of adult beetles in the tunnels of the insulation; however, the damage to insulation was not directly attributed to the adult stage. Additionally, the adult stage can become a very serious pest when manure is spread on Þelds during warmer months. The adult beetle is capable of ßight and will move en masse toward artiÞcial lights generated by residences near Þelds on which beetle-infested manure has been spread.

Furthermore, lesser mealworm importance as a reservoir of avian pathogens and parasites, including Salmonella typhimurium, Escherichia coli, tapeworms, avian leucosis virus, turkey coronavirus, and turkey enterovirus is well documented (Avincini and Ueta 1990 , Axtell and Arends 1990 , Goodwin and Waltman 1996 , McAllister et al. 1996 , Watson et al. 2000 .

Two additional beetles are also pests of caged-layer facilities. The larder beetle, Dermestes lardarius L., and the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus De Geer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) feed on broken eggs and bird and rodent carcasses (Cloud and Collison 1986) . Damage to wooden building support posts and joists has been reported from Dermestes larval activity as well Collison 1985, Stafford et al. 1988) .

Chemical management of lesser mealworms in caged-layer facilities is particularly difÞcult because of Any opinions, Þndings, conclusions, or recommendations long manure accumulation times and protected larval habitat. Pesticides are often effective only immediately after manure removal. Due in part to inconsistent results, biological control agents, including protozoans, fungi, nematodes, and mites, have not achieved widespread adoption by producers Steinkraus et al. 1991 Steinkraus et al. , 1992 Steinkraus and Cross 1993) . Calibeo-Hayes et al. (2005) documented the effectiveness of mechanical soil incorporation of manure containing lesser mealworms on reducing beetle emergence in North Carolina, whereas Kaufman et al. (2005) investigated soil incorporation on beetle emergence under New York conditions. Geden and Carlson (2001) Þrst reported on the successful use of mechanical barriers for protection of poultry facilities from the climbing activities of larval lesser mealworm and hide beetles. Their study, conducted in Florida caged-layer poultry facilities, examined the ability of larvae to cross the barrier under differing conditions of ßy speck coverage and time.

Our study was conducted to determine the impact of a barrier on restricting movement of both larvae and adult lesser mealworm and Dermestes beetles in northeastern caged-layer poultry facilities.

Tests were conducted in four conventionally ventilated high-rise, caged-layer poultry facilities, as described by Kaufman et al. (2001) , on two farms in New York and one farm in Maine. There were two facilities used on farm A in Wayne County, New York, whereas farm B in Onondaga County, New York and farm C in Kennebec County, Maine, each consisted of one facility. Manure was allowed to accumulate under normal farm practices and studies began after manure had been accumulating for a minimum of 4 mo. Insecticide use was limited to methomyl-based ßy baits on the bird level and occasional pyrethrin house ßy, Musca domestica L. spray applications in the manure pit.

Sampling at farm A, facility 1 (F1) occurred on Þve dates between July and September 2003, whereas in facility 2 (F2) sampling occurred on Þve dates be- Polyethylene terepthalate (PET) type D was obtained from AIN Plastics (Mount Vernon, NY) in rolls that were 115 m in length, 15.2 cm in width, and 0.25 mm in thickness. At each facility, barriers (PET strips) were installed using the same procedure. The PET was cut into 64-cm strips. Before installation, support posts in the facilities were measured and the PET strips were creased by hand according to the dimensions of the corresponding posts. A 1-cm bead of adhesive (Nail Pro, OSI Sealants, Inc., Mentor, OH) was applied 3 cm from the edge on the inner surface of each barrier. The barrier was then positioned on each post 1.5 m above ground, forming a collar around the post and stapled into place. After placement, the attachment of the barriers was examined and additional adhesive was applied to Þll in any gaps at the woodÐplastic interface. In each poultry house, beetle traps, made of 81 by 15.2-cm corrugated cardboard strips (Brooder Guard, Beacon Industries, Westminster, MD), were placed for a 1-wk duration at a minimum of 3-wk intervals to determine the efÞcacy of the barriers. Corrugated cardboard in various forms had been effectively used in other studies as a trapping system for lesser mealworms (Safrit and Axtell 1984, Geden and Carlson 2001) . Cardboard collars were positioned on 40 posts in 10 groups of four posts, which were preselected randomly in each facility. Each grouping of four posts consisted of four treatments: 1) cardboard collar placed above an unwashed barrier, 2) cardboard collar placed above a washed barrier, 3) cardboard collar placed below an unwashed barrier, and 4) cardboard collar placed below a washed barrier. All barriers where a cardboard collar was placed were Þrst examined for ßy specking. The percentage of each barrier covered in ßy specks was recorded after visual inspection as one of Þve categories of 1Ð20, 21Ð 40, 41Ð 60, 61Ð 80, and 81Ð100%.

To determine the impact of ßy specking, at each sample date one-half of the 40 barriers to be used were washed to remove the accumulated ßy specks. The two barriers in each of the 10 groups that were to be washed were wiped with a water-saturated sponge until the ßy specks were removed. To complete the cleaning, each barrier was again wiped down with clean water. Cardboard collars were wrapped around the post, either above or below the barrier, as described previously. The cardboard collars were afÞxed with the corrugated side facing out, and stapled twice where the ends overlapped. After 1 wk, the cardboard collars were removed. In New York studies, this process involved placing an enamel pan against the post underneath the cardboard collar to catch ßeeing insects. The cardboard collar and the contents of the enamel pan were placed in a sealable plastic bag. In Maine, insects on the cardboard collar surface were removed and the cardboard collars were placed into sealable plastic bags. In all cases, samples were frozen for a minimum of 24 h at Ϫ20ЊC. After freezing the cardboard collar was pulled apart and insects were identiÞed and counted. Both D. lardarius and D. maculatus were present on all farms and are grouped as Dermestes for the purposes of this article.

In New York studies, at the beginning of sampling in each 2003 facility and at each sampling in 2004, manure cores were collected from the facilities to gauge relative beetle abundance in the manure. This was accomplished by taking two 400-ml manure cores with a bulb planter at a minimum of four sites in the facility Stoffolano 1988, Kaufman et al. 2002) . At each site, a sample was obtained one-third and two-thirds distance from the base to the peak of the pile. Live adult and larval lesser mealworm and Dermestes beetles were identiÞed and counted.

Data Analysis. As a result of differing behavioral patterns and study methods, data were analyzed separately by life stage and state. The mean of each of the four treatments (washed below, washed above, unwashed below, and unwashed above) was obtained from each study date. All means were log (x ϩ 1) transformed for analysis and untransformed means are presented in tables. Due to extremely low numbers of lesser mealworm larvae present on cardboard collars at farm C (Maine), an analysis was performed only on the adult lesser mealworm data. Additionally, because of a more recent manure cleanout in 2004 versus 2003, no lesser mealworm adults were recovered in 2004 sampling at farm C; therefore, an analysis was performed only on 2003 adult lesser mealworm data.

The level of ßy specking on the barriers was ranked in severity using a scale of 0 Ð5 where a score of 0 was assigned for washed barriers, a score of 1 was assigned to the 0 Ð20% coverage category, and a score of 5 was assigned to the 81Ð100% ßy speck coverage category. The ßy specking mean from each treatment was obtained as described previously. Data were Þrst analyzed using a multi-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) with level of ßy specking, cardboard trap placement, and study as random effects in the model (PROC GLM, SAS Institute 1996). The ßy specking variable was a quantitative parameter and the interactions ßy specking*trap placement and ßy specking*study number were included in the model. A TukeyÕs comparison was used to separate signiÞcant differences among trap placement means.

To assess the impact of increasing level of ßy specking on beetle success in crossing the barrier, an analysis of the data categorized by the placement of the cardboard traps, either above or below the barrier, was performed. Data were analyzed separately by trap placement above or below the barrier using a multifactorial ANOVA (PROC GLM, SAS Institute 1996). Fly specking score was held as a quantitative parameter in the analysis and the model statement also included study and washing regime (washed or unwashed) and the interaction of washing regime and ßy specking.

The New York manure core sampling in 2003 revealed very few lesser mealworm adults and larvae at farm A (mean of 4.8 adults and 29.2 larvae per sample) and almost no lesser mealworms at farm B (0.1 adults and larvae per sample). In 2004, considerably more lesser mealworms were recovered from manure cores at farm A (65.3 adult and 63.6 larvae per sample).

Dermestes are most commonly found at the manure pile periphery where protein-rich eggs and feathers accumulate. Therefore, as would be expected given our sampling protocol, adult and larval Dermestes were not recovered in appreciable numbers from manure core samples.

Impact of Washing Barriers. New York Studies. Sig-niÞcantly more lesser mealworm adults and larvae and Dermestes larvae were recovered from cardboard collars placed below barriers than above barriers (Table  1) . SigniÞcantly more Dermestes adults were recovered from cardboard collars placed below washed barriers than were collected above both washed and unwashed barriers. However, differences were not Table 1 detected with Dermestes adults between the unwashed below treatment and either above-barrier treatment.

Maine Studies. SigniÞcantly more lesser mealworm and Dermestes adults were recovered from cardboard collars placed below washed barriers than all other treatments (Table 2) . Furthermore, the unwashed below barrier treatment had signiÞcantly more beetle adults, of both species, than either the washed or unwashed above-barrier treatments.

SigniÞcantly more Dermestes larvae were recovered from cardboard collars placed below washed barriers than above washed and unwashed barriers (Table 2) . Additionally, cardboard collars placed below unwashed barriers were only found to have signiÞcantly more larvae than traps placed above washed barriers.

Impact of Fly Specking Level. New York Studies. Mean (SE) ßy specking scores of unwashed above and unwashed below barriers used in lesser mealworm analysis were 3.3 (0.52) and 3.2 (0.51), respectively, whereas the mean (SE) ßy specking scores of unwashed above and unwashed below barriers in the Dermestes analysis were 3.8 (0.42) and 3.7 (0.42), respectively. The level of ßy specking on the barriers was found to have no signiÞcant impact on the numbers of lesser mealworm adults or Dermestes adults recovered above the barriers. However, the level of ßy specking did signiÞcantly impact the number of lesser mealworm larvae recovered above the barriers, but it did not signiÞcantly impact the number of Dermestes larvae recovered either above or below the barriers.

Maine Studies. Mean (SE) ßy specking scores of unwashed above and unwashed below barriers were 4.2 (0.17) and 4.4 (0.16), respectively. Level of ßy specking did not affect lesser mealworm adult or Dermestes larval and adult abundance above or below the barriers.

That 81Ð98% more lesser mealworm adults were recovered below barriers, regardless of washing, suggests that although washed barriers provided the greatest deterrent to adult lesser mealworm climbing, the mere presence of a barrier, regardless of the level of ßy specking, provided a signiÞcant deterrent to climbing success (Tables 1 and 2 ). The barrier also deterred climbing by lesser mealworm larvae, although as ßy specking increased, more larvae succeeded in crossing the barrier.

Barriers also had a similar deleterious impact on Dermetes success in crossing barriers. However, it seems that to a limited extent, Dermestes were more adept at using ßy specks to cross barriers. We observed that with Dermestes adults and larvae, there was a 7Ð28 and a 33Ð38% further reduction in climbing success, respectively, by washing the barrier to remove the ßy specks.

Dermestes adults, in both New York and Maine studies, demonstrated greater success at crossing barriers than lesser mealworm adults. However, Geden and Carlson (2001) reported that barriers were highly effective with up to 40% ßy speck coverage and moderately effective when coverage was 40 Ð 80%; however, when ßy speck coverage exceeded 80%, barriers only prevented 40 Ð55% of hide beetle larvae from crossing. Our results showed that the numbers of Dermestes larvae successfully crossing barriers did not increase at increasing levels of ßy specking. These results further support our contention that barriers covered with ßy specks serve as a deterrent to beetle passage, albeit at a level Ͻ100%.

Larvae of lesser mealworms and Dermestes are considered the predominant climbing and damaging stage (Ichinose et al. 1980, Geden and . However, during this study, we observed considerably greater movement up support posts by lesser mealworm adults compared with larvae. Indeed, adult lesser mealworm climbing behavior was so proliÞc that while installing barriers it was not uncommon to return to the barriers within hours of installation and Þnd dozens of beetles on support posts directly below barriers. That manure core beetle counts documented similar levels of adult and larval lesser mealworm in the manure pile while such a large number of adults was observed climbing the support posts suggests that the impact of adult beetle movement toward rafters or even movement into the bird level of the facility should be considered in its importance in building damage, disease transmission, feed infestation, and bird productivity and health. Many studies document the impact of birds feeding on lesser mealworms and the ability of lesser mealworms to serve as vectors of a variety of pathogens to broiler chickens and turkeys Axtell 1994, 1995; McAllister et al. 1994 McAllister et al. , 1996 Goodwin and Waltman 1996) . Preventing birds from feeding on lesser mealworms in these broiler chicken and turkey facilities is nearly impossible given animal management practices where birds are always in direct contact with the litter-containing beetles. However, caged-layer facilities are very different in that birds are held well above the manure pit, creating a spatial separation of bird and insect, thereby greatly reducing this interaction. In addition, the impact of lesser mealworm adult presence on adult, egg-laying, and possibly naṏve birds has not been studied. We observed a Ͼ90% reduction in beetle presence above barriers that had not been washed and that were heavily covered with ßy specks. Therefore, the barrier may prove to be a useful tool to deter large numbers of beetles from reaching rafters and birds, even if producers are unwilling or able to clean them regularly.

For barrier technology to be most effective, producers must be willing to wash them after house ßy populations subside and most likely wash the barriers several times during the ßock cycle. This is because barriers can rapidly become covered with ßy specks during the typical ßy outbreak that occurs after facilities are repopulated. In the larger New York facilities, this would involve Ϸ100 Ð150 posts. An additional challenge to the use of barriers includes the duration of manure accumulation. The longer the manure remains in the facilities, the higher and wider the pile becomes which, in turn, contributes to increased inaccessibility to the barriers for the purpose of cleaning. At a certain point, maintaining/cleaning the barriers will become cost prohibitive. It is also critical that producers understand that this technology will not decrease beetle numbers in the facility. The barrier is solely a tool for preventing damage to the structural posts and possibly protecting bird health. Although not evaluated in this study, the inner foundation of a manure pit can easily be wrapped in plastic barrier to prevent beetles from crawling up the walls and reaching building insulation. Geden and Carlson (2001) described the durability and maintenance efforts associated with the utiliza-tion of the barrier. Our estimate of the cost to install the barrier onto 100 posts include $133.00 for one roll of PET, $27.00 for 35 tubes of generic adhesive, and $400.00 for labor (26-h effort). The resultant primary installation costs totaled $560.00. The PET material is very durable and although it is likely that a number of posts will require repair after each cleanout, producers can expect several years of use after the installation of this mechanical barrier. This system provides producers with another cost-effective tool to add to their integrated pest management program.

Manure breeding insects responsible for cestodiasis in caged layer hens

Poultry integrated pest management: status and future

Ecology and management of arthropod pests of poultry

Lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) emergence after mechanical incorporation of poultry litter into Þeld soils

Laboratory evaluation of insecticides for control of adult and larval hide beetles, Dermestes maculates DeGeer, from poultry houses

Comparison of various poultry house litter components for hide beetle (Dermestes maculates DeGeer) larval development in the laboratory

Feeding behavior and growth of turkey poults fed larvae of the darkling beetle, Alphitopbius diaperinus

Feeding behavior and growth of broiler chicks fed larvae of the darkling beetle, Alphitopbius diaperinus

Construction proÞles of high rise caged layer houses in association with insulation damage caused by the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) in Virginia

Transmission of enteric pathogens of turkeys by darkling beetle larvae (Alphitopbius diaperinus)

Factors affecting the climbing and tunneling behavior of the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)

Mechanical barrier for preventing climbing by lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and hide beetle (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) larvae in poultry houses

Dispersion patterns of arthropods associated with poultry manure in enclosed houses in Massachusetts: spatial distribution and effects of manure moisture and accumulation of time

Field trials of Steinernema feltiae (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) for control of Alphitobius diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in commercial broiler and turkey houses

Transmission of Eimeria, viruses, and bacteria to chicks: darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus) as vectors of pathogens

Studies on the biology and mode of infestation of the tenebrionid beetle Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) harmful to broilerchicken houses

Population dynamics of manure inhabiting arthropods under an integrated pest management (IPM) program in New York poultry facilities Ð3 case studies

Parasitism rates of Muscidifurax raptorellus and Nasonia vitripennis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) after individual and paired releases in New York poultry facilities

Suppression of adult lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) using soil incorporation of poultry manure

Reservoir competence of the lesser mealworm (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) for Salmonella typhimurium (Enterobacteriales: Enterobacteriaciae)

Reservoir competence of Alphitobius diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) for Escherichia coli (Enterobacteriales: Enterobacteriaciae)

Evaluations of sampling methods for darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus) in the litter of turkey and broiler houses

SAS userÕs guide: statistics, version 6 ed. SAS Institute

Distribution and monitoring lesser mealworms, hide beetles and other fauna in high-rise, caged-layer poultry houses

Description and life history of Acarophenax mahunkai n. sp. (Acari, Tarsonemina: Acarophenacide), an egg parasite of the lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)

Susceptibility of lesser mealworm (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to Beauveria bassiana: effects of host stage, formulation, substrate and host passage

Discovery of Farinocystis tribolii and eugregarine in the lesser mealworm

Infestation and damage of poultry house insulation by the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer)

Limited transmission of turkey coronavirus (TCV) in young turkeys by adult lesser mealworms, Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer (Tenebrionidae)

We thank E. Homan, G. Howser, W. Grover, E. Kingsley, M. Lunoe, E. Lastro, D. Cohen, J. Yoo, A. Meisner, J. Zelko, C. Kendrot, W. LaMorie, R. Anderson, A. Taisey, R. Fish, B. Gabor, P. Boutin, and J. Stavisky for assistance with this project. We also extend our appreciation to the New York and Maine poultry producers who most generously provided labor and equipment for this study. This research was supported by the Northeast Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program, Project No. NYC-139589 and the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station federal formula funds, Project No. NYC-139818, received from Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.