Integrated Pest Management perceptions and practices and insect populations in grocery stores in south-central United States

Pergamon

J. srored Prod. Res. Vol. 34, No. I, pp. I-IO.1998 bv Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved Printed in &eat Britain PII: S0022_474X(97)00036-2 0022-474X/98Sl9.00 + 0.00 0 1998Published

Integrated Pest Management Perceptions and Practices and Insect Populations in Grocery Stores in South-central United States R. R. PLATT,’ G. W. CUPERUS,‘* M. E. PAYTON,’ and K. N. PINKSTON’

E. L. BONJOUR’

‘Department of Entomology, Oklahoma State University, 127 NRC, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, U.S.A. and 2Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, U.S.A. (Accepted 30 July 1997)

Abstract-Objectives of this study were to examine Integrated Pest Management (IPM) perceptions and practices in grocery stores, and to quantify by location, the occurrence and abundance of stored product insects. The first objective was accomplished by surveying grocery store employees of 322 grocery stores in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas using a 28 question survey. Grocers lacked knowledge of IPM practices, yet over half were interested in learning more about IPM. Present management practices are pesticide intensive with limited use of alternatives including sanitation, stock rotation and trapping. Presently, grocers depend on pest control companies to find and control problem insects in the store. Insects reported by grocers as problems were weevils, cockroaches, flies and ants. Extensive trapping in eight Oklahoma grocery stores targeted pet foods, cake mixes, and back room areas. Trapping studies showed stored product insects were abundant in all stores. The most prevalent insects found in traps included the Indian meal math, Plodia interpunctelfu (Hllbner); merchant grain beetle, Oryzuephilus mercutor (Fauvel); and drugstore beetle, Sfegobium panicem (L.). Stored product insects were concentrated in pet food areas and were readily found in the stores. 0 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Key words-integrated

pest management, grocery stores, trapping

INTRODUCTION

Among the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices used in farm and commercial commodity storage operations are sanitation, stock rotation, utilization of pesticides and inspection (Kenkel et al., 1994). Regardless of whether insect damage and other losses occur during harvesting, storage, processing or distribution of agricultural commodities, insects impact the entire system and, ultimately, the consumer (Kenkel et al., 1994). Even those storing raw commodities and food processors have limited control over their products after they leave processing facilities; complaints relating to damaged or contaminated products are often made to them for product replacement or litigation. The grocery store is the final point of contact between processors and consumers. A grocery store is a unique environment, containing a variety of processed products including fresh and prepared meat, wheat products, rice products, corn products, raw beans, spices, pet foods and sweets. A constant favorable temperature for stored product insects makes grocery stores an inhabitable environment for pests. *To whom all correspondence

should be addressed.

2

R. R. Platt et al.

Key elements that should be incorporated into IPM programs for grocery stores include frequent inspections, sanitation, rapid stock movement, detailed record-keeping, improved packaging, building design, lighting and temperature management (Mullen, 1995; Pinkston, 1995). The National Pest Control Association (NPCA) guidelines suggest that comprehensive grocery store monitoring be implemented twice per month (National Pest Control Association, 1994). Steps to include in store inspections are to identify pest problems, create a diagram of the facility to map out areas to be targeted for certain types of control and maintain a log book of pest activity in the store. A well-designed monitoring program can offer the grocer a precise method for determining the need for controls and also serves as an evaluation tool after control procedures have been administered in a grocery store (Mueller and Pierce, 1992). With regulatory requirements that dictate little tolerance for insect infestation, damage and contamination, the use of traps for the early detection, monitoring and control of food product insects has proven to be valuable in efforts to protect food and fiber from insect damage or loss (Barak, 1995). Some common insect pests of processed foods are the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.); drugstore beetle, Stegobium paniceum (L.); sawtoothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.); merchant grain beetle, Oryzaephilus mercator (Fauvel); confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum (du Val); red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst); and Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella (Hiibner) (Pinkston and Cuperus, 1995). Little is known about insect population dynamics in grocery stores - the final link between food processors/producers and the consumer. Pest management practices presently used in grocery stores are largely unstudied. The overall goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of current IPM practices implemented by grocery stores. Objectives of this research were to: (1) document present grocery store IPM practices for stored product insects in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas; (2) document perceptions of insect species and locations of infestation within grocery stores; and (3) determine stored product species and level of insect infestation in grocery stores. MATERIALS

AND METHODS

Pest management survey

A list of grocery stores in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas was purchased from the Grocery Manufacturers of America (Washington D.C.). From this list, 327 grocery stores completed surveys, with 122 in Arkansas, 100 in Texas and 105 in Oklahoma. The telephone survey was conducted by three trained employees. Surveys were conducted via telephone and consisted of 28 questions taking ca. 15 min to complete. Surveyors requested to speak to the person in the store who made decisions regarding pest control or the person in charge of all operations of the stores. The survey was designed to characterize stores based on sales, square footage, clientele base, presently perceived pest problems focusing on insects and vertebrates, and presently used pest management practices including sanitation, stock rotation and use of pesticides. The survey was designed to gain baseline data for a monitoring program focusing on actual insect problems in areas that had packaged stored products potentially subject to insect infestation. Grocery store personnel were assured of anonymity. Data were analyzed using SYSTAT (SYSTAT Inc., 1992) and SAS (SAS Institute, 1987). Analysis included descriptive statistics characterizing the stores, identifying perceptions of pest problems and documenting presently used management strategies. Stored product pest recovery and distribution

To gain some understanding of insect prevalence in Oklahoma grocery stores, four grocery stores were selected in Oklahoma City, OK and four in Stillwater, OK. Three areas within the store were used as trapping sites based on the occurrence of susceptible food materials: (1) pet food; (2) cake mix and flour and (3) storage areas. No insecticides were used in trapping areas. Two geographical locations (Stillwater and Oklahoma City) were used to help ensure no local bias. An insect monitoring program was developed to monitor for insects reported’ by grocery managers and to monitor for common insect pests of food processing areas (Pinkston and Cuperus, 1995). Trapping systems were developed based on reported species including P. interpunctella and key beetles. The monitoring program was designed to characterize species prevalence and location

Perceptions and practices and insect populations in grocery stores in South-central United States

3

within stores. Insect populations were sampled using two trap types. For beetles, the Storgard Flit-Trak M 2TMpitfall trap (TreceTM, Salinas, CA), originally called the Savannah trap (Mullen, 1994), was baited with an oil-based food attractant formulated and supplied by TreceTM. A pheromone was not used in these traps because the objective was to monitor all beetle species. The other trap was the flight trap Trece TMPherocon” II trap, a delta shaped flight trap covered with a sticky substance that captures insects flying into the trap. These traps were baited with TreceTM Inc.‘s Indianmeal moth pheromone impregnated on a rubber septum lure. Pitfall traps were placed behind stored products on the surfaces of shelves at intervals of l/4, l/2, and 3/4 the length of the aisle. Additionally, traps were stuck immediately underneath the shelf, again at l/4, l/2 and 3/4 the length of the aisles. Adhesive was placed on top of the trap and the top stuck to the lower shelf. Each trap was numbered for location identification purposes. In areas where insufficient clearance was available to place traps on the lower surface of the shelf, traps were placed only on the upper surface. The placement of traps on upper and lower shelves was done to compare trap catch in the two locations. Traps were checked weekly for a period of 10 weeks and 8 weeks in Oklahoma City and in Stillwater, respectively, starting in June and ending in September. Insects from each trap were placed in a plastic bag labeled with the trap number pending identification of species. Traps were then re-baited and replaced in their original locations. Pitfall traps were placed in the back of stores under storage racks and along walls. A total of 303 pitfall traps was used, with an average of 14.8 traps per store placed in pet food aisles, 22.0 traps per store in flour and cake mix aisles and 1.3 traps per store placed in back storage rooms. The limited number in the back areas was because areas were unavailable for trapping due to constant product movement, Flight traps were suspended from top shelves of pet food aisles, one trap per trapping location (l/4, l/2, and 3/4 aisle length). Traps were also placed in back storage areas of grocery stores by suspending from rafters. Trap locations included loading areas where products were delivered and reclamation areas where broken packages and expired products were stored. The entire trap was replaced and insects were taken to the laboratory for identification. Indian meal moth pheromone lures were replaced every two to three weeks. After identification, insects were removed and the trap was relabeled for use. A total of 51 flight traps was used in the eight stores with a store average of 3.0 flight traps used in pet food aisles and 3.3 traps used in back rooms. No flight traps were used in flour and cake mix aisles. Statistical analyses for the survey and trapping were conducted using SAS and SYSTAT (SAS Institute, 1987; SYSTAT Inc., 1992). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures were used to determine if differences in insect numbers existed between geographic locations, stores, aisles or trap placement within the aisles. Due to the nature of the variability of the trap catch data, a logarithmic transformation (log(Y + 1)) was used to equalize variances (Steel and Torrie, 1980). Insect data from stores were analyzed as a split-plot to compare differences between geographic locations, stores within locations and aisles within stores. For all analyses, an alpha (a) of 0.10 was used.

RESULTS

Pest management

survey

Grocers were asked their position in the store, size of the store, number of employees and where they received most of their information about pest management, pesticides and pesticide safety. The majority of grocery store employees surveyed were either store managers, owners or assistant managers (Table 1). Most of their information about pesticides and pesticide safety was received from pest control operators, media and corporate offices (Table 2). The floor space of the stores ranged from 11 to 7300 square meters (120 to 80,000 square feet) with a mean of 1600 _+ 1722 square meters (17,391 f 18,719 square feet). The number of employees ranged from 1 to 3000 with a mean of 47.4 + 195.5. The majority of grocery stores used a pest control company (278 out of 327), grocers in 48 stores did their own pest control and one grocer used no pest control. Average time between service calls by pest control operators was 30.6 ( f 32.97) days and nearly 25% of the service calls occurred more than 45 days apart. The duration between monitoring is longer than recommended by the

R. R. Platt et al. Table I. Position of Derson completing survey (actual count) Arkansas

Oklahoma 50-Store manager 36-Owner 3-Asst. manager 3-President 2-Produce manager 2-Co-owner I-Director of operations I-Employee I -Grocery manager I -Main manager

Texas

46-Store manager 33-Owner 25-Asst. manager CCo-owner 2-Co-manager I-Head I-Night manager I-Office manager I -Safety manager I-Third manaeer

39-Store manager 21-Asst. manager I 1-Owner I -Butcher 1-Clerk I -Co-manager I -Co-owner

d Survey responses for Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas were 105, 122, and 100, respectively.

Table 2. Source of information about pesticides and pesticide safety (actual count) Arkansas

Oklahoma 43-PC0 I9-Media 3-Health Department 2-Corporate office 2-osu 2-Word of mouth I-CEO/Media/W.O.M I -Fleming I -Grocery I -Labels I-MSDS I-Main store I -None I-Product label l-Scientific journals I -Warehouse

Texas

30-PC0 24-Corporate office I-Media 6-Word of mouth 4-Safety program 4-Trade journal 4-Warehouse 2-Common sense 2-County health 2-Literature 2-Scientific journal 2-State I-Back of can I-Boss l-Division manager I-Food sanitation manual l-Husband I-Main office I-None I-OCEA I-Pesticide label I -School I -Self I-Supervisor

l7-PC0 IO-Corporate office 5-Media S-None 5-Trade journals 3-Company ~-BOSS 2-Common sense 2-Health department 2-Main office 2-Management I-Ag extension I-Back of can I-CEO I-Common knowledge I-County extension l-Johnson/Johnson I-Personal knowledge I -State I-Warehouse I-Wholesale I-Word of mouth

National Pest Control Association and is ample time for a generation of stored product insects to develop in warm grocery store temperatures. Infestations of newly displayed products by insects emerging from packages already on the shelves would allow populations to build. Factors that grocers indicated they considered when selecting a pest control program included effectiveness, safety requirements, application costs, chemical costs, and alternatives to pesticides (Table 3). Effectiveness and safety requirements were the two most important factors and alternatives to pesticides were least important in choosing a pest control program. Grocers had the greatest concern for controlling pests by the most rapid and effective means. Most grocers (307) indicated no insect outbreak problems in their stores, 13 had insect problems and 7 were unsure. Store managers either believed they did not have problems, or hired pest control Table 3. Factors considered by grocers when selecting a pest control program Factors” Effectiveness Safety requirements Application costs Chemical costs Alternatives to pesticides

Mean

SD

1.2 1.3 2.6 2.7 3.1

0.8 0.8 1.6 1.7 1.6

* Grocers were asked to rate factors; 1 = Very Important. to 5 = Not Considered Important.

Perceptionsand practicesand insectpopulationsin grocery stores in South-central United States

5

Table 4. Grocer perceptions of insect problems in stores” Insect Cockroaches Flies Weevils Ants Indianmeal moths Crickets

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Texas

30% 9% 13% 3% 2% 1%

44% 10% 7% 5% 4% 2%

46% 7% 6% 9% 2% 5%

dSurvey responses for Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas were 105, 122, and 100, respectively.

Table 5. Perceived consequences of no pest control program” Store location Consequence

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Texas

30% 19% 11% 70% 58%

80% 72% 71% 80% 82%

17% 13% 73% 85% 85%

Closed for health reasons Fined Fired manager Loss of product Decrease in customers

d Survey responses for Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas were 105, 122, and 100, respectively.

operators to manage these populations. Managers in all three states perceived that cockroaches were the greatest problem followed by flies and weevils (Table 4) although many did not respond reinforcing that they did not feel they had a problem. Grocers (250) generally claimed no financial losses in the past year from insect or rodent activity and apparently did not include the cost of the pest control contract. Some grocers (41) stated they lost money in the past year from insect or rodent activity. A total of 288 grocers claimed to have five or fewer complaints from customers about infested products, one claimed to have had over 20 complaints in one year, and the remaining grocers declined to comment. The grocers indicated that loss of product and customers were their greatest concerns as consequences of not having a pest control program (Table 5). Grocers in Oklahoma were less concerned about losses due to stored product insects than those in Texas or Arkansas. The majority of grocers (297) used visual observation to monitor routinely for insect pests and 287 used visual inspection to monitor for rodent pests. The remaining grocers used no inspection. Even though monitoring is a cornerstone for IPM programs, trapping systems were rated very low, with only four grocers using insect traps. Effective sampling needs to occur regularly with appropriate sampling methods. Insecticides, sanitation and quick stock rotation were the three most widely used pest management practices for insects, while temperature control, dusts and screens were least used, although usage varied among states (Table 6). Grocers in Oklahoma need more educational support as indicated by a low use of sanitation, stock rotation, and other IPM practices. Insect management systems appear to be pesticide-based with limited integration of other components Table 6. Insect pest management practices used in grocery stores” Store location Practice Sanitation Insecticides Traps Baits Temperature control Dusts Screens Quick stock rotation

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Texas

26% 68% 30% 23% 14% 10% 7% 25%

92% 86% 50% 54% 27% 26% 29% 82%

90% 88% 49% 48% 17% 26% 5% 70%

“Survey responses for Oklahoma, Arkansas, respectively.

and Texas were 105, 122, and 100,

R. R. Platt et al. Table 7. Rodent pest management practices used in grocery stores’ Practice

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Texas

25% 34% 35% 16% 1% 5% 21%

86% 55% 59% 40% 2% 20% 71%

84% 49% 53% 34% 3% 4% 67%

Sanitation Traps Baits Glue boards Humane traps Screens Quick stock rotation

dSurvey responses for Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas were 105, 122, and 100, respectively.

Table 8. Perceived insect infestation areas in grocery stores’ with a rating scale of 1 = most troublesome to 5 = least troublesome Area Delicatessen Canned goods Produce Bakery Dried pet food Storage area Trash areas Cereals Flour, sugar, cake mixes Spices Pasta Popcorn

Mean

SD

3.8 4.9 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.1 3.5 4.6 4.4 4.4

1.6 0.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.1

a Grocers were asked to rate factors; 1 = Most Troublesome, to 5 = Least Troublesome.

such as traps, exclusion practices or temperature. While nearly 50% indicated they use traps, only 4 out of 327 use traps for monitoring. For rodents, sanitation and quick stock rotation were more widely used, with exclusion screens and humane traps least used (Table 7). Grocers in Oklahoma had the lowest utilization of IPM practices. The areas rated high for insect infestation were storage areas, while the least troublesome areas were spices and canned goods (Table 8). Grocers reported that sources for insects infesting their stores were brought in with merchandise from warehouse locations, delivery trucks and migrations from outside (Table 9). This is probably the reason they rated storage areas as most likely areas for insect infestations. IPM perceptions

Grocery store managers were given a definition of IPM as an approach to managing pests by combining control practices in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks. After IPM was defined, they were asked about their familiarity with this practice. Most grocers (297) indicated they were unfamiliar with IPM while 18 claimed to have some familiarity. Over half of the grocers (53.8%) were interested in learning more about IPM, 34.3% were not interested, and 11.9% were unsure. Although grocers have limited experience with IPM, they were interested in learning more about IPM through literature rather than other methods. Grocers were evenly

Table 9. Grocer perceptions of sources of insect infestations” Where

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Texas

4% 50% 49% 41%

8% 48% 53% 52%

10% 63% 36% 47%

Customer homes Migrate from outside Warehouse Delivery truck *Survey responses for Oklahoma, respectively.

Arkansas, and Texas were 105, 122, and 100,

Perceptions

and practices

and insect populations

Table 10. Perception around food”

of grocery

Concern

Oklahoma

Very Concerned Somewhat Not at all

in grocery

store managers

regarding

States

7

Texas

36% 18% 14% 33% Arkansas,

United

use of pesticides

Arkansas

13% 10% 21% 51%

’ Survey responses for Oklahoma, 100, respectively.

stores in South-central

26% 29% 12% 33%

and Texas were 105. 122, and

divided over paying more for a pest control program that used IPM (Yes-21.1 %, No-27.8%) but a large group (51.1%) was unsure probably because most did not understand IPM. Approximately one-fourth (25.4%) of grocers perceived that customers were concerned about pesticide residues, 54.1% felt that customers were not concerned and 20.5% indicated that they were unsure. A majority of grocers in Arkansas and Texas expressed some concern about pesticides being potential contaminants of food products in the store (Table 10). When asked if customers would pay a premium for pesticide-free products, 29.4% believed customers would, 46.8% believed they would not and 23.9% were unsure. The majority of grocery stores (214) did not have contracts with brokers, distributors or processors regarding pesticide use or requesting IPM. When grocers were asked to rank customer buying preferences, pesticide use for insect control was ranked least important (Table 11) and taste and appearance more important. In previous studies, cosmetics of fresh produce were ranked important for customers (Collins et al., 1992). Store monitoring Significantly more insects were captured in pitfall traps located on lower shelves than on upper shelves (F = 4.42; df = 1, 18; P = 0.0499). Pitfall traps on the upper surface of shelves had a mean catch of 75.3 _+69.9 insects, while traps placed on the underside had a mean trap catch of 22.2 f 38.7 insects. This emphasizes that the traps must be placed on the top of shelves. Traps caught a wide variety of insects that were abundanr in most stores. P. interpunctella, dark-winged fungus gnats (Sciaridae), planthoppers (Cicadellidae), and moth flies (Psychodidae) were the most numerous insects captured in flight traps (Table 12). In pitfall traps, 0. mercator, Stegobium spp., and P. interpunctella were the most numerous insects recovered (Table 13). P. interpunctella was trapped in all eight stores sampled on every sample date. Flies (Tachinidae, Muscidae, Sciaridae, Psychodidae, and other miscellaneous families of Diptera) accounted for a large number of insect families, and only one cockroach (Blatellidae) was caught. The average flight trap captures of P. interpunctellu for Oklahoma City and Stillwater were consistent throughout the sampling period. Significant differences were found between captures of P. interpunctella comparing back room to pet food aisles (F = 8.96; df = 1, 6; P = 0.024), but not between locations (F = 0.28; df = 1,6; P = 0.618). Overall, pet food aisles were more likely infested with P. interpunctella than the back storage areas (85.99 + 72.33 and 15.52 ) 12.67, respectively). In Stillwater, trap catches of 0. mercator were low until about week 5, when catch increased dramatically reaching a peak of over 100 insects per trap at week 7. Trap catches in Oklahoma City stores averaged about 30 insects per week until week 8, when populations increased from about 30 insects (week 8) to about 150 insects (week 9). Trap catch remained at this level until the study ended at week 10. 0. mercator populations were significantly higher in pet food than flour aisles

Table 11. Grocer perceptions grocery store purchases”

of customer

Concern Pesticide use for insect control Taste Price Appearance Potential risks from pesticides * Grocers were asked to rate factors; 5 = Least important.

preferences

Mean

SD

3.3 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.9

1.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.6

1 = Most important,

for

to

R. R. Platt et al. Table 12. Grocery store flight trap total and average capture using 51 total traps Caught P. interpunctella

Sciaridae Cicadellidae Psychodidae Muscidae Chironomidae Pteromalidae 0. mercator Stegobium spp. Cryptolestes spp. Culicidae Drosophilidae Mycetophilidae Tachinidae Trogoderma spp. Typhaea spp. Formicidae Psocidae Anthocoridae Asilidae Calliphoridae Delphacidae Dytiscidae Empididae Ichneumonidae Lasioderma spp. Mycetophagidae Noctuidae Opiliones Yponomeutidae Total

Total catch

Avg. trap catch/week

2132 311 170 51 30 22 19 12 9

5.357 0.610 0.340 0.100 0.060 0.043 0.037 0.024 0.018 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 -

5

: 3 3 3 3 2 2 1

I 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 I I

1

3391

(14.28 + 28.53 and 0.25 & 0.52, respectively) (F = 4.97; df = 1, 12; P = 0.067). Trap catch differed significantly between Oklahoma City and Stillwater (F = 0.53; df = 1, 12; P = 0.4945). In Oklahoma City stores, the numbers of Stegobium spp. were initially low, peaked at week 2, and then declined until the end of the study with a slight increase at week 10. No Stegobium spp. were caught in Stillwater. In Oklahoma City stores, there were no significant differences in Stegobium spp. populations between aisles (F = 1.38; df= 1,6; P = 0.325) or positions within aisles (F = 0.66; df = 1, 6; P = 0.448). More Stegobium spp. were found in pet food aisles than in flour aisles (9.09 &-0.256 and 1.48 + 0.405, respectively). Comparisons of dark-winged fungus gnat (Sciaridae) data showed no significant differences between locations (F = 0.96; df= 1, 6; P = O-365), but did show significant differences between aisles (F = 10.81; df = 1, 6; P = 0.017). More Sciaridae were caught in back storage areas (8.14 + 8.94) than in pet food aisles (0.19 f 0.42). Sciaridae are fungus feeders and are more likely found around old, decaying produce such as that found in back and trash areas of stores. It is Table 13. Grocery store pitfall trap total and average capture using 303 total traps Caught 0. mercator Stegobium spp. P. interpunctelia

Psychodidae Pteromalidae Sciaridae Formicidae Muscidae Tribolium spp. Ahasverus spp. Blatellidae Chironomidae Elateridae Total

Total catch

Avg. trap catch/week

794 97 45 22 16 5 2 2 2

0.2620 0.0300 0.0150 0.0070 0.0050 0.0020

1 1

0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003

1 1 989

0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Perceptions and practices and insect populations in grocery stores in South-central United States

9

also likely that these insects migrate from outdoors as opposed to other insects found in this study that are more indicative of endemic populations. Most of the insect pests trapped in this study were not reported as pests by grocery store managers, but have long been known as important pests in stored products. DISCUSSION

Primary respondents to the surveys were store managers, assistant managers and store owners. When compared to surveys conducted with consumers, producers, and processors (Collins et al., 1992; Kenkel et al., 1993, 1994) it appears that grocers are unaware of customer concerns regarding pesticides. Surveys showed grocery managers were less aware of IPM programs than producers and processors. Almost half of the grocers were receptive to IPM educational and training materials. Insects are not monitored; grocers rely on pest control firms to find and control insects and pest control firms rely on grocers to find the insects in need of control. More stores in Arkansas and Texas are corporate owned while those in Oklahoma are privately owned. Only two Oklahoma grocers received IPM information from corporate offices compared to 24 in Arkansas and 10 in Texas. This may explain why Oklahoma grocers appear to know less about IPM or pest control practices. P. interpunctella were abundant in all stores, with the highest number of moths found in pet food. These insects were actively reproducing within most stores as evidenced by extensive webbing and pupae present. Large numbers of 0. mercator and Stegobium spp. were present in most Oklahoma City stores. Variations in insect populations between stores are partially explained by the age of the store, differences between current management practices and manager implementation of IPM practices such as stock rotation. Traps are excellent monitoring tools within grocery stores because trap catches demonstrated that stored product pests were present in grocery stores even though store managers indicated the contrary. Presently, grocery store managers do not recognize or use the inexpensive and effective pest management tools that are available. To facilitate IPM adoption in grocery stores, pest control operators and store managers require education and training in IPM, including the importance of sanitation, monitoring for insect pests, and proper insect identification. Appropriate literature should be developed and distributed to pest control operators, corporate offices and grocery store managers. In addition, training workshops should be conducted by various state and regulatory agencies within this specific area of pest management. IPM needs to be a cooperative effort between pest control professionals and store management. If stores are unwilling to cooperate in addressing sanitation and other issues that contribute to pest problems, then more pesticide use may be necessary to correct or prevent pest infestations. The concept of IPM and the stores’ role in the program must be communicated to and supported by the stores’ management and its employees for successful IPM (National Pest Control Association, 1994). REFERENCES Barak A. (1995) The design of traps for stored-product insects. In Stored Product A4unagement, eds. V. Krischik, G. Cuperus, D. GaHiart, pp. 179-186. Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Circular No. E-912 (revised). Collins J. K., Cuperus G. W., Cartwright B., Stark J. A. and Ebro L. L. (1992) Consumer attitudes on pesticide treatment histories of fresh produce. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3, 81-97. Kenkel P., Criswell J. T., Cuperus G. W., Noyes R. T., Anderson K. and Fargo W. S. (1994) Stored product integrated pest management. Food Reviews International 10, 177-193. Kenkel P., Criswell J. T., Cuperus G. W., Noyes R. T., Anderson K., Fargo W. S., Shelton K., Morrison W. P. and Adam B. (1993) Current Management Practices and Impact of Pesticide Loss in the Hard Red Wheat Post-Harvest System. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Circular E-930. Mueller D. and Pierce L. (1992) Stored product protection in paradise. Pest Control, June issue, 3436. Mullen M. A. (1994) Development of pheromone-baited insect traps. In Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. Volume 1, eds. E. Highley, E. J. Wright, H. J. Banks, B. R. Champ, pp. 421-424. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. Mullen M. A. (1995) Pest-proof packaging and minimizing pest populations, In Proceedings of the 1995 Food Processing Pest Management Workshop, 17 August, 1995, pp. 3945. Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Circular. National Pest Control Vienna, VA.

Association

(1994) Integratedpest

management

in retailfood

stores. Technical Release ESPC 07210.

10

R. R. Platt er nl.

Pinkston K. (1995) Stored food pests workshop overview and general information. In Proceedings of the 1995 Food Processing Pest Management Workshop, 17 August, 1995, pp. 14. Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Circular. Pinkston K. and Cuperus G. (1995) Food infesting pests: general information and characteristics about important beetles and moths. In Proceedings of the Food Processing Pest Management Workshop, 17 August, 1995, pp. S-25. Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Circular. SAS Institute (1987) SASjSTAT Guide for Personal Computers, version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Steel R. G. D. and Torrie J. H. (1980) Principles and Procedures of Statistics, A Biometrical Approach. Second edition. McGraw Hill Book, New York, NY. SYSTAT Inc. (1992) SYSTAT For Windows, Version 5. SYSTAT, Evanston, IL.