School #1 Pilot Demonstration

A voluntary IPM program was initiated at School Number 1 to serve as pilot demonstrations in order to provide a working model of school IPM for other schools to see and possibly emulate. School #1 was selected through consultation with a cooperating pest control company who suggested the school as being willing to cooperate and also had an ongoing pest problem.

 

School #1's pilot demonstration began in January 2005. Dr. Pat Bolin conducted in-service workshops for the faculty and staff at the school in February and May of 2005 to educate the participants about what they could do in order to prevent pests in their school and home. Additionally two informative "Pest of the Month" fact sheets were e-mailed to the faculty there.

 

An extensive cleaning, and selective pesticide application was performed by the schools personnel along with a prfessional pest control company to target brown recluse spiders. The pilor demonstration project was put on hiatus in the summer of 2005 when the project technician position became vacant. In January 2006, Dr. Douglas Jones was hired and resumed glue trap monitoring along with providing advice and support to the school. 

 

The brown recluse problem at the school has been greatly curtailed with daily spider catches declining to about half the  number of spiders caught before IPM was initiated there (Fig. 1). 

Figure 1. Brown recluse spiders caught per day at school No. 1 before and after IPM tactics initiated in June 2005.

 

The spider population has continued to decline into 2007 with  daily catches being less than 0.5 spiders per day. (Fig. 2)

 

The director of plant operations at the school was interviewed. He stated that they were 

Figure 2. Mean daily catches of brown recluse spiders at school No. 1 (spiders per day caughts throughout our time at the school).

 

very happy with the program and hoped that it could continue. He stated that the work conducted there helped tremendously with reducing brown recluse spider numbers that have plagued the school. Furthermore, he planned to continue the trapping program because of its diagnostic value, along with the control that sticky traps exerted on the brown recluse spider population. He also stated that he school board/administration were

Figure 3. Monthly pest control expenditures at school No. 1

 

pleased and receptive to his continuing IPM at this school.

 

The IPM principle of monitor and only treat if necessary is a concept that the school's personnel understand and support. However, this is difficult for the plant manager to achieve. A better solution would be for the pest control professional to supply the monitoring service for a monthly fee. When one considers that this school is paying in excess of $350 each month for pesticide applications (Fig. 3), changing to basic IPM principles of monitoring and treating with pesticides when necessary is appealing to the school plant manager. He stated that this would reduce pesticide exposure to the children and would be suported as long as a major pest problem didn't arise.

 

The in-service workshop that Dr. Pat Bolin performed in 2005 was well received and very helpful. Clutter control, maintenance and food stashing improved dramatically after the workshop. One of the biggest improvements was that teachers made extensive use of Rubbermaid-like containers for storage and as a result greatly reduced pest harborage areas. In conclusion, I asked the school plant manageer if they would welcome our program again now that this pilot demonstration was coming to a close? He responded with that they would cooperate with us any time.

 

School #2 Pilot Demonstration

A voluntary IPM program was initiated at School Number 2 to serve as a pilot demonstration in order to provide a working model of school IPM for other schools to see and possible emulate. School #2 was selected through consultation with a cooperating pest control company who suggested them as having an ongoing pest problem and that the school's personnel would be willing to cooperate. The main pest problem here was an abundance of house mice (Mus musculus L.).

 

Meetings with school personnel ensued and the piloe project began in April, 2006. An extensive inspection was conducted at the school and Dr. Jones prepared a report (attachment #1) for the school with recommendations about how to exclude rodents from the buildings. Pest surveys with glue boards were conducted from April 2006 through February 1, 2007. Dr. Jones conducted an in-service training workshop in August 2006 for school personnel and made numerous personal contacts with school officials throughout the project. 

 

Building repairs to exlude rodents by the school plant manager's personnel were

Figure 1. Mice caught at school No. 2 in 2006.

 

delayed, so Dr. Jones offered to perform the exclusionary tactics for the  district if the school would buy the materials. The offer was accepted and Dr. Jones spent four days at the school in late October, 2006, installing the recommended repairs. The results were dramaic, with mouse  catches and reports dropping from 2-7 and 2-212 per month respectively to no mice caught and only one mouse sign reported in the subsequent three months (Fig. 1). This can further be compared to the 60-70 mice caught at the school during the 2005-2006 school year (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Total mouse catches at school No. 2.

 

An additional benefit to the exclusionary procedures performed at School #2 was that ground beetle invasions declined as well (Fig. 3).

 

The principal of School #2 stated that she and her constituents were very pleased with the program. She thought that the workshops we conducted were informative and helpful. When asked whether the

Figure 3. Ground beetle reductions at school No. 2 in 2006-2007.

 

school district would adopt IPM as their primary method of pest control, she stated that once our report showing the success of our exclusion methods and cost analysis were received, they would be presented to the school superintendent and the school board for their consideration. She further stated that she didn't see the school not adopting IPM due to the cost savings in addition to its effectiveness in controlling the rodent problem they were experiencing.

 

The biggest downside to IPM from her perspective was the need for assigning it to somebody in the school. Ultimately, she thought it might get assigned to the custodial staff, who are less prepared to conduct such a program. I asked her if it might be better to subcontract IPM to a pest control company. On whether the school would be interested in subcontracting IPM procedures to a pest control company, she thought it would be no different than when the school subcontracted with a pest control company to apply control methods (pesticides usually) for a pest problem.

 

She also thought that a maintenance program with the pest control company would be a very viable program. One very important item that she stressed was that in order for any program to be successful in the school system, the school board and the administration had to understand and support the program. To conclude the interview, I asked if they would welcome our program again now that this pilot demonstration was coming to a close. She responded, "We would welcome you with open arms!"