Journal of the

Pest Management

Association of

New Zealand

IN THIS ISSUE President’s Pen 1

Editor – CRRU what it means? 3

Conference 2015 4

Rodent Management Strategy 5

Health & Safety Reform Bill 10

Argentine Ants in NZ 11

News Bites 15

New Zealand News 17

Technical Hints 23

PMANZ Officers 25

President’s Pen - Campbell Perrin

Hello Members,

Welcome to winter with its darker mornings and early evenings, but with it brings time to

gain knowledge and turn our focus to the upcoming ‘Intelligent Pest Prevention’

Conference in Wellington, later this winter.

We have a great program for members offering world class speakers and training - be

there! It’s good to see all our sponsors have been confirmed. Thank you very much. So

now members, we need to show our support. By registering before the end of June, there

is a wonderful opportunity to go into the draw to win a prize valued at $3000 to the

FAOPMA conference in September 2016, on the Gold Coast (see the detail on page 4).

However, you can register right up to the day before the conference, but you will not go

into the draw for this fabulous prize.

Last time, Neill Herdman from Zap won the prize and is going to the Rapids Conference in

August this year on the Gold Coast. So register now…to have a chance to win!

If you cannot attend, don’t forget to forward your Proxy Votes to the secretary, Denise

Faulkner for AGM in Wellington once all the nominations for councillors have been

received and are circulated.

Whilst there have been some ’grumblings’ about the conference being held in Wellington

this year, we listened to the requests from provincial members to hold this conference

there and hope it will supported by the Auckland members who have in the past enjoyed

the conference on their doorstep. It’s time to support your provincial colleagues and join

them in ‘Wellywood’ this year.

The new Certificate in Pest Control Level 3 course from CareerForce and Pacific

International’s Training and Consulting Division will shortly be available later this year. As

an incentive to members to enrol and complete this course, the Executive Council has

made a decision to support members who hold the current UPM level 2 qualifications and

It will rebate the cost on completion of the course, not

1

WHAT’S BUZZING?

Bi-Monthly

Newsletter

June 2015

Volume 8 No. 3

AIBI-CS Achieves IFS

Accreditation and BRC

Five-Star Rating

AIB International Certification

Services (AIBI-CS) recently

received ANSI accreditation to

offer IFS audits and earned BRC’s

esteemed five-star rating. After a

detailed and lengthy accreditation

process, AIBI-CS is now approved

to offer certification to the IFS

Food Standard. It also is

authorized to offer IFS PACsecure

and IFS Logistics certification for

the packaging and storage and

distribution markets and will be

accredited later this year.

AIBI-CS also was recently awarded

a five-star rating, BRC’s highest

achievement for certification

bodies. Of the 92 certification

bodies across the globe that are

currently listed in BRC’s

performance rating directory, only

65 have achieved five stars.

For more information about AIB

International Certification

Services, visit

http://cb.aibonline.org

wish to upgrade their course.

before. Cont. on Page 2

However, you do not need to upgrade your qualification to continue your membership; this is a voluntary upgrade, and

only for those Members that want to improve their qualification. Careeforce will also be giving a rebate in most cases.

For those people that know of someone that wants to start a career in Pest Management, then they need to let Denise

know as she can help with information and forms. Ben Mashiter at Careerforce is another person that you can make

contact with for more detail.

Level 4 is speciality strands like Ants, Fumigation and Shooting. Please go to the CareerForce website for full details of

funding available. http://www.careerforce.org.nz/employers/fees-funding/asp/

Health & Safety will be a new big issue in the years to come. We are seeing the increase in compliance from Work Safe

New Zealand, MPI, EPA and many more Government agencies. There has been a huge effort from Eric Van Essen and

Steve Hunn making sure that all the compliance documents is up to date with the ‘Good Practice Guide” documents.

Also thanks to Peter Barry for maintaining the PMANZ website and uploading these new documents, and for Facebook

postings of interesting news and articles about pest management. Remember that the Facebook is for members to use,

showing pictures of bugs, interesting places that you have been and seen, stories on interest. It is not for Suppliers to

advertise products. We are trying to promote a professional membership only.

The website address has changed to www.pmanz.nz and the password has also been changed to the Members Only

Section. An email was sent out to that effect, so if you did not get that please contact Denis to confirm your details are

correct, to continue getting emails, newsletters and news. If you have forgotten to renew your membership contact her

as well.

Thanks to Rowan Washer and Mike Hermansson for dealing with the ongoing Fumigation changes.

Feel free to ask any questions

See you all in Wellington

The new PMANZ website is for members’ use.

We have a new website platform allowing better navigation to the ‘Members Only Section’ where you will find all the resource documents you need to keep yourself up to date with industry ‘Good Practice’. There also is a new password which you can get from the secretary, Denise Faulkner – her contact details are on the last page of this newsletter.

Our new website address is: www.pmanz.nz

2

Cam

From the Editor Email: peter@pestconsultancy.co.nz

The recent adoption (March 2015) of the Best Practice and Guidance for Rodent Control

and the Safe Use of Rodenticides in the UK by CRRU (Campaign for Responsible

Rodenticide Use), must be watched by us here in New Zealand, lest our SGAR’s (Second

Generation Anticoagulants Rodenticides) befall a similar fate as that of the Rodent Glue-

Boards.

The rodenticide industry in UK, acting as a whole, has recognised the need to address the concerns surrounding

the responsible use of rodenticides and the need to ensure that rodenticides are used correctly and in ways that

will minimise the exposure of wildlife. The industry has therefore initiated the Campaign for Responsible

Rodenticide Use (CRRU).

Key to the UK campaign is a code of good practice for the responsible use of rodenticides in rural areas.

This stresses the need to adhere to following good practice. It has adopted the logo ‘Think Wildlife’ to build

recognition of the code and the overall campaign aims.

In view of the question marks over the role that second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) may play in

the future of rodent control in the NZ, I have included below a transcript of an address to delegates of PestEx, by

their chairman Dr Alan Buckle.

New SGAR Code is Stewardship Regime cornerstone

As a cornerstone of the UK SGAR Stewardship Regime, the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use has

published a Code of Best Practice.

“This Code of Best Practice will be used as the basis for training and certification of all who carry out rodent control

as a part of their professional duties and must be applied in practice by all professionals who use anticoagulants.”

Dr Buckle emphasises that the Stewardship Regime’s impact will be monitored closely for reducing wildlife

exposure and improving user practices. In parallel with the Code, CRRU has developed an implementation

structure for the stewardship regime. Working across all three user sectors – professional pest control (including

local authorities), agriculture and game-keeping - there will be six discipline-specific work groups:

Best Practice

Training and Certification,

Regulatory

Point-of-Sale

Monitoring and

Communication.

These will be co-ordinated by an umbrella steering body, the CRRU UK Task Force. When membership of each

group is finalised, it will be published on the CRRU website. The key date CRRU is working to is 1st June 2016,

after which, Alan Buckle points out, no professional SGAR product can be purchased without certification.

For more information on CRRU UK follow the link: http://www.thinkwildlife.org/crru-code/

You can also download a copy of their Best Practice Document on the PMANZ website

3

PMANZ CONFERENCE 2015

Have you registered yet?

Get your registration in for the PMANZ 2015

conference by 30 June AND BE IN TO WIN A TRIP

FOR TWO VALUED AT $3000, and join hundreds of

delegates to the 2016 FAOPMA CONFERENCE (The

Federation Of Asian And Oceania Pest Managers'

Association)

WHERE: Sea World Resort’s Conference Centre,

GOLD COAST, QUEENSLAND.

WHEN: 14-16 September 2016

IF YOU HAVE already REGISTERED FOR

THE PMANZ CONFERENCE, WELL DONE!

YOU WILL ALSO BE ELIGIBLE TO GO

INTO THE DRAW, WHICH WILL BE DONE

AT THE PMANZ CONFERENCE AGM IN

AUGUST.

This prize is only available to paid up

REGISTERED members of PMANZ

Go to the PMANZ website conference tab to look at the great final

programme and get your registration form…or follow the link

below:

http://www.pmanz.nz/conference-2015.html

See you in Wellington!

Come hear Dr William Robinson speak

about his experiences in pest

management

4

RODENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

This Article Courtesy of Ecolab Pest Elimination

A successful rodent program requires a risk assessment approach. From the

property line to internal customer and food handling areas, layers of

protection need to be put in place to achieve success. Prevention can be

divided into three general layers of protection: exterior, barrier and interior.

A. Exterior — Reducing Rodent Pressure Near Structures

The exterior of the facility, from the fence line to the walls of the buildings, serves as the first line of defense

against commensal rodents. This area includes fence lines, grounds, exterior storage, receiving zones,

garbage areas and exterior perimeters of structures.

Reducing pest pressure in these areas is the first line of defense against pest invasion and is often the

most effective long-term solution of an outside-in approach.

Conditions that support pest activity near the structure should be corrected to reduce pressure on the

facility. Some of the most common conducive conditions include:

Debris and spilled garbage near the building or

under dock plates

Exterior storage of old equipment or

construction material that provides protection

and harborage

Standing water or saturated soil that remains

wet for extended periods of time

Overgrown vegetation or trees, especially if

they are in contact with the structure

The standard approach to reducing pressure on the exterior of structures has long been the use of

rodenticides in tamper-resistant containers placed along structure perimeters and fence lines. Many food

safety auditing agencies have built pest standards around the spacing and periodic inspection of rodent

equipment on the exterior and interior of structures. While bait consumption in exterior stations is common

and often significant, there are questions concerning the actual impact this practice has on reducing rodent

activity on the inside of structures. Are the rodents eating bait, commensal rodents threatening the

structure, or other non-target animals in the area? Does killing rodents away from structures along fence

lines, or along walls of structures where there are no access points, really reduce the number of invasions

into that structure?

5

While minimum guidelines for spacing equipment allow for easier quality control and reflect the natural

tendency of auditing standards, a more sustainable practice is a risk assessment approach to pest

elimination.

Risk Assessment Approach to Rodent Management

A risk assessment approach to rodent management on the exterior of structures would include the

following steps:

1. Determine the extent of rodent activity on the exterior. This can be done using a variety of monitoring

devices, including bait stations with rodenticide or monitoring blocks, snap traps and multi-catch traps.

Visual inspections should also be conducted to identify rodent harborage sites and runways.

2. Identify the actual species in the area through the use of traps. Snap traps and multi-catch traps placed

in tamper-resistant stations in areas of activity can verify the presence of rodents.

3. Assess the risk of structural invasion at potential rodent entrance points using the information gathered

above. It should be assumed that non-commensal rodent species pose very limited risk to structures

because they seldom invade structures and establish interior populations.

4. Adjust exterior protection programs to protect vulnerable entry points where commensal rodent pressure

has been verified. If there is a known location where rodents are entering the structure, placing more then

one station on each side of the entrance point has been shown to reduce entry.These additional

placements should be temporary until the access point is removed.

A risk assessment approach will result in a sustainable rodent program with focused protection at high risk

locations. While this approach is not currently appropriate in all locations due to auditor spacing

requirements, it is a goal to continue to move toward this sustainability goal.

B. Barrier — Minimizing Rodent Entry Opportunities

The rodent barrier of a facility is comprised of the physical structure between the exterior of the building

and the interior, such as walls and doors. It also includes protected areas such as wall interiors, plenums,

chases and tracks that lead to exterior access points.

Conditions that support pest activity in the exclusion zone of the structure should be corrected to reduce

pressure on the facility. Some of the most common conducive conditions include:

Doors left open for long periods of time, especially in the evening after dark

Doors that do not close properly

Holes and structural damage that allow rodents and other pests to enter the structure

Gaps in expansion joints and/or around pipes, holes and structural damage that may allow rodents to

enter the structure

Unscreened vents and pipe chases

Delivery docks that are not rodent-proofed on the exterior with climb guards (usually a metal plate on

the wall under docks that prevent rodents from climbing)

Interior Rodent Stations

Monitoring the interior perimeter of structures for invading rodents is usually done through the use of

interior rodent stations. While there are a number of monitoring options, multi-catch traps are often the

station of choice. These traps are most effective when placed on either side of possible rodent entrance

points. The number and spacing of interior rodent stations should be determined by a rodent risk

assessment and auditor and customer requirements. If there is a known location where rodents are

entering the structure, a temporary placement of more than one station on each side of the entrance point

will increase the likelihood of capture and reduce the possibility of an interior infestation.6

C. Interior — Eliminating Rodent Activity

The presence of rodents on the interior of a facility indicates that there has been a breech across the other

layers of protection. Elimination of interior rodent populations can be divided into two phases: harvesting

and elimination. These two phases usually require different approaches. Depending on the extent and

complexity of the infestation,one or both of these phases may be applied.

Harvesting is the removal of large numbers of rodents through trapping and other means to quickly reduce

the interior population. During harvesting, the best choice of trap is the snap trap. Large numbers of snap

traps placed in areas of known rodent activity can remove many rodents (harvest) in a short period of time.

Snap traps can be placed in protected areas, inside protective stations or placed in the open. Traps placed

in the open are usually left overnight and removed before business hours. Snap traps, unless placed inside

stations, should be temporary placements.

During harvesting, more frequent service visits may be necessary to remove captured rodents. Five or

more mice and two or more rats trapped in the same area would be considered harvesting in most

situations. Large numbers of temporarily placed traps should be left in place until trap rates subside. The

harvesting phase should be followed by an elimination phase to ensure that all rodents are removed.

Elimination is the complete removal of all rodent activity from inside a facility through precise placement of

traps and other means to locate and remove all animals. Elimination of a resident rodent population

requires skill and strategic placement of traps and attractants. Success is achieved when the last rodent

isfound and removed from the inside of the structure.

During elimination efforts, more frequent service visits may be required to adjust placement of devices as

elimination efforts are narrowed to remaining active areas. If increased service frequency is necessary

during the elimination phase, the frequency of visits should not be more than twice a week. This allows time

for rodents to adjust to and interact with traps and other devices.

7

Summary and Recommendations

Commensal rodents continue to be serious pests globally. Adapted for life with humans they easily find

ways to use our homes and businesses as their own. Creating a rodent-free environment in commercial

structures requires a partnership between the owner/manager of the property and the pest service provider.

Both play a critical role in identifying conditions that may lead to rodent invasion and correcting those

issues before problems arise.

An outside-in approach based on rodent biology and behavior is the best means to secure long-term

protection against these pests. Rodent activity inside commercial structures cannot be tolerated. When

rodents are found inside, an aggressive elimination plan should be followed that utilizes the right tools,

placed in the right locations by trained professionals.

What You Should Do

The following specific recommendations will help reduce conditions that allow rodents to find food, water

and harborage in and around a facility.

Exterior

Minimize food, water and harborage on the exterior of the facility.

Eliminate spillage of garbage

Close all garbage receptacles with tight-fitting covers

Move garbage receptacles away from the facility whenever possible

Eliminate standing water around the facility

Remove weeds, tall grass and other excessive vegetation

Remove clutter and items stored on the ground near the facility

Consider other sources of rodent pressure (adjoining structures, distribution centers, product

vendors, etc.) and carefully inspect incoming goods for the presence of these pests

Barrier

Minimize rodent access into the facility.

Trim trees so that no branches are touching

the facility

Seal holes and gaps on the exterior of the

facility

Seal openings and chases around pipes

Seal all doors, inspect and repair entrances

on a regular basis

Seal holes and gaps noted on the interior

perimeter Interior

Minimize conditions that support rodent activity on the inside of the structure.

Minimize product spillage and regularly clean under shelves and gondolas

Eliminate all standing water and accumulated condensation

If present, remove all rodent droppings (after they have been documented by

your pest service provider)

Seal potential access to hidden runways and harborages8

What Your Pest Service Provider Should Do

Provide a science-based, risk assessment approach to monitor and address commensal rodent

activity in and around structures

Provide regular, visual inspections of the outside and inside of structures by trained

professionals

Document sanitation and structural issues that are conducive to rodent activity and that may lead

to interior infestation of commensal rodents

Meet with management to review findings and make recommendations on corrective actions

Respond to interior rodent activity aggressively using science-based methodology to eliminate

interior infestations ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Douglas B. Gardner, BCE, RS, Ecolab Senior Scientist

Doug Gardner provides 15 years of industry experience and 9 years of academic research to the Ecolab

Pest Elimination team. His background as a biologist includes a B.S. degree in Biochemistry from the

University of Arizona and an M.S. in Entomology from Texas Tech University. He is a Board-Certified

Entomologist, a Registered Sanitarian and a Certified Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma. In his professional

career he has served in a broad variety of positions including service specialist (technician), operations

manager, technical support manager and scientist. As the manager of the technical support team at

Ecolab, Doug was responsible for field support and field training across North America. He has faced and

solved pest challenges in most commercial environments. He is currently a senior scientist providing

expertise and driving innovation for Ecolab’s rodent, small fly and large fly programs. He is a member of the

National Pest Management Association, Entomological Society of America, National Environmental Health

Association, and Pi Chi Omega (a professional fraternity for urban pest control).

9

Following the recommendations of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, a blueprint for health and safety at work reforms New Zealand’s health and safety system…

When the new Health and Safety at Work Act comes into force, it will replace the Health and Safety in Employment

Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950. The Bill is currently before parliament.

Why is a change in New Zealand’s health and safety law needed?

The Pike River mine disaster of 2010 resulted in 29 miners killed. It also exposed serious failings in how health and

safety was being practiced, administered and enforced in New Zealand workplaces.

New Zealand’s poor record of workplace health and safety is highlighted when compared with other countries. In

Australia, with similar working conditions, there is only half the number of workplace deaths, on a pro-rata basis,

compared with New Zealand

Effectively health and safety in New Zealand has been an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, when what we need

is a fence at the top!

To accomplish this, the new health and safety law will do two significant things:

1. It will make it harder to avoid being caught if you break the law.

2. It will hurt a lot more if you are caught breaking the law. Removing the current law’s requirement to issue

warnings before imposing penalties is one way that it

will be harder to avoid being caught. Under the new

law Worksafe inspectors will NOT be required to

issue warnings before fining or penalising a business.

This means that they will be able to arrive on a site,

and if they notice a breach of the health and safety

act, they can then penalise immediately. Note too,

that there does not have to be an accident or injury

for them to act. The objective of this law change is to

encourage activity that prevents accidents and injury.

How much more will it hurt if you are caught breaking the law? Approximately three times more than under the

current law! Worksafe’s website makes the following statement that helps explain why. It states:

“The Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety considered that the current penalties under the Health

and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act) were too low and the range of compliance and enforcement tools

available to inspectors too limited.”

For this reason the penalties have been increased significantly. To see how serious these penalties are go to:

http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/about/reform

How can you protect yourself from suffering these sorts of consequences?

By simply being aware of the health and safety obligations associated within our industry and following them.

The important thing to remember is; it is what you do on the work site that counts. So if your health and safety

system is only a manual that sits on your office shelf and gets dusty from lack of use, then you are at risk.

Active health and safety procedures that are followed on every site are what you need to protect yourself.

So now would be a good time to review the health and safety practices in your business, and make sure they are

robust enough to handle the new law that is coming soon!

10

Source: Landcare Research

Biology

A 'tramp' species

The Argentine ant is commonly referred to

as a 'tramp' ant species . Tramp species

generally have the following common

features that have enabled them to be

highly successful invaders:

Strong tendency to move and associate with

humans

Unicoloniality (not aggressive to Argentine ants from

different nests)

Aggression towards other ant species

Polygyny (colonies with many queens)

Dispersal by budding (queens and a group of workers separate from the colony and walk to a new site).

Native and introduced range

The native range of Argentine ants is northern Argentina, southern Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The introduced range of Argentine ants is broadly Japan, Australia (western and eastern), South Africa, southern

Europe, the United States (south-west, California, Hawai'i) and New Zealand. However, Argentine ants persist in

many locations only because of human modified conditions (e.g. in semi-arid areas because of irrigation).

Numerous authors have covered the introduced range...

Point of origin in New Zealand

Argentine ants were first discovered in New Zealand at Mt Smart Stadium (Auckland) during opening-ceremony

rehearsals for the 1990 Commonwealth Games.

Genetic analysis shows that Australia was the most likely source of Argentine ants into New Zealand, but by what

commodity or pathway they arrived is unknown.

It is also likely they were introduced from a single source population, as determined by the very low genetic

variation and the absence of fighting between colonies in the New Zealand populations.

Foraging and diet

Argentine ants are effective at recruiting foragers to, and monopolising, food resources. Workers are aggressive

to other ant species and their numerical dominance leads to them displacing other ants. Argentine ants have a

very general diet that includes nectar, insects, seeds, carrion, and honeydew secreted by sap-sucking insects.

The diet of workers consists primarily of sugar, while larvae and queens are mainly fed protein.

Argentine ant workers move steadily in defined continuous trails and tend to walk over objects placed on trails.

Their trails can often be found along smooth surfaces, and in the urban environment they are commonly found by

pulling back the grass at the edge of the footpath. Trails can often be found ascending flowering trees and shrubs.

Nests can be found under wood, stones, and piles of leaves and in potted plants.

11

Image – Richard Toft ©Entecol

Current New Zealand distribution

Argentine ants were first recorded in Auckland in 1990,

and at the time there was no attempt to eradicate them

because the population was already established across

several hectares (Green 1990).

Over the following few years there were few Argentine

ants collected and no formal reports of its spread. In

summer 1997/98, two discrete populations of Argentine

ants in Mt Maunganui were surveyed (Osborne 1998).

Subsequent publicity, and increased searching for the

species, has produced many more records.

Currently, Argentine ants are known from numerous

locations in the northern North Island and several in the

South Island.

Dispersal

Argentine ants are a classic hitch-hiker pest, where

within a region they spread chiefly via human-mediated

dispersal. Establishment patterns in many areas follow

human transport networks (roadways and towns).

Their distribution is often patchy due to dispersal by

budding off from existing colonies and jump-dispersal

often through human-assisted transportation (e.g. in

potted plants, rubbish, freight). For example in Nelson,

an infestation in the port area had been established via

a truck that was delivering gas bottles.

It is estimated that in New Zealand humans move Argentine ants on average 10 to 72 km; much lower than

estimates in southern USA of between 160 and 361 km. This demonstrates that human-mediated dispersal can

occur over relatively short distances (e.g. an urban landscape or even city neighbourhood). Consequently this

type of small-scale spread must be considered when trying to limit the number of new populations and has

implications for managing the types of pathways that are responsible for this spread.

Without human-mediated dispersal, spread is much slower through

budding of colonies, but local dispersal of Argentine ants has only

been studied to a limited degree in New Zealand. The rate of spread

due to budding is relatively slow, averaging about 150 m per year

where climate or habitat is not limiting, but can range from near zero in

areas of climatic extremes up to 800 m per year in highly favourable,

recently invaded habitat.

Colonies are able to relocate and survive in response to high levels of

disturbance. Workers pick up larvae and eggs and relocate their nest

in response to changes in weather, human activity and/or food supply.

Queens appear to need workers to establish a colony successfully, but

a colony with as few as 10 workers can grow quickly in the laboratory.

Abundance

Argentine ants are usually extremely abundant wherever they have established. Any suitable nesting site will be

occupied, and thousands of ants will pour out if the nest is disturbed. Nests are interconnected via foraging trails,

and workers are freely exchanged between them. The activity along foraging trails indicates the high abundance.

In 1967 it was estimated 50 000 – 600 000 ants ascending single trees daily. There is considerable seasonal

variation in the density and distribution patterns. In favourable conditions, new nests containing queens and

workers bud off and the infestation expands, whereas in adverse conditions, small nests merge to form fewer

larger colonies.12

13

In New Zealand, Argentine ants have invaded numerous native habitats including scrub, mangroves, coastal

forest and the edges of native forest but their potential impact on native systems remains difficult to assess,

although forest habitat appears unlikely to be utilised.

Social Impacts

Social impacts that have been noted by council staff, pest controllers and scientists in New Zealand include: (i)

Argentine ants being an extreme domestic nuisance pest within houses, getting into cupboards, sealed jars,

electrical areas, behind walls, and beds; and (ii) people being unable to garden, hold social events, or let their

children play in household backyards because of aggressive swarming and in some cases being bitten.

We are also aware of people selling their houses and moving away from the infested area (Nelson, Coromandel),

and pets (lizards, birds) kept in cages being killed (Bay of Plenty, Northland).

Argentine ants have the potential to cause productivity losses through a number of factors, and often indirectly.

Examples include:

Holes being chewed in plastic drip irrigation pipes that have caused losses in orchards

Contamination of food products

The robbing of bee hives and predation of bees, which affect the honey production and pollination industries

Disruption of the poultry industry through stress on chickens and killing of hatchlings

Trade restrictions as a result of contamination of exports to countries that do not currently have Argentine

ants, e.g. China, and Korea.

Biodiversity impacts

In terms of their impacts on biodiversity, the primary effect of Argentine ants is the displacement of native ant

species. New Zealand has a very small native ant fauna, which primarily live in forest habitats, thus Argentine

ants are much less likely to affect native ant species. The general conclusion from impact studies is that when the

total ant biomass is increased following the invasion of Argentine ants, the invertebrate community is negatively

affected.

Identification

The following features distinguish Argentine ants from other species present in New Zealand.

Basic

Small size (2–3 mm)

Light brown in colour (not black, orange/red, yellow)

Workers all same size

Field identification

There is no absolute feature that can solely identify Argentine

ants in the field. The below features are helpful, but some other

ant species also possess these.

Workers are about 2–3 mm long and a uniform light-

brown colour (compared with the common black species found foraging in urban areas in New

Zealand).

The ants move quite fast (not ponderous).

They walk in defined continuous trails (not erratic ‘crazy’ behaviour of running about in circles)

They have only a slight greasy odour when crushed, as opposed to the strong formic acid smell

of some ant species.

For more information on Argentine Ants and their control go to the Landcare Research website or

follow the link: http://argentineants.landcareresearch.co.nz/index.asp14

NEWS BITES

Malaysia: Cops cripple gang who robbed as they fogged

Malaysian police have crippled a robbery gang masquerading as Health Department staff carrying out

fogging activities at foreign workers’ quarters in the state after arresting five men in Kamunting, Perak.

Penang CID chief Datuk Mazlan Kesah said one of the men was arrested at a house in Kamunting, after

which four of his friends were also caught in the same area. “They masqueraded as Health Department

and pest control company staff, requesting victims to evacuate their premises for spraying purposes, but

at the same time took the opportunity to steal valuable items such as electronic equipment and cash.” Based on investigations, the group was believed to be involved in 51 cases, 19 in Penang involving

losses of more than RM100, 000, and the rest were in Kedah, Perak and Negri Sembilan. Police also

seized one mosquito repellent spray pump, chemicals, a mobile phone and a four-wheel-drive vehicle,

which was used by the gang to carry out the robberies.

New class of insecticides offers safer, more targeted mosquito control

Mosquito larvae “snorkeling” in the Hill lab. Larvae breathe air

through siphon tubes on their abdomens.

Purdue researchers have identified a new class of chemical

insecticides that could provide a safer, more selective means of

controlling mosquitoes. Known as dopamine receptor

antagonists (DAR), the chemicals beat out the neurotransmitter

dopamine to lock into protein receptors that span the mosquito

cell membrane. Disrupting the mechanics of dopamine, which

plays important roles in cell signalling, movement, development

and complex behaviours, eventually leads to the insect’s death.

Professor Catherine Hill and her team showed that DAR

antagonists have high potency for both the larval and adult stages of the Aedes aegypti mosquito -- which

transmits yellow fever, dengue and chikungunya – and Culex quinquefasciatus, the vector of West Nile virus and

the disfiguring disease elephantiasis.

The research team designed DAR antagonists to disrupt molecules that are crucial to mosquito survival. The

chemicals are structurally distinct from existing insecticides and target a different biochemical path in the

mosquito. The team is mining a group of about 200 DAR antagonists to find the most promising chemicals for

commercial products. The insecticides could be cost-effective compared with current products and would have

low environmental impact because of their selectivity.

The researchers are also taking steps to minimize the risk that the insecticides could bind with human dopamine

receptors. The tougher challenge may be ensuring the insecticides do not affect beneficial insects such as

honeybees. While the researchers have identified chemicals that are highly selective for mosquito receptors, they

are also exploring the possibility of heightening insecticide specificity by using allosteric modulators, molecules

that act like dimmer switches, dialling up or down the cell’s response to dopamine. Similar protein receptors exist

in the African malaria mosquito, the sand fly and the tsetse fly, suggesting that DAR antagonists could help

control these disease transmitting insects as well.

Stressing bed bugs may lead to lower fecundity (producing young in great numbers)

Products that claim to control bed bugs have been on the market for years. Some work, and some don’t.

Dr Susan Jones, Professor of entomology at Ohio State University, knows this as well as anyone, after having

tested many such products for years. She and her colleagues have recently found one that looks promising as a

new tool in bed bug control programs.

15

The results of their research are published in an article in the Journal of Medical Entomology. Mattress liners sold

under the trade name ActiveGuard are impregnated with the pyrethroid insecticide permethrin. In recent years,

however, some bed bug populations have developed resistance to some pyrethroids and related pesticides,

making them less lethal. But for Jones and her team, killing bed bugs is only one part in the effort to control them.

“Death doesn’t have to be the end-point that we measure in studies,” Dr Jones said. “Physical or behavioural

changes can significantly affect the impact of bed bugs before death even occurs.” One of these things is

fecundity – the bed bugs’ ability to lay eggs and reproduce. In order to lay eggs, female bed bugs must first have

a blood meal, so the Ohio researchers set out to test the permethrin treated mattress effects on bed bug feeding.

“Feeding in bed bugs and fecundity are very tightly coupled,” Jones said. “If a female bed bug doesn’t feed, then

she is unlikely to lay eggs, and if she doesn’t lay eggs, then the life cycle is interrupted.” Surprisingly, they found

the treated fabric to be extremely effective, even in bed bug populations that were resistant to pyrethroids. Bed

bugs that were exposed to the fabric for ten minutes were significantly less likely to even attempt feeding

compared to those on untreated fabric, and the majority were unable to feed successfully. Even when they were

successful, their blood meals were only half the size of bed bugs that were not exposed to the fabric.

Even more surprising, out of 52 females tested; only one laid a single egg. “We were totally shocked, and we

were also shocked by how quickly we started seeing these sub-lethal effects,” Jones said. “After just one minute

of being on the fabric, their probing behaviour was reduced, and by ten minutes they just weren’t feeding much. If

a female bed bug doesn’t feed, she doesn’t lay eggs.”

The researchers do not yet know how or why the permethrin fabric affects female bed bug feeding and fecundity

– it may disorient or irritate them, but at this point that is only speculation. “We are still trying to figure out what is

going on,” Jones said. “That will be a future paper.”

Previous research by Dr Jones showed that ActiveGuard was very effective at killing some bed bug populations,

but was less so with ones that were resistant to pyrethroids. The results of this study suggest that even sub lethal

exposure can have far-reaching consequences.

The full article is available at:

http://jme.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/ doi/10.1093/jme/tjv008.

16

NEW ZEALAND NEWS

Ridding New Zealand of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)

3R Group, programme managers for Agrecovery,

have just launched a 2 year project called

“The Great DDT Muster”.

It is a nationwide campaign for the collection and disposal

of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), including DDT,

Lindane, and Dieldrin plus other banned pesticides which

were in widespread use in rural New Zealand in the 1940s

to 1970s. Sale and use of POPs in New Zealand has been

banned since 2004, however it is thought that at least five tonnes

still remain at large on rural properties due to people being unsure of how to

dispose of them or unwilling to pay for commercial collection services.

DDT and other pesticides containing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) haven’t been sold or

used in NZ for many years, due to known long-term impacts on health and environment.

However some properties still have POPs stored, either not knowing what they are, what to do with them,

or being unwilling to pay for collection. The Great DDT Muster is YOUR BEST CHANCE to find and get rid

of these banned harmful pesticides.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are chemicals that persist in the environment and are known to

cause adverse effects to health. They are bio-accumulative, building up in the tissue of living things, and

can be passed between species through the food chain or from mother to baby.

From the 1940’s to the 1970’s many commercial pesticides (including insecticides) containing POPs were

in widespread use on rural properties in New Zealand and worldwide. DDT is the most well-known but

there are a number of others… (See below). As the harmful effects of these compounds became known,

they were phased out of normal use.

POPs included in this Muster: DDT | Aldrin | HCB | Dieldrin | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Endrin |

Toxaphene | Lindane | Mirex | Chlordecone

The Great DDT Muster is free, confidential, and only available for a limited time, so don’t miss this chance

to clean up your property.*

Book a collection or freephone 0800 247 326

Yeah

Right!

17

Fendona®

will give you longer lasting residual

activity against cockroaches and spiders that your

competitors can’t touch

For further information contact :

John Haliday

BASF Pest Control Solutions

Mobile 021 904 018

® Fendona is a registered trademark of BASF

Approved pursuant to the HSNO Act 1996, Code HSR000286.

Predator-Free Islands New Habitat for Native Birds

By Peter de Graaf

Three of the seven pest-

free islands in the Bay of

Islands will soon provide

new havens for tieke

(saddleback) and

popokotea (whitehead),

part of a long-term project

to restore the area's

native wildlife.

DISTINCTIVE: The black-and-orange feathered tieke

(saddleback) is being reintroduced to the Bay of Islands. PHOTO/JIM EAGLES

The birds - 40 tieke and 40 popokotea - will be caught on Tiritiri-Matangi Island, in the Hauraki

Gulf, and taken to the Bay of Islands for Saturday's release. The translocations are part of Project Island Song, a partnership between community group

Guardians of the Bay of Islands, local hapu Ngati Kuta and Patukeha, and the Department of

Conservation. The tieke will be divided between Urupukapuka and Moturua islands to bolster a similar release

earlier this year, while the popokotea release will be a first for Motuarohia (Roberton Island). The

birds will be accompanied to their new homes by mana whenua from Tiritiri-Matangi and

welcomed by Te Rawhiti hapu at each release site. Also attending the release will be "bug man" Ruud Kleinpaste, a member of the Air New Zealand

Environment Trust. Bay of Islands DoC manager Rolien Elliot said the release was a significant milestone in the

project which began in 2003. All pest mammals were eradicated on the islands in 2009 and pest control by the Guardians,

hapu and local landowners on the mainland had significantly reduced the risk of reinvasion.

Guardians of the Bay spokesman Richard Robbins said it was "immensely satisfying" to see

vulnerable species such as the tieke and popokotea reintroduced. The restoration of the islands' biodiversity was made possible by the efforts of volunteers,

landowners, organisations and sponsors.

Pateke (brown teal) were returned to the islands in 2012 and toutouwai (North Island robins) were

released in 2014. Sightings of young, unbanded birds suggested they were starting to breed.

Visitors to the islands were urged to check boats and equipment for pests to avoid accidentally

reintroducing rats, cats and other species. - Northern Advocate

19

Enormous Effort to Save Native Birds Appears to Be Working

Operations were designed to protect at-risk populations which include the Kaka.

Photo / John Osboldstone

An enormous effort to save native birds from a tide of pests has delivered some promising results in

the South Island, following 1080 drops across vast swathes of beech forest. Despite rat populations reaching plague levels in some areas - on the back of a one-in-15-year beech

seeding event last spring - tracking rates indicate rats and stoats were knocked down to undetectable

or very low levels at most sites, giving much needed protection to vulnerable native birds and bats. Over the past eight months, the Department of Conservation has treated more than 600,000 hectares

of priority conservation areas using aerial 1080 drops to control rats, possums and stoats as part of its

coordinated programme dubbed the Battle for Our Birds. When announced in 2013, the $21 million project was aimed at combating the seeding event, fuelling

pest populations with surplus food, with a goal of protecting 25 million native birds a year over the next

five years. Along with 1080, poison bait stations and expanded trapping networks have also been used against a

population boom of millions of rats and thousands of stoats. "Rat levels crashed in most areas and tracking indicates we've also knocked back the stoat plague

that often follows these beech mast events," DOC Deputy Director General conservation services

Mike Slater said. "It'll take another breeding season to assess the full impacts but we're already starting to see positive

breeding results for some of the native birds and bats we're watching closely." Early results showed the nesting success of rock wren, mohua, robin and riflemen was significantly

higher in areas treated with aerial 1080 than those without. In particular, rock wren nesting success in a drop area in the Kahurangi National Park was 85 per

cent, compared to 30 per cent in nearby areas without pest control. "Whio/blue duck and bats also look to have benefited although we don't yet have the final results from

these monitoring programmes," Mr Slater said. 20

However, some native birds had also been lost to 1080 through the pest control operations, including

four out of 48 kea tracked at sites in South Westland, Kahurangi National Park, Arthur's Pass National

Park and at Lake Rotoiti. "It's unfortunate to lose any kea but without protection most kea chicks are killed by stoats so the

overall benefits of these operations outweigh individual losses." Earlier, anti-1080 campaigners had claimed more than 20 rock wren at a research site at Kahurangi

National Park had been wiped out by the poison, but DOC said today there was still no evidence as to

why the birds went missing unseasonable weather and snow and the pest control operation last

spring. While some birds were probably lost to 1080, early counts indicated the high nesting success due to

stoat control had already balanced this out with 61 birds estimated in the area after the operation was

carried out, compared with 49 birds beforehand, DOC said. The full effects of aerial 1080 pest control on rock wren would not be known until the end of next

summer when the birds had another chance of breeding with reduced stoat numbers. Rat populations had meanwhile reached extreme levels at some sites and there were lower knock

down rates than expected in a small number of operations although rat numbers still plummeted. "We are closely analysing results so we can pinpoint the factors such as timing and sowing rates that

we could improve in future predator plague responses." DOC is planning to carry out aerial 1080 pest control over about 250,000 hectares this year - about

50,000 hectares more than normal - to protect vulnerable native species from pests. "We are not expecting another beech mast this year but the Battle for Our Birds continues and DOC is

committed to extending our regular pest control work to protect our most at-risk native animals and

plants." Conservation Minister Maggie Barry said the programme had shown how important 1080 was in

protecting native creatures. "Bird breeding success rates in areas which were targeted are also considerably higher than where

there were no drops," Ms Barry said. "For example, the nesting success for the threatened mohua/yellowhead in the Dart and Routeburn

Valleys this summer was just under 100 per cent, where previously almost half these nests have failed

to produce eggs or chicks which survived." The Battle for our Birds •The Department of Conservation's 2014/2015 Battle for our Birds pest control programme was

targeted to combat a seed-fuelled plague of rodents and stoats across large areas of South Island

beech forests. Operations were designed to protect at-risk populations of mohua/yellowhead,

kakariki/parakeet, kiwi, whio/blue duck, kea, kaka, rock wren, giant land snails and native bats. •DOC monitors rat numbers using tracking tunnels before and after pest control operations to show

their success and results are shown in the attached graph. •Stoats are only monitored once a year after they breed in the summer. Results from stoat tracking

show stoat plagues were prevented at all 15 sites analysed to date. •DOC is continuing to closely monitor key at-risk native bird and bat species (mohua, whio, long-tailed

bats, rock wren and kea) at a number of sites to gauge the on-going effects of pest control. - NZ Herald

21

TECHNICAL HINTS

Editor: For those of you that missed ‘Rodent

Awareness Month’ weekly Facebook postings

during May, herewith again are those postings

and photographs.

Rodent Learning

Rats and mice have been used for decades as research

models in learning and memory studies. Learning begins

at a very young age as rodents watch and mimic

behaviours of their mother and other adult rats in their

environment. The first bites of solid food taken by young

rodents are from food being fed on by another adult. Food

preference and other behaviours are conservative and

passed across generations. Some food preference

learning may also occur prior to birth according to the diet

the mother rodent is eating. Some persistent behaviour may also have a genetic component, such as

behavioural resistant strains of mice found in the UK.

Like food preferences, behaviour around objects in their environment, including traps and other devices, is

learned. Young rats have been observed watching adult rats interact with traps, and then performing the

same exploratory behaviours themselves. Video observations also indicate that rats exposed to

generations of trapping see food on a device, such as a baited snap trap, as something to avoid.

Avoidance behaviour of food and equipment is learned in rodents and can build over generations of

exposure.

Vision

Rodent eyes are built for night vision. They sacrifice visual acuity (their

vision is more grainy then ours) for light collecting capabilities. They

have poor daylight vision compared to humans, but they see far better

than we do in low-light situations. Rodents cannot focus on close

objects within a couple of inches, but have a large depth of focus

beyond that. They rely on other senses for close-up inspection of their

world. The placement of their eyes on the rounded edges of the skull

allows for a wide perspective to avoid predators and explore their

shadowy environment.

Vision is an important sense for rodents and they rely on it as they navigate through their environment.

Dark shadows may indicate possible hiding spots and will often draw a passing rodent to investigate. A

rodent visually searching for a place to hide will move toward dark areas or spots and will enter dark

protected areas, if available. This behaviour is especially true for rodents in unfamiliar environments and is

the main reason why multi-catch traps work as monitors near rodent entrance points. Trap catches can be

enhanced by providing a high-contrast dark area at the entrance. Trap openings are naturally dark but

additional black, high contrast emphasis can be placed around the opening to increase investigatory

responses.

23

Tactile Sensing

Rodents use the sense of touch instead of vision in close-up

examination of their environment. Rodents have specialized

sensor hairs, termed vibrissae, throughout their fur and in a

high concentration on their heads.

Head vibrissae, often called whiskers, are used not only as

touch indicators, but can be used to determine shape and even

texture of objects and surfaces contacted. Whiskers are used

for a broad range of other functions, including communication

with other rodents and monitoring environmental conditions such as wind direction. They may even be

used in detecting vibration.

Vibrissae form a cone-shaped sensory field around the head of the rodent. This sensory field allows

detailed examination of objects up close with very little contact. Traps and other devices can be carefully

examined without triggering. Once a rodent learns to avoid a specific device such as a snap trap, it will

recognize and avoid direct contact with all devices having similar structure and design.

Video monitoring of wild roof rats has shown that rats are not afraid or shy around trapping devices. They

readily approach snap traps but do not directly contact these traps, even when baited with foods they are

known to be eating in the area. This results in a challenge to find ways to capture rodents such as roof rats.

Traps placed where rats are forced to contact them can be more successful than baited traps.

Startle and Foraging Behaviour

Rodents have complex suites of behaviours that allow them to find food, water, harbourage, avoid

predation, and reproduce. In spite of this complexity, general patterns of behaviour can be predicted in

some situations, such as when a rodent is placed in a new environment.

The first response of a rodent in a new environment is startle behaviour. They look for a protected spot to

temporarily hide until a more permanent home can be found. Once an initial hiding spot has been located,

they begin looking for better, long-term harbourage locations. The initial location becomes a home-base

from which they begin to explore their new surroundings.

Once a rodent has found a suitable harbourage location near food and water, it begins to establish regular

patterns of foraging behaviour. There are important differences between foraging behaviour and startle

behaviour. With foraging behaviour, the rodent is familiar with its environment and areas of protection.

When items such as traps and other devices are placed in an area where rodents are foraging, these items

will be recognized as “new” objects by the rodents and they will exhibit neophobic behaviour around them.

Neophobia

Neophobia is a fear of new objects. While it is commonly believed that

rats are neophobic and mice are neophilic (love of new objects —

curious), both have been shown to exhibit an avoidance response to

new objects placed in a familiar environment.

New food items will also be avoided by mice when placed in a familiar

environment. Studies show that mice can develop neophobic

behaviours in the presence of trapping pressure. Neophobic

responses are much stronger with new objects than with new foods.

Rodents in a new environment do not exhibit neophobia.

They will readily approach traps and other devices looking for protection. It is for this reason that multi-

catch traps work near entrances and not so well where there is an established infestation.

Source - Ecolab Pest Elimination,

24

Articles provided in "What’s Buzzing" are drawn from a number of sources. The source of the item is

quoted, either by publication or organizations, in line with the practice of fair reporting.

The information contained in this newsletter is for member information only and does not necessarily reflect

the official views or opinions of the PMANZ Council and/or its members.

FLY THE FLAG

Many local authorities, companies and

government departments now require that pest

management companies they employ are

members of PMANZ. The use of Association

Logo on advertising identifies full membership of

a recognised group of professionals whose

members provide services carried out safely and

efficiently in keeping with good practices, to a

code of ethics, as well as maintaining high

business standards.

PMANZ OFFICERS PRESIDENT

Campbell Perrin campbell@keyindustries.co.nz

VICE-PRESIDENT

Steve Hunn steve.hunn@nzdf.mil.nz

COUNCIL MEMBERS

Peter Barry peter@pestconsultancy.co.nz

Sandra Charlton sandra@pestawaynz.com

Mike Collins mike@ajetservices.co.nz

Mike Hermansson kwikill@paradise.net.nz

Bill Paynter bill.paynter@rentokil-initial.com

Eric Van Essen eric.vanessen@ecolab.com

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

Rowan Washer rowan.washer@gmail.com

TREASURER

Bill Wills billw@clear.net.nz

SECRETARY

Denise Faulkner info@pmanz.nz

Pest Management Association of

New Zealand

PO Box 133215

Eastridge

Auckland 1146

New Zealand

Free phone: 0800 476 269

0800 4PMANZ

Email: info@pmanz.nz

Website: www.pmanz.nz

Facebook:

www.facebook.com/www.pmanz

.co.nz

25