1. Lecture 21 Presence and distribution of red flour beetles in a city neighborhood surrounding a grain­-cleaning facility: A case study

2. Red flour beetle (RFB) Biology Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)
Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)
Order: Coleoptera
Family: Tenebrionidae
Distribution: Oriental origin, cosmopolitan
Biology
Associated with 246 different stored commodities
Attacks stored grain but prefers milled products
Farm bins, grain elevators, warehouses, flour/feed mills, bakeries, and homes
Longevity up to one year, optimum temperature oC
6 eggs/d/female: affected by age, temperature, nutritional status, and population density

3. Brief history
Residents of a neighborhood in north Minneapolis, MN were dealing with flour beetle problem in their houses
Complaints in homes from 44 residents (1976)
A grain elevator in the neighborhood, denied having any flour beetles
A few frustrated residents approached the City of Minneapolis and local mass media
Media hype: Stories about the issue made way into the local press and two TV stations
Residents of a neighborhood in north Minneapolis, Minnesota were having a difficult time dealing with a stored-product insect problem in their houses
insect in question is the red flour beetle
Red flour beetle, associated with raw and processed grain products, especially flour
Since red flour beetles are associated with grain and grain products, the residents were implicating the elevator as being the source of these insects.
The elevator on the other hand has denied having any red flour beetles
Stories about the plight of the residents in dealing with this insect problem had made their way into the local press and two TV stations.
The City of Minneapolis Environmental Management inspector contacted us during the summer of 1996 to investigate the situation.

4. Feb 2, 1998, House Sub-Committee on Agric, Finance, and Rural Development held a public hearing
April 8, 1998, A legislation (House File No. 3853) was approved giving authority to the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture to oversee mitigation of the insect infestation
HF 3853, Sections 6a and 6b read as follows:
The Commissioner of Agriculture, in close cooperation with the City of Minneapolis and all other appropriate public and nonpublic entities, shall exercise all available authority and enforcement powers to resolve a longstanding problem of red flour beetle infestation in an area of Minneapolis adjacent to a rail transportation corridor and a grain handling and processing facility. Notwithstanding other law, rule, or local authority to the contrary, the Commissioner is authorized to perform inspections, tests, monitoring, insect trapping, or other actions to identify the source or sources of the continued infestation and bring enforcement actions adequate to accomplish resolution of the problems.
Not later than March 1, 1999, the Commissioner shall report to the agriculture policy committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the actions taken, the conditions identified, and corrective actions ordered and completed.
The frustrated residents successful in bringing this issue to the attention of state legislators.
As a result, on Feb 2, 1998 members of the House Sub-Committee on Agric, Finance, and Rural Development held a public hearing about this issue in a neighborhood community hall. the legislators and residents, representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration were present at this hearing. Individuals from the elevator and the elevator’s corporate office and the railroad company were invited to this meeting. Following this testimony, the legislators have asked the elevator as well as the railroad company to address the issue, and asked the Department of Agriculture to work with all involved parties, including the residents, to investigate and resolve the issue as soon as possible.
The railroad company quickly responded to this legislation by cleaning up the grain spills in their yard.
(For information on current Minnesota statues pertinent to mitigation of pest problems, other than the issue being described in the article, please visit the following web site:

5. Grain elevator N ADM [now GM] elevator (> 80 years old)
Grain cleaning facility
80,000 metric tons storage capacity N
There is also a grain elevator (more than 80 years old) in the neighborhood.
Since the red flour beetles are associated with grain and grain products, the residents are implicating the elevator as being the source of these insects. The elevator on the other hand has denied having any red flour beetles. In the hope of getting the elevator to respond, a few frustrated residents have approached the City of Minneapolis and local mass media with their concerns.
Stories about the plight of the residents in dealing with this insect problem had made their way into the local press and two TV stations.
The elevator is a grain cleaning facility. About 95% barley and 5% wheat grains are cleaned at this elevator. The elevator was relatively clean at the time of our scheduled visit. Most grain conveying systems were enclosed to control dust.
Our suggestion to use commercial red flour beetle monitoring kits (Storgard Flit-Trak M2 traps, Trece, Salinas, CA, containing a food attractant (oil) and red flour beetle aggregation pheromone lures or Phercon 1C sticky traps with pheromone lures) within the elevator to detect and monitor red flour beetle infestations were not accommodated. The elevator supervisor said that permission from his company superiors was required before any such trapping/sampling could be done. The elevator supervisor, however, took 20 traps from us, and indicated that he would do the trapping and convey any trap catch results to us. We did not hear from the elevator supervisor after this visit.

6. Humboldt railroad yard
Canadian Pacific railroad yard
In addition to the elevator, we suspected that there might be other sources for the red flour beetles—accumulations of grain debris and dust on either side of the train tracks that run next to the elevator, compost piles in residents’ backyards, and dog/pet food in the garage or house.
The elevator told us that a railroad company is responsible for cleaning up the grain wastes. We felt that it would be improper to sample the grain debris piles without permission from the railroad company.
Before implicating the grain debris and compost piles as sources of red flour beetles, the relevant questions to ask are, “Can red flour beetles survive outdoors? Have they been observed breeding outdoors? How far can they fly from a breeding site?”
A report from England (published in the Journal of Stored Products Research 1967, Volume 3, pages ) conclusively proved that the red flour beetles flying into houses were indeed coming from populations breeding in a poultry manure heap close to the house. This incident occurred on a poultry farm in northwest Somerset, where the nearest point to the house was about 60 feet from the manure pile.
The pile was 12 feet wide and 20 feet long; the highest and lowest points of the heap were 5 and 2 feet, respectively. The insects were concentrated 4 inches below the heap. Temperature of the heap was 65-75oF.
The red flour beetles, during July and August of 1965, were seen flying towards the house. Several beetles were seen crawling on the exterior walls and some were found in window crevices.
Insects entered the house through small openings in windows and the chimney. Except for the red flour beetles breeding in the manure heap, there were no other red flour beetle sources in the neighborhood.

7. A street (Penn Ave.), to north of the elevator and railroad yard

8. General size of houses in the neighborhood

9. Age and size of houses in neighborhood
Average age of houses (yr)
43.36
Maximum age of houses (yr) 92
Minimum age of houses (yr) 3
Number of respondents: 50
Average house size (m2)
122.1
Maximum house size (m2)
371.6
Minimum house size (m2)
66.9
Number of respondents: 33

10. Tree cover in the neighborhood
Flour beetles can survive on rotting material molds inside bark of trees

11. Survey of residents Number of respondents: 52 Neighbor- hood
Number from a neighbor-hood
Number that did not notice beetles
Number that reported yearly occurrence
Number that reported seeing beetles in spring
Number that reported seeing beetles in summer
Number that reported seeing beetles in fall
Number that reported seeing beetles in winter
Number that reported seeing beetles in their pantry
Shingle Creek 43 12 17 18 26 14 7 20
Victory 5 2 1
Webber-Camden 4 3
Number of respondents 52 19 50 49
Total of 44 residents in neighborhood reported seeing RFB in their houses. Residents reported seeing insects entering through window screens and found them throughout the house, upstairs, downstairs, in kitchen, bathroom, laundry room, living room ,dining room and various food product sin the pantry.
Number of respondents: 52

12. During our visits in 1996, we went to several houses with reported red flour beetle infestation. Not all residents experiencing infestations of the red flour beetle in the neighborhood came forward to report it. Some residents took the presence of these insects as an indication of their poor house-cleaning practices. In fact, some residents confessed that they have asked pest control operators to visit their houses in unmarked trucks. One resident was using a household pesticide to control these beetles in her house. A resident showed me insects that she collected in her house 20 years ago! A total of 44 residents in the neighborhood reported seeing red flour beetles in their houses. Residents reported seeing insects entering through their window mesh, and found them throughout their houses—upstairs, downstairs, in the kitchen, bathroom, laundry room, living room, dinning room, and in various food products in their pantry.
In the backyard of two of the houses, we placed 3-4 Phercon 1C trap bottoms or liners on the clothesline. The liners were not baited with the red flour beetle pheromone lures. The purpose was to capture randomly flying red flour beetles. In 2 days, red flour beetles were captured in each trap. This indicated that these adults were flying outdoors, although the source of these insects was unclear.

13. Houses with pets in the neighborhood
Number that own pets
Number that do not own pets
Number that did not respond
Number that own pets but did not see beetles
Number that own pets and saw beetles
Number without pets that did not see beetles
Shingle Creek 22 21 1 5 10 8
Victory 2 3
Webber-Camden
Number of respondents: 52

14. Monitoring beetles with traps

15. Monitoring beetles with traps
Inside and outside elevator
Railroad yard
Outside houses
Pherocon II sticky traps with a pheromone lure for red flour beetles
Inside houses
Flit-Trak traps with food-baited oil plus pheromone

16. Scatterplot showing trapping locations
Scale, 1 cm = ft.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Distance from top left (cm)
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00 D i s t a n c e f r o m p l ( ) N
The traps were placed in an area approx. one square mile on all sides of the grain elevator.

17. Grain elevator Exterior traps = 49 Interior traps = 35 on 5 floors
Time period = July 17- October 1, 1998
Total trapping duration = 76 days
Number of sampling occasions = 5
Frequency of sampling = 15 days
Pheromone lure replaced = 31 days
The boundaries of our survey area were 53rd Avenue on the north, 44th Avenue on the south, Humboldt on the east, and Xerxes on the west.
placed 35 sticky traps baited with the pheromone lures of the red flour beetle on 5 floors inside the ADM elevator. Around the elevator on the outside, there were 49 sticky traps baited with the lures.

18. Railroad yard Exterior traps = 46
Time period = July 17- October 8, 1998
Total trapping duration = 82 days
Number of sampling occasions = 5
Frequency of sampling = 16 days
Pheromone lure replaced = 32 days

19. Traps in railroad yard

20. Trapping outside houses
Number of houses = 31
Number of traps = 124 baited with pheromone Time period = August 21 - October 2, 1998
Total trapping duration = 36 days
Number of sampling occasions = 2-3 (38.7% of houses sampled 3 times)
Frequency of sampling = days
Pheromone lure replaced = 25 days
Four sticky traps with lures were placed on the outside of each of the 31 houses surrounding the elevator and the railroad yard (total, 124 traps).
Indoor trapping was also done in 26 houses, mostly in the Shingle Creek area.
To residents of each house we gave 10 cardboard traps (Flit-Trak trap) baited with a food-based oil and the red flour beetle lures. We requested that these 10 traps be placed in different rooms of the resident’s house.
The sticky traps outdoors were in place at the ADM, railroad yard, and houses for 76, 82, and 36 days, respectively. Traps were examined approximately every 15 days, and were checked 2-5 times between July and October of Trap lures were changed at monthly intervals.
The cardboard traps inside houses were in place for 27—62 days, and were examined only once. Red flour beetle adults captured on sticky or in cardboard traps were counted. Adults captured on sticky and in cardboard traps were expressed as number of beetles captured per trap per 30 days.

21. Trap locations outside the house
Residents who have experienced red flour infestations inside their houses were provided with Flit-Trak traps baited with food attractant oil and pheromone lures. This was done to determine the presence and abundance of red flour beetles in different rooms of the house. Each resident received 10 traps for placement in different rooms. To our knowledge, this is the first time that Flit-Trak traps have been used inside houses to monitor a stored-product insect pest.

22. Tethering pheromone lure to trap with a wire

23. Trapping inside houses
Flit-Trak traps with food-baited oil + pheromone lure
10 traps/house
Number of houses = 26
Trapping duration = days
Residents who have experienced red flour infestations inside their houses were provided with Flit-Trak traps baited with food attractant oil and pheromone lures. This was done to determine the presence and abundance of red flour beetles in different rooms of the house. Each resident received 10 traps for placement in different rooms. To our knowledge, this is the first time that Flit-Trak traps have been used inside houses to monitor a stored-product insect pest.

24. Trap monitoring results

25. Frequency distribution of trap catches
at the 3 sites sampled
Outside the ADM elevator, 92% of the 49 traps had beetles,
in the CP railroad yard 41% of 46 traps had beetles, and outside the houses 78% of 124 traps had beetles. This suggested that these beetles were present on the outside at all three sites, and were distributed more widely on the outside of the elevator and around the houses.
The actual number of beetles per trap ranged from 0.4–34.3 outside the elevator, 0.4–2.23 in the CP railroad yard, and 0.8–22.7 on the outside of the houses. These data clearly showed that the railroad had very few beetles, whereas insect numbers were equally high outside the elevator and the houses.
Interestingly, houses to the south of the elevator and the railroad yard also had beetles higher than the railroad yard. If beetles were indeed flying from the elevator to the neighborhood south of the elevator, the traps in the railroad yard would have intercepted them. However, this did not happen. These data suggest that the populations of red flour beetles found in the neighborhoods may be independent of the elevator or that the founding populations may have come from the elevator prior to our sampling in the neighborhoods.
Trapping at the elevator and railroad yard started in July; neighborhood sampling did not begin until August. It is also likely that traps outside the houses were catching beetles coming from inside the houses. For example, in one of the houses farthest from the elevator on the north side, we found high numbers of beetles on traps outside the house. The resident complained about beetles inside the house, and a careful search of the pantry revealed red flour beetle infestation in 1-year-old corn grits!

26. Comparison of outdoor Pherocon II trap catches
Site n
Mean ± SE
no. adults/trap/30 days
Houses (N)
100 a
Houses (S) 23 b
Elevator 49 ab
Railroad yard 46 c
The actual number of beetles per trap ranged from 0.4–34.3 outside the ADM elevator, 0.4–2.23 in the CP railroad yard, and 0.8–22.7 on the outside of the houses.
These data clearly showed that the railroad had very few beetles, whereas insect numbers were equally high outside the elevator and the houses.
Interestingly, houses to the south of the elevator and the railroad yard also had beetles higher than the railroad yard. If beetles were indeed flying from the elevator to the neighborhood south of the elevator, the traps in the railroad yard would have intercepted them. However, this did not happen.
These data suggest that the populations of red flour beetles found in the neighborhoods may be independent of the elevator or that the founding populations may have come from the elevator prior to our sampling in the neighborhoods.
Trapping at the elevator and railroad yard started in July; neighborhood sampling did not begin until August. It is also likely that traps outside the houses were catching beetles coming from inside the houses.
For example, in one of the houses farthest from the elevator on the north side, we found high numbers of beetles on traps outside the house. The resident complained about beetles inside the house, and a careful search of the pantry revealed red flour beetle infestation in 1-year-old corn grits! Red flour beetles have been reported under the bark of trees feeding on rotting materials or molds. The presence of red flour beetles in the neighborhoods may be due to the abundant tree cover, which provides adequate bark habitat. Furthermore, during summer months, the presence of birdseed and pet food are available for these beetles to infest and reproduce.
F = 19.72; df = 3, 214; P =

27. Red flour beetle trap catch
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Distance from top left (cm)
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00 D i s t a n c e f r o m p l ( ) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Red flour beetle trap catch
Scale, 1 cm = ft.
1 cm = ft

28. A diagrammatic representation of a semi-variogram. The
Spatial statistical methods measure the extent of dependence in the sample data by evaluating variance as a function of the distance and direction between observations.
Sill
Variance
Nugget
Range
Distance separating data pairs
A diagrammatic representation of a semi-variogram. The
shape of the variogram may be variable.

29. Mean = 2.935
Variance =
No. pairs = 1416
Direction = 0
Tolerance = 90o
Nugget = 7
Sill = 53
Range = 6
Semivariogram = linear

30. Insects inside grain elevator
Floor
No. Traps
No. adults/trap/30 daysa
Range in trap catch
Basement (1) 8
0.25 ± 0.17d
Main (2) 7
3.27 ± 1.15c
Bin (3) 10
33.04 ± 10.65a
Distribution (4) 5
11.60 ± 3.67ab
Scale (5)
5.53 ± 2.09bc
Out of the 35 traps inside the elevator 69% captured one or more beetles.
More beetles were captured on the bin floor (33 beetles/trap), and the lowest numbers were found in the basement area (0.3 beetles/trap).
No. days each trap was in place during the study= 76 days
No. obs/trap = 5
Interval between obs= 76 days/5 =15.2 days
Average time for lure = 31 days
aMeans followed by different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05, LSD)
One-way ANOVA F= 13.37; df= 4,30; P=

31. Influence of Pherocon II trap location outside houses
on red flour beetle catch
Location
No. traps
Mean catch + SE NE 31 SW NW SE 30
The trap location outside the each house did not significantly effect beetle catch, since 4 traps were placed outside each of the 31 houses
However there were significant differences in trap catches among houses
2-way ANOVA results:
Catch in traps outside a house : F = 0.50; df= 3, 89; P =
Catch among houses : F = 3.29; df = 30, 89; P = (MSE = 11.34)

32. Trap catch among houses (n = 31 houses)
Mean trap catch range =
0.26 – 7.89 adults/trap/30 days
96/123 traps (78.05%) had > 1 insect/trap
This is OUTSIDE HOUSES

33. Trap catch inside houses20 40 60 80
100
120
140
>50.1
21.7%
47.7%
16.1%
7.3%
0.8%
1.7%
4.7%
Mean no. adults/trap/30 days
Frequency
Flit-Trak trap catches inside houses
n = 235 traps
Red flour beetle catches from cardboard traps placed inside the houses were valuable in determining the numbers present and their distribution within houses. From the 26 houses, we should have retrieved 260 traps. However, some residents failed to return all 10 traps to us. Therefore, data were obtained from 235 traps. Only 1 of the 235 traps was in the attic and it did not catch any beetles. About 78% of 235 traps had one or more red flour beetles. Of the 78% of traps with beetles, about 48% of the traps had anywhere from beetles/trap, and 5% had more than 50 beetles/trap.
The number of beetles captured in all 10 traps varied from house to house. The average number of beetles/trap/house ranged from beetles. Across all 26 houses, the second floor had the highest number of beetles (16.4 beetles/trap), followed by the ground floor (12.2 beetles/trap), and basement (3.5 beetles/trap). The beetles were present in all rooms of the house. The highest numbers were in the dining room (21 beetles/trap) and the kitchen (14.9 beetles/trap). The bedrooms, bathroom, and living rooms had beetles/trap; the laundry room had only 5 beetles/trap.

34. Red flour beetle trap catches by floor, n = 235
Avg no. beetles /trap/house ranged from
The number of beetles captured in all 10 traps varied from house to house. The average number of beetles/trap/house ranged from beetles.
Across all 26 houses, the second floor had the highest number of beetles (16.4 beetles/trap), followed by the ground floor (12.2 beetles/trap), and basement (3.5 beetles/trap).

35. Red flour beetle trap catches inside houses by room, n = 235
The beetles were present in all rooms of the house. The highest numbers were in the dining room (21 beetles/trap) and the kitchen (14.9 beetles/trap). The bedrooms, bathroom, and living rooms had beetles/trap; the laundry room had only 5 beetles/trap.

36. (n = 2 houses; 20 trap pairs)
Comparison of catch in oil and oil + pheromone baited Flit-Trak traps inside houses
(n = 2 houses; 20 trap pairs)
As a part of the indoor trapping, in 2 of the 26 houses, we compared the number of beetles captured in cardboard traps containing the food-based oil as bait with traps containing both the food-based oil and pheromone lure as baits. Our results showed fold more beetles were captured in traps with the oil and lure compared to traps with the oil alone. Therefore, when using cardboard traps for monitoring beetles inside the house, it is advisable to use both the oil and the lure.

37. Flit-Trak traps, with food-baited oil (left) and pheromone + food-baited oil (right)

38. Comparison of catch in oil and oil + pheromone baited Flit-Trak traps inside houses (n = 2 houses; 20 trap pairs)
Pairs in which:
Adults found in both trap types
15/20
75%
Adults found only in traps with oil + pheromone
2/20
10%
Adults found only in traps with oil
1/20 5%
Adults absent in both trap types
As a part of the indoor trapping, in 2 of the 26 houses, we compared the number of beetles captured in cardboard traps containing the food-based oil as bait with traps containing both the food-based oil and pheromone lure as baits. Our results showed fold more beetles were captured in traps with the oil and lure compared to traps with the oil alone. Therefore, when using cardboard traps for monitoring beetles inside the house, it is advisable to use both the oil and the lure.

39. Increased catch in Flit-Trak traps with oil + pheromone lure
House No.
Oil
Oil + Pheromone 1
1.26
17.42 2
3.97
42.58
Mean (n=2) *
As part of indoor trapping, in 2 of the 26 houses, we compared the no. of beetles captured in trapscontaining food-based oil as bait with traps containing both food-based oil and pheromone lure as baits.
Reslts showed that times more beetles were captured in traps with oil and lure compared to traps with oil alone.
*F = 13.38; df = 1, 2; P = (Significant at P < 0.10)
Catch expressed as mean no. insects/trap/30 days

40. The average temperature throughout our study was above 60oF, except during the first week of October. These temperatures are conducive for red flour beetle activity and reproduction.

41. It rained on 18 different occasions between July and October; most rainfall was below 0.7 inches, and on 1 occasion it was over an inch. We understand very little about the influence of rainfall on beetle activity.
However, rainfall was an important detriment to using traps outdoors. Traps and lures, damaged by the rain, had to be changed immediately.

42. On 20% of the occasions, the wind was blowing in the northwest direction, and 18% of the time it was blowing in the southern direction. About 9-11% of the time, the wind was blowing in all other directions (west, north, northeast, east, southeast, and southwest). The prevailing wind direction does not explain the observed trap catch of beetles in traps placed outdoors.

43. Conclusions Beetles were present inside and outside the elevator
Very few beetles were detected in the railroad yard
Both the north and south neighborhoods have beetles outdoors
Are these coming from the elevator or from inside the houses?
Perhaps both
Movement of beetles from within houses to the outside could not be confirmed
Beetles inside houses were present in every room
In conclusion Our survey documented that Beetles were present inside and outside the elevator with Very few beetles being present in the railroad yard
The beetles were active outdoors in the residential areas to the north and south of the elevator. The source of these beetles, however, in unclear. Beetles were present inside houses in every room.
It is important to point out to the readers that the sticky traps we used were not designed for outdoor use. The red flour beetle traps (both sticky and cardboard) were designed for use in commercial settings such as food-handling establishments, warehouses, etc. Furthermore, the activity of red flour beetles outdoors has not been previously studied. Therefore, interpreting the survey results is somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, our survey did point out that these traps could be effectively used to monitor red flour beetles in the elevator, railroad yard, and outside houses.

44. Data gaps
Is there movement of insects from the elevator to the neighborhoods?
How far can these beetles fly outdoors?
Are beetles found in neighborhoods independent of populations found at the elevator?
How can one determine if control measures followed at the elevator are suppressing the populations?
There are several questions that still need to be answered. For example, is there movement of beetles from the elevator to the neighborhoods, if so, at what rate?; how far can these beetles fly from a source?; are beetles found in the neighborhoods independent of beetles from the elevator or are they the progeny of adults dispersing from the elevator; how can one determine or assess the effectiveness of red flour beetle management program instituted by the elevator, railroad yard, and the residents? Carefully designed experiments and continuation of the red flour beetle sampling and trapping program will provide concrete answers to the above questions.

45. Recommendations
Pest management measures should be followed at the elevator
Closed systems for grain handling and better dust control systems
Railroad should keep tracks clean and remove spilled grain (they did that soon after the legislation was passed)
Residents should monitor beetles inside their house
Continue containerizing food
Vacuum regularly
A brochure was developed to help them
Our recommendations are that the elevator follow a rigorous pest management program that includes repairing damaged doors and windows, screening windows with mesh, sanitation, pest monitoring, and timely removal of grain cleanings, crack and crevice treatment with residual pesticides, fogging with pesticides, and as a last resort fumigation with phosphine. The railroad should continue cleaning up spilled grain several times a year to eliminate spilled grain from becoming a harborage for the beetles. The residents should containerize food and vacuum every 15 days to remove spilled food particles, especially in the kitchen and dining area. Both the sticky and cardboard traps should be used outdoors and indoors to determine the effectiveness of red flour beetle pest management measures. Without continuous monitoring the benefits of pest management measures followed by the elevator, railroad, and the residents cannot be evaluated.

46. (sic) Our study and intervention helped!
The elevator manager was fired
The new manager worked with the residents and had an open dialogue
Subi was invited to a cake and punch party where everyone seemed happy about the final outcome!

47. Acknowledgments Rep. Joe Mullery Council Member Barb Johnson
MDA, Tom Masso, Jerry Hile, Art Mason, Dharma Sreenivasam
ADM-Chuck Newman/Mark Fedge
CP Rail-Scott Paradise (and Mike Lukes from ReTec)
Ann Stahn (The late Karen Nordby)
All the residents who cooperated in this survey
Thanks to MDA for the financial support
This project and survey was not possible without the help and support of the following people.
This project is a classic example of the University of Minnesota, funded by your tax dollars, helping the community through research and education.

48. Questions
What are potential sources for red flour beetles and other stored-product insects outdoors?
What can be done to prevent insects outdoors from entering homes and grain-processing facilities?
Did the study reported here conclusively show that the grain cleaning facility was the source?
How can you design a study to conclusively show that insects from the facility can fly into the neighborhoods?

49. Insects inside grain elevator
Floor
No. Traps
No. adults/trap/30 days
Basement (1) 8
0.25
Main (2) 7
3.27
Scale (5) 5
5.53
Distribution (4)
11.60
Bin (3) 10
33.04
Out of the 35 traps inside the ADM elevator 69% captured one or more beetles.
More beetles were captured on the bin floor (33 beetles/trap), and the lowest numbers were found in the basement area (0.3 beetles/trap).