[Special Report] Green Marketing Road Test

Is “green pest management” a new strategy? Yes and no. “Green” is also part of Integrated Pest Management and organic approaches to pest management. Pest management stresses inspection, sanitation, habitat modification, mechanical and physical methods, and, if necessary the use of appropriate chemicals. The organic approach limits chemicals to products on the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) list, on the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (OMRI) list or products produced “NOP compliant.” To be “organic,” including a compliant pest control program, USDA has approved several companies as certifying agents. At the time of this writing there are 55 domestic accredited certifying agents.

Why is “organic” food becoming so popular? Unlike IPM and green pest management, the organic approach is defined. The definitions of IPM and green vary. In this article, we won’t define “green pest management.” But we will cover the approach our company, Western Exterminator Company, took in its initial foray into to green pest management. This may not be your company’s approach, nor may it be anyone’s approach in five or 10 years from now. As industry consultant Dr. Austin Frishman recently stated, “What is green today may not be green tomorrow.”

In their book titled “Pesticide Book,” 6th edition, Ware and Whitacre explained their definition of “biorational” products. They defined “biorational” as “any substance of natural origin (or man-made structure resembling those of natural origin) that has a detrimental effect on specific target pest(s), possesses a unique mode of action, is non-toxic to humans, plant and animals, and has little effect on wildlife and environment.” One can question the “non-toxic to humans” in the biorational definition but both the organic approach and Western Exterminator’s approach to green use biorational products. Western Exterminator started its green program by choice. Western’s green approach uses only biorational products for pest management — if they are available. In contrast, the organic approach uses non NOP-compliant products after management has obtained approval from the certifying agents.

With increased awareness and availability of green products, our firm felt this was the right time to evaluate a green pest control program. We evaluated the impact of three different pest management strategies: Traditional (mostly pyrethroids), Eco (green program) and Eco Plus Non-Repellents and Non-Pyrethroids (which we call “Reduced Impact Pest Management”). We measured each strategy’s callbacks, chemical costs and the technician’s quality assurance rating.

ROUTE SET-UP. We selected 10 service technicians. Some of these technicians were new to the industry and others had many years of pest control experience. The routes were 81 percent residential and 19 percent commercial with monthly, every other month and quarterly service cycles. Customers included food-processing plants restaurants and warehouses. There were 64 schools.

Customers on each route were divided into two groups. One group was Eco and the other was Reduced Impact. We compared the efficacy of these 10 to other routes at the same service center delivering a traditional pest management service. Seven technicians were on the same route in 2005, so we compared customer ratings of these from 2005 and 2006.

January 2006 through December 2006 was the study period. The 10 routes were in California.
 
TREATMENT PROTOCOL. The Eco approach (green program) consisted of EcoSMART products, inorganic dust and baits. The Reduced Impact Approach used EcoSMART products plus non-repellent products (Termidor [BASF], Premise [Bayer Environmental Science] and Phantom [BASF]), and non-pyrethroids. For both approaches, a few exceptions were made in areas where at this time there is no eco product (i.e., gel bait).

ROUTE EFFICACY. We evaluated customer callbacks, chemical cost and customer feedback (via quality assurance). We felt these were all vital factors when management measures the success of a pest control route. In this article, we are presenting the results for callbacks and chemical cost. (We will present our customer feedback in a future issue of PCT.) Through June 2006, the callback ratio for the Eco group and the Eco+Non-Repellents were slightly lower than customers receiving the traditional pest control service approach — 1.52 percent fewer callbacks for a route with 200 stops.

We observed a similar trend from July through December 2006. The callback percentage was lowest for Eco+Non-Repellent approach (5.96), followed by the Eco approach (6.76) and than the traditional pest control approach (7.27). There were 1.7 fewer callbacks with the Eco+Non-Repellent approach vs. the Traditional pest control approach and about 0.6 less for the Eco service. One might attribute some of this difference to technicians that volunteered for this study and were more committed to success.

For example, we know that in 2005 the seven technicians that were on the same route received more positive customer feedback than the service center average. Using Eco products on these 10 routes did not result in more callbacks.

CHEMICAL COST. We combined the chemical cost from Eco and Eco+Non-Repellent pest control routes into one pool. For the first half of the year, chemical costs for the Eco (Green program)/Eco+Non-Repellent approach (Reduced Impact Program) were slightly lower than the service center average. On a $10,000 route, the monthly difference was $30 per month.

This chemical cost trend reversed during the second half of the year. The chemical costs increased $21 increase per month on a $10,000 per month route. The use of Eco products did not result in a large increase in chemical cost.

CONCLUSION. Customer callbacks can increase operational costs. Our field research suggests that delivering Eco (Green Program) or Eco+Non-Repellent (Reduced Impact Program) services does not increase customer callbacks.

When pest pressures are low (winter and early spring), chemical costs for Eco (green program)/Eco+Non-Repellent and Non-Pyrethroids (Reduced Impact Program) service were slightly lower than the service center average. During summer months, we had to increase the outside Eco product’s dosage (Eco EXEMPT IC-2 and Eco PCO WP•X) — this did increase chemical costs. Increased doses were still below the maximum label rate. Even though chemical costs increased a little over the Service Center average, this increased percentage was not a significant factor. For a $10,000 route, this increase of 0.21 percent translated into $21 more per month. Our research indicates that an increased chemical cost is not a major factor if the pest control industry switches to these alternative pest management programs.

Eco (Green) or Eco+Non-Repellent (Reduced Impact) methods look promising as viable alternate pest control strategies. While we are excited with the callback and chemical cost data, we will approach these strategies with caution. Western Exterminator has more than 500 routes, so these 10 routes were a small part, and each participant was a volunteer. These technicians knew they were “guinea pigs” and all eyes were focused on them. We kept in touch with each technician by monitoring them monthly.

For a small pest control firm with one or two service centers, or a few technicians, it is easier to switch from a traditional to a green service program. This may not hold true for a large firm with 100 or more technicians. During the summer time (peak pest pressure), customers serviced by the Eco approach (green program), particularly in areas with high pest pressure and high temperatures, experienced an increase in Eco products usage or were supplemented with non-repellent materials. In a future issue of PCT we will review customer’s ratings on these 10 routes, go into more detail about the summer increase in Eco rates, and more about the studies we are performing in 2007.

References Cited:
Ware GW, Whitacre DM (2004) The Pesticide Book, 6th Ed. 496 pp. MeisterPro Information Resource, Willoughby, Ohio. 

Both authors are with Western Exterminator Co., Anaheim, Calif. Dr. Pari Pachamuthu, B.C.E., is a regional entomologist and Keith Willingham is VP of technical services.