[Technically Speaking] IPM: Few Get It

According to Webster’s Dictionary, "get" has more than 20 definitions. Two of them relevant to this article are to "receive" and "understand." With respect to those in the structural pest control industry, very few understand IPM and even fewer receive it. There are many reasons for this and most fundamental to the discussion is the origin of IPM.

Looking at IPM historically, it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with environmentalism and economics. But if you listen to our environmental critics and those who wave the IPM flag, they would have you believe that IPM was developed to save the environment.

A LITTLE HISTORY. When I received my bachelor of science degree in agriculture in 1969, no one talked about IPM — why should they? Chlordane and many other chlorinated hydrocarbons were still in widespread use in agriculture and structural pest control. By the time I received my master’s degree in 1975, Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring" was well publicized, the EPA was recently formed and the pest management environment was changing.

IPM was developed as a systematic approach to address the loss of the much less expensive chlorinated hydrocarbon and cyclodiene insecticides with the much more expensive carbamates and OPs. The approach was to develop economic thresholds for pests affecting crops and using scouts and other methods to measure the change in the pest population. Once the economic threshold was hit, i.e., that pest level where damage caused by the pest would exceed the cost of treating the crop, an insecticide application was made to reduce the population. Thus pesticide applications were based on need not schedule, saving farmers money and as a result reducing the pesticide load placed on the environment.

This has nothing to do with protecting the environment from pesticides and their overuse and everything to do with saving money on insecticides and having a crop to sell at the end of the season. IPM is thus a by-product of environmentalism and was not developed to protect the environment. The environmentalists don’t get it! Environmental extremists are running around screaming our industry needs to practice "IPM" and it needs to be legislated. They don’t understand that "IPM" is not about doing away with pesticides or using them as a last resort — it is about using reduced risk pest management strategies and from an industry perspective it is driven by economics — customers and their lack of tolerance for pests in any environment, including schools.

Consumers don’t get it! Most consumers don’t understand what "IPM" is (tolerating a specific level of pests); if they did they wouldn’t want it. Furthermore, while our industry professes to deliver "IPM" to our customers, most of us don’t, thus the consumer doesn’t receive it. From an industry perspective it is a case of reverse economics — most customers don’t want to pay for inspection and preventive pest management strategies (our expertise) they expect to get the good stuff (pesticide) and have their pest problem resolved immediately.

It is unfortunate that the environmental extremists and our industry don’t put more energy into responsibly educating consumers on reduced risk pest management strategies. Respectively they spend more time trying to ban insecticides and telling everyone we are professionals. Our own association has failed us in this arena. QualityPro and the Professional Pest Management Alliance are billed as evidence of our industry’s commitment to professionalism. They are well intentioned programs that in my opinion fall far short of the mark. QualityPro fills a void for those companies that either do not want all of their technicians certified or their technicians have not passed certification exams. The association in the early 1990s embarked on a credentialing program that would have significantly raised the bar for technicians and been a far greater measure of their technical expertise — a credential that would belong to the technician and not the company.

THE REAL WORLD. To implement reduced risk pest management (IPM) strategies requires the technician to be able to identify a wide variety or pests, be familiar with their biology and habits, to formulate a pest management strategy, and select appropriate products based on the pest, customer and environment. Based on research recently published from North Carolina State University, the industry is willing to pay $8.75/hour ($17,500/year). Give me a break! Someone with the skills and responsibilities for providing reduced risk pest management services commands more respect and a much higher salary.

For most of us, we deliver the service that the customer pays for. I have worked on some very intense "IPM" contracts where all pest management services were determined by inspection (monitoring and/or visual) and typically pesticide applications were made only when other control strategies were exhausted. Most of the proposals we submitted and contracts we provided services for including federal and local governments professed to be "IPM" in nature. Unfortunately they were typically awarded and serviced based on lowest bid and expeditious service — frequently only pesticide application.

This same situation is pervasive in commercial and residential services. Property managers send out specifications that are "IPM" in nature but the bottom line in hiring a pest management firm is price. Typically, performance is based on how many apartments were treated and not on the reduction in pest populations. Thus, companies don’t inspect, they just apply more bait and call it "IPM." This has led to the placement of dots of bait "near" any conceivable crack whether there are cockroaches or not.

In the residential arena, we are returning to the era of monthly baseboard spraying except now we spray the exterior of the home every other month. This is "IPM" because we wipe away spider webs, treat the exterior and use less pesticide. Technicians performing this are expected to do 15 to 20 services a day leaving little time for inspection, evaluation of what pests are a problem and communication with the customer. In most cases the hope is that the customer is not there and a checklist service ticket and technical note is left behind — thus increasing production.

It is time we ALL practice what we preach and quit using smoke and mirrors. What we need to do if we want our customers, environmentalists and ourselves to "get it" is:

• Sell true reduced risk pest management services (IPM) and get paid for it.

• Train our technicians to be the professionals that they can be and pay them a salary commensurate with that professionalism.

• Base services on quality not quantity.

• Change paradigms. If the customer wants quality reduced risk services provided by a professional, they need to pay for it.

The author is president of Innovative Pest Management, Brookeville, Md. He can be reached at rkramer@giemedia.com.