As we in the pest control industry know, integrated pest management's origins began in agriculture as a concept to reduce the costs of expensive pesticide applications. Agricultural IPM utilized "action" thresholds and nonchemical control measures to reduce the need for pesticides. The agricultural IPM model, however, does not fit well for structural pests.
The psychology surrounding field crop pests differs from that for structural pests. Field crop pests do not share our most intimate living spaces; therefore, they can be more easily tolerated. How many cockroaches in a school classroom or a school cafeteria should make up the "action threshold" for that pest? Should you implement control options including insecticides after detecting one, ten, or 50 cockroaches? Because cockroaches can carry disease organisms and are a source of potent allergens for many people, the action threshold is one for most every person and situation. The "action" taken, however, need not always be a pesticide treatment, and this focus is what IPM for structural pests is all about.
`INNOVATIVE' PEST MANAGEMENT. IPM still has as its goal the reduction in the amount of pesticides applied in a given structure. Yet the occupants of this building will still demand and expect "zero pests." It is possible to achieve both of these desired goals.
Each building is unique in its design, construction, condition, and type and level of pest infestation. Each building stands on its own as far as the planning for controlling current pest infestations and keeping new infestations out. Each building requires its own "innovative" planning to keep it pest-free while minimizing pesticide use. For this reason, Innovative Pest Management may be a better description. Harry Katz, the well known pest control consultant and PCT columnist, takes it a step further and defines the IPM acronym as Intelligent Pest Management.
The author prefers to completely change the acronym to SPM, which stands for Situational Pest Management. An article describing this concept appears in the July 1995 issue of PCT ("Entomo-Logical Solutions, p. 60). Situational Pest Management is a more apt description of what we are trying to accomplish because each building is different and the infestations within each building are different. The program to keep a building pest-free will therefore be different in design and implementation for each building.
COMMERCIAL IPM. Certainly, pest management professionals have always practiced some form of IPM in their services to homes and commercial structures. Each time a customer is advised to correct or eliminate a contributing condition, the need for pesticides is reduced. Professionals have always provided recommendations such as these to their customers.
Even though pest control companies have always provided sanitation recommendations for customers, they have liberally used pesticides as a preventive measure. Likely pest harborages are routinely treated to prevent their use as harborages. In an IPM concept, however, the goal is to minimize pesticide use. Preventive pesticide applications, therefore, are to be avoided. With IPM, the use of pesticides is directed primarily at active pest harborages. Very few, if any, preventive applications will be made.
In a home, the identification and correction of contributing conditions provide more immediate benefits. Homes are less complex in construction and have fewer "systems" such as pipe chases, heating and cooling systems, and moisture source areas. Developing an IPM program for a home is much simpler than doing the same for a hospital, a school or a large office building. This article will attempt to describe a process that will simplify this task.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS. An IPM or SPM program will typically consist of a number of components. Each of these steps must be taken, and every room or area of the building must be included. This includes outside areas. The components of an IPM program are:
• Identifying the types of pests involved.
• Identifying and correcting conditions contributing to pest infestations.
• Determining areas requiring treatment, both with nonchemical methods and with pesticides.
• Selecting and implementing the appropriate treatment procedures.
• Inspecting and monitoring to evaluate results and to detect new pest invasions.
THE IPM SURVEY. Because each building and its conditions are unique, an initial IPM survey will need to be performed on the building to determine its pest control needs. This survey is the most important step in developing an IPM program for a particular building. One cannot simply look at floor plans and determine the areas that will require treatment. Because treatment will be made only to active pest harborages, an inspection is mandatory to determine where to treat and what contributing conditions are present. The purposes of the IPM survey are to:
• Identify which pests are present and where they are active.
• Identify contributing conditions.
• Determine which pest control strategies are needed.
• Determine the high risk areas for pest activity.
• Determine where pesticide applications will be necessary.
To assist in performing an IPM survey, a survey report form or checklist should be prepared that is flexible enough to use in a variety of situations. A graph or a copy of the floor plans should be included with each IPM survey report noting the areas of pest activity and contributing conditions.
HIGH RISK VS. LOW RISK. It is important in an IPM program to pinpoint areas in a building that are at high risk for pest activity. These will be the rooms that will be most likely to have pests and that will need more frequent inspections and service. Low risk areas require less frequent inspections and may even be able to be placed on an "as needed" service basis. Monitoring traps will be very important to track pest activity in low risk areas.
• Inspections. The primary focus of inspections in an IPM service will be the high risk areas for pest activity, such as food preparation or snack areas, restrooms and other water sources, the perimeter building walls, and areas of previous pest activity. Other areas requiring inspections will be rooms where pest activity was reported and any low risk areas that are scheduled for service.
The proportion of actual service time spent inspecting will vary according to the building type and pests found. For example, a small building with lush landscaping or large food preparation areas may require more service time than a larger office building without these items. Generally for an IPM program, 80% to 90% of the service time is expected to involve inspection versus actual time spent applying pest control materials.
• Pest Sighting Log. In larger facilities, especially those with many employees, a pest sighting log should be established. A pest sighting log is vital in any IPM program because it provides the building's employees with a means to report pest activity. This log is used by the pest management professional to target areas that need immediate attention.
• Floor Plans. Floor plans of larger facilities are crucial for planning and evaluating pest control programs. Prior to the initial IPM survey, request a copy of the floor plans for each building in order to note areas of pest activity and contributing conditions that are present. Fire escape plans will usually suffice for this purpose. The floor plans will also be helpful in determining the high risk and low risk areas for pest activity, and to help in "visualizing" the building in three dimensions to determine the sources of some pest activity. Locations of rodent control devices will be recorded on similar diagrams and stored in the on-site pest sighting log.
NONCHEMICAL METHODS. Nonchemical pest control methods should be implemented wherever they will be feasible and efficacious. The customer will be responsible for many of these, but the pest management professional can also participate in tasks such as exclusion, harborage removal, and even some sanitation. Such methods include:
• Sanitation (removing food & water sources).
• Exclusion.
• Harborage removal.
• Harborage denial.
• Environmental alteration (e.g. ventilation).
• Interception.
• Trapping and monitoring.
• Vacuuming.
• Heat.
• Lighting.
A brief explanation of each of these methods follows.
Sanitation. Sanitation involves cleaning up and/or removing potential food and water sources for pests. The fewer food sources that are present, the fewer pests that can survive. Even something as simple as picking up a lemon that has rolled under a table can prevent a significant fruit fly infestation. A regular schedule of cleaning floors, equipment, floor drains, trash receptacles and dumpsters is the best approach to minimize food sources for pests. Water leaks should be repaired promptly, and wet mops should be hung up to dry properly.
Exclusion. Sealing up cracks and holes where pests can enter is the most effective nonchemical method to prevent pests from invading a building. It is impossible, for example, to keep a building free of mouse activity if the doors do not have proper weatherstrips. To reduce flying insect infestations, it is also important to keep outer doors closed or to install tight-fitting screen or storm doors.
Harborage removal. The less shelter that is available, the fewer number of pests that will be able to survive. Removing piles of debris, cutting tall weeds, and eliminating cardboard boxes in storage rooms are examples of harborage removal.
Harborage denial. If a harborage cannot be removed for example, when there are cracks in interior walls within which cockroaches could live then steps should be taken to deny the pests' use of that harborage. The most common procedure used to deny harborages is the caulking of cracks that may be present both inside and outside.
Environmental alteration. Changing the environmental conditions of a room or area so that pests cannot survive there can be an effective long-term strategy. For example, a wet crawl space under a building can serve as a source of infestation for many different types of pests. Installing ventilators and vapor barriers to dry out the crawl space prevents most pests from living under the building. Areas where roof leaks or plumbing leaks have occurred should also be ventilated to dry them out either before or after repairs have been made.
Interception. When building occupants or workers examine goods and items for pests as they are brought into the building, they can often prevent numerous introductions of pests, especially German cockroaches. This is especially important for food items, in particular bagged or boxed produce.
Trapping and monitoring. Rodents can be effectively controlled in many situations using traps alone. Flying insects can be controlled with properly placed insect light traps in conjunction with good sanitation and exclusion practices. For insect control, traps work best for monitoring activity of insects and other arthropod pests.
Vacuuming. Physical removal of pests by vacuuming is rapidly gaining wide acceptance. This technique is especially effective for cockroach and spider control.
Heat. Heat is currently being used effectively by pest control professionals to control termites, wood-boring beetles, and stored product pests in structures. Heat is being evaluated for controlling other types of pests, including cockroaches.
Lighting. Exterior lights often attract large numbers of nighttime flying insects to buildings where they can enter the building. These insects also serve as food for spiders, which promotes spider infestations. Exterior lighting should always be changed to sodium vapor lamps where feasible to attract as few insects as possible to a building.
CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS. At the heart of the effort to minimize pesticide usage and still maintain a relatively pest-free environment is the correction or elimination of conditions that may be contributing to a pest infestation. All pests need food, water and shelter to survive. The more of each of these necessities that is made unavailable to pests, the fewer number of pests that can survive in a given area.
In most cases it is impossible to remove all of the food, water and shelter sources available to pests. A certain number of individuals from the pest population will always be able to survive. What will be accomplished by cleaning up food debris, fixing leaks, and removing potential harborages is a lowering of the population size so that it will be easier to eliminate the infestation while using a minimum of insecticide applications.
FACILITY COOPERATION. The goals of an IPM concept will not work unless the customer provides its full cooperation in correcting the contributing conditions pointed out by the pest management professional. The longer that contributing conditions are allowed to persist, the greater the need to use pesticides to produce the goal of a pest-free environment. The value of customer participation in the IPM program must be "sold" to each customer at the beginning of this process. Gaining cooperation will usually include providing training classes for the facility's employees and managers. Education of everyone involved is crucial to making the IPM concept work.
PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS. Many people believe that IPM means pesticides will not be used at all. IPM does not preclude the use of pesticides. In some cases, pesticides will need to be implemented first; in other cases, pesticides may not be needed at all. A room infested with hundreds of German cockroaches, for example, will require some insecticide treatments up front. A kitchen infested with fruit flies, on the other hand, must have the breeding sources cleaned up prior to a space treatment being performed to kill the adult flies.
Every situation is different and the pest management professional is the person who must analyze the situation and choose the appropriate control measure, including when and where to use pesticides.
If a pesticide application is required, "low impact" products with acceptable efficacy will be chosen. Low impact insecticides include baits, naturally-occurring materials such as boric acid and silica aerogel dusts, and pyrethroids. These materials generally have very low mammalian toxicity and still remain very effective at controlling insects and other arthropod pests. The customer should be provided the label and MSDS for each product proposed for use in the IPM program.
PRIMARY TARGET PESTS. The pests that cause the most concern in a large commercial building are ants, cockroaches, silverfish, rodents, flies, and some occasional invaders. The IPM program should focus on these key target pests and be flexible enough to deal with odd pest infestations as they occur. In general, most of the nonchemical measures implemented will help with controlling more than one pest. For example, good exclusion is critical for rodent control, but it is also helpful for flies and occasional invader pests.
It will be necessary to identify the high risk areas for each target pest at the start of the program. Most of the high risk areas in a building will overlap for different pests. An example is the cafeteria kitchen, which is a high risk area for cockroaches, flies, and rodents. Another example is the lobby of an office building, which may be a high risk area for ants, occasional invaders, and possibly flying insects as well. It is up to the initial survey to determine all of the areas that will require more frequent inspections and service.
MONITORING. Monitoring is critical in an IPM program because preventive insecticide applications will not be employed on a regular basis. Monitoring pinpoints areas where pests are active so the pest management professional knows where to treat. In addition, the professional is only on the property several hours per month. The monitoring traps are useful as "sentinel" devices to point out areas of activity.
Unbaited "sticky" traps will be used as the primary monitoring traps for insects. Traps will be placed in suspected or likely areas of pest activity to capture pests as they crawl along walls, in cabinets, and similar areas. The purpose of monitoring is to determine which pests, if any, are present; to determine the extent of activity; to pinpoint where pest harborages might be located; and to determine where pests may be entering.
If the building's employees report seeing some identified crawling arthropod, monitoring traps should be placed in those areas to capture specimens for identification. Depending on the situation, long-term monitoring may then be initiated and maintained.
Another type of monitoring for ants is known as "prebaiting." When ants such as crazy ants, pavement ants, or pharaoh ants are not present in sufficient numbers to readily observe ant trails back to the colony's location, peanut butter, jelly or some similar food item (without toxicant) may be placed along likely ant trails. After 15 minutes to an hour, a significant ant trail is often readily visible. The trail can then be followed to the source of the infestation the colony's location.
Monitoring traps should be replaced at four-month intervals or less depending on the number of arthropods captured or other conditions, e.g., accumulation of dust or debris. An effective IPM program records the numbers of pests captured and where they are captured. This information is very beneficial in determining which areas in the building are most prone to infestations of certain types of pests at certain times of year. The frequency for checking traps should be once per month unless traps are being checked as a follow-up for previous or current pest activity in that area.
• Pheromone Traps. Traps that use a sex attractant pheromone may be used to monitor some species of food-infesting beetles or moths. Areas where these traps should be used are large food storage rooms or warehouses. The traps help pinpoint new activity and can be helpful in planning control options.
• Insect Light Traps. Insect light traps (ILTs) can be used both for controlling and monitoring infestations of flying insects. To use ILTs as monitoring devices requires that records be kept of what types of flying insects are being captured, the general numbers of each pest captured, and the date captured. This information is useful in determining what other steps might be needed in reducing the numbers of a particular flying insect from entering a building.
RODENT CONTROL DEVICES. Several types of traps and rodenticide bait stations are the two types of devices used to control rodent infestations. To eliminate a rodent infestation, every rat or mouse must find and interact with a device and then commit to that device. To achieve this goal, a variety of control devices need to be used in every rodent control situation. Using only one type of trap or relying on rodenticide baits alone usually results in failure to eliminate a rodent infestation.
Depending on the situation, snap traps, multiple catch traps, glue traps, liquid bait stations, or tamper-resistant bait stations may be used in varying combinations, numbers, and intervals. Safety is always a priority, especially when using rodenticides.
Rodent control devices are used to remedy an active rodent infestation. The best solutions to prevent rodent invasions are elimination of as much potential rodent harborage outside as possible and effective rodent-proofing of the building.
CONCLUSION. Setting up an IPM program for a large commercial building is not a difficult task, but it requires a commitment of time at the start to carefully examine all facets of the building and its attendant pest infestations. The IPM survey is mandatory to determine the types of pests present, where pests are active, and the conditions contributing to their proliferation. The IPM program then attempts to eliminate much or most of the contributing conditions and utilize nonchemical control measures to minimize the need for pesticide applications. Each building is different, so a process needs to be developed and taught to perform IPM surveys efficiently. Flexible checklists and report forms are useful in accomplishing this task. Approach each building, and even each room, as a different situation to be analyzed. Become schooled in the science of "situational" pest management.
Stoy A. Hedges, a contributing author to PCT magazine, is manager of technical services for Terminix International, Memphis, Tenn.
|
IPM Survey Results Editor's Note: The following survey results were compiled from the 60 complete, legible reply forms we received from PCT subscribers who responded to our reader survey on integrated pest management, "Readers: What Do You Think?", which was included in our June 1995 cover story, "IPM: A House Of Cards?" These results present a broad, instructive and illuminating cross section of attitudes and opinions from members of the pest control industry on the subject of IPM, particularly among small pest control operators, who comprise not only the vast majority of our readership and the vast majority of respondents to this survey, but also the vast majority of pest control companies in existence in the United States. In addition, for further analysis of these survey results, see "Readers' Verdict: IPM No `House Of Cards'" on page 8. 1) Have you seen any evidence of a trend toward customers being more willing to accept the concept of pest management (i.e. aiming to suppress pest populations, with an emphasis on less toxic or nontoxic methods) rather than pest control (i.e. aiming to eliminate pests populations, with no marked emphasis on less toxic or nontoxic methods)? Yes 62.5% No 37.5% 2) As a pest control professional, do you feel that you personally need IPM to adequately carry out your mission of control ling pest populations in urban structures safely and effectively? Yes 67.8% No 32.2% 3) As a pest control professional, do you feel that the pest control industry in general needs IPM to adequately carry out its mission of controlling pest populations in urban structures safely and effectively? Yes 72.4% No 27.6% 4) Do you feel IPM, as it currently exists and is practiced within the structural pest control industry, is "all talk, no action"? Yes 48.2% No 51.8% 5) Is the pest control industry being asked to adopt IPM for IPM's sake? Yes 47.4% No 52.6% 6) In your everyday practice, which is the more important objective: (A) reducing the volume/frequency of pesticide applied or (B) controlling the target pest? (A) 16.0% (B) 84.0% 7) Do you feel that trying to establish IPM in the urban/structural pest control realm is akin to "putting a square peg into a round hole"? Yes 42.4% No 57.6% 8) Do you feel that rote spraying of baseboards is still a common practice in the pest control industry? Yes 83.1% No 16.9% 9) Do you think the average PCO understands what IPM is? Yes 21.1% No 78.9% 10) Do you feel there is a universal, clear definition of IPM that is widely agreed upon by the structural pest control industry? Yes 22.0% No 78.0% |
|
IPM: Shhh! The Competition Is Listening Editor's Note: The following letter from Bill Kolbe, training director for Western Termite and Pest Control, Parsippany, N.J., was received in response to our IPM Reader Survey ("IPM: A House Of Cards?", p. 33; "Readers: What Do You Think?", p. 38; both June 1995). The survey results are on the facing page. For more readers' responses to this survey, see Letters, page 10, and "Readers' Verdict: IPM No `House Of Cards,'" page 8. I was disappointed to see two industry leaders pitted against each other in the IPM issue of the June 1995 PCT. I respect both Bill Robinson and Jeff Tucker. After reading both articles, there will surely be some hard feelings and ruffled feathers. I was disappointed in Bill Robinson's article in his characterization that all companies are doing (or not doing) what he feels is "true" IPM. The editors of the magazines must realize that many companies will not reveal their IPM programs in magazine articles, at trade shows, or even when asked to talk at regional meetings. The obvious reason is that our competitors will copy our program, and in many cases will sell it cheaper and take accounts away from us. Please keep this in mind when writing these types of articles, and Jeff and Bill must understand this when they gather data/information and present this as "hey guys, here's what's really going on out there." I can tell you we do not disclose everything we do in regards to IPM to the magazines, or even to researchers who call to get information and data. This is one aspect you must deal with when you are taking into account the competitive industry we are in. As pressure mounts to keep and secure accounts, and competition gets keener, we find ourselves keeping a lot of information "close to our chests." We have to in order to stay ahead of our competitors. In addition, every insect pest we deal with will have a different IPM approach taken to solve and eliminate the problem. You generalize with IPM. You have to know the target pest's biology, habits, and uniqueness before attempting IPM. Therefore, IPM is a continuously evolving and everchanging process, one that neither Bill Robinson nor Jeff Tucker will ever be able to put in a book or research report and apply to every pest in every location in the United States. Think about the regional variations, even with the smoky brown cockroach. We may treat them differently up north when we encounter them than Jeff might treat them in Texas. Should IPM be researched and studied? I feel it should, but in a more practical setting like the field as opposed to (the laboratory). Give me field research over lab conditions any time. I like the down-and-dirty work, so to speak, where the conditions better mirror what we run across in the field. Bill Kolbe Western Termite & Pest Control Parsippany, N.J.
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read. |
