Developing Reduced Cost Methods Of IPM

Last month I discussed the various aspects of IPM that were reviewed at the Entomology Society of America meeting this past year in Nashville. As I noted last month IPM, has basically become the reduction of pesticides in the environment. Whether that environment is a school cafeteria, a football field or a hospital emergency room, the bottom line is we are using the “new” techniques of baiting, with the “new” lower toxicity chemicals, in the “new” lower exposure delivery systems! And these “new” techniques take more time, and therefore, more money. Though some may argue that IPM is cheaper, it, in fact, is not.

THE TRUE PRICE OF IPM. I heard it stated that “conventional pest control” — the monthly spraying of baseboards or even crack and crevice treatments — in the northeastern United States goes for about $65 per hour, and that IPM (baiting /monitoring programs) sells for approximately $80. That’s not bad, but there are the low bidders at $50. I know I may sound cynical, but aren’t you tired of this discussion? What will an IPM program, the premier, “A-number one,” “Numero Uno” program cost?

Last month I wrote about a school system that developed a comprehensive IPM program to be conducted in-house. This is an example of a potential account that decides to attempt IPM on its own. In a sense they have just become a pest control company and must determine their pest control budget.

If we go through their thinking process, we find there are many expenses to consider.The first cost will be finding and training the people to perform the work. What will they be paid? Will the person responsible for pest control be a custodian already working there? What percent of their time should be devoted to pest control?

In other words, what percent of their salary will be set aside for their pest control services? How many hours should be allocated for training? PCOs have to go through serious training programs to be eligible to apply pesticides, and in some states they cannot apply pesticides on their own until they complete 30 or more days of supervised training. Who will conduct this type of training? What will be paid to the individual who provides the training? Furthermore, how much time will be necessary for recertification programs?

These types of hidden costs pop up in every phase of the project, from hiring an inspector to assessing the school’s pest problems to other expenses associated with customer education, i.e. newsletters and brochures.

The point is that in these kinds of programs, the costs can quickly escalate. What about the situation where a school system can’t pay for such a plan and subsequently hires a pest control company? PCOs are most likely not going to provide a complete IPM program, because the school system can’t afford it.

The many boiler-plate IPM contracts are nice on paper, but the administrator purchasing the service would be happy to have reduced pesticide exposure, and then turn around to hold the contractor’s feet to the fire when pest problems arise.

FINDING A HAPPY MEDIUM. Inspections, monitoring, sanitation and exclusion are “spot treatments” at best, used when the need arises. I have seen some other columnist write that pest control is inspection first, then treatment. In the perfect world this would be the case. I don’t know about you, but if I walk into an apartment or cafeteria where roaches are running everywhere, I do not need an inspection to know that baits, vacuums, and yes, liquid insecticide applications will reduce the population quickly. I will get to the inspection while I am placing the bait or doing the crack and crevice service. Sure, sanitation and exclusion will be mentioned on service tickets or reports given to the powers that be, but this is not the first thought that crosses my mind. I would focus on reducing the population first, then finding the source and explaining how to remedy it. Monitoring programs would then follow.

If we are to offer these IPM programs to customers that can’t really afford the top-of-the-line program, then we need to be doing a different kind of spot treatment. We should identify the problem or focus site within the overall structure and fit the control program to that unique area.

In this type of program, we can offer a quality treatment, while only placing a part of the structure or account under the contract (and that has to be made very clear), thus keeping the customer’s costs down. There is also another approach to consider, given to me by Graham Patterson, accounts coordinator with Canadian Pest Control. The company is on retainer to the schools, so if they have a pest problem, Canadian Pest Control solves the particular problem and charges only for that specific service. They aren’t making monthly calls, just service when needed.

IMAGE EDUCATION. In reality there will be companies that offer lower prices, while saying they do the same work as the higher-priced companies. We, as an industry need to clear up this confusion by practicing good customer education. But not the way we have been doing it. We complain that our image is tarnished because of all those bad movies and television roles that make fun of the exterminator. We protest, but not loudly enough. Do consumers believe the television or us?

Maybe it is time to start talking publicly about the industry’s recent changes. But if we depend on the news to report on the benefits of pest control, we’ll be waiting a long time.

George Rambo is president of George Rambo Consulting Services,Herndon, Va.