The Myth Of The Magic Bullet

For most of my half century in pest control, I've heard and read of so many new strategies that would control a pest problem once and for all. Scientific reports on the efficacy of many of the products or systems introduced heralded a breakthrough that would solve a pest control problem.

How could it be otherwise? A research team is paid to report on the efficacy of a product. It would be foolhardy to expect anything but a positive spin from researchers who designed the protocol and interpreted the results. After so many years, I've come to expect a "con" for every "pro" in evaluating any new system that becomes available. I've learned that it is a Myth Conception to rely solely on any one system.

For example: microwave technology. An excellent and valuable new alternative to pesticides for controlling wood-boring beetles, drywood termites and stored product pests, this new weapon makes it unnecessary to drill wood. It reaches below the surface to kill infestations. But how many technicians have learned enough to avoid blistering and scorching furniture while still killing the target pests, or have the patience to cope with bulky and unwieldy equipment?

Electro-Gun. A lifesaver for technicians coping with drywood termites or wood-infesting beetles or ants. No one has X-ray eyes, so no one can pinpoint the exact location of an infested gallery. Is it close enough to get fully zapped? Is it in a wood member that is ½ inch behind the exposed trim around a door or a window?

Fumigation should be the ultimate way of destroying all forms of animal life in a tented structure. But even the most experienced fumigator has to redo a job on occasion. The Vikane label states that more than one fumigation may be needed to control an infestation of carpet beetles or cockroaches. Even with all the fuss and mess of tenting, eggs could still hatch after fumigation.

Borate diffusion in wood represents one of the best advances in pest control in recent years. Borates control not only insect pests, but also fungi, which can be worse than insects. The problem that PCOs face, however, is that they can't always be sure that a lethal concentration of toxicant has reached the target site deep below the surface.

Diffusion is dependent on the moisture content (MC) of the wood. The original efficacy tests showed excellent diffusion into wood with high MC. I question how deeply the treatment reaches in wood that has a 6% MC, a typical level in many air-conditioned homes. How many PCOs test the MC of wood about to be treated? They should be aware of the extra time needed for ultimate diffusion.

The eave area of homes, a frequent problem site, is usually wet enough, but often gets poor treatment. The label of the borate product recommends spraying with 20 to 40 pounds of pressure. This would require a ladder to properly treat the area facing the eaves of a two-story structure. According to PCT columnist George Rambo, many PCOs merely rev up the pressure to 100 psi to reach the area. Between the fallout to the ground and plants, deposits that may appear on windows, and the film of paint on the wood, the loading of borate into the wood may be less than the recommended levels.

Hot and cold temperature extremes. The use of liquid nitrogen is a great idea to kill pests inside wood studs. It is an ideal alternative to toxicants for small enclosures. But how does one cope with multiple habitats in large spaces, or with infestations thriving in a wide range of articles, some of which may have laminate finishes that cannot handle extreme temperature changes? Were all appliances and sophisticated electronic devices tested for exposure to these extremes? Are enough fans used to circulate hot air? The bottom ¼-inch layer of air is cooled by the floor long enough for some insects to survive.

The pressurized aerosol container with chlorpyrifos is a rapid, easy way to reach infestations within most wood members. Most, but not all. Some wood species, such as coastal Douglas fir, are so refractive that pressure treatment in giant cylinders cannot reach more than a fraction of an inch below the surface. Fortunately most wood is receptive to treatment by this method.

Drione dust, when properly applied, is an excellent measure to prevent winged forms of any wood-destroying insect from establishing a beachhead. But how does one know whether the dust has drifted, or whether it has reached all the surfaces, including those that are distant from the entry point(s)?

Vacuuming can do wonders to create a hostile environment for many pests. From hidden areas under and behind stoves, refrigerators, etc., a vacuum cleaner removes food particles, eggs, live and dead insects, and detritus that reek with pheromones, the body odors that attract newcomers. Backpack vacuum cleaners introduce periodic "hurricanes" that are too hostile for any insect to cope with. They remove lint accumulations that invite fabric pests, and they remove allergy-laden house dust mite body parts that ordinary vacuum cleaners recycle. This is all helpful to correct and prevent infestations, but only if the technician takes time to pick and use the right tool with the vacuum cleaner to do the job. It is so much easier to fall back on periodic chemical overkill--to spray the baseboards, get a signature leave.

Expecting total control every time with any of these alternatives is a Myth Conception, unless the intelligence quotient is part of the treatment. As the truism goes, nobody is perfect. And neither is any single pest control alternative, especially without the essential ingredient of IPM--or Intelligent Pest Management, as PCT contributing editor Stoy Hedges calls it.

PCT columnist George Rambo has said he believes there are several reasons for these failures--low industry wage scales, inadequate resources applied to training new employees and to reconditioning the thinking of old baseboard jockeys, and poor quality control regimens, to name a few. Rambo said he thinks technicians will perform properly when their supervisors are watching, but revert to the "spray and pray" routine when they are on their own. It's obvious that they have never been weaned from the "chemical first" mindset of their earlier conditioning.