[Columnist] Technically Speaking- Richard Kramer

Change is good!

April 15, 1988, was the day of infamy for the pest management industry and termites around the world reveled with joy. Lest we forget (or for people who are new to the industry), this was the last day chlordane could be used for termite treatments. Most of us thought that our ability to control termites had suffered a severe blow and there would be nothing like it again.

Subsequently, we embarked on an era of organophosphate and pyrethroid active ingredients. And at that time the general perception was that the replacement products paled in comparison to chlorinated hydrocarbons and the industry needed to brace itself for increased callbacks.

Chlorpyrifos (Dursban TC) was the first out of the starting blocks. Long before chlordane met its demise Dursban had begun to capture some market share as many companies began to anticipate and prepare for the loss of chlordane. Other products breaking into the market were Pryfon and half a dozen different pyrethroid products.

Pryfon had a short run with varying degrees of success. Most of the pyrethroid products have stood the test of time but collectively they never seemed to capture the market share held by chlorpyrifos. But recently we turned a new page in the termite management saga, a couple of years ago the use of chlorpyrifos was greatly curtailed and with the recent announcement from the EPA it looks as if the final nail will be placed in the chlorpyrifos coffin when existing stocks have been used.

It is human nature to fear the unknown. For instance, when EPA was created and certification was mandated, I remember my father fearing what would happen with his business if he could not pass the test and the impact new regulations would have on the pest management industry. Currently there is a lot of concern over the use of methyl bromide and its potential loss. Fear and change are good things because at a minimum they force industries to contemplate changes and this brings about innovation.

Consider for a moment, if we still had chlordane:

• Pyrethroid termiticides would not have been developed (too expensive).

• Baits would not have been developed (not enough demand and too expensive).

• Non-repellent termiticides would not have been developed (no need).

One of the great things about our industry is that we are in a state of constant evolution (whether it is mandated by regulation or by design). Thus, the loss of chlordane created great opportunities in termite management and we now have choices to make. The following are my thoughts on the choices we have and it is not intended to promote a particular group of products and it is not all of the factors to consider when using them.

REPELLENT TERMITICIDES. There are both pros and cons to repellent termiticides:

• For the most part, less expensive than the non-repellent products.

• Excellent products for pretreatment — keeping termites out.

• Historical efficacy data more extensive.

• Typically control is achieved in a short period of time, e.g., several months.

• Relatively low maintenance, typically one inspection per year.

• Following recommended guidelines can require several hundred gallons of termiticide to be applied around a structure.

• Compared to the other two groups, a higher percentage of active ingredient is applied, resulting in more active ingredient per structure.

• As effective as these products are at repelling termites from entering a structure they are equally effective in trapping them inside and with sufficient conducive conditions cause the formation of aerial colonies.

• Efficacy and longevity vary depending on locale and soil conditions.

• May require extensive interior treatment.

NON-REPELLENTS. There are both pros and cons to non-repellent termiticides:

• Perform much like baits — exposed termites contaminate cohorts through trophallaxis and direct contact, leading to significant colony suppression if not eradication.

• Termites readily pass through treated zones, contacting the product.

• Efficacy and longevity across all locales tested better than most repellent products.

• Typically control is achieved in a short period of time, e.g., several months.

• Relatively low maintenance, typically one inspection per year.

• For the most part, more expensive than the repellent products.

• Following recommended guidelines can require several hundred gallons of termiticide to be applied around a structure.

• Compared to baits, a higher percentage of active ingredient is applied, resulting in more active ingredient per structure.

• Very broad spectrum of activity against non-target insects.

• May require some interior treatment.

BAITS. There are pros and cons to baits:

• When used as a stand alone treatment no liquid is applied around/in the structure.

• No risk of contaminating water sources.

• Compared to the other two groups, very little active ingredient is placed around the structure, e.g., milligrams.

• At any time product can be removed.

• Relatively non-invasive procedure to install and maintain system.

• Exposed termites contaminate cohorts through trophallaxis, leading to significant colony suppression if not eradication.

• Baits are termite specific products.

• For the most part, more expensive than the repellent products.

• Highest maintenance of all products, requiring inspection at least four times per year.

• Control may take months to a year or two.

• There is no continuous treatment zone around the structure.

CONCLUSION. No matter what products you use to control termites, it is nice to know that change has provided us choices. Keep in mind that for tools to work they must be used correctly.