PCT: During your career, you’ve been able to observe ant control from a national perspective. What are some aspects of ant control that are the same regardless of location and what are some important regional differences?

Stoy Hedges: Although ant species, as well as construction types and climates, vary throughout the country, the factors that attract ants to buildings remain pretty much the same. The type and extent of landscaping around structures provides shelter and food resources for ants close to buildings and even in dry regions, moisture is plentiful due to irrigation.

The species of ants that become pests are those that thrive in the conditions we provide right next to our foundations. We like trees in yards that give carpenter ants sites for parent colonies from which they establish satellite colonies in the home. We plant fruit trees, shrubs and flowers that are prone to aphids and other insects that pest ants use as food. We install mulch in landscape beds, plant thick ground covers, store things in piles outside our homes and sheds, maintain flower pots and allow leaf litter to accumulate — all of which serve as nesting sites for many types of ants. All of these factors are consistent across the U.S. and different species of ants take advantage of them.

As far as regional differences, it comes back to climate and the types of species present. A pest management professional in the New England area has maybe three to four different ant species he’ll encounter on a regular basis. A PMP in South Florida has to be prepared to encounter up to 15 different species, depending on the neighborhood his route takes him. In California, the ant they spend the most time battling is the Argentine ant. In Tennessee, the odorous house ant is the most common in structures. In Washington and Oregon, two species of carpenter ants generate the most calls and service issues.

SH: If you spend enough years in this business, you will find that older buildings and homes are more prone to pest infestations and invasions. Newer homes experience ant problems too, but older properties have mature landscaping and maintenance issues that create the conditions for more ants, both in species and number of colonies to thrive.

New homes will not have moisture issues seen in older homes where roofs may have small leaks, gutters haven’t been adjusted for best removal of rainfall, and the trees are typically smaller and not creating as much shade as is found with older homes. The plants in landscaping are smaller and less lush, and leaf litter is usually not much of an issue because trees have yet to mature, providing greater leaf volume to accumulate.

On the flip side, new home construction is highly disruptive to the immediate environment and some ant species thrive in disrupted environments, in particular, the imported fire ant and crazy ants.

PCT: Can you give us an example of how knowing an ant’s biology and behavior (including its weaknesses) can be used against it?

SH: The key to ultimate success in ant control is finding the colony and killing the queen(s). You can treat and kill thousands of workers but if the colony is still viable, the threat of infestation inside will remain. The most basic biology aspect for a pest professional to understand is the nesting habits of each ant species found in their area. Once you know the nesting preferences and have identified the offending species, you then look for sites in and around the structure where that species’ preferred nesting conditions exist. This is easier to do with some ants than others.

Carpenter ants (most species) and acrobat ants prefer to nest in moist, dead wood.

Pavement ants and fire ants are soil nesters. The most difficult ants, however, are opportunistic in nest site selection. Argentine ants, crazy ants and odorous house ants, for example, will build shallow nests in soil but will locate sub-colony nests in a variety of sites from mulch and leaf litter to gravel, piles of items, insulation, potted plants, meter boxes and irrigation heads.

PCT: What are some important changes made from the 2^nd edition of the PCT Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Ants to the 3^rd edition, and why is it important for PMPs to update this essential pest control resource? What type of feedback have you received from those who purchased this book?

SH: With each edition, new ant species are added and information on all ants is updated based on new research as well as my own experiences. I tried to make the field guide as applicable as possible for solving real-world ant issues, especially as I’ve learned more.

I’ve gotten nothing but great feedback from those who have used the ant field guide. It’s always great to hear a person tell me they carry their ant field guide everywhere in their truck and the copy is used so often that it’s worn out. That means I’ve met my goal of creating a tool that helps pest professionals do their jobs better.

PCT: The ant field guide is one of several field guides you’ve published through your PCT partnership. Others include the PCT Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Flies; PCT Field Guide for the Management of Urban Spiders, 2^nd Ed.; PCT Field Guide for the Management of Urban Spiders, 2^nd Ed.; and the PCT Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Beetles, Vol I. and Vol. II. How can these books be integrated into a training program and also used in the field?

SH: Any reference material can be incorporated into training. The easiest way is when you are out in the field with a new pest professional and showing them how to identify ants and use the field guide to solve the problem at hand. No one person can know everything, so the best approach to training is teaching people how to effectively use their resources.

If a manager or trainer takes the time, he or she can create problem-solving exercises with various pests. They can have their trainees use the field guides and magnifiers to identify specimens, and then give recommendations for solving various scenarios involving each particular pest. To do this, collect specimens and have them available in the class; be prepared with scenarios involving each pest included. Have a copy of the appropriate field guide available for each person to consult as they try to come up with the recommendations to solve the pest problem. The Case Histories chapters in some of the PCT field guides can help trainers understand how they might turn their own real-world experiences into scenarios that can be used in this type of training.

Even though swarms are not what they used to be, termites certainly are still around. Once a cornerstone of many PMPs’ business models, these pests are no longer making the phones ring. So since PMPs can’t change termite behavior, they change what they can: their own behavior.

Innovative marketing, promoting other (a.k.a. growing) services and diversifying into other areas related to termite control are all helping PMPs grow revenues. PCT interviewed business owners from around the country to dig deeper into how they’re improving (or replacing) termite revenue.

CHALLENGING MARKET. “I can’t think that termites are becoming extinct,” says Clay Metcalfe, owner of Pest Patrol in Greensboro, N.C. Termite work is about 10 percent of his business, and it’s down slightly this year.

For Metcalfe, termite work isn’t particularly profitable compared to general pest control because of competitors who charge significantly less for the service. “Healthy competition is good,” Metcalfe says, “but huge price variations are not.” Metcalfe is talking about the difference between $400 and $1,200 for the same house.

Bernie Cox of Fidelity Exterminating in Aberdeen, Md., says termite work is not especially profitable for his business either. “It might be expensive for the homeowner to get a termite treatment, but those pesticides cost a lot of money,” he says.

Because of the products on the market today, Cox thinks there’s less business because once you treat a house, the neighbors are not calling in for service. “It used to be that you’d treat a house and force the termites to the house next door, so you got that account, too,” he says.

Barry Bowers of Bowco Laboratories Pest Control, Woodbridge, N.J., sees the same trend. Termite is about 35 percent of Bowers’ business, down a few percent since last year. But bed bug services are now 20 percent of the firm’s revenue. “At one time, that was zero,” Bowers points out, discussing how services come and go.

For Cox, bed bug work is also steadily growing and provides more profit in an eight-hour day than termite work. “It’s not a lot of pesticide cost,” he says. “Bed bug work is time consuming, but I’m paying for labor anyway whether technicians are in the office, treating termites or taking care of bed bugs.”

Rather than investing in termite business, Cox purchased a $60,000 heater to treat bed bugs. “It has actually paid for itself several times over,” he says, adding that other pest control firms subcontract bed bug work to his business.

As for termite investment, Cox joins 44 percent of respondents to a recent PCT/Readex Research survey who said they’ll spend the same for termite this year. Forty-eight percent will increase their investment somewhat. And based on the survey, very few PCOs are giving up on the termite market completely, with just 3 percent noting they’d decrease their termite investment somewhat or significantly.

DIVERSIFICATION IS KEY. Marketing has made a difference for Ed Prine of Sonic Services in Stone Mountain, Ga., who reaches out to Realtors by distributing flyers in their office mailboxes. Some real estate companies allow Prine to visit during staff meetings to give a five-minute presentation. “They know that sellers need to have the termite work done and they want the process to be as easy as possible,” he says.

Joe Silvestrini, president, Pest Control Technicians, Norristown, Pa., added a termite monitoring program to his firm’s residential pest control program. “So, people can buy termite monitoring as an add-on service, and if they do get a termite problem they can get a discounted rate for treatments,” he explains.

Gordon Redd Jr., president of Redd Pest Solutions, Gulfport, Miss., says cross-selling services helps increase business. “There is a greater percentage of termite control customers than what it used to be, and we try to sell a current pest control customer termite control and that has been very good for our business,” he says.

Redd’s termite customers can pay an annual renewal fee (which is nice recurring revenue for the company). “That also continues our obligation to the customer as far as re-treatment requirements and replacement if they were to have termite damage,” Redd says. Baiting systems call for ongoing monitoring to ensure that 24/7 coverage. “There really is no need to re-treat, and we try to tell them that.”

Essentially, baiting technology is also helping Redd sell more clients on the assurance of around-the-clock termite protection. “With liquids, retreatment might need to be done every five or six years here, but with the baits, it’s 24/7 as long as customers pay the renewal fee and we continue monitoring and replacing baits as necessary,” he says.

For Advanced Services in Augusta, Ga., owner Jeff Annis, the way termite work is being sold as protection has struck a chord with customers. He points out that homeowners like their insurance. And unlike actual homeowners’ insurance where an agent sells it, signs it and finishes the deal, pest control “insurance” involves an ongoing relationship that people like because they see a service professional on the property regularly making sure that their home is protected. “It’s interesting to see how homeowners really value that annual thorough inspection and how that has remained a real backbone of how they feel about the service we provide,” Annis says.

Nearly 80 years ago the U.S. military had a problem: Subterranean termites were wreaking havoc on wooden crates of munitions at the Panama Canal.

The job of testing chemicals to protect those crates fell to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which at the time had one of the world’s foremost termite scientists on staff. This work, followed by research on soil-applied termiticides to protect wooden structures, took place at the Harrison Experimental Forest near Gulfport, Miss., hence the name now synonymous with the studies. Today, USFS researchers evaluate the efficacy of every soil-applied liquid termiticide registered by federal and state regulatory agencies.

Termiticides are one of the few pesticides that require independent efficacy testing for registration, and must achieve 100 percent control for five years at four different USFS test sites, per guidelines adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1996. The goal: Assure homeowners, lenders and pest management professionals that the materials actually work, which is important when you’re protecting people’s biggest investment.

BACK IN THE DAY. Two field tests developed decades ago are still used today. The ground board test, designed in the 1940s, involves clearing a 17-inch-square plot of land and treating it with the candidate termiticide. After drying, a small pine board is centered on the exposed, treated soil, and held in place with a brick. Open to changing weather conditions, the test provides a “worst-case scenario” for evaluating termiticide efficacy, said Guy Shelton, the research entomologist who today manages the USFS program. (Shelton began working at the USFS unit in January 2002.)

Data from a second test, the modified ground board or concrete slab test, is what EPA reviews in registration decisions. This test was introduced in 1967 to account for changes in American construction practices and involves covering treated soil with a polyethylene vapor barrier and pouring a 21-inch-square concrete slab around a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe placed at the center. Once the concrete has set, the vapor barrier is cut out and removed from the bottom of the pipe, and a small rectangular pine block is placed on the treated soil at the bottom of the pipe. To prevent weathering of the treated soil, the PVC pipe is capped.

For each concentration of termiticide being tested, the Forest Service conducts 10 replicate tests in each of its four test sites. Soil types and termite species vary in these sites, which are located in experimental forests in Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina and (until recently) Arizona. The “fairly simple” tests let researchers quickly read and record data from hundreds of test plots each day; “otherwise you’d be out there for months,” said Shelton.

Cooperators (or registrants) who pay for the tests can stop studies at any time, and they can extend them beyond the required five years as well. Once trials run about 10 years, they get “a little antsy” and usually end the study, said Shelton, who’d love to read tests “to infinity” to better determine when classes of chemicals become ineffective. USFS has data on chlordane going back 40-plus years; more than 20 years on organophosphates.

The Forest Service publishes test results annually after products are registered. It doesn’t release data on termiticides undergoing testing or that never gain registration.

TIMES ARE CHANGING. But some say the tests haven’t kept pace with changing chemistries. Originally they were designed to evaluate products like chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and pyrethroids that protect structures by repelling termites. Today’s non-repellent chemistries operate differently: Termites unknowingly pick up a lethal dose while tunneling through treated soil — they might even chew a little on the wood before transferring the active ingredient to the colony and dying.

In response, USFS increased the distance between test plots to prevent different products and concentrations from influencing tests nearby. It also changed how termite hits are evaluated. Originally, if termites damaged a wood block in a treated plot, the termiticide failed the test. Now, a damaged block is replaced with a new test block and evaluated again the next year to see if the termites come back.

“Just because they etched [the wood block] doesn’t mean that it’s a failure,” said Marie Knox, director of product development and research at Control Solutions.

Now whether a product passes or fails depends on what happens in subsequent years.

Repellents or non-repellents aside, termiticides “all serve the same purpose” in that they must protect wood from termite damage, and the tests have done a good job showing which products do this best, said Shelton.

But newer chemistries pose new challenges. “Let’s face it, the chemicals we use today are nothing like what was used 50 years ago,” said James Austin, global development manager for termite and mosquito control at BASF and a former PMP.

“Technology has really outpaced the simple confines of that test method in terms of it being predictable for future commercial success,” added Byron Reid, a senior principal scientist at the Environmental Science Unit of Bayer.

Additionally, fewer chemicals are passing the USFS tests. “In the last 10 years or so we put out a fair number of products that end up being withdrawn early; it is becoming more common,” said Shelton.

That’s because new chemicals are less persistent to meet the needs of agriculture, which prefers short-term residuals, and EPA, which doesn’t want products that last indefinitely in the soil.

“We’ve developed some tremendously effective insecticide chemistries that are doing great things in the agricultural market but every time we take one and put it into the testing paradigm for termiticides they fail because those attributes are not compatible with termite control,” said Reid.

To have a compound remain biologically available to kill termites in the field for five years after one application is “difficult to accomplish” and “that’s why you don’t see a lot of liquid termiticides being registered,” said Mark Coffelt, head of technical service in the Americas for Syngenta’s Turf, Ornamentals and Professional Pest Management division.

Experts said at some point, no new compounds will last in the soil for five years, a timeframe set in the 1950s so builders could offer guarantees on newly constructed homes. The toolkit of PMPs “would likely expand” if EPA required only two years of efficacy testing, like required in Japan and Australia, said Coffelt.

Although EPA prefers to see 100 percent control at all four test sites over five years, it has registered termiticides that achieved less. The State of Florida has its own guidelines and only requires a product to attain 90 percent efficacy over five years.

A LIMITATION. The Gulfport tests don’t evaluate real-world, post-construction applications. The horizontal ground board and concrete slab tests were designed to test the efficacy of pre-construction, sub-slab termiticide applications. “The data doesn’t show anything about post-construction” efficacy, even though EPA gives pretreat and post-construction labels to products passing the test, said Coffelt.

He says he would like USFS to employ a vertical test, similar to the wood stake test that it discontinued in the 1960s and is currently used in Australia and Japan. This might involve digging a hole, treating the removed soil, refilling the hole with the treated soil, and inserting a wood stake in the center so termites have to crawl through six to 12 inches of treated soil to reach the wood.

“I think a lot of the products will not meet performance standards” with a “much more realistic” test like this, compared to the existing tests where only a thin layer of soil is treated, Coffelt said.

In addition to the Gulfport tests, manufacturers must conduct infested-structure trials with university researchers or under an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) granted by the EPA to make claims beyond standard pretreat and post-construction labels. These trials may take two or more years and involve the treatment of hundreds of infested structures throughout the U.S.

“While the U.S. Forest Service information is useful, no test is comparable to real-world, practical experience,” said Chris Gorecki, vice president of operational support at Rollins.

Rollins uses the Gulfport data as a baseline for its termiticide evaluation process and then works with manufacturers to test products on infested structures. “Field testing allows us to see first-hand how a product will work within our protocols, test it with our equipment and determine whether the product will meet our needs,” Gorecki explained.

Infested home trials are “the ultimate test” of product efficacy given “the spatial complexity of an actual structure” while the Gulfport test involves “a 2-foot-square plot of land in a forest,” said Reid.

Still, the USFS tests have resulted in many successful products coming to market. In fact, of the hundreds of products evaluated over the decades, most have failed. This benefits the public by keeping ineffective or unsafe products off the market and reduces the liability of PMPs who warranty their termite protection service.

PMPs don’t have the ability themselves to generate this kind of data and they “can’t risk using a product on thousands of structures to find out years later that it doesn’t work,” said Bob Rosenberg, former CEO of the National Pest Management Association and who in the mid-1990s helped organize an industry response after concerns were raised about the termiticide Pryfon, which was manufactured by Mobay and contained the active ingredient isofenphos.

The organophosphate had passed the Gulfport tests but failed in the field in certain soil types and climatic conditions. That resulted in class-action lawsuits and millions of retreats, Rosenberg said. “That raised a lot of red flags about the validity of the data,” he added. At the time, he worked with EPA, ASPCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) and RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) to create the Termiticide Scientific Review Panel, an independent body of termite researchers that, among other things, explored new Gulfport test protocols. The group never reached consensus on a new test method.

“Getting people to agree on something is really, really hard when you have such diverse groups involved,” said University of Georgia termite expert Brian Forschler. “And getting a group of scientists to agree on something…you might as well forget it,” he said. While the current Gulfport tests aren’t perfect, “you need to have something” to test the efficacy of these products, he said.

THE REAL WORLD. Infested-structure field tests aren’t perfect, either. Unlike the Forest Service’s controlled test plots, “the real world is really messy,” Forschler said. Many variables may cause houses drop out of a study, from construction inconsistencies to the habits of the people living there. That raises questions: What constitutes a field-test failure, and are registrants cherry-picking data to shine the best light on their products, Forschler asked.

Dr. Richard Kramer, president of Innovative Pest Management in Brookeville, Md., has participated in infested-structure trials and finds this data useful. But he said the Gulfport ground board test mimics structure perimeters and is a better indicator for how a termiticide will perform over time when exposed to sunlight, rain, temperature, organic debris and general soil degradation.

“To me, the ground board test is it,” said Kramer. “If I don’t see a product that holds up more than five years on the ground board tests, I wouldn’t touch it,” he said.

PMPs are “more tied into the data than you think they are,” said Kevin Sweeney, who reviewed termiticides for registration at EPA before leaving to head regulatory affairs at Landis International, a consultancy that helps companies manage the regulatory process.

Having decades of data “gives you that really strong foundation and a strong history of how effective and how long the soil treatments work,” said Brad Kard, a termite researcher at Oklahoma State University who previously led the USFS program. Some products break down faster than others, and this information helps PMPs decide what products to use and when to retreat structures.

Donny Oswalt, owner of The Bug Doctor in Gadsden, Ala., and who has a Ph.D. in entomology, used Gulfport data to select termiticide products and has extrapolated it to craft treatment strategies, re-treatment intervals and contract stipulations.

It helps you justify guarantees in contracts covering termite damage repair, said Bob Kunst, president of Fischer Environmental in Mandeville, La. If you’ve led a person to believe you’ve solved his termite problem “then you ought to be able to stand behind it” and the Gulfport data helps you do this, he explained.

A GOOD JOB. Even critics recognize the value of the Gulfport tests. They are “very necessary” in that they provide “a historical relationship to all termiticides” and let you directly compare products using the same modality of testing, said BASF’s Austin.

“Without proper efficacy requirements, termiticide claims could undoubtedly be inaccurate,” added Coffelt.

“At the end of the day, I think the Forest Service testing has been working,” said Sweeney. But “certainly new protocols could be researched and adopted to provide maybe a better evaluation of exterior perimeter-only treatments, which I think is the rub for some of the companies.”

USFS currently is evaluating such a test method “so that we can try to keep up with the industry as much as that’s possible,” said Shelton. He is waiting for EPA and ASPCRO to sign off on the new “small scale” test protocol that is not radically different from what the agency is doing now. He hopes to unveil it in the Forest Service’s 2017 or 2018 annual report.

The USFS “can change the protocol if they want to, but it’s not going to change the behavior of the marketplace,” which puts more faith in real-world tests with infested structures, said Reid. And it is unlikely manufacturers will conduct the new tests unless EPA requires it to register a product, said Coffelt. (Already registrants may be on the hook for up to two years of USFS lab screening, the five years of field tests and two-plus years of infested-structure trials, in addition to research and development costs.)

Changing the paradigm for evaluating termiticides is “a big deal,” said Sweeney, who thinks it will be years before EPA feels comfortable enough with a new test method to change its registration guidelines.

In the meantime, the agency will continue to conduct the concrete slab test, which experts don’t see going away. The ground board tests, “depending on how useful the cooperators really feel they are and whether the EPA or ASPCRO really wants them, they could come or go in the future,” said Shelton.

The Forest Service protocol will remain “the gold standard” for testing soil-applied liquid termiticides, said Davis Daiker, who leads the Florida Department of Agriculture’s termiticide registration process.

Just don’t expect loads of new products to hit the market anytime soon. In 2015, only four termiticides were undergoing testing, USFS reported.

That’s a big departure from the late 1980s and early 1990s when “everyone saw a market opportunity” after Velsicol Chemical Corp. ceased production and sale of chlordane and there was “a proliferation of new technology, new chemicals” that needed testing, recalled Rosenberg.

With very effective, affordable liquid termiticides on the market today, manufacturers have little incentive to develop new products.

The author is a frequent contributor to PCT.

The pest control industry owes much of its recent growth to the rapid expansion of several vertical niche markets, including mosquito control. Mosquito control has become top of mind for many homeowners as Zika and other mosquito-transmitted diseases have been in the news. If you’re considering entering this potentially lucrative field, or would simply like to learn more about effective mosquito treatment protocols and marketing techniques, you’ll want to attend the PCT Virtual Mosquito Conference scheduled for Wednesday, April 26. The program will feature a number of leading mosquito control experts who will offer valuable insights about this important public health pest. Featured speakers and sessions include:

Mosquito Control: A Market Opportunity, Dan Moreland, PCT Publisher

Mosquito control has become big business thanks to ongoing media coverage of the threat of mosquito-borne illnesses and smart marketing by business- savvy PMPs. In this informative introductory session, PCT Publisher Dan Moreland will set the stage for the day’s webinar and discuss how your company can take advantage of this growth opportunity.

Mosquito Management Best Practices, Dr. Grayson Brown, Professor, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.

In this informative session, one of the country’s leading public health entomologists, Dr. Grayson Brown, shares his best practices for controlling mosquitoes in urban and suburban environments, based on years of practical research devoted to integrated management of human disease vectors.

Marketing Mosquito Control Services, Sarah Thomas-Clark, Vice President, Thomas Pest Services, Albany, N.Y.

As a third-generation pest management professional, Sarah Thomas-Clark, vice-president of Thomas Pest Services, has been involved in sales and marketing of the company’s broad range of services, including its innovative mosquito and tick control programs. Join us for this valuable session as she shares how to successfully market your company’s mosquito control services in an efficient and cost-effective fashion.

What PMPs Should Do to Prepare for a Mosquito-Borne Disease Outbreak, Dr. Claudia Riegel, Director, City of New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Board, New Orleans, La.

In this jam-packed session, Dr. Claudia Riegel of the New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Board will outline what steps PMPs should take to prepare for a mosquito-borne disease outbreak.