![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510020339im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Batzner Pest Management, Inc.'s 2006 Strategy Report
Report on 2006 Activities
Activity 1
Reducing Additional Service Calls: Methodology
First, in 2006 we will tabulate origins of additional service calls by pest and by technician. By the end of the year, we should be able to analyse our data and interview technicians to determine which services produce the majority of additional service calls and the reasons for these additional service calls.
In 2007, we will be able to focus training, service protocol modifications, and product usage modifications to the specific services we target. We will continue to tabulate the additional service calls and compare to 2006. Due to the seasonal nature of our business, we may not see significant results until 2008.
How does this activity reduce pesticide risk?
There is a direct correlation between additional service calls and additional product usage, thus reducing additional service calls will reduce pesticide usage and pesticide risk.
How will you measure the risk reduction gained from this activity?
Once we have identified specific services that produce the majority of additional service calls, we will tabulate the number of additional service calls between 2006, 2007, and 2008 and statistically analyse the data to see if a significant reduction in additional service calls for these services is achieved.
Report
This activity called for identifying the target pest that was the origin of the majority of our additional service calls, then training or modifying protocols to reduce the number of additional chemical applications needed.
We were able to successfully identify the target pest with the most service calls; however, due to the limitations of our software, we were unable to get an exact number to use as a basis of comparison to this year.
Nonetheless, we have provided additional training on this pest and we have changed products used to a product that is more active on this pest with lower application rates that our previous product of choice.
We will continue to measure the origins of service calls to see if this pest continues to be the greatest source of callbacks.
At this point, data for 2007 will only be qualitative.
Activity 2
New Product and Protocol Selection: Methodology
First, we will need to determine which technicians are interested in trialing new products and protocols. The ideal technician will have multiple years of experience and will have a territory that has more than an occasional need for the services these product or protocol changes address. Then we will identify areas within each territory where we can generate data on additional service calls. We will determine which of these areas will use the new products or protocols and which will use the old. In some cases, if a new product or protocol provides substantially better results, it may be implemented company-wide without a formal data analysis.
How does this activity reduce pesticide risk?
Proper product selection will result in reduced additional service calls and reduced pesticide usage.
How will you measure the risk reduction gained from this activity?
We will analyse the number of additional service calls, per technician involved in the study, by treatment performed. It is important that we look at variation in additional service calls by individual technicians so that our data does not become diluted by inter-technician variation. Products or protocols that reduce additional service calls can then be unrolled to the entire company.
Report
Exterior perimeter treatments
The concept behind the exterior perimeter treatment is that a single application of chemical around the outside of the home will keep the home reasonably pest-free for about three months, whereupon reapplication is needed.
A follow-up service is required when the presence of pests crosses a threshold of tolerance for the resident. A follow-up service normally includes additional chemical application to the exterior of the home. If pests are being seen indoors, this follow-up normally includes chemical application to the interior of the home.
We can reduce the amount of chemical applied to a home by selecting chemicals that generate the least number of follow-up treatments.
Product 1, Mavrik, is a synthetic pyrethroid. Mavrik is advertised as being non-toxic to honey bees after application, so it can be seen as a more environmentally responsible treatment. Application rate was 0.017%, applied with a backpack sprayer.
Product 2, CyKick, is a microencapsulated synthetic pyrethroid. Microencapsulation limits the amount of product that is exposed to the environment at any one time. Application rate was 0.05%, applied with a backpack sprayer.
Each chemical was used in one of two adjoining cities. Both cities are along the lakefront of Milwaukee, so they should be similar in their environment. One technician was used for each city. Applications were performed between 7/1/06 and 10/1/06, and callbacks were monitored from the date of the application until 10/30/06, when the cold weather would eliminate any differences due to treatment. For the purposes of this study, a follow-up service is considered only if it was arthropod related, with no distinction as to if the arthropod originated indoors or outdoors.
- In the first city, 45 homes were treated with Product 1. Six homes had follow-up services.
- In the second city, 49 homes were treated with Product 2. Three homes had follow-up services.
Data analysis consisted of Fischer’s Exact Test, using the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the two treatments. We were unable to reject the null hypothesis, with a p value of 0.141.
We have to conclude, based upon this study, that there is no difference in follow-up rate between Product 1 and Product 2.
Yellow jacket treatments
Liquid Treatments
Four houses were chosen for a preliminary trial of Termidor, a chemical applied as a liquid, for yellow jacket control.
- Three houses were chosen because our standard treatment of using a dust did not provide control, the fourth had a nest that had not been treated prior.
- All treatments with Termidor were done to nests on the structure itself or within 1 foot of the structure.
- One technician performed all four treatments.
- In all four cases, there were no additional follow-up services needed, indicating that Termidor may be a viable alternative treatment.
- Four houses were chosen at random for a preliminary trial of Premise Foam. All had nests in wall voids.
- One technician performed all four treatments.
- In two cases, the nest was immediately beneath the wasps’ access point.
- In both cases, there was no follow-up treatments.
- In two cases , the nest was more removed from the access point.
- In both cases, there was a follow-up treatment.
- One was performed with Premise Foam and no more follow-up treatments were needed; the other was performed with a dust.
- The study was ended early because the nozzle broke.
- Although Premise Foam shows promise, the results, especially with the nozzle breaking, are not encouraging.