Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
(19.4%) reported higher infestation rates.
The agency in Richmond reported 769
infestations (73% of 1047) in 6 months.
Total costs for the 26 survey respondents to
treat 1047 infestations were $404,364 and
the average expenditure per infestation was
$372, with a median of $333 and a range of
$120 to $4000. The agency in Richmond
spent $160,000 to treat units during the
6-month period.
Twenty-one agencies used operating
funds to pay for inspection and treatment,
and one used capital funds. Treatment
methods varied with respondents. Among
those who treated, 9/17 (53%) used pesti-
cides only, two used heat treatment, and
four used pesticides plus heat treatment, or
supplemented these treatments with
diatomaceous earth. The average cost per
pesticide treatment was $342, and the
opinions regarding the results varied from
'borderline' to 'extremely successful'. The
average cost per heat treatment was $1570,
and respondents felt that results were 'very
good'. Among the four respondents who
combined pesticides and heat treatment,
three felt it was 'very' successful or helpful
and one felt it was 'inconsistent'. Fourteen
agencies were satisfi ed with the treatments
they used, and two reported they were
'somewhat' satisfi ed.
Inspection costs varied from $15 per unit
to $8250. Most (65%) inspected visually
and 23% inspected on a monthly basis.
Unfortunately, 42% 'never' inspected or
inspected 'once a year' and 35% inspected
only if a tenant complained. That means
77% would not detect or control incipient
infestations before they spread. This is
particularly troubling considering the dis-
parity in inspection costs. Essentially,
housing authorities are wasting thousands
of dollars on inspections that reveal too
little, too late. Furthermore, when asked
how they planned to budget for future costs,
37.5% of the housing authorities planned to
increase their operating budget by increasing
the pest control budget, asking for internal
assistance, subtracting the cost from rental
income or creating a line item for each
extermination. Of greatest concern, most
(62.5%) were 'unsure', or had no plan to
increase their budget, or they simply 'hoped
not to have any incidences'.
The study also presented guidelines for
lower-income housing authorities to
improve bed bug detection and cost-
effective control strategies (Wong
et al.
,
2013). Many of the following recommend-
ations are components of an IPM programme
and are applicable to other haematophagous
pests.
Early, routine surveillance and detection
Housing authorities may address this need
without adding expense by incorporating
insect detection into other, routine inspec-
tions, such as for asbestos or fi re safety.
Passive monitors placed under the legs of
furniture may be an inexpensive yet effect-
ive option for agencies that rarely inspect.
Partnering with State Extension Entomol-
ogists or university researchers could be
mutually benefi cial; lower-income housing
would be carefully screened and scientists
could collect fi eld samples for research. In
addition, housing authorities can work with
their State Extension Entomologist to
identify patterns of pesticide resistance in
their region before contacting pest control
operators (PCOs). Extension entomologists
are professionals associated with a uni-
versity or agricultural research station who
apply IPM to control pests of agriculture,
turf and landscape, and housing. Housing
offi cials may want to contact their state
agricultural extension centre to identify
extension entomologists in their region who
work with cockroaches, bed bugs, termites
or other urban pests.
Special populations
Housing authorities and PCOs need to
understand better how the elderly, indi-
viduals with disabilities or compulsive
hoarders might be more vulnerable to
infestations and re-infestation. These
individuals, however, might be unable to
Search WWH ::
Custom Search