Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
pests, providing quick and easy elimination
and having long fi eld persistence. Con-
ventional methods depend on the use of
pesticides as a 'stand-alone' approach to
pest control, in which the chemical provides
a signifi cant or acceptable reduction in the
pest population. It involves a single action
of chemical application following some
regular, predetermined spray schedule.
Modern pest management is, however, more
than eliminating pests. Maintaining control
over pests and preventing re-infestations is
given more importance. IPM programmes
have a number of key attributes to offer
when it comes to maintaining control. Each
IPM programme follows stringent moni-
toring and intervention methods to keep
check on a pest population. This usually
involves combining numerous methods,
such as non-chemical tools, barriers, pesti-
cides and education.
It remains an unchallenged fact that
conventional methods of pest control have
eased urban life for humans but they have
also brought enormous damage to health
and the environment, as discussed by
Dhang (2011). Instead, IPM can generate
major environmental and health benefi ts. In
spite of this, IPM remains unpopular. Most
IPM programmes are dependent on public
funding or on research grants. Private
participation continues to remain low and
insignifi cant.
Duggal (2011) noted issues that could be
a reason for the poor adoption of IPM such
as: psychological resistance to change; loss
of authority; resistance to learning new
technologies and general fear of failure; fear
that IPM will restrict use of and access to
pesticides; and that IPM is more expensive
than traditional pest control. Sarisky
et al
.
(2008) listed cost, regulatory restrictions
and emergencies as barriers to implementing
IPM programmes. Inhibition and failure to
have an effective communication between
the various parties involved in the IPM
programme is another reason for its poor
adoption.
The following sections elaborate a few
specifi c reasons that are important in
explaining why the concept of IPM has poor
adoption.
Higher fi nancial investment
A service using the IPM principle is
generally perceived as expensive compared
with conventional pest control activity in
the market. Survey and literature reports
have shown that the investment in IPM is
more than in a conventional treatment. The
higher expense can be divided into a
number of components but the major one is
time spent on the job, also reported as cost
of labour.
Much published literature is available
on comparing the cost of conventional pest
control with the cost of IPM. Rambo (1998)
presented comparative data with regard to
cockroach control that show conventional
pest control services charged US$65 an
hour, whereas IPM services cost US$80 an
hour. Similarly the average costs for IPM
and conventional treatments were $4.06
and $1.50 per unit, respectively, for con-
trolling German cockroaches (Miller and
Meek, 2004). Brenner
et al.
(2003)
computed a similar higher cost for
implementing IPM involving monitoring,
baiting, cleaning and structural repairs
than conventional control for low-income
housing in New York City. A Purdue
University study compared a broader IPM
programme, which included education,
Reasons for Poor Adoption
of IPM
Many reasons could be the cause for the
unpopularity and poor adoption of IPM. An
IPM programme is dependent on training
and requires skill and knowledge. Indeed,
IPM is dependent on professionals who are
best at keen observation, source fi nding,
analysing each unique pest situation,
developing pest exclusion designs and able
to quickly assimilate and implement emerg-
ing research and effective IPM technologies
(Corrigan, 2012). Practitioners trained in
conventional pest control often fi nd it
diffi cult to adapt to the multi-tasking proto-
cols required in implementing IPM.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search