January 2009 / Vol.6 / Issue 1

Hello and Welcome to the January Greenpest News. Each month we aim to provide you with some useful information, keeping it short (well not this month), sweet and pertinent.

Contents

1. Pest Talk - Just one topic - Exterra

Pest Talk

Welcome to 2009!  It's hard to believe that this is our 56th newsletter and we are now entering our sixth year of sending out a monthly newsletter.  We started with around 200 subscribers in 2004 and now reach over 3000.  We have covered many subjects pertaining to pest control and I like to think that most of the time our articles are of a positive nature.  This month I have a bee in my bonnet about some nonsense being spouted by Exterra so I apologise in advance if parts of this newsletter have a negative tone.

I appreciate that it is a well-known fact that it is not a good policy to knock the opposition, however there is no way for me to shed a little light on the truth without voicing some criticism.  A great many of our readers are pest controllers and others who work closely with our industry and this particular newsletter is aimed more towards these readers than the general public because it is a bit more technical than usual.  That said, I'm sure many of our regular readers will still find some interesting, and hopefully, useful information.

First, a little recent history.

In our May 2008 newsletter we wrote a lengthy article about How Termites Forage.

This article was later published in two editions of the Pest Manager Magazine - June/July and Oct/Nov 2008 Editions.  We were delighted that several professionals with-in the industry took the time to contact us to express their appreciation.  On the other hand, Steve Broadbent the technical manager in Australia for Ensystex, the company behind Exterra, put pen to paper and wrote a letter to the editor criticising us on a couple of salient points in the article.  Since he disagrees with our point of view (as he must, since the latest promotional brochure for Exterra appears full of similar unproven claims), it is only fair that we respond and let you be the judge.  Before you start, let us warn you first that this newsletter is over 6,500 words long, and we apologise that it necessitates inserting some quotes from other documents that contain some brain-numbing scientific jargon (possibly aimed to impress the average layman even if it's not understood), so grab a cuppa before you start..

In brief, here are the points:

• 1. Exterra claim that hardwood is more attractive to termites than softwood and even imply that softwood isn’t attractive by labeling it as ‘less favoured’.  We totally disagree and will prove why.
• 2. Exterra claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is 100% proven to attract termites.  We say it is still a theory and not a proven fact.
• 3. In their latest customer brochure, Exterra make several claims about their product which don't stand up to scrutiny.

First, let us look at the following statements from Exterra: "Eucalypt timber interceptors are used in our large Exterra stations simply because independent studies have shown that this timber is the most favoured by termites."  

The next similar statement is made by Steve Broadbent and is quoted from the December 2008 Professional Pest Manager magazine page 24 and states in part, “More specifically, the available literature shows Eucalyptus delegatensis & E. regnans, colloquially known as Tasmanian oak, to be a preferred timber source for Australian termites.  A good reference study on the preference for hardwood timber by Coptotermes acinaciformis was produced by Doctor Brenton Peters of the Queensland Forest Research Institute, reported as: ‘Field evaluation of the effectiveness of three timber species as bait stakes’ in the Journal of Sociobiology, 33.3 (1999)”

Upon examination we will notice that the full title of this (misquoted) research from the Journal of Sociobiology, 33.3 (1999): is actually “Field evaluation of the effectiveness of three timber species as bait stakes and the bait toxicant hexaflumuron in eradicating Coptotermes acinaciformis”  (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) Author: Peters, B. C. & Fitzgerald, C. J.

I think that the following omission from the full title is rather important, ‘and the bait toxicant hexaflumuron in eradicating Coptotermes acinaciformis’.

So, in actual fact, isn't the research more about the effectiveness of hexaflumuron in eradicating Coptotermes acinaciformis?  It has hardly anything to do with determining termite’s favourite food source, as we shall now explain.

Let's look even further.  As far as we are aware, it appears that only three almost identical varieties of the same timber (Tasmanian oak also know as Mountain Ash) - Eucalyptus delegatensis, E. obliqua & E. regnans) were used in the above mentioned research which was then tested on only one particular species of termite (Coptotermes acinaciformis).  Let's put that in perspective.  If I were to offer a herd of goats three varieties of spinach and that herd ate slightly more of one particular type of spinach than either of the other two, would I be correct in saying that all goats in Australia prefer to eat spinach above any other food?  Plainly not.  Have you stopped laughing yet?

I'm guessing that Dr Brenton Peters (who has worked with Steve Broadbent on other occasions also) might not appreciate the way that Mr Broadbent has chosen to misquote the full title of the research and imply that the results of Dr Peters’ research has included all available species of timber and termites present in Australia.

Please note, we are not saying that termites won't eat Tasmanian oak, of course they will.  It is one of many timbers that termites enjoy, but it's a ridiculous and idiotic argument to claim or imply as Mr Broadbent does, that termites in general prefer Tasmanian oak above any other timber including all softwoods.

It is also important to note in the previously mentioned quote from Mr Broadbent that he says ‘a preferred timber source’ and not ‘the preferred timber source.’

Radiata pine (softwood) is the predominant timber used in the vast majority of homes throughout Australia.  Termites cause significant economic damage every year to thousands of homes across Australia constructed from radiata pine.  Fact!  No question about it.  Termites absolutely love to eat radiata pine.  Every pest controller can tell you that termites will often bypass hardwood to get to the softwood in a home, especially the skirting boards and architraves.  Now, we’ll support this opinion by also quoting (correctly this time) the very same Dr B.C. Peters who states in another study: "In Australia, softwood timbers are extensively used in building construction and are generally highly susceptible to damage by termites."  Which can be found here: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:157981

The exception to the softwood preference is a minor species (found mainly in a few regions of Victoria and parts of NSW) called Nasutitermes exitiosus which can and does damage homes built from hardwood if they are left undiscovered for an extended period of time.  Furthermore, they are not recognised by the Department of Forestry as a major pest species in this country.  Compared to Schedorhinotermes spp and Coptotermes spp they account for only a very small percentage of the damage done to homes from all termite species combined.

Mr Broadbent also makes the statement, “Damage to homes caused by Nasutitermes is quite widespread, which is why all the leading termite bait systems, including Exterra, Sentricon and Nemesis, use hardwood timbers.”  Well yes, New South Wales and Victoria is a large area so one can say they are ‘widespread’ but that doesn't mean they are very common or that they do significant damage to homes each year.  Furthermore we might suggest that the real reason why some bait systems use hardwood rather than softwood is because there is only a very small component of wood within the plastic chamber and if they use softwood (with its desirable decomposition and decay properties) it wouldn't last particularly long in one of their plastic stations.

Green Termite Baits are made from a solid block of radiata pine (softwood – without becoming too technical is Non-pored wood, whereas balsa which is very soft is actually a hardwood or Pored wood the same as Eucalypt species).  When placed in the ground Green Termite Baits (radiata pine) will begin to rot and will last on average from 3 to 5 years depending on the moisture content and the quality of the soil.  Rich organic soil which is particularly attractive to termites will cause the baits to rot quicker.

It would appear that termites in general are attracted to decaying timber and we support the theory that this may be due to the decay gases given off by rotting wood.  It may be the CO2 component in the decay gases or it may be a more complex mixture of decay gases.  One thing is for sure.  A rotting Green Termite Bait gives off 100% natural decay gases for the life of the bait.  That's why we say that our baits actually become more effective the longer they stay in the ground.  Of course, there is a point where the baits decay beyond the point of reasonable use at which time they are simply replaced by new bait and the process is started all over again.  (Note: The timber in all plastic bait stations need regular replacement too).

It might interest you to know that we have actually successfully treated an active Green Termite Bait made from radiata pine that had been in the ground for six years.

The Green Termite Baits do take a little while before they start to rot so it is unlikely that in the first couple of months termites will locate the bait based on ‘decay gas theory’ alone, which is why we wrote our original article which discussed the multiple theories about how termites forage for timber.  We firmly believe that termites use a combination of methods to locate food.

It’s worth noting that we had one client in Sorrento on the Gold Coast who had 7 scattered strikes in his Green Termite Bait System just 1 month after it was installed.  No CO2 was needed, so let’s discuss the CO2 theory in more detail.

Point Two. CO2

First, we will quote Exterra: "Minute levels of CO2 certainly attract termites.  University research has proved it.  Termites are attracted to levels of CO2that mimic those naturally given off by both rotting wood and termite nests, so the CO2 in the soil directs termites to potential feeding sites."

Let’s examine this statement.

The research was conducted at the Colorado State University by Entomologist Louis Bjostad.  The basis for the claim is as follows: termites were placed into the end of a T-shaped tube. In one arm, researchers pumped in normal air, and in the other, CO2 in concentrations higher than those found in normal soil.
"When a termite came to the point of choosing an arm, it moved its antennae to one side of the tube, then the other," Bjostad said of the experiments. "Most of them chose the side containing the carbon dioxide."

Okay, that’s fair enough, but why didn’t ALL of them choose the CO2 arm?  How many is most, because most is not a very good scientific term.  It could be 51% - 99%?  Why did some go the other way?  Were other factors such as light sources accounted for?

Further: Bjostad and his colleagues believe termites are naturally attracted to CO2 and one reason stated is that, rotting wood (the termites' main source of food) releases CO2, a process that likely guides the insects to food.

A company called Brotica Inc then helped Bjostad patent it and proceeded to develop the technology.  They produced a product called Interval33 which has been engineered to generate a CO2 concentration of 1%, which they claim is the optimum CO2 concentration for termite attraction since it mimics the low levels of CO2 found in rotting wood and other termite foods.

Brotica then granted Ensystex (Exterra) the exclusive rights to the CO2 termite attractant in Australia and France.  Ensystex markets the CO2 termite attractant in Australia under the trade name FOCUS™.
Focus Termite Attractant and Exterra are trademarks of Ensystex Australasia.

Okay, we now understand where the ‘attraction of termites to CO2 theory’ comes from, and that it’s been placed into the market by Brotica, a profit making business with strong interests to promote and sell its new ‘wonder-product’, Interval33.  This product and the theory behind it has nothing to do with the CSIRO, so let’s return to look at the current promotional material for Exterra.  We believe it is deliberately written to mislead the potential customer, but we will let you draw your own conclusion.

It states, and we quote directly from their brochure, “CSIRO studies show that quite simply and obviously, the larger the monitoring station, the quicker any termites in your garden will find it, instead of your house!  So with Focus Termite Attractant producing a naturally engineered concentration of CO2 that attracts termites directly to the large Exterra stations, you know your home is being optimally protected.  Exterra stations are nearly 4 times larger than most other stations, so once the termites start to follow the CO2 trail they quickly find the Exterra stations.”

When you read that statement it is only natural to assume that the CSIRO did the study and also endorse the Focus Termite Attractant and the theory behind it.  It is implied by the way it is written.  In fact, only the first line is true for the CSIRO.  I wonder how happy the CSIRO is about the misuse of their good name by Exterra?

Let’s further examine Exterra’s statement. 

• We agree with the CSIRO, it is rather obvious that the larger the bait, the more attractive it is to termites.
• However, claiming that Exterra stations are four times larger than most other stations is quite simply untrue if one merely goes and examines the many other bait stations available on the market.  Exterra stations only contain a very small volume of timber which is encased in a large plastic housing which has a proportionally large cavity in the centre which very often fills up with non-target pests such as ants, slugs and other creatures which can render them less attractive to termites.
  
  So, an Exterra bait station does have a large volume, but it’s mainly air.  It contains only a small amount of timber.  You’ll read further on that Exterra’s very own experiments basically indicate that the model they have been selling for the past 9 years is not particularly good.  Exterra's research implies that they need the Focus attractant to work better.

In regard to ants specifically; Steve Broadbent and Exterra must know that Exterra stations are prone to being infested by regular ants which often as not are repellent to termites.  This is a far from an ideal situation if you are trying to gather termites into a bait station.  Mr Broadbent's very own research reveals that ants commonly occur inside an Exterra bait and are somewhat of a disaster.  You can find this research here:
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1603%2F0022-0493(2003)096%5B1828%3AFEOTBT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

To quote: Two aspects of the Exterra Termite Interception and Baiting System (Ensystex, Fayetteville, NC) were evaluated in a field experiment using 13 termite mounds near Townsville, Australia. First, a cellulose-acetate powder containing either 0.05% wt:wt or 0.25% wt:wt chlorfluazuron (Requiem, Ensystex, Fayetteville, NC) was tested for its efficacy in eliminating colonies of the xylophagous mound-building subterranean termite Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt). The moist bait matrix was replenished during the first inspection of 10 mounds (five mounds by two treatments) used in the experiment. Second, a single application of the moist bait matrix was used on three additional mounds to test termite responses and the effectiveness of 0.25% wt:wt chlorfluazuron. Although there was no evidence of repellence, there was little removal of replenished bait. Five colonies were eliminated by 0.05% wt:wt chlorfluazuron and five colonies by 0.25% wt:wt chlorfluazuron: another colony was moribund, and elimination appeared imminent. Colony decline was first suspected some 12 wk after bait application, and colony elimination was confirmed, by destructive sampling, about 5 wk later. Colony elimination may have occurred within 12 wk. One colony was an anomaly and did not succumb to the effects of the toxicant. Another colony was not eliminated because of invasion of the baiting system by ants. Ants, principally Iridomyrmex purpureus (F. Smith) group and Papyrius nitidus (Mayr) group, occurred commonly in the stations during the experiment. Microcerotermes sp. was found in five of the C. acinaciformis mounds, after colony elimination. Inspections of small sections of mounds and wooden dowels inserted into mounds were reliable methods for monitoring colony health.

There you have it.  Ants are not welcome in a bait station.

Now here is something very interesting and I must say somewhat humorous.  Guess which timber was used in the wooden dowels that were inserted into the mounds mentioned above?  Radiata pine of course!

• Continuing on, Green Termite Baits have a greater volume of wood than Exterra baits.
• Green Termite Baits give off natural decay gases for the life of the bait which averages from 3 to 5 years.  Whereas an Exterra bait using (needing?) Focus attractant gives off CO2 which can only mimic decaying wood.

This now leads us to ask a new question which is; ‘How long will Focus attractant last for?’ 

So, let's examine the experiment that Exterra conducted with Focus attractant and see what else the results are telling us.  We’ll also check the integrity of the conclusions since there are some rather obvious holes in the research. 

The following research report (printed below) can be found here:
http://www.termitefree.com/images/jee-aus.pdf

Field Attraction of Termites to a Carbon Dioxide-Generating Bait in Australia (Isoptera)
By Steve Broadbent1, Michael Farr2, Elisa J. Bernklau3, Matthew S. Siderhurst4, David M. James5, & Louis B. Bjostad5
1Ensystex Australasia
2Amalgamated Pest Control, Queensland, Australia
3Brotica, Inc., Fort Collins, CO
4Dept. of Chemistry, Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA 22802
5Dept. of Bioagric. Sci. & Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Sociobiology Vol. 48, No. 3, 2006

Abstract
Termite bait stations with or without a CO2-generating bait (Focus Termite Attractant, produced by Brotica, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, and distributed by Ensystex Australasia) were tested at tree and house locations in Australia.
The termite species Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), Schedorhinotermes intermedius (Brauer) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), Microcerotermes turneri (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Termitidae), and Nasutitermesexitiosus (Hill) (Isoptera: Termitidae) discovered more monitoring stations when the CO2-generating bait was present, and also discovered the monitoring stations more quickly when the CO2-generating bait was present.

Introduction
The economic impact of termites may exceed $11 billion each year in the United States (Su 2002) and $40 billion worldwide (Wiseman & Eggleton 1994). The majority of damage to homes and other structures is caused by subterranean termite species in the family Rhinotermitidae (Su 1990).
Baiting strategies for termite control have recently gained popularity due to the withdrawal of chlordane, chlorpyrifos and other termiticides from the market (Kard 1999, Su & Scheffrahn 2000). Current efforts are focused on improving specific aspects of these systems, including the addition of attractants and/or bait enhancers (Pawson & Gold 1996, Lewis et al. 1998, Potter et al. 2001, Lax & Osbrink 2003). In a baiting system, the pesticide is typically introduced into a station only after termites are detected in that station, and depending on the species, weeks may pass before termites locate a station and begin to feed (Lewis et al. 1998, Potter et al. 2001).
Baiting has been promoted as a more desirable method of termite management.
It is generally considered to be more environmentally sound as baiting uses very small amounts of insect specific toxicants that are administered in stations that are targeted at the economically important termite species only (i.e., it replaces the broad-scale application of liquid chemicals used to poison the soil around a building). For baiting to work successfully, termites must find the bait stations so that the matrix with toxicant can be added for termite consumption and transfer it back to the nest. These requirements are important, and a successful baiting program can take up to nine months (e.g. 3-9 months Su, 1994; 7 months Tsunoda et al., 1998; 3-7+ months Su & Scheffrahn, 2000), which is much slower than by other methods.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been reported as an attractant for the termite species Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), R. virginicus (Banks) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), and R. tibialis (Banks) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the United States (Bernklau et al. 2005). The most attractive concentration of CO2 is 5 mmol/mol for R. tibialis and 10 mmol/mol for R. flavipes and R. virginicus. An attractant such as CO2 has the potential to improve the effectiveness of termite baiting systems by reducing the time interval between station placement and introduction of the pesticide.
Focus Termite Attractant (produced by Brotica, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, and distributed by Ensystex Australasia) is a granular formulation that reacts in soil to generate CO2 in the optimum concentration range for termite attraction (Bernklau et al. 2005). Focus Termite Attractant is a non-toxic formulation composed of natural materials, and it contains no pesticidal components. We tested Focus Termite Attractant in combination with Exterra Quarterra Termite Stations (Ensystex Australasia) to determine the ability of the attractant to enhance the efficacy of bait stations by creating a larger ‘footprint’ for termite discovery. Specifically, we were interested in three ecological effects, (i) the time required for station discovery, (ii) the number of stations discovered, and (iii) the rate at which stations were abandoned by termites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Microcerotermes turneri
An inspection also revealed the presence of Microcerotermes turneri in a timber gate post at the front of the same property in Upper Caboolture, Queensland. Four stations were placed, two on the nature strip and two in the front garden, equidistant at 1.5 meters from the post infested with
Microcerotermes, with three meters between the control and Focus Termite Attractant stations.
Nasutitermes exitiosus
A mound of N. exitiosus was located in a garden bed at a domestic residence in Maitland, New South Wales. Six Focus Termite Attractant stations and six control stations were placed on either side of the mound.

Statistical Analysis
T-tests were used to analyze differences in termite presence among stations that contained or lacked CO2 baits (SAS 2000).

Results
Exterra Quarterra Termite Stations containing Focus Termite Attractant were located more often and also more quickly than control stations for the four termite species that were tested (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4).

Coptotermes acinaciformis
Termites were found significantly more often in Focus-baited stations than in control stations (Table 1, P<0.05, t-test). Termites located 10 of the 13 Focus-baited stations, but only located 3 of the 13 control stations (Table 1). Over the course of the 9 week study, termites were found in Focus-baited stations on 68 occasions, but termites were found in control stations on only 12 occasions (Table 1). Two of the Focus-baited stations were found by termites within the first week after installation, but none of the control stations were located by termites until 4 weeks after installation. On average, of the stations located by termites, Focus-baited stations were found after 3.20 +SE 0.57 weeks, but control stations were found only after 6.00 +SE 1.15 weeks. None of the stations were abandoned by termites once the termites were first observed in them.

Table 1. Termite bait stations containing Coptotermes acinaciformis.

Stations	Site	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9
CO2 bait	Tree 1	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 1	-	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 1	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 1	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 2	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 2	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Tree 3	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 3	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Tree 4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	X	X
Control	Tree 1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 1	-	-	-	X	X	X	X	X	X
Control	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	-	X	X	X	X
Control	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Tree 4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

 

Schedorhinotermes intermedius
A Focus-baited station was the only station found to contain termites in this test, and none of the 9 control stations were located by termites (Table 2). The Focus-baited station was located in Week 2 after the stations were installed. In Week 8 after the experiment began, this station was found to have been flooded by a broken pipe, and subsequent data was not available.
The station had not been abandoned as of the last reliable observation in Week 7.

Table 2. Termite bait stations containing Schedorhinotermes intermedius.

Stations	Site	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	N /A	N /A
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	House	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

a In Week 8 after the experiment began, this station was found to have been flooded by
a broken pipe.

Microcerotermes turneri
A Focus-baited station was the only station found to contain termites in this test, and neither of the 2 control stations were located by termites (Table 3). The Focus-baited station was located in Week 1 after the stations were installed.

Table 3. Termite bait stations containing Microcerotermes turneri.

 

Nasutitermes exitiosus
A heavy infestation of termites was recorded in one of the Focus Termite Attractant stations 16 days after installation (Table 4). A light infestation of termites was recorded in one of the control stations on the same date. Further inspections each week thereafter revealed that the termites remained in the Focus Termite Attractant station, but the termites vacated the control station the week after they were detected and did not return. After six inspections, the trial was terminated to allow elimination of the termite colony and safeguard the property.

Table 4. Termite bait stations containing Nasutitermes exitiosus.

Stations	Site	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6
CO2 bait	Mound	-	X	X	X	X	X
CO2 bait	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 bait	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	-	-	-	-	-
Control	Mound	-	X	-	-	-	-

 

Discussion
We conclude that the CO2 gradient from each Focus-baited station effectively created a larger ‘footprint’, and that the termites then followed the CO2 gradient to the station. For the four termite species tested, the presence of Focus Termite Attractant in Exterra Quarterra Termite Stations increased the number of stations that were found by termites. Termites did not abandon
any of the bait stations once they located them, whether baited with Focus Termite Attractant or not, except for one of the control bait stations that was abandoned by Nasutitermes exitiosus after a single week of occupancy (Table 4).
The presence of Focus Termite Attractant also decreased the time required for termites to discover the stations. This point is of particular interest in the development of baiting system technologies, because it has been observed that weeks may pass before termites locate a bait station and begin to feed (Lewis et al. 1998, Potter et al. 2001). In the present study, two of the termite species located Focus-baited stations within the first week after installation (C. acinaciformis and Microcerotermes turneri), and the other two termite species located the Focus-baited stations within the second week after installation (N. exitiosus and Schedorhinotermes intermedius). In contrast, control stations were never observed to contain termites for two of the species tested (Schedorhinotermes intermedius. and Microcerotermes turneri), and required a minimum of 2-4 weeks for the two termite species that did find them (C.acinaciformis and N. exitiosus).
The use of Focus Termite Attractant in association with Exterra Quarterra Termite Stations will provide added benefits to pest managers using the Exterra Termite Interception & Baiting System by detecting the presence of termites within the vicinity of a property sooner. Early interception in a Station further reduces the risk of termites entering a structure and enables
earlier placement of Requiem Termite Bait. Previous data has shown termites are more likely to discover the Exterra Quarterra Stations compared to other commercial Stations due to the larger size and use of a more favored timber source for the interceptors. Focus Termite Attractant will further enhance the benefits of the Quarterra Stations

---

Fair enough - now it's time for our comments.

At face value it appears cut and dried that Focus Termite Attractant is effective, however we believe that any reasonable person may feel upon closer inspection that the research appears biased in such a way that Exterra was able to reach the conclusions that they were hoping for.  In fact it appears to be in-house research rather than independent research. I may be wrong and if I am I apologise, but I would be interested in seeing an independent entity such as the CSIRO conduct more thorough repeatable scientific research as to whether Focus Termite Attractant really does work as effectively as Ensystex claims.

Let's examine what's wrong with this research.  Here are just some points of interest:

1. It's not made very clear, but it appears that all of the stations with Focus attractant were grouped together on one side, while all of the control stations were grouped together on a different side.  However, the experiment was not repeated by reversing the location of the stations.  Is it possible that the stations with the Focus attractant were placed where the termites were more likely to forage in the first place?  Were they given the prime locations based on what we already know about termite foraging behaviour and habits?  This in itself would give the stations with the Focus attractant a big head start over the control stations.
2. Water was added to the bait stations containing the Focus attractant.  Was water also added to the regular stations?  If not, then it is quite possible (likely even) that it was the moisture in the ground that attracted the termites and not the CO2.
3. Why weren't the stations placed alternately?  One control, one Focus, one control etc.  Surely, this is the more logical way to see if the termites have a preference for the stations with the Focus attractant.

 

Point Three - Additional Claims and Comments

If the aforementioned paper written by Mr Broadbent is accurate, then it also implies that the Exterra system without the Focus attractant is not particularly effective, and this returns us to the  question we asked earlier which is:

How long does the Focus attractant last for?  Also, when does a technician replenish it?  How can he know when the CO2 in the soil drops below the perfect 1% level?

As far as I can tell, the literature from Ensystex doesn't say.

Furthermore, we noted that in the above research, the Focus attractant was put in the ground before the Exterra bait was inserted. In other words, underneath the station.

So how is it replenished?

Removing the bait to replenish it is not particularly practical, especially when roots and soil embed themselves in the slots throughout the plastic housing and it is very difficult if not impossible to remove an Exterra station without destroying it (will Ensystex replace a new station when replenishment is needed?).

This leads to yet another question: If the Focus attractant is replenished, is it placed under the bait (as it was in the test) or in the bait or some combination of both?  Is that a simple operation?  After talking with experienced ex-Exterra technicians, I dare say it probably isn't but I may stand corrected.

In comparison, the Green Termite Bait naturally rots giving off perfect decay gases for the life of the bait – no fiddling ever needed. Plus, on our full service plans when it has reached the end of its useful service life it is replaced with a new bait.

Exterra’s literature also makes the claim that Focus attracts termites from a 2m radius of the station.  Really?  Where is the science and independent research behind that claim?  Is it the same 2m radius in dense clay soil as in loose and aerated sandy soil, and is it the same before and after rain?  Well, of course it isn't.

Unfortunately for the unsuspecting, there are a great many generalisations and other (deliberately?) misleading statements in Exterra's promotional literature which could lead a potential customer to purchase their product thinking that they are buying the best when in fact the information the consumer is relying on may be made up of part truths and unsubstantiated claims.

Let’s further examine some major points of difference between Exterra’s system and the Green Termite Baiting System.

1. Focus attractant in (or under) a plastic Exterra station mimics decaying wood whereas a Green Termite Bait actually is the real thing -- undisturbed perfectly natural decaying wood!
2. Exterra claim that softwood baits don't last long in the ground.  Of course, that would really depend on the softwood that is used.  For example, hoop pine rots very quickly (within a year), whereas the radiata pine that is used to make Green Termite Baits last from 3 to 5 years.  Of course, the thin wedges of Tasmanian oak used in an Exterra bait also need to be replaced on a regular basis too.
3. There is less actual timber volume in an Exterra bait than there is in a Green Termite Bait.
4. Exterra claim that Tasmanian oak is a proven and preferred source of food for termites.  This is false; it is not proven at all.  All evidence indicates that softwood is preferable to the majority of destructive termite species.  Exterra claim that other bait manufacturers use softwood because it is cheaper than Tasmanian oak.  That is false.  They use softwood because it works better.
5. Steve Broadbent claims that some Nasutitermes spp. in particular N. exitiosus is a major pest species damaging homes in Australia which is in direct contradiction to other expert opinion such as that found in every pest controllers number one text book, Urban Pest Management in Australia – Phillip Hadlington & John Gerozisis & Ion Staunton, which simply says: because Nasutitermes exitiosus has obvious nests, it only causes serious damage if it goes unnoticed for a long period of time.  This might occur if a nest is under a house. 
   The simple solution is to check under the house regularly.
6. The Ensystex brochure implies that the Exterra bait system is effective against all major species of termite found in Australia and ignores the fact that they are not effective against Mastotermes darwiniensis which is a major destructive pest species causing enormous damage in certain areas around northern Australia, especially in Darwin as you can guess from the name. The following link shows the label for Requiem which is the bait matrix used in the Exterra System and it clearly states on the first page that is it not applicable to Mastotermes darwiniensis: http://www.anoble.com.au/MSDS/RequiemLabel.pdf
   On the other hand, the Green Termite Bait System combined with Termidor Dust™ is effective against Mastotermes darwiniensis as you can see from the following label: http://www.greenpest.com.au/downloads/Termidor_label.pdf
7. The Exterra brochure claims that only Exterra Stations require station barcoding, yet I have a personal e-mail sent to me from Steve Broadbent claiming that Exterra no longer require station barcoding.  He says it is optional.  Maybe Exterra should check out the definition of the word “require” since it is used in their brochure.  Furthermore, the barcoding is required to be on the station in the ground around the customer's home and scanned by their authorised operator whenever he checks the station (as indicated in their brochure).  It might surprise some people to know that some of their authorised operators were keeping all the barcodes in their office and having the office girl scan them, perhaps this is why onsite scanning is no longer required by Ensystex. Would you be happy to pay for the comfort of knowing your Exterra system was being correctly monitored by scanning and recording the barcoding on your baits only to have it done in the office and not in the field (at your address) as it was stated in the sales brochure?
8. Barcoding isn’t necessary.  Few, if any other bait systems bother with such nonsense.  It’s merely a way for Exterra to ensure that they collect appropriate fees and commissions from their accredited pest controllers.  Fees which are passed on to you the customer then routed via profits to their parent company in the USA.
9. Exterra claim that their monitors can be inspected without disturbing the termites.  We would suggest that opening a large lid which allows all of the moisture and humidity to escape, as well is allowing sunlight directly in, is a considerable disturbance to termites.
10. Exterra baits are prone to flooding problems (as mentioned in their own tests) and not just from broken pipes.  Whereas Green Termite Baits are solid timber.  The special seals on the tops ensure that they rarely flood except in extreme conditions.
11. Exterra’s brochure claims that softwood timbers are less palatable to termites.  That would depend on which termites we are talking about, but Exterra don’t specify termites that only eat hardwood when they say this kind of nonsense, but instead spout it as if it’s a general fact which it isn’t!  Termites of economic significance in Australia eat softwood.  That’s a fact.  It’s also worth noting that when termites that prefer softwood, attack softwood homes, they generally cause significant damage fairly quickly in comparison to hardwood eating termites over the same period of time. BTW, many termites that eat softwood also eat hardwood, but in most cases will eat the softwood first in preference to the hardwood.
12. Exterra’s literature claims that termites will ignore softwood baits and go straight to your home because your home is more attractive.  What a total load of rubbish.  Where’s the data?  Where is the proof of such a nonsensical claim?  They should be ashamed of putting such twaddle in their literature.  This claim serves only one purpose, and that is to frighten uniformed and unsuspecting customers into using their system should they be presented with a better choice. No doubt the ACCC would not be too pleased if they took the time to look into it.

---

In conclusion.

For those of you who just skipped to the end or scanned through all the above information here’s a brief summation:  You’d be mad to purchase Exterra if you do your research properly and compare all of the bait systems together you will ultimately choose what we consider to be the superior system; the Green Termite Bait System.   Green Termite Baits will offer you a far better result for a much lower price.

Finally, just for your interest and to back our words, we present some real data taken from an unfiltered list of actual full service clients using the Green Termite Bait System over the past 5 years.  The scope includes over 16,000 baits installed and monitored every month in S.E QLD by our sister company Green Pest Control.

 

Total Number of Sites	710
Sites with strikes 1st year	437
Sites with strikes 2nd year	284
Sites with strikes 3rd year	189
Sites with strikes 4th year	115
% Sites with 0 Strikes 1st year	38.45%
% Sites with 0 Strikes 2nd year	60.00%
% Sites with 0 Strikes 3rd year	73.38%
% Sites with 0 Strikes 4th year	83.80%
Average number of strikes  Yr 1	2.14
Average number of strikes  Yr 2	1.27
Average number of strikes  Yr 3	0.84
Average number of strikes  Yr 4	0.46

 

The drop in average strikes per year shows that termite activity around the property is being steadily reduced.

The following table shows that we have treated over 2,400 baits that were active. Over 60% of customers have one or more strikes on their baits in the first 12 months. Ummm... guess the termites like to eat them, can't figure out why Exterra would say termites don't find them palatable.

Average number of baits per site		23.2
Potential bait months		18,182
Actual active bait months		2,418
Single Strikes	73.49%	1777
Double Strikes	18.65%	451
Triple Strikes	5.75%	139
Quad Strikes	1.28%	31
Greater than Quad Strikes	0.83%	20

 

Green Pest Control's records are updated on a daily basis.  We have many other interesting statistics also.  However, there is one irrefutable fact, Green Termite Baits work and we still have a fabulous success rate better than 99.5% at preventing termites from doing major damage to the homes we protect.

Back to top

Please share it.

Well, that's our newsletter for this month.  We hope you found it interesting.  If so, please forward it to your family, friends and work colleagues who may appreciate it also.  Thank you.

Monthly Special Promotion.

Slap on the head for free - especially if you are still thinking of buying Exterra.

Or

Our usual monthly special is no longer available. Please go to our current newsletter for this month's special.

If you wish to read previous newsletters, or if this newsletter has been forwarded on to you and you would like to subscribe, please: Click here

Got a question or some feedback? Please send it here: Feedback/Question

The Greenpest News is Published by J & A Furnell Nominees P/L; Shop 23a Franklin Square, 60 Railway Street, Mudgeeraba, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. The opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of Jerry Furnell. The reader is encouraged to seek further information from appropriate government and statutory departments before taking any action based on this material alone.

Privacy: How did you get on this list? This newsletter is sent to our customers, subscribers and potential customers who have made enquiries with us and provided an email address. We're committed to protecting your privacy. We do not sell, trade, rent or otherwise disclose any personal information you provide to us.

Unsubscribe: If for any reason you do not wish to receive this email please simply hit your reply button and enter unsubscribe.

To update your details please click here.
See you again next month.

Always... At your service,

Jerry Furnell
Green Pest Control & Green Termite Bait Systems.
Phone 1800 6 12345.

Copyright 2009 Green Termite Bait Systems & Green Pest Control. All rights reserved.

back to top