The Professional Flytrap Challenge

---

We recommend that you put our traps side-by-side with the competition and see for yourself how traps perform. More importantly, the claims being made for flytraps need to be questioned, seriously questioned, if science is to keep a foothold amid the constant, and growing, onslaught of gimmickry. The struggle to establish pest management as an honorable profession requires professional equipment and knowledgeable practitioners. Understanding flytrap effectiveness requires a scientific approach, research, and professional standards.

The scientific community needs a generic research comparison unit. Let's search and discover scientific, professional standards.

Professionalism will require the jettison of the gimmicks and false claims, prevalent in this industry. These claims have been recycled again and again, for so long, they have become false common knowledge, appearing even in the "bibles" of the industry. These false claims will continue to circulate until the gimmicks are actively hunted down and eliminated. The pest management profession and, more importantly, customers deserve better. Science insists that claims be footnoted, the research paper be available, and the research be repeatable.

So, this is our challenge to our competitors, who, in the past, have preferred swamping the industry with misleading sales gimmicks and exaggerated claims. A profession must have standards. Let's get started.

It would be more fun to competing with scientists, rather than spend another year testing, discovering one more marketing department's false claim, but I will. I also intend to publish research that debunks claims that continue to be made. So, clean up your advertising (edit your claims carefully) and rev up your science departments. We can't have a profession without a science to study. Let's get started.

Let's try to avoid letting the corporate bean counters establish the "professional" level, at whatever wins the low bid, with a philosophy of  "I don't care if it catches flies, as long as the inspectors leave me alone." If we do, the industry will end up with no truly professional equipment.

In one of the few large bids issued, trap manufacturers were asked to decide which traps to bid in each of three categories, a large, medium and small. The Brand X "medium" trap that won the bid costs more and traps less (81% to 19% in side by side lab tests) than our "small" trap".  Be sure you're comparing apples to apples.

Many in the pest management industry believe it is the supplier's place to test the equipment. What I am telling you, in all sincerity, is, it will never become a profession that way. Without a healthy regimen of skepticism, truth is never approached. Literature, pest management books, magazines, and conferences are awash with hearsay passing as truth. Hucksters think they can't sell flytraps without "a little marketing" (read "lying to customers"). It can be done. We've been doing it for more than three decades.

The food and pharmaceutical industries have done some good basic research, but none of it has been published. Professional flytraps catch more insects than anyone would imagine beforehand, and releasing the names and numbers of insects caught in their facilities (while it would be educational) is not the most positive of public relations ideas. The paradox is that flying insects get into every building, and it is the companies who are conscientious enough to have done their own flytrap research which are most likely to have installed them properly, established the best control program, and have the cleanest, most insect-free facilities.

The published flytrap research that does exist, deals mainly with the survey of agricultural pests in fields or flies in barns, or is false and/or misleading. Of the research that might be applicable to the professional use of flytraps, much is lacking in the control of variables such as:

• the size, phosphor, intensity, age, brand, and mfg. site of lamps
• size, shape, and type of reflector
• species, age, sex, and number of insects
• design and position of traps
• size and layout of test area
• temperature
• humidity
• existing lighting
• environmental conditions
• clarity of purpose or practical results
• Sufficient notes to make the research repeatable by other researchers
• and, most importantly; an honest, scientific approach.

Over the years, industry by industry, professional flytraps have gained credibility and acceptance. At the same time, there is good reason for justifiable doubt about the credibility of flytraps. It is a young, abused child of a science, continually harmed by half-baked sales schemes for one gimmick or another. What will it be in the future? The choice is yours.

Remember; be cautious. Turn a critical eye to any research. There's a lot of marketing out there posing as science and claims routinely exceed what science there is. Words should be chosen and listened to carefully. Unfortunately, most careful wording seems to be authored by marketing departments and salesmen, not sincere flytrap engineers. Our industry is not alone in this. Short term, bottom-line interests seldom include ethics. Our profession should.

I am curious if students could benefit from and contribute by doing some of this research? There are many different environments where the use of flytraps needs closer study, food plants, pharmaceutical laboratories, hospital hallways, nursing homes, fast food restaurants, fine dining rooms, different types and various sizes...and a lot of variables. Simple answers are comforting and useful, but, remember, there are exceptions, nuances and more than one way to skin a fly. Let's debate about it and, thereby, show each other something new.

You don't have to be a Ph.D. to do worthwhile research. Avoid gimmicks. Aim beyond the best. Keep lots of notes. I am always interested in sharing experiences with anyone considering earnest research.  Call me (800) 643-0400 or (870) 932-6070.

David Gilbert
President
Gilbert Industries, Inc.