The whole publication in PDF - Culture in Development

available. At the same time we need to pursue mechanical and cultural changes which build or starve pests out more
aggressively, making museums, libraries, archives, and historic sites less attractive to things that destroy collections
(Chicora, 1994).
7.1.2 The New Way
In the early 1980s, a number of trends emerged in museum pest management. While the conservators remained
concerned about the damage that the creatures were doing to the collections, they started becoming equally
concerned about the damage that pesticides might do to the historic materials. Also they became increasingly
worried about the effect that toxic materials might have on health. Professionals started looking for a way to protect
the collections against the pests, while minimizing exposure to toxic materials. Soon they stumbled on Integrated
Pest Management (IPM), originally developed for the agricultural and urban pest management communities, and
introduced the concept to archives, libraries and museums (Jessup, 2001).
The days that score s of institutions had a contract for monthly spraying should be over by now. The pest control
operator came in like clockwork and sprayed here and there. The conservator relied entirely on the commercial
company and on the operato r (Chicora, 1994). T en years after its introduction in co nservation the emphasis in pest
control had become totally on IPM (McCradey, 1991). The IPM approach relies primarily on non-chemical means
(such as controlling climate, food sources, and building entry points) to prevent and manage pest infestation.
Chemical treatments are used only in a crisis situation threatening rapid losses or when pests fail to succumb to more
conservative methods (Lindblom Patkus, 1999).
Today IPM is the preferred method and many pest control firms are offering IPM services, although what they
are sometimes offering is little more than the same old techniques, repackaged to give them glitz. A true IPM
programme will concentrate on the least toxic approaches to pest control by integrating a variety of mechanical,
cultural, biological, and (as a last resort) chemical controls (Chicora, 1994).
It is impossible to give a ready-to-use solution to any pest problem. The IPM approach depends on the local
circumstances. Some of these circumstances are (Jessup, 2001):
• the climate;
• the conditions in the repositories;
• the surrounding;
• the kind of pests.
Modern preservation professionals reco mmend Integrated P est Management and in most situations where IPM has
been implemented, both pesticide use and pest problems have decreased dramatically (Mitchell, n.d.).
7.2 Integrated Pest Management
Dwight Isley provided the earliest re cord of the Integrated P est Management concept as a formal agricultural
practice. Isley's work began in the 1920s when he pioneered modern pest control by using principles of scouting,
economic thresholds and trap crops along with insecticides to control boll weevil in Arkansas cotton. He studied
the biology and ecology of the boll weevil and used this information in a pest management system. Despite Isley’s
innovative program, and other researchers' understanding of the potential problems with pesticides, IPM did not gain
momentum until the late 1960s. Initially, progress in IPM was slow largely due to the abundance of inexpensive,
effective, synthetic pesticides and limited knowledge of the long-term effects of pesticides on organisms and the
environment. However, as use of these compounds increased and became widespread, several factors lead to serious
negative impacts on farm profits and an increased interest in designing IPM programs. Three primary factors
involved are pesticide resistance, effect of pesticides on non-target organisms and increased regulation. Together,
the factors mentioned above have spurred on the urgency of developing IPM programs for effective and affordable
pest managem ent. New legislatio n was enacted and governmental agencies began playing more of an active role in
promoting IPM within research and extension. In the 1970s a few pilot projects were sponsored which emphasized
scouting to monitor pest population densities and advised the application of pesticides only when econom ically
damaging pest levels (the economic threshold) had been reached. Now, however, the reduction of pesticide use is
of prime importance along with profitability. The newer philosophy of IPM will have some of the same objectives
as the traditional profitability approach, but will also include factors of social welfare and environmental
sustainability (Northern States Conservation Center, 2000).
When in the early 1980s Integrated Pest Management was introduced to the field of conservation, the general
IPM-idea was easily translated. Naturally the objects to be protected needed to be handled with more care than
foodstuffs and some other chemicals were needed in diverse amounts. As IPM is an eco-system approach to dealing
with pest problems, it has always been site specific and thus adaptable to any application. The details of the
treatment might differ yet the IPM-philosophy stays the same. Benefits of IPM include (Mitchell, n.d.):
• better pest co ntrol;
• a safer and healthier workplace;
• lower costs because of pesticide use reduction;
• better public and occupant relations.
7.2.1 Prevention and Control
Any IPM programme designed for a sensitive setting, such as a library or archive, an historic, cultural, ethnographic,
art or natural history museum, or an architectural treasure, must be aimed at prevention as well as control of pest
problems. Museum professionals cannot wait until part of a valuable artefact or structure is in the stomach of an
insect or rodent before reacting to a pest problem (Parker, 1993).