In a vain attempt to counter damming criticism in 2010 that Biosecurity Queensland cannot prove its standard baiting program kills fire ants, the program’s science team published a paper in 2014 that claims its standard program kills fire ant nests while having minimal impact on local ants. Dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say the standard baiting program has been compromised by injecting insecticide into all known nests, including those on monitoring sites: a practice criticised by independent scientists who say it likely causes nests to split and spread and make the problem worse. Dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say the practice of injecting insecticide into nests compromises Biosecurity Queensland’s ability to assess the effectiveness of its standard baiting program. Dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say data on the effect of the standard baiting program was collected from only 60 of the 905 infested properties that Biosecurity Queensland was monitoring between 2001 and 2006: because they were the only ones that had received a full complement of the standard baiting program. Dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say that during the time-frame of the study, 2001-2006, the fire ant infestation blew out from 44,876ha to 72,600ha: evidence that fire ants were spreading, not dying. Biosecurity Queensland still cannot prove it can kill fire ants. In 2017, the Queensland Audit Office said ‘Biosecurity Queensland does not capture reliable data and has no methods for evaluating its programs.’ But, dishonestly, Biosecurity Queensland tells the public and its oversight committee its treatment program can kill fire ants with minimal impact on local ant species.
In 2014, Biosecurity Queensland’s science team published a paper claiming the program’s standard baiting program kills fire ants with minimal impact on local ant species and that these findings have important implications for current and future prophylactic treatment efforts.
Effect of Broadcast Baiting on Abundance Patterns of Red Imported Fire Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Key Local Ant Genera at Long-Term Monitoring Sites in Brisbane, Australia. Melinda K. McNaught, F. Ross Wylie, Evan J. Harris, Clair L. Alston, Chris J. Burwell, and Craig Jennings. Journal of Economic Entomology, 107 (4) 1307-1315. 2014
The paper says the program’s standard treatment program is a baiting program: four applications per year for three years of baits containing one of two insect growth regulators, pyriproxyfen or methoprene (kill a nest by making the queen infertile) and one application of hydramethylnon, (a slow acting insecticide): all largely safe for humans. The paper says data on the effectiveness of the program’s baiting program was collected from sixty of a large number of infested properties in the Brisbane area, that were being monitored between 2001 and 2006, that met the criteria of having received the full complement of the program’s standard baiting program.
This paper likely comes in the wake of the damming assessment an independent scientific review team made of the program’s in-house science, in 2010. The review team was ‘surprised by the fragmented nature of the science support provided to the program,’ said ‘further success and compelling evidence that eradication is technically feasible is limited by the lack of some key research…..on such issues as the efficacy of current control methods,’ said they were ‘surprised by the lack of a consistent and coherent information base to assess the effectiveness of surveillance and treatment protocols’ and said, from the information available ‘it was obvious the applied protocols did not work sufficiently to eradicate fire ants.’ Biosecurity Queensland’s 2014 publication does nothing to assuage that damming assessment.
Dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say that, since 2002 and continuing to today, the standard baiting program has been compromised by the controversial practice of injecting insecticide, under pressure, directly into all known nests, including those on all sites being monitored: originally with chlorpyrifos, toxic to humans, then later with fipronil, toxic to humans if they consume agricultural products exposed to it.
Independent scientists have been consistently critical of the practice. In 2004, an independent scientific review team said:
In 2010, another independent scientific review team said the reason why the largest and oldest fire ant infestation, centred around Wacol in Brisbane’s south-west, persists, despite receiving the full standard baiting program, is because the standard program has been complicated by injecting a liquid insecticide under pressure into known nests. And it also compromises Biosecurity Queensland’s ability to demonstrate that the standard baiting program, alone, kills fire ants.
Also dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say the sixty sites used in the study were the only ones of the 905 infested properties that were being monitored in October 2002 to meet the criteria of having received the full complement of the standard baiting program. Biosecurity Queensland cannot claim its standard baiting program kills fire ants when only a small proportion of infested properties actually receive it.
Also dishonestly, the paper DOES NOT say that, from 2001 to 2006, the timeframe when Biosecurity Queensland was collecting data on the effectiveness of its baiting program, the fire ant infestation in south-east Queensland blew out from 44,876ha to 72,600ha: evidence Biosecurity Queensland’s treatment program is not killing fire ants.
Biosecurity Queensland still cannot prove it can kill fire ants. In 2017, the Queensland Audit Office said ‘Biosecurity Queensland does not capture reliable data and has no methods for evaluating its programs.’ But dishonestly, Biosecurity Queensland tells the public and its oversight committee its standard baiting program can kill fire ants with minimal impact on local ant species.