Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Termite Control Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BASF tells Structural Pest Control Board about new termite bait and injection system
Summary
Representatives from BASF briefed the Structural Pest Control Board on two termite-control products — the Trelona ATBS bait system and the Termidor HP injection system — highlighting field trial results and water‑use and application reporting features.
Get email alerts on the Termite Control Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives from BASF told the Structural Pest Control Board on a public‑comment agenda item that two new termite control products are coming into use in California: the Trelona ATBS bait system and the Termidor HP injection system.
BASF technical manager Jim Treslow said the company participated in a field trial in the San Jose and East Bay areas that treated five homes with the Trelona ATBS bait; he said all five sites showed termite activity within the first month and were ‘‘under control’’ within a year. Treslow described Trelona ATBS as a commercially‑available bait that, unlike some baiting programs, can be purchased and used by a pest management professional without signing a service contract.
Jeremy Davis, a BASF representative, described Termidor HP as a new termiticide formulation paired with an injection machine that the company submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation for approval in California. He said the machine injects product directly into soil, removing the need for trenching and reducing technician handling and mixing. Davis said the machine reduces water use on a standard termiticide treatment by about 75 percent and includes an onboard computer that logs product volumes, water usage, elapsed time and linear feet treated; he said those records can be reported to the Board.
Board members thanked the presenters and asked no technical follow‑up questions during the meeting. BASF offered a demonstration unit and literature after the meeting.
The presentation was made during the meeting’s public‑comment period and did not trigger any formal board action at this meeting.

