A Proposal On How To Determine Between Small Range And Medium Range
Professional ILTs
(Or, Some ILTs Look Like Medium Range ILTs When They're Not)
by David W. Gilbert II

Other Professional ILT Categories Will Be Necessary, But We Have To Start Somewhere.
Last update 7/9/0

FLY LAB 5611	ROOM #2		NUMBER OF FLIES TRAPPED		FLY AGE IN DAYS	Both traps have new lamps, and tops of traps are 36" high
DATE	°F	%Rh	Brand X	Gilbert 2000GT		COMMENTS
2/4/03	74	29.4	4	30	1	Brand X has black glueboard & started on right
2/5/03	15	33.5	6	29	2
2/6/03	75	32.1	5	36	3
2/7/03	74	28.9	4	27	4	Switched Sides of room
2/10/03	74	28.6	15	38	1
2/11/03	75	33.2	19	50	2
2/12/03	74	29.7	7	45	3
			60	255
			TOTAL	315
			19.05%	80.95%

MATERIALS/METHODS: The Gilbert 2000GT is my choice for a generic research comparison unit. The trap opening is restricted to direct view of the lamps, the attractant light, therefore, limited to direct light, so there are no reflecting surfaces on the wall or inside the trap to add or subtract from its attractiveness. This configuration limits variables, very important in scientific research! It uses two 20 watt lamps as the insect attractant, a three decade standard in the industry.  The 2000GT is readily available on the open market. A generic equivalent can, with a little effort, be constructed. And, it is physically small and professionally powerful.

If a trap has better catching ability than a Gilbert 2000GT (or the generic equivalent), it would enter the low end of the medium range (or have medium catching ability). If not, it is, like the Gilbert 1999GT, a small range ILT with small fly catch power (or catching ability). Click here to see a comparison of 2000GT vs. 1999GT.

The superiority of the Gilbert 2000/GT to the Brand X in side by side tests appears obvious in the research results (above).

However, it can be said that the Brand X has a larger glue board and, therefore, in situations where the Gilbert 2000GT glue board is completely filled, the Brand X could continue catching flies (though, apparently, with lesser ability), and would eventually, with enough time, hold more flies than the Gilbert 2000GT.

So, now, we have two measures of effectiveness to consider, catching power (determined by fly test comparisons) and catch capacity which can be measured and expressed in sq. inches, etc.

Professional ILTs should be able do both - provide professional catching ability and also have sufficient capacity to hold the insects it catches over a specified period of time. It is catching ability (not catch capacity) that needs a definition. Side by side tests are one way, perhaps, the best way, to define it.. A catching power of X.X vs. Musca domestica would be even more specific.

At this stage, the research paper (above) is about as scientific as most published research in the field, which is not very good. I will fire the first shot at it: Research should be repeatable! There isn't enough information to do that! How big were the test rooms, for instance?

Claims must be challenged. There must be questions and research into those questions, or there will be no ILT science, no professionalism.