Exploring drivers of the usage of anticoagulant rodenticides on UK farms |
| |
Authors: | Alexandra J. Tomlinson Annie Rayner Ashleigh Bright David P. Cowan Kate E. Littin Ruth Layton |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. The Paddock, Newtown, Longnor, Buxton, UK;2. Food Animal Initiative (FAI), The Field Station, Wytham, Oxford, UK;3. National Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Sand Hutton, York, UK;4. Ministry For Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand |
| |
Abstract: | Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) are considered inhumane, show increasingly limited efficacy due to acquired resistance, and carry environmental consequences associated with non-target species uptake. In a questionnaire study of 499 UK farms that all deployed chemical rodenticide we found a high mean reliance (79%), on second generation ARs with just over half of the respondents using no other rodent control methods. Additional methods where deployed, alone or in combination, included predation (41%), kill-trap deployment (16%) and shooting (1%). Nearly 40% of all respondents deployed rodenticides year-round. There was no evidence to suggest that “tidy-farm” measures, such as clearing food spills and minimising on-farm rodent harbourage sites aimed at minimising rodent-associated problems, were associated with a lower likelihood of year-round deployment; in fact trends in our analyses suggested the opposite. We therefore encourage operators to fully evaluate the true necessity of rodenticide deployment before AR use. |
| |
Keywords: | Anticoagulant rodenticide farm wildlife-farm interface rodent control integrated pest management |
|
|