United States Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services: Staff Publications
Accessibility Remediation
If you are unable to use this item in its current form due to accessibility barriers, you may request remediation through our remediation request form.
Document Type
Article
Date of this Version
June 2002
Abstract
Four rodent control techniques-sustained baiting (SB) with coumachlor. pulsed baiting (PB) with brodifacoum. a lethal electrified barrier (LEB), and a nonlethal electrified barrier (NLEB)-were evaluated on the experimental farm of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. A fifth treatment (no experimental rodent control) was established for reference. Mean tiller damage and rodent activity, respectively. near harvest were 1.00%1 and 1.5% in the LEB plots, 1.6% and 18.0% in the SB plots, 2.1% and 16.0 % in the PB plots, and 4.1% and 32.5% in the NLEB plots. Highest mean tiller damage (9.3%) and rodent activity (56.0%) occurred in plots with no experimental rodent control. Both baiting methods (SB and PB) were less expensive than barrier methods (LEB and NLEB). During an 80-day crop protection period prevalent on the IRRl experimental farm, the total cost per hectare (US$) for protecting experimental plots from rodent damage was $26 for SB. $27 for PB, $268 for NLEB, and S1285 for LEB. Baiting methods were more cost-effective and are recommended for general rodent control on research farms that can tolerate ≤ 2% rodent damage without losing experimental data. For small research plots demanding a greater degree of protection, an effective barrier system such as the LEB or a combination of the NLEB and LEB should be used.
Comments
Published in International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 49 (2002) 125-132.