Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T12:24:13.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pen and field trials of flupropadine against the house mouse (Mus musculus L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

F. P. Rowe ,
A. Bradfield  and
T. Swinney
F. P. Rowe
Affiliation:
Mammals and Birds Department, Agricultural Science Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth Laboratory, Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF
A. Bradfield
Affiliation:
Mammals and Birds Department, Agricultural Science Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth Laboratory, Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF
T. Swinney
Affiliation:
Mammals and Birds Department, Agricultural Science Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth Laboratory, Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Laboratory and field trials were conducted to determine the efficacy of the candidate rodenticide flupropadine against the house mouse (Mus musculus L.). In laboratory feeding tests, family groups of wild mice maintained in pens and conditioned to feeding on plain foods were offered flupropadine at either 0·10%, 0·15%, 0·18% or 0·20% in pinhead oatmeal bait. Overall mortalities in replicated 21-day treatments were 66/71 (93·0%), 71/79 (89·9%), 72/70 (94·7%) and 69/75 (92·0%) respectively.

In 17 field trials carried out against mice infesting farm buildings, flupropadine was used at 0·10%, 0·15% and 0·18% in oatmeal bait. Mean treatment success, estimated from live-capture and mortality data, was 88·6%, 96·2% and 96·6% respectively.

Flupropadine was found to be as near effective against mice as calciferol/warfarin and the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides difenacoum, bromadiolone and brodifacoum. In further comparison with the anticoagulants, treatment with flupropadine bait achieved markedly quicker control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 513 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

Chitty, D. & Kempson, D. A. (1949). Prebaiting small mammals and a new design of live trap. Ecology 30, 536–542.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P. & Bradfield, A. (1975). Comparative acute and chronic toxicity tests on confined colonies of wild house mice (Mus musculus L.). Proceedings of the 4th British Pest Control Conference, Jersey, 04 1975.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P. & Bradfield, A. (1976). Trials of the anticoagulant rodenticide WBA 8119 against confined colonies of warfarin-resistant house mice (Mus musculus L.). Journal of Hygiene 77, 427–431.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P., Plant, C. J. & Bradfield, A. (1981). Trials of the anticoagulant rodenticides bromadiolone and difenaroum against the house mouse (Mus musculus L.). Journal of Hygiene 87, 171–177.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P., Smith, F. J. & Swinney, T. (1974). Field trials of calciferol combined with warfarin against wild house mice (Mus musculus L.). Journal of Hygiene 73, 353–360.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P.Swinney, T. & Plant, C. J. (1978). Field trials of brodifacoum (WBA 8119) against the house mouse (Mus musculus L.). Journal of Hygiene 81. 197–201.Google Scholar