PPC116 | Technical - Help us protect your toolkit!

As part of the BPCA Academic Relations Working Group, Iain Pendreich from member company Pest Solutions has been analysing survey data in depth so he can present the findings to PPC readers.

The recent BPCA Future of Pest Management survey sought the opinions and experiences of pest professionals across the industry. With over 800 responses, we have an insight into how we work, the tools we use and what we think the future holds. 

A number of questions tackled the topic of rodenticides: what we use, how we use it, and how we stay educated. As a technician, it was interesting to see how these results compared with my experiences in the centre of Edinburgh.

Rodenticide choice

Firstly, when asked, “Do you have a choice of anticoagulants, cholecalciferol, and alphachloralose rodenticides you can use in your company?” 85% of pest controllers responded “yes”, they have a choice.

As trained professionals, the majority of us can exercise some autonomy in our work, plan our strategy, and, with 85% of us also knowing how to check the resistance status of rodents in the areas we work in, choose an effective product for the job.

The majority of us get to choose our rodenticides, but how often do we use them when managing rodent populations? When asked how often we use rodenticide to manage an established population of rodents – over 99% of respondents said they would use rodenticide as part of their approach.  

However dealing with a rogue intruder requires a different response. Around 10% of pest controllers are happy to work without rodenticide, and 20% of participants use it only rarely.

Whether proofing, trapping, or other components of an integrated approach, technicians use different strategies based on the scenarios they encounter and choose when and when not to use chemical controls.

Using rodenticide safely

Considering safety, when asked how we stay updated with rodenticide labels, 75% of pest controllers read the label, possibly a message drummed in during training: always read the label. 

This was closely followed by 71% who prefer to receive information from BPCA sources, PPC, emails, and news articles.  

30-40% rely on other magazines, distributors, and their own companies. 

However, social media trails behind, with just a quarter of respondents turning to social media for up-to-date label information. Possibly, information is not as trusted on social media, and professionals in the industry prefer sources they know can be relied upon. 

“How often does an environmental risk assessment dictate that you shouldn’t use rodenticide?”. About 40% of the time, on average, we are faced with scenarios in which we don’t think rodenticide is appropriate for controlling a rodent population. 

These results help demonstrate that we are responsible and thoughtful in our use of rodenticides. Different situations require different strategies, and modern pest control isn’t just a case of showing up and chucking down some bait. 

We use our training and knowledge to decide when these products are needed and when they are safe to use. 

What rodenticides are we using?

There were no surprises when asked about which rodenticides we are using. The most popular option for most people is second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs). 

77% of respondents would “often or always” choose an SGAR when planning a treatment, compared to just 28% who would say the same for cholecalciferol and just 2% when considering alphachloralose. 

To flip it about, 37% of people answering the survey stated they never use alphachloralose, in contrast to just 2% who never use anticoagulant products and 19% never using a cholecalciferol product. 

A similar pattern can be seen when asked more specifically what we consider most palatable. Anticoagulants are considered the most palatable by a considerable margin, followed by cholecalciferol and then alphachloralose.

As a technician, when I think about these results, I can see them reflected in my own experience and the rodenticides lurking in the back of my van. I tend to reach for the SGAR first, especially when indoors in an urban setting, but I’m increasingly moving towards cholecalciferol, to which 34% of respondents, maybe in the same way, said they would also use “sometimes”.

Alphachloralose sticks out in the survey results, with nearly 80% of participants having never used it or only on very rare occasions. A direct comparison with SGAR and cholecalciferol may be somewhat unfair for alphachloralose, as when used professionally alphachloralose is only permitted for use controlling mice, not rats, and only indoors. 

The only time I come across it is typically in domestic jobs when I find the bait the customer has picked up at the shop, now lying long-forgotten down the side of the fridge.

Mice, whether in commercial or domestic properties, can be one of the biggest challenges in Edinburgh, and here’s a product designed for mice indoors that can control resistant rodents and poses less risk to humans and non-targets… and like most of us, I’ve never tried it! Perhaps in alphachloralose we have an under-utilised tool that’s ready for re-evaluation. 

SGARs are our ’go-to‘ rodenticides, but of the five SGARs we can use, what do we choose? 

This question was asked in two variations, one considering internal and the other external usage, and asked participants to rank their most-to-least used SGAR. 

Internally, brodifacoum is our favourite active ingredient – 39% of respondents rank it as their first choice. From most to least used, brodifacoum is followed by bromadiolone and difenacoum, with around 25% of participants choosing one of these as their preferred active. Difethialone and flocoumafen are next, with 5% and 3% considering them their most used product. 

The external variant of the question produced broadly similar results, but due to restrictions on external use, brodifacoum was used less than bromadiolone. 

Whether internal or external, we can see a heavy reliance on brodifacoum. Just thinking of my own van, I’m carrying five products of different formulations (pasta, block, wheat, paste, and contact gel) all containing brodifacoum. It works.

But if all pest controllers are following a similar pattern of use, then there is the real risk that we are driving the next round of resistance by selecting for brodifacoum-resistant rodents and putting brodifacoum at risk as part of our toolkit for the future.

Much like alphachloralose, could we be missing an opportunity here? 

More than 60% of pest controllers never use flocoumafen or difethialone-based products, compared to only 12% never using brodifacoum. 

I fall into that 60% having never used them, and if considering resistance map data for the areas I work in, difenacoum and bromadiolone are out the window. Rather than always relying on brodifacoum, I could be rotating to products using difethialone or flocoumafen.

So, thinking of these results, I wonder if there’s another aspect of our toolkit being underused and what the consequences might be in the future.

“77% of respondents would “often or always” choose an SGAR when planning a treatment, compared to just 28% who would say the same for cholecalciferol and just 2% when considering alphachloralose.”

Favoured rodenticide formulations

When looking at our favourite formulations, blocks, pasta, and grains are our bread-and-butter options. It looks like we’ve all got a sack of grain or a tub of wax blocks somewhere in the van. 

When asked to rate how often we use certain formulations, over 90% have used a block, pasta or wheat formulation at some point when controlling rodents. 

But again, what we are not using can be as interesting as what we are using. 55% of pest professionals say they never use liquid bait, and 48% never use pellets. The caulked baits and contact gel sit somewhere in between. 

Respondents say they are more likely to use them “sometimes”, with caulked soft baits seeing slightly more usage than contact gels or foams. Maybe for most respondents, like myself, these products sit at the back of the van, forgotten behind a tub of wax blocks, only being whipped out when we are struggling for a bit of bait-take.

But could there be an opportunity for re-evaluation of neglected formulations, particularly when approaching behavioural resistance?

Some final thoughts

Thinking about the theme of the survey, “meeting a challenging future head-on,” whether that be resistance, changing regulations, or changes to our toolkit, I take a lot of positives from the results. 

They show that, as pest controllers, we work professionally, consider the uses of our tools, and are aware of the hazards they can pose.

However, when considering rodenticides, the survey results suggest that a substantial portion of our toolkit is currently being underused. We talk a lot about the threats to our toolkit, but there is also an opportunity to reevaluate neglected resources and fully utilise the tools available to us in a challenging future.

Into data crunching?

BPCA’s Academic Relations Working Group scrutinises research to help inform the sector and make better decisions. Made up of a mix of consultants, researchers, business leaders and technicians, it’s a fantastic place to deep-dive into the cutting edge of pest management. If you’re interested contact
membership@bpca.org.uk