Posts Tagged: rodents
Prevent rodents from overwintering in your home!
Most people don't think about rats or mice until they become pests in or around the home. But with...
UC Cooperative Extension advisor helps property managers prevent pests in the home
Living with pests, or “unwanted guests” as some put it, can take a physical, mental and economic toll. For people living in multi-family unit housing, like an apartment complex where everyone lives under one roof, a single infestation of insects or rodents can expose all residents.
Using integrated pest management, or IPM, residents and property managers can detect infestations early and control severe ones and protect people. IPM programs can also save money. IPM saved a 75-unit complex in Contra Costa County $11,121 annually. Similarly, in Santa Clara County, a 59-unit complex saved $1,321 on pest control annually after implementing a proactive IPM program.
This summer, regional directors, property managers, residential service coordinators, maintenance managers and groundskeepers of Mercy Housing – a nonprofit organization that provides affordable, low-income housing – gathered in Long Beach to learn about in-home IPM. The session was led by Siavash Taravati, University of California Cooperative Extension area IPM advisor for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and
Josh Shoemaker, an entomologist and private consultant.
Taravati and Shoemaker collaborated with StopPests in Housing, a national program out of Cornell University's Northeastern IPM Center, which seeks to improve pest control in affordable housing and teach management practices for cockroaches, bed bugs and rodents within and around the home.
During their presentation, Taravati introduced participants to the IPM principles and emphasized the importance of monitoring pests.
“IPM is all about making informed decisions which requires knowing the latest status of an infestation,” explained Taravati. “That's where monitoring comes into play. It can help us to identify the exact species we are dealing with as well as telling us if an infestation is growing or shrinking.”
“Monitoring is foundational,” agreed Shoemaker. “If a program does not include monitoring, it's not an IPM program.”
According to Shoemaker, the benefit of partnering with UC IPM is their sharp focus on general IPM, which includes monitoring. “It's real IPM, that prioritizes the well-being of the public,” said Shoemaker, who's eager to continue working with Cooperative Extension and Taravati to ensure that children are growing up in safe environments.
Pest control treatments commonly take place following a serious infestation or several complaints, but IPM promotes constant monitoring to prevent heavy infestations from ever happening. It's a proactive approach rather than a reactive or emergency-response. For many attendees, the training revealed a need to engage with pest management operators more closely.
Training prompts changes that improve safety for residents
Pest management operators commonly use pesticide sprays to control pests. Besides inconveniencing residents, forcing them to do extensive preparations and evacuate their unit until it's safe to return, sprays increase exposure risk to pesticides since the aerosols can linger and land on surfaces.
Instead, Taravati and Shoemaker recommend using gel baits, which are much safer to apply and can target a specific area of a home, including crevices, instead of along all the walls.
“Now that I'm more informed, I'll be speaking to my contractor to discuss how we can switch their approach from a bug spray to a gel,” said Leonardo Pinuelas, a maintenance manager for Mercy Housing.
Pinuelas is not the only one wanting to modify their program, however. According to feedback from staff members at the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles who experienced the same training earlier this year, they prompted their team to amend their pest extermination to include dusting, or applying insecticidal dusts, against roaches, and to review and update their existing IPM plan and practices where appropriate.
Cindy Wise, area director of operations for Mercy Housing, said that in her 35 years, this was one of the few trainings that engaged her staff so actively. “I couldn't help but text my regional vice president to say that our managers were actively participating and asking questions. That doesn't happen often, not even in our own meetings,” said Wise.
Many of the attendees, with their new understanding of how cockroaches move through a structure, shared that they are eager to return to work to meet with residents and support them.
“If you've got roaches in one unit, you've got them in the entire building,” Wise said.
Shoemaker recalls the words of Judy Black, senior technical entomologist for Orkin, and Dini Miller, entomologist at Virginia Tech, who urge the importance of inspections and documentation as IPM best practices.
Although reporting pests in the home can make one feel embarrassed, Wise said she is more interested in making residents feel empowered to not only report signs of infestation to the staff, but to their neighbors.
Training residents is certainly beneficial, but as experts such as Black and Miller have pointed out, housing managers must do their part, instead of scapegoating tenants for their cleaning habits.
StopPests provides free IPM training and technical assistance to Housing and Urban Development assisted properties. If you are interested in the training provided by Taravati and Shoemaker, in collaboration with StopPests, visit StopPests.org for more information.
Proposed Changes to EPA Rodenticide Labels
U.S. EPA proposed changes to rodenticide labels for agricultural use:
opportunity for public comment
Roger A. Baldwin, Professor of Cooperative Extension, UC Davis
Niamh Quinn, Cooperative Extension Advisor, UC South Coast Research and Extension Center
Rodents cause substantial damage and health risks in agricultural productions systems through direct consumption of fruit, nuts, and vegetative material; damage to the plant (e.g., girdling of stems and trunks); by providing a food safety hazard from contamination; damage to irrigation infrastructure; damage to farm equipment; burrow systems posing a hazard to farm laborers; posing a health risk through potential disease transmission; and increased soil erosion by water channeling down burrow systems, among other potential damage outcomes. They also cause substantial damage and food contamination risks in livestock holding facilities, food processing facilities, barns, and other agricultural-related structures. As such, effective management is needed to minimize these risks. The use of rodenticides is often considered the most efficacious and cost-effective tool for managing rodent pests, and as such, it is often included in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs designed to mitigate rodent damage and health risks. Given the significance of rodenticides in managing rodent pests, it is important to know that the U.S. EPA has recently released a list of Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) for public comment that, if approved, will substantially alter if and how rodenticides may be used to manage rodent pests in the near future. As such, we felt it was important to inform California's agricultural producers as to the extent of these proposed changes, and if you are so inclined, we have provided a link for you to provide public comment on the PIDs, as well as links to contact your Senate and Congressional representatives to ensure your opinion is heard.
All rodenticides are currently under review. These include first-generation anticoagulants (FGARs; chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin), second-generation anticoagulants (SGARs; brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum), zinc phosphide, strychnine, bromethalin, and cholecalciferol. Of these, only FGARs, zinc phosphide, and strychnine have labels for use against field rodents (e.g., ground squirrels, pocket gophers, voles, rats, and mice found in agricultural fields), but not all of these active ingredients can be used for all rodent species. As always, it is imperative to fully read a rodenticide's label before determining if it is appropriate for use against a particular species and in a specific situation. That said, the following are some significant changes that have been proposed that you should be aware of. Other potential changes have been proposed as well, so please check out the PIDs for additional details (linked at the end of this document).
- All rodenticides for field applications will become restricted-use products. This means that applicators will need to be certified to use restricted-use products in these settings. They will also have increased reporting requirements for their use.
- Aboveground applications would be eliminated in rangeland, pastureland, and fallow land. This is a substantial deviation, as many/most applications in these areas have traditionally been through broadcast applications or spot treatments. This change would leave only bait stations for ground squirrels and voles.
- Within-burrow applications of FGARs will generally not be allowed in croplands during the growing season. This would eliminate FGAR application for pocket gophers for much of the year, and would eliminate it for all uses in some crops (e.g., citrus and alfalfa in certain areas of the state).
- Carcass searches will be required every day or every two days (starting 3-4 days after the initial application), depending on the product used and where applied, for at least two weeks after the last application of the rodenticide. When carcasses are found, they must be disposed of properly. Any non-target mortalities must be reported to the U.S. EPA. Collectively, this will require a major increase in labor, potentially making rodenticide applications impractical in many settings.
- Extensive endangered species designations are anticipated that will limit or eliminate the potential to apply rodenticides. This could have large-scale impacts, although the full extent is not known at this time.
- New labels will require the use of a PF10 respirator and chemical resistant gloves during application. This is a substantial change for some rodenticide labels, requiring fit testing for all applicators, with the requirement of respirators ultimately making rodenticide application more physically challenging.
Additional details on these proposed changes can be found at the following websites:
- Anticoagulant PID: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0778-0094
- Zinc phosphide PID: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0140-0031
- Strychnine PID: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0754-0025
- Bromethalin and cholecalciferol PID: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0077-0024
As mentioned previously, these proposed changes are likely to have a substantial impact on the use of rodenticides in agricultural settings. However, these changes are currently open for public comment. If you would like to comment on these proposed changes, the required links and useful guidance can be found at the following website: https://responsiblerodenticides.org/.
You may also comment on these proposed changes to your Senate and Congressional representatives. If you are unsure who they are or how to contact them, check out: https://www.congress.gov/contact-us.
The deadline for making comments to the U.S. EPA is unfortunately short, with a final deadline of February 13, 2023. Therefore, you will need to provide your comments in short order.
EPA proposed mitigation
Rats, Rodenticides, and Research
Where is rodenticide exposure in wildlife coming from? Is it from use by residents or farmers?...
Organic Control of Rodents
Burrowing Rodents: Developing a
Management Plan
for Organic Agriculture in CA
RELATED ITEMS
- California ground squirrels Otospermophilus spp.
- Pocket Gophers Thomomys spp.
- Meadow voles Microtus spp.
This free publication is available by download.
This publication is best viewed using the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader. You can download a free copy of the Acrobat Reader from Adobe Systems Incorporated.
ground squirrel