Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:50:38.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sodium fluoracetate (1080) as a rat poison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. A. Barneet  and
Mary M. Spencer
S. A. Barneet
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Infestation Control Division, London.
Mary M. Spencer
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Infestation Control Division, London.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. Sodium fluoracetate (1080) has been tested in the field as a poison for Rattus norvegicus and R. rattus.

2. Direct poisoning (without Prebaiting) was used in thirteen tests on R. norvegicus. In eight of these tests censuses showed kills of at least 89% in three tests the poison failed, and in two the results were equivocal.

3. Of three similar tests against R. rattus two were successful and one was a failure.

4. Six tests of 1080 after prebaiting gave five successes (including one against R. rattus), and one in which the estimated kill was about 82%.

5. In five out of six tests populations of R. norvegicus which had survived baiting with 1080 showed shyness (refusal) of the poison when it was given in a new bait base.

6. The LD 50 of 1080 for a strain of white rats was found to be 3·8 mg./kg. (approx. range 2·8–5·2).

7. A number of wild brids and some domestic animals were accidentally killed during the tests despite stringent precautions taken in laying the bait and in warning occupiers.

8. It is concluded that: (a) although 1080 is probably more effective in direct poisoning than other poisons used in the past, it does not give as consistent results as the standard poisons do after prebaiting; (b) 1080 is too dangerous for general use.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 1949 , pp. 426 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

References

REFERENCES

Barnett, S. A. (1946). Infestation Control: Rats and Mice. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. (1948). Pests of Stored Grains: F.A.O. Agric. Publ. 2. Wash. p. 129.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A., Blaxland, J. D., Leech, F. B. & Spencer, Mary M. (1949). J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 431.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1935). Ann. Appl. Biol. 22, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, M. B. & Gilman, A. (1946). J. Pharm. 187, 90.Google Scholar
Chitty, D. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports. London: H.M.S.O. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Chitty, D. & Shorten, M. (1946). J. Mammal. 27, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieke, S. H. & Richter, C. P. (1946). Publ. Hlth. Rep. Wash. 61, 672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1943). Statistical Tables, 2nd ed. London.Google Scholar
Kalmbach, E. R. (1945). Science, 102, 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmbach, E. R. (1947). In Yearbook of Agriculture, 1943–7. Washington.Google Scholar
Middleton, A. D. (1945). Rat Control on Farms. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Rzoska, J. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports. London: H.M.S.O. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Shorten, M. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports. London: H.M.S.O. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Simmons, S. W. & Nicholson, H. P. (1947). Pests and their Control, 15, 8.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. V. (1948). Bull. Anim. Behav. 6, 26.Google Scholar
Ward, J. C. (1946). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 36, 1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar