Defra & Strychnine

There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the market as to why Strychnine is no longer available. Initially we thought, like most of us did, that it had been banned. Then we were advised by a Defra spokesperson that it had not been banned, it had just become commercially unprofitable. We are still not sure what the situation is, but what we do know is that Strychnine is no longer available as a pest control method for the control of moles.

During our research we found an interested  document produced by Defra which clearly identifies the problems farmers and landowners are facing with the growing population of moles in the U.K. The report was written at the time when the banning of Strychnine was being reviewed.

The report is called :

A review of methods used within the European Union to control the European Mole, Talpa Europaea

And it can be found at :

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports/mole-review.pdf

Below in bold are extracts from the Defra document followed by our BurrowBlaster comments.

You can Click here to see the full document 

Defra: In preparation for the likely withdrawal of strychnine from the market in 2006, alternative methods to control the European mole, Talpa europaea, were reviewed. Techniques currently used within EU states were assessed for effectiveness and humaneness, although some involve the use of active ingredients that do not have UK approval. The reasons for controlling moles have also been summarized in order to judge the economic viability of the replacement methods.

‘BurrowBlaster is the most popular alternative method in the U.K. The active ingredients and method of control used by the BurrowBlaster has not yet been approved for use in the U.K. However, with the explosion in the mole populations and the detrimental effects this is having on our food and food chain, farmers are increasingly turning to BurrowBlaster to solve this growing problem.’

Defra: Fumigation with aluminium phosphide preparations that liberate phosphine gas on contact with soil moisture is a common control method, being used in Denmark, France and Germany as well as the UK, but independent data on efficacy under UK conditions are limited. Soil temperature, porosity and moisture levels, largely uncontrollable by operators, can affect the concentration of gas in tunnel systems. Unless a high concentration can be maintained, affected moles may show prolonged symptoms of poisoning making the humaneness of the method questionable. No other fumigant is approved for mole control in the UK. Limited trials with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide suggested that these were ineffective as fumigants, although further studies of novel formulations might be warranted.

‘US trials of the BurrowBlaster type device suggest that propane is a very effective fumigant and that it is more humane than other control methods in that there is no pain associated with it’s use. The mole simply lapses into unconsciousness. An application for the start of trials to study the effects of the use of the BurrowBlaster as an authorized suffocation system has been submitted to the relevant authorities in the U.K.’

Defra: Trapping is probably the best method to remove small numbers of moles, but against large diffuse populations, the effort required to prevent rapid reinvasion into a target area necessitates extensive trapping and may be impractical.

‘With literally thousands of moles now infecting many of our large farms, DEFRA agree that the use of Kill Traps is impractical. However, using the BurrowBlaster is a fast and efficient method of covering vast areas quickly and easily. By removing habitat in a short period of time, there is a vastly reduced risk of immediate reinvasion into the target area. It also takes longer for the re-establishment of tunnel systems thus providing a more controlled opportunity at keeping the numbers down in the target areas.’

Defra: From the available data, all alternative methods to strychnine use would appear to be less cost-effective and are not unequivocally more humane. Implementing these methods will incur extra costs that may be up to 7 times greater for fumigation and up to 10 times greater for trapping in order to achieve equivalent levels of control.

‘Using the BurrowBlaster is very cost effective. Use of Oxygen and Propane is a very low cost alternative to existing control methods. Additionally through the removal of the tunnel systems, BurrowBlaster is more humane, more effective and longer lasting than trapping and gassing.’

Defra: In the absence of a significant breakthrough in the development of more effective deterrents/repellents, improved methods of trapping may be preferred to fumigation.

‘Field activity shows that the BurrowBlaster is a very effective deterrent and it is a vast improvement on the existing control methods’

Defra: Prior to 2006, with permission from Defra, strychnine can be purchased and used to control moles

ü    to prevent damage to machinery when cutting silage or harvesting crops,

ü    to prevent injury to cattle on pastures and to horses on racecourses and gallops,

ü    to prevent soil contamination of silage to protect animals (principally sheep) from listeriosis,

ü    to prevent accidents on aircraft grass landing strips,

ü    and to maintain the playing surface on golf courses.

[Since it was banned ] no alternative method that is comparably effective has been discovered. A shortage of strychnine in early 2003 highlighted the need to reevaluate alternative means of control. If supplies of the poison are to be withdrawn permanently in the near future, landowners seeking to control the animal will have no choice but to use other approved measures.

‘Since this review BurrowBlaster has been introduced to the U.K. with great effect. Uses of the BurrowBlaster are reporting significant reductions in the mole activity in target areas after treatment.’

Defra: The purpose of this review is to assess the range of mole control methods that exist across the EU and provide guidance to UK interests on the most humane and effective means available. We reviewed the reasons why moles are controlled, as it is likely that the loss of strychnine will alter significantly the cost benefit analysis for control. Sources of information for this review were published

1.       the mole [….] is widely perceived to be a pest.

2.       Moles damage amenity areas that is often relatively trivial, but can occasionally have serious consequences;

3.      Moles deliver potentially economically significant damage to agriculture and flood defenses.

Defra:

Damage to agriculture

 Contamination of silage

The problem occurs when soil from molehills is collected with grass cut for silage. Bacteria present in the soil, especially Clostridium spp., lead to the formation of butyric acid, which can adversely effect the fermentation and preservation of silage (Neville, 1985; Stone, 1989; Atkinson et al., 1994; Guedon, 1998). This in turn can reduce the nutritional value of silage or, in some cases, render it unpalatable, thereby affecting both milk (Guedon, 1998) and beef (Stone, 1989) production. […]

Listeria monocytogenes in the soil contaminates silage resulting in listeriosis in sheep and cattle (Barlow, 1971; Farndale, 1993). Up to 10% of animals in a flock/herd may be affected (Atkinson et al., 1994).

Covering of pasture

In a survey of Welsh farmers in the late 1970’s, the reduction of grazing areas by molehills was regarded as the most serious and widespread of all types of mole damage (Hill and Jones, 1978). In subsequent field trials, it was observed that the loss of grazing area was up to 18%.[…] Clearly, this amount of surface soil will appreciably reduce the amount of feed available to livestock and thus represents a considerable loss of milk and meat to the farmer if no action is taken (Gunston, 1953).

Damage to agricultural machinery

Molehills may interfere with harvesting and cause considerable damage to farm machinery (Adams, 1920; Macdougall, 1942; Neville, 1985; Stone, 1989). Indeed, the blunting of machine blades is one of the main concerns of farmers (Mead-Briggs and Woods, 1970), when clover and grass are cut very close to the ground to produce silage (Lund, 1976); similar damage has been noted when corn, peas and soya beans have been harvested (Neville, 1985; Guedon, 1998). The tendency for moles to bring stones to the surface (Jewell, 1958; Farndale, 1993) can lead to increased machine damage, as can the consolidation and enlargement of molehills by invading ants (Bennet et al., 1942; Vonorov, 1968).

Damage to young plants

On arable farms, the uprooting of seedlings and young plants is considered one of the most serious types of damage attributed to moles (Mead-Briggs and Woods, 1970). The problem is well documented (Macdougall, 1942; Oates, 1956; Lund, 1976; Guedon; 1998) and damage usually occurs as a result of animals raising the roofs of their tunnels, either killing plants directly as they are pushed up onto the surface or by depriving their rooting systems of soil and water which may also lead to the exposure of roots to frost (Stone, 1989). In Czechoslovakia, Grulich (1959) reported up to 25% of young sugar beet plants being thrown up onto the surface at one site. In Britain, root and ground fruit crops are susceptible to similar types of damage (Neville, 1985).

Weed invasion and degeneration of pasture

The exposed soil of newly formed molehills is often the first area of fields to be colonised, invariably by volunteer weed species, which may further invade the pasture and dilute the sward (Neville, 1985; Stone, 1989). This has the effect of steadily reducing pasture quality and consequently production. In a quantitative study, Davies (1966) found Agrostis spp. to be the most frequent colonisers of molehills regardless of sward use. Within two years, most molehills in the study were covered by almost pure stands of Agrostis spp. at which point the vegetation appeared to stabilise. Davies also noted an association between the presence of molehills and the spread of thistles (Circium arvensie), which, at one site, accounted for 8% of the ground cover. Ford (1935) discovered a similar connection reporting that the number of thistles per square yard of mole infested ground was 6.9 compared with 0.7 in an adjoining mole-free area. In a later study, Jalloq (1975), collected and germinated seeds from molehills and found that only a very small proportion of the seedlings that emerged were high-quality fodder grasses. Weed species contributed most to the emerging sward. Thus, grass species are more likely to colonise a molehill by vegetative means, but they have to compete with weed species better adapted to colonise bare soil.

Wilting of seedling crops

The burrows of small mammals are known to influence the humidity of soil (Popova, 1962), which can have deleterious effects on plants growing nearby. In Poland, in an area of grassland heavily populated by moles, Skoczen et al. (1976) demonstrated that the presence of mole tunnels had a drying effect on the adherent soil layers. The effect around some burrow systems was found to reach the point at which permanent wilting could be induced in plants and over a period of years a maze of surface tunnels could therefore markedly reduce the quality and quantity of grass, particularly in times of drought (Bennet et al., 1942; Hoogerkamp and Hoogerbrugge, 1975).

Damage to drainage systems and watercourses

The extensive tunnelling of moles into the raised banks of drainage systems can weaken and undermine their structure by allowing water to wash away substantial quantities of soil (Bennet et al., 1942). Macdougall (1942) reported on an artificial embankment, built to protect a low-lying stretch of meadowland from flooding, being substantially weakened by the presence of extensive burrow systems. Farndale (1993) also reported that mole activity undermined raised floodbanks. Although not common, this potential for water defences to give way, on increased pressure from flood, could have serious economic consequences.

Cost of damage and control

It is notoriously difficult to obtain even approximate figures on the economic importance of moles (Lund, 1976; Gorman and Lamb, 1994; Lodal, 1999) though some attempts have been made to estimate the extent of the problem and the national costs of mole damage and control.

England and Wales between January and March 1970 and found

ü    78% had signs of moles with 680 (11.8%) infested seriously

ü    Moles were regarded as a pest by 55% of all occupiers.

In 1992, responses to a questionnaire returned by 11,157 occupiers of farms in England, Scotland and Wales showed that

ü    97% of farms had moles and

ü    64% of farmers regarded them as pests (Atkinson et al., 1994).

Farms consisting primarily of pasture with some silage production suffered the greatest losses. […] with a turnover of billions of pounds per annum, the presence of moles can have a serious impact at the local level, particularly in marginal areas where farmers may already be struggling to maintain economic viability (Gorman and Lamb, 1994). […..]  for large-scale or acute problems some form of control may be necessary, as without it mole populations can spread and the losses attributable to them may become correspondingly greater.

Methods used in EU states to control the European Mole

ü    Poison

ü    Baits

ü    Fumigants Traps Repellents Fences Earthworm

ü    Habitat modification

One non-lethal alternative to direct population control is habitat modification. This technique aims to reduce mole numbers in specific locations by manipulating the local environment in such a way

‘The BurrowBlaster is placed firmly in the this section. The BurrowBlaster alters habitat in 2 ways. The first is that it removes their habitat and the second is that there is some indications that the blasting of ground seems to cause the moles not to venture towards the blast zones. Trials [when approved for the U.K.] will consider both of these effects. Additionally, trialing the ‘kill trap’ effect will also be conducted. i.e. the humaneness of the killing of any moles still in the tunnel systems when the treatment is effected.’

Conclusions

Defra: […] Undoubtedly, the relative cheapness of carrying out strychnine baiting has always tilted the balance in favour of control, but most of the reports about damage are not recent and the current economic significance of any damage that does occur is unknown. Nevertheless, it will remain likely that, due to local factors, individual farmers may suffer disproportionately greater losses from mole activity. Our review has not found any other lethal-control method that is as cost-effective as strychnine baiting and it is uncertain that those methods that are available to UK landowners are unequivocally more humane.

‘Since this report, the BurrowBlaster has been launched as a viable and effective method of managing mole infested farmland. However, it needs to be restated that the BurrowBlaster (and Rodenator or Rodex) are not approved for the use as a pest control device where the killing of the moles occurs in England.’

‘Having now submitted our application for the trialing of the BurrowBlaster, we are hopeful that Defra, Natural England and the Home Office will enable us to start and complete the trials for the approval of the use of the BurrowBlaster as an authorized pest control device.’

The BurrowBlaster is well suited to the management of mole tunnels and it is probably better than any other similar device on the market including the Rodenator because of some key differentiators:

ü    ‘The BurrowBlaster is half the weight of the Rodenator, and nearly half the length. This makes it a lightweight device that is easy to carry and move around the mole hills area. The Operators do not get anywhere near as fatigued using the BurrowBlaster as they do using the Rodenator’

ü    With the option of up to 50’ of hose, the BurrowBlaster provides a large operating area without having to move the trailer with the gas bottles.

ü    Working the area is much faster with the BurrowBlaster

ü    The Defra report states that the moles often push stones up to the surface. The BurrowBlaster enables the operator to stand well clear of any flying debris making the BurrowBlaster the safest device of its type on the market.

Control Methods - DEFRA Please cut and paste this link to get tot their document

http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife-management/control-methods/