The Philippines Recommends for Rodent Control
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Government Publication Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services The Philippines Recommends for Rodent Control DO NOT RETURN TO NAL I I PCARRD Technical Bulletin Series No. 57 This material was purchased NOTICE: This materfal may be for you by NAL-lnte, hbrnry protected by Copyright Law borrowinv :,ection (PL 94-533 and Title 17, U.S. Code) PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Nc1 tional Sr.ie:1ce and Technology Authority Los Bai'los, Laguna 1985 - JU\ 2~ M! I 0(1/r 1st printing, 1985 . ; Foreword No part of this publication can be reproduced without written permission I " - Rodents are notorious agricultural pests. Their presence always causes from the publisher. concern since they are capable of destruction and big losses. They can damage crops from nursery to storage, largely contributing to low yields and huge post-harvest losses. Estimated crop loss due to rat damage can run into millions of pesos. Significant findings of rodent research prompted the publication of the Philippines Recommends for Rodent Control. This volume summarizes Published through the Philippine Agriculture basic information on rodent biology and ecology. It also recommends and Resources Research Foundation, Inc. measures to reduce losses in major crops due to rodent attack. The estimated net returns per hectare of rodent control ls also included to give the farmers of various crops an idea of the benefits they can derive from the practice for each unit cost that they are willing to incur. U. p LO', RANOS The Philippines Recommends for Rodent Control is published as an LIHKAK Y attempt to contain the perenniql rodf\(\t_ ~r?blem in rice, coconut, corn, sugar, coffee and other economically vital crops. !tN~-~:At: Executive Director PCARRD iii ... Acknowledgment The Rodent Control Committee The Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research and 1984 Development (PCARRD) is grateful to Chancellor Emil Q. Javier of the University of the Philippines at Los Banos, Director Domingo F. Panganiban of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and Dr. Dante B. de Padua Pablo J. Alfonso Melanda M. Hoque of the National Post-Harvest Institute for Research and Extension for Asst. Professor Researcher allowing their respective staff to serve as members of the committee De9artment of Zoology NCPC which drafted the Philippines Recommends for Rodent Control. University of the Philippines University of the Philippines Los Bafios, Laguna Los Banos. Laguna Acknowledgment is also due Mr. Reynaldo G. abad and Mr. Emma nuel Aterrado for providing valuable information and pictures on rodent Edwin A. Benigno Priscilla P. Rubio control in coconuts, Dr. Dolores F. Hernandez of UP, the Science Education Researcher Senior Science Research Specialist Center and Dr. Dioscoro Rabor of UP College of Forestry for allowing the Naiional Crop Protection Center Crops Research Department reproduction of rat illustrations, Mr. Joselito A. Payot and Ms. Concep (NCPC) PCARRD cion E. Magboo of PCARRD for their help in preparing the manuscript. University of the Philippines Los Banos. Laguna Los Banos. Laguna Fernando F. Sanchez F!lipinas M. Caliboso Director f\:ational Postharvest Institute NCPC for Research and Extension University of the Philippines T~gu1n. Metro Manila Los Banos. Laguna Lynwood Fiedler Jesus P. Sumangil Visiting Asst. Professor Chief. Plant Pest Control Division NCPC Bureau of Plant Industry Uni11crs1 ty of the Philippines San Andres, Metro Manila L0s Banos. Laguna Deiy P. Gapasin Madeline B. Ouiamco Director.Crops Research Dept. Senior Science Research Specialist Prilippinc Council for Agricul- Applied Communication ture and Resources Research Department t1nd Development (PCARRD) PCARRD Lcs Barios. Laguna Los Banos, Laguna IV Rice 20 Damage 20 Species Involved 21 Control Methods 21 Contents Cost and 'Return 22 Coconut 22 Foreword iii Damage 22 Species Involved 24 Acknowledgment iv Control Methods 24 Cost and Return 27 The Rodent Control Committee, 1984 V Corn 28 Damage 28 Introduction 1 Species Involved 29 Control Methods 30 Rodent Forms 3 Cost and Return 31 Common Ricefield Rat 3 Asian Ricefield Rat 3 Sugarcane 31 Polynesian or Bush Rat 4 Damage 31 Norway Rat 4 Species Involved 31 Philippine House Mouse 4 Control Methods 32 Cost and Return 33 Population Characteristics 8 Life History 8 Coffee 35 Reproduction 8 Damage 35 Social Structure and Communities 9 Species Involved 35 Movement and Migration 9 Control Methods 35 Feeding Behavior 9 Cost and Return 36 Shelter Preference 10 Burrowing Habits 10 Root Crops 36 Damage 36 Control Methods 11 Species Involved 37 Physical Methods 11 Control Methods 37 Chemical Method 13 Cost and Re turn 38 Cultural MetJ:lods 13 Other Methods 14 Pineapple 38 Damage 38 Polson Baiting 15 Species Involved 39 Bait Containers 15 Baiting Methods 39 Baits 16 Cost and Return 39 Rodentic,des 16 Bait Placement 18 Ct;curbits 41 Cost and Benefits 18 Damage 41 Species Involved 41 Crop-Specific Measures for Controlling Baiting Methods 42 Rat Damage 20 vii vi lpil-lpil 42 Damage 42 6. Rat damage to rice 20 Species Involved 42 7. Baiting in ricefield 22 Control Methods 42 8. Rat damage to coconuts 23 . Cost and Return 43 9. A packet of bait is placed in the coconut crown with the aid of a bamboo pole 25 · Stored Products 45 10. Grour.d baiting in coconut 26 11. (30-40 Damage Patterns in Warehouse 45 Wide metal strip cm) is wrapped and nailed around the Species Involved 45 tree 3 m from the ground 27 Control Methods 45 12. Ra t damage to corn ears 29 13. Baiting in cornfields 30 14. Sugarcane damaged by rats at about seven months after r,lantmg 32 . 15. Start baiting seven months after planting sugarcane. Continue .. List of Tables baiting until harvest 34 1. Relative cost of mixed baits using 5 commercially available 16. Baiting in coffee starts before the emergence of new growth. anticoagulant rodenticides and rice shorts 11 Bait holder Is tied to the trunk of the tree 35 Baiting on the cassava field when tubers are mature 37 2. Summary of cost and benefits of sustained poison baiting per 17. Rat damage to pineapple fruit 39 hectare of different crops, based on 1983 prices 19 18. 3. Cost and return of sustained baiting in a 1-ha ricetield 23 19. Two bait holders are placed at each corner of pineapple 4. Annual cost and return comparison ot three control methods field 40 used In 1-ha coconut plantation with 100 trees 28 20. Rat damage to patola 41 . Girdling or gnawing of bark is a characteristic ra t damage to 5. Cost and return of rodent control per hectare ot cornfield 31 21 . 6. Comparison between cost and return of preliminary ipil-ipil 43 recommendation and VMC rat control method, used on 1 ha of 22. Points of entry of rodents into warehouse 46 heavily infested cane field, assuming 4-month baiting 34 23. Proofing the bottom of a door 47 7. Cost ana return of rodent control in Kiangan. llugao on 1 ha 24. Rat guard on drain pipe 47 (600 trees) coffee plantation 36 8. Cost and return of rodent control per hectare of sweet potato References 49 and cassava fields 38 9. Cost and return of roden t ,ontrol per hectare ol pineapple Appendices 51 field 40 A Safety Precautions 10. Cost and return of ba1tinq 1 ha of ,p,I.,p,I during the lust year B. Symbols and Abbreviations after planting 44 c M:inagerial Types of Field Rat Control . o List of Banned and Restricted Pesticides in the Philippines List of Figures 1. Illustration of mammary formula (a) 3 + 3 = 12; (b) 2 + 3 = 10 5 2. Some common rodent pests of agricultural crops in the Philfppines 6 3. (a) Rattus rattus mindanens1s 6 (b) R. norvegicus 7 (c) Mus castaneus 7 4. Trapping of rat with ~nap trap 12 5. Types of bait holders 15 viii Ix 1 I II Introduction Rodents are real pests in agriculture and residential communities. They cause considerable damage to standing crops and stored products, and contaminate food and feedstuff. They damage building structures, transmit infectious diseases, and annoy people. Losses that rodents have inflicted on agriculture has been a major concern. Rat damage in crops range from 2-50% of production. Ricefields suffered 2-6% rodent damage nationally in 1971-1975. Yield loss of 6.16% recorded in a 2-season rice farm in 1975 was estimated to value P721 .5 M. Surveys in Negros farms also showed rat damage on 30-50% of the canes, rezulting in sugar loss of 8% in 1967 or an estimated loss of about P1 3 M. Few coconut plantations are free from rats, and estimates of crop loss traceable to them vary from 14-40% from region to region. Although nationwide estimates of rat damage are not available as yet except in rice, farmers and government field technicians are fully aware of the sizable loss rats cause on other agricultural crops. Many corn farmers r':!alize that loss of germinating seeds and developing corn ears to rats can often be severe. Girdling, cut branches, and severe defoliation due to rat results in decreased coffee berry production. Tell-tale signs of rat damage on pineapple are gnawed tops or crowns at early fruiting stage ano gnawing off of the succulent flesh from mature fruits. Cacao, cucur b1t~. sweet potato, cassava, papaya and other important economic plants have also been observed to sustain rat damage. Rats attack warehouses as well. Few modern and conventional ware hot•se~ are free from rat infestation. About 12-25 cavans of stored grain c:ire lost to rats per warehouse annually.