Controlling our long-tailed friends is beyond Burns
Wee, sleekit, cowrin’,
tim’rous beastie Oh whit a panic’s in my
breastie For wi’ poison I canna
chase thee We murderous intent Until I’ve passed my farm assessment. Now I’m sure that, as a farmer, our Bard would excuse me for murdering his poetry just to make a point.
For even though, like Burns, few modern-day farmers would grudge the odd wee bite of corn here and there, once our long-tailed, pointy-nosed friends get into the grain store or the straw shed, the bill can be a lot higher than a daimen icker i a thrave
Rabbie was lucky enough to live in times where a few rat or mouse droppings in amongst the grain would probably be neither here nor there – but nowadays one’s enough to see a whole 30 tonne lorry-load rejected.
Even worse than that, though, is the estimated £28 million bill which is annually attributed to mice and their larger cousins, rats, through their tendency to nibble through electric wires in farm sheds.
Apparently over half of all farm fires are put down to the taste which these rodents have for the insulation material which plays such a critical role in our electricity supplies.
And that’s to say nothing of the havoc which they can wreak on combine wiring looms and other equipment which spends any length of time in a farm shed.
So the answer has long been to put down plenty of rat poison to make sure that such eventualities are avoided.
Rules introduced last
0 Mice, and rats, cause damage and contaminate crops year, however, mean that you can no longer simply waltz into the farm supplies stores and buy industrial quantities of the aforementioned rat and mouse bait.
Following increasing concerns that residues of rodenticides were being found in wildlife – mainly in predators which prey on rats and mice such as barn owls – the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use was brought into being to up to the game of those involved in controlling rats and mice.
So limiting who can buy the bait was seen as a first step. However, following an uproar from farmers when the news was announced that anyone using commercial quantities of bait would have to go through a training course and gain certification, a compromise was struck.
And so it was decided that, provided you were the member of a qualifying assurance scheme – such as QMS or SQC – it was possible to show this certificate or give your registration number and still buy the sort of big packs required for farm sheds.
However, this general relaxation on existing scheme standards was only given for one year – and in order for the scheme to continue there had to be a tightening up on the pest control standards in the schemes.
And that’s where we are now.
So be warned and aware that this year’s round of assurance inspections – both SQC and QMS – will undoubtedly be checking up on the new, tighter standards – and anyone who hasn’t taken action to ensure compliance is likely to find themselves suspended from the scheme.
Even if the task of rodent control is handled by a specialist pest control company, it is worth noting that new requirements – such as an environmental impact assessment for each farm – will be required, as well as bait plans and records which show that sites are being wisely chosen and aren’t permanently loaded with bait.
This latter point appears to have riled quite a lot of farmers who feel prevention is better than cure when it comes to mouse and rat infestation. The reason given for avoiding permanent baiting is that the need for them shows there is likely to be some another underlying problem which needs to be tackled – and that it is likely to increase resistance to baits used.
At a meeting on the topic last week, hosted by QMS, this last point certainly proved to be one of the most contentious. And while everyone was happy enough to work toward reducing any residues in wildlife, they felt that this issue might jeopardise the ability to prevent infestations – while doing nothing to help the owls or other wildlife.
What was it Rabbie said aboutthebestlaidschemes o’ mice and men...?