Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:36:51.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The action of dicoumarol on laboratory and wild rats, and its effect on feeding behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. J. Armour  and
S. A. Barnett
C. J. Armour
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Infestation Control Division, London
S. A. Barnett
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.

The behaviour of wild rats towards an unfamiliar food presents problems of both practical and theoretical interest (Chitty, 1950; Shorten, 1950; Thompson, 1948). When first eaten the food is often taken in very small amounts; if poison is present its effects soon make the rats stop feeding, and if they recover the rats are often found to be bait-shy; that is, they refuse the bait entirely (Rzoska, 1950). As far as rat control is concerned prebaiting with harmless food can overcome this difficulty by inducing rats to feed rapidly on the bait when poison is eventually added (see Barnett, 1948, for a review); and if there are even then a few bait-shy survivors they may be disposed of by a second prebaiting and poisoning with different materials. In large-scale practice, however, this elaborate programme presents considerable difficulties for organizations such as local health authorities, and they are often unable to adhere to it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1950 , pp. 158 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

References

REFERENCES

Allen, E. (1947). J. Amer. med. Ass. 134, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S. A. (1948). Preservation of Grains in Storage. F. A. O. Agricultural Publications no. 2, Washington, 129.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Spencer, M. M. (1949). J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 426.Google Scholar
Chitty, D. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports (in preparation).Google Scholar
Chitty, D. & Shorten, M. (1946). J. Mammal. 27, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, C. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports (in preparation).Google Scholar
Jürgens, R. (1948). Z. Vitaminforsch. 19, 342.Google Scholar
Kraus, A. P., Perlow, S. & Singer, K. (1949). J. Amer. med. Ass. 139, 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, C. H. (1949). Pests, p. 49.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. A. (1948). Research, 1, 334.Google Scholar
Richter, C. P. (1942). Harvey Lect. 38, 63.Google Scholar
Rzoska, J. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports (in preparation).Google Scholar
Scott, E. M. & Verney, E. L. (1947). J. Nutrit. 34, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorten, M. (1950). Bureau of Animal Population Reports (in preparation).Google Scholar
Thompson, H. V. (1948). Bull. Anim. Behav. 6, 26.Google Scholar
Young, P. T. (1946). J. comp. Psychol. 39, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar