Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:20:58.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toxicity tests on suspected warfarin resistant house mice (Mus musculus L.)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

F. P. Rowe  and
R. Redfern
F. P. Rowe
Affiliation:
Infestation Control Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey
R. Redfern
Affiliation:
Infestation Control Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey
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. Residual populations of wild house mice (Mus musculus L.) were trapped alive in premises where poison treatments with 0·025% warfarin bait had been reported to be ineffective.

2. In the laboratory the individually caged mice were fed 0·025% warfarin in a sugar/oil/coarse oatmeal base. In toxicity tests lasting 10 and 21 days, the total mortality was low and the rate of death slow compared with mice drawn from habitats not treated with warfarin.

3. It is suggested that tolerance to warfarin in M. musculus either is polygenically based or is controlled by a single major gene influenced by modifiers and that these hard-to-kill populations have arisen through selection during successive control treatments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 417 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

References

Derse, P. (1963). Anti-K factor in anticoagulant rodenticides. Soap, N.Y., 39 (3, 4), 82–8.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, E. (1961). Mice are spreading despite such poisons as warfarin. Mimic. Engng Lond., no. 3746, 1668.Google Scholar
Rowe, F. P. & Redfern, R. (1964). The toxicity of 0·025% warfarin to wild house mice (Mus musculus L.). J. Hyg., Camb., 62, 389–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed