PPC121 | TECHNICAL
Alex Wade joined us at a BPCA Digital Forum to discuss a fresh way of handling rodent control.
He believes that while integrated pest management (IPM) is essential, we can improve results by adding integrated risk management (IRM) into our thinking.
This means looking not only at the rodent itself, but also how each part of a site might be affected by a rodent infestation or the control methods we use.
SPEED VIEW:
- Integrated pest management (IPM) is useful, but combining it with integrated risk management (IRM) can sharpen your approach
- Think strategically (big goals) then pick your tactics (practical steps)
- A site map that highlights “hotspots” of rodent activity helps you target resources
- Single-feed and multi-feed baits each have advantages - food competition often decides which to use
- Tailor your methods to different areas of a site based on risk to people, products, and non-target wildlife.
Understanding strategy and tactics
I often like to reference an old piece of wisdom from the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is just noise.” In terms of pest management, this means:
- Strategy: Where am I trying to get to, and why?
- Tactics: The individual steps that get me there.
Plenty of times, I see people rushing to tactics, perhaps slapping down bait boxes, without a proper strategy.
But if we only rely on standard routines, we might miss the fact that some zones are critical, some are not, and some might carry enormous environmental complications.
My aim is to help us slow down, define the strategy (the bigger picture), then apply the right tactics (practical methods).
Building a site map and turning it into a heat map
One tool I can’t recommend enough is the humble site map. Often we treat it like an afterthought, merely recording where we put bait boxes or traps.
But it can do so much more.
- Pinpoint hotspots: As I walk around, I note where rats are leaving droppings, gnaw marks, or footprints
- Colour-code activity: I’ll mark areas of heavier activity in one colour, lighter activity in another
- Layer in risk: I might highlight if a building is storing sensitive stock or if it’s near a nature reserve that could be harmed by rodenticide.
This way, I don’t just see “we have rats.” I see exactly where they concentrate, which parts of the site are higher risk, and how the infestation might threaten the client’s operations.
I can bring that map to the client and explain, “Here’s our critical zone where I’ll need to be more aggressive, and here’s a less problematic spot where we can afford a gentler approach.”
Counting rodents: size and distribution
In the past, I might have said, “There are lots of rats.” But that statement alone doesn’t help me shape a strategy. Instead, I look at two factors:
- Population size: Are we dealing with a few individuals or a large colony? I’ll use cameras, tracking dust, or pre-bait consumption to gauge this
- Distribution: Are they all clustering around one building or spread across the entire property?
A big spread of rodents might be less urgent if each corner only has one or two animals. But a single corner jam-packed with a large group of rats might be a top priority.
This leads me to tailor my methods; fewer, well-placed controls in low-density zones and a more intense effort where numbers spike.
“Pre-bait your stations with non-toxic feed – you’ll see the rodents get comfy, then they’ll hit your lethal bait from day one.”
Where IPM and IRM cross over
IPM gives us that escalation from lower-impact methods (proofing, hygiene) to more potent ones (rodenticides). IRM is all about the risk to the site and to the wider environment.
So if I see a place with high risk (for instance, a server room or food storage) but a low environmental threat (maybe it’s deep inside a building with no chance for non-target interference), I can escalate my approach with stronger baits or methods.
If I’m near a boundary next to farmland or a nature reserve, that’s probably a higher environmental risk. I’ll be more cautious with rodenticides, maybe leaning on physical or mechanical controls.
By mixing IPM’s escalation ladder with IRM’s site-wide perspective, I can choose exactly which rung on the ladder is appropriate in which part of the site.
Single-feed vs multi-feed: it’s not just convenience
I’m often asked, “Which bait is best: single-feed or multi-feed?” The answer usually depends on resistance patterns and how much alternative food is available.
If you’re up against an environment where rats have plenty to eat, a single-feed rodenticide can be more effective because the rodent only needs one small dose. Multi-feed might fail if they nibble only occasionally.
On the flipside, single-feed baits can sometimes mean rodents get repeated lethal doses if they keep eating.
That ups the risk of secondary poisoning when predators or scavengers come along. If the environment is lower risk or your time is super limited, single-feed might be the better tool.
But if you can keep things carefully controlled and the rats have fewer competing food sources, a multi-feed rodenticide might do the trick and reduce the over-dosing problem.
Pulse, saturation, or speed baiting
Depending on the product labels (which are always king in deciding what’s allowed), I may use different baiting strategies:
Saturation baiting
Keep the bait topped up so no rodent goes short. This method gives a predictable decline in rat numbers but might mean certain dominant rats gorge themselves on repeated doses.
Pulse baiting
Particularly handy with single-feed actives. I put out only as much as I expect the leading “alpha” rats to consume, wait for them to die, then pulse again to catch the subordinates.
Speed baiting
Usually associated with cholecalciferol, where rodents typically stop eating after ingesting a lethal amount. I can replenish at key intervals without worrying they’ll overfeed.
Again, each approach aligns with the environment I’m dealing with. A sensitive site with predator risk might benefit from pulse baiting to limit overdosing, while a severe but self-contained infestation might suit saturation or speed baiting.
Using monitors as pre-bait
People tend to see non-toxic monitors as just a detection device, but I love them for “pre-baiting.”
If rats get used to nibbling on something that matches my eventual toxic bait (similar base cereal, for example), then once I swap to the lethal version, they’ll feed without that dreaded neophobia.
You can see an immediate jump in consumption on day one because the rodents no longer treat the station as suspicious. It’s a small detail but can shave days off a treatment timeline.
“IPM was never meant to ignore the site’s bigger context; it was just originally centred on choosing the appropriate control technique for the pest species and severity.”
Varying tactics within one site
One of my main messages is that a single site doesn’t always need a single approach.
Part of the site might have a big environmental risk (close to a pond, farmland, or nature reserve), so I might emphasise traps or covered-and-protected bait with minimal rodenticides.
Another section might house valuable stock, so a more potent rodenticide is justified.
Yet another might just have a low-level issue where proofing and hygiene alone will do.
This is the spirit of IRM: flexible yet structured, ensuring I only push to higher interventions when it’s truly needed.
Why I believe IPM and IRM fit together
IPM was never meant to ignore the site’s bigger context; it was just originally centred on choosing the appropriate control technique for the pest species and severity.
But now, with the growth of non-target risks, public scrutiny, and complex premises, adding IRM helps us handle each building or location on its own terms.
This combined viewpoint means:
- We handle rodents effectively where it matters most, giving us time to do a more measured approach elsewhere
- We minimise side effects, like secondary poisoning of birds of prey or contamination
- We show clients the logic behind our chosen methods: “Here’s why I’m going with traps in your food store, and a combination of traps and rodenticides in your loading bay.”
Practical pointers in my day-to-day
Keep refining your site map
Each new finding of droppings or gnaw marks can mean a tweak to that plan. This is especially key if the site changes layout or stores different materials.
Draw up your strategy while driving over
As soon as I know the client’s issues, I’m already thinking which zones might be highest risk.
Set explicit goals
If the client needs rodents gone before a big audit next week, that changes my approach.
Embrace partial solutions
Not every corner needs bait boxes if it’s low risk, or maybe it’s best with only a trap.
Communicate your reasons
The more the client understands that you’re treating areas differently because of real risk factors, the more they value your professional judgement.
Wrapping up
My goal in promoting an “integrated risk management” perspective isn’t to replace IPM, but to supercharge it.
I still start by identifying the pest, blocking off food, water, and harbourage, and then using a proportionate chemical intervention if necessary.
But at the same time, I’m mapping out which corners of the site are higher or lower risk, which areas demand urgent action, and which might be handled more gently.
Working this way, I find I can adapt to sudden changes; maybe an outbreak spikes in one block, or new wildlife nesting near another block.
Because I have an overarching strategy, I don’t get lost in the details or stuck with rigid tactics.
I’ve got my plan, but I’m ready to pivot if the site’s needs shift.
Ultimately, that’s the best of both worlds: the structure of IPM and the holistic thinking of IRM.
Together, they give me a more confident handle on rodent control, while safeguarding wildlife and satisfying each client’s unique requirements.
LIKE THIS ARTICLE? WATCH IT BACK
This article is part of Digital Forum 29 and available on our website! Watch the whole 37-minute talk there.
WATCH NOW