Woodworm - Facts, Misconceptions, Myths and Old Wives Tales

[Kearn]

It was this bit in red that stood out actually…


yep, they would be very cold and non absorbent!

 

[nickkellymetal]

It was this bit in red that stood out actually…


yep, they would be very cold and non absorbent!

View attachment 18483

Ahhh sorry, no that's a nice 60s asbestos floor tile This house is the gift that keeps on giving!

 

[nickkellymetal]

One for Matt I'm guessing, could you confirm this is weevil? Eating laminate floor underlay.

 

[nickkellymetal]

One for Matt I'm guessing, could you confirm this is weevil? Eating laminate floor underlay.

View attachment 18491

Also, sorry to keep going on, but Matt, could you identify this rot?

 

[Matt Green]

Definitely weevils, probably Euophryum (species) wood-borers but I would need a better photo.

That's looks like either Mine Rot (Antrodia (Fibroporia) vailantii) or something similar from the Polyphore order. Mine rot uses the brown rot decay mechanism leaving the wood brown and cross-cracked, other related genera and species use the white rot mechanism leaving wood creamy and mushy.

-Matt

 

[almostatmywitsend]

Finding myself at a bit of a loose end, and given the recent up-tick in discussions concerning Woodworm problems, now may be an opportune moment to open a discussion concerning these beasties. I, like many others I suspect, have never made a particular study of these pests and have therefore relied on the opinions of others - and what I've found on the backs of the relevant tins - to inform my efforts to eradicate them when discovered. However, I have often found myself shaking my head and thinking - "That just does not make logical sense! or "What's this guy been smoking?" and on notable occasions finding myself chuckling over an image that popped into my head; the most recent of which was of a beetle wandering through a forest of chair legs tapping on each one until it finds one made of its preferred elm. They can't possibly be that discerning, can they?

But then, I can be a trifle cynical and all too willing to challenge conventional wisdoms - as implied by the handle I use for this website - and I may therefore simply be over-thinking it. So, in the hope of getting to some truths I and others can keep in mind for the future, my question to the members is; 'What are the facts and Which are the Myths? - Discuss please.

Starter for 10 - When you see the exit holes they're gone and will not come back.

Great, though depressing read - thank you. Many years ago I was able to buy pheramone traps for woodworm from a supplier based in Wales (the traps worked - many male beetles removed from the breeding cycle). Sadly, their stock ran out and I can't to date find another source. This website https://www.villageandcottage.com/timber-beams/woodworm-eggs/ claims moth traps are a viable solution. Is that claim reliant on beetles randomly getting stuck in a trap or actually being lured by the pheramone? My personal take is the former.

 

[Cubist]

The ad seems rather fanciful to my mind and I would be sceptical as to whether theres any hard science behind it.

Maybe @Matt Green will have a better informed view and will supply some input.

 

[stuart45]

Good old Honey trap works for insects as well as us then.

 

[Matt Green]

Good grief, that website has the best of intentions, but no. I love the first photograph of furniture beetle damage that is clearly dead as nails, but those moth traps are not going to work on beetles. They contain: (Z,Z)-octadeca-3,13-dienyl acetate ((E,Z)-2,13-octadecadienal) or "Zeta" for shorthand. That is a male moth sex pheromone. They will work as expensive blunder traps and no better.

There are pheromone traps for furniture beetle (that also work on and are made for biscuit beetle) that contain (-)-Methyl jasmonate or Stegobinone

Stegobinone traps. Not cheap.

They work well enough on beetles in that family. The pheromone is ludicrously expensive to synthesise and so few companies do so until there is sufficient demand to sell through relatively quickly which is why supply is often patchy. Source: me. (Day job).


M.