Brief
Little fire ants in lab tests chose cooked beef and sunflower seeds over tuna
In laboratory food-choice tests, little fire ants overwhelmingly picked cooked beef and sunflower seeds over water-packed tuna, researchers at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa report. The result points to a possible change in how the pests are detected and baited.
Researchers at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa ran laboratory food-choice tests on the little fire ant, Wasmannia auropunctata, a tiny stinging pest. Offered cooked beef, sunflower seeds and water-packed tuna, the ants overwhelmingly chose the beef and the seeds.
The study appeared in the Journal of Applied Entomology. The authors' practical suggestion is that anyone trying to detect or bait the ants in a backyard might swap tuna for cooked beef and sunflower seeds.
Our reading
Our reading: this is a laboratory preference result, not a field demonstration that beef and seeds outperform tuna as bait in an actual backyard.
What to do or watch
The precise unresolved question is whether cooked beef and sunflower seeds actually outperform water-packed tuna for detecting or baiting little fire ants outside the laboratory, so watch for field tests before changing your backyard bait.
Source details and supporting facts
Each line is stated by the page named above it.
Stated by phys.org
- In laboratory food-choice tests, little fire ants overwhelmingly chose cooked beef and sunflower seeds over water-packed tuna.
- The study was published in the Journal of Applied Entomology by researchers at the UH Mānoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resilience (CTAHR).
- Scientists at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa suggest swapping tuna for cooked beef and sunflower seeds when trying to detect or bait little fire ants in a backyard.
Sources
- Phys.orgText stored 15 September 2026
How this story was checked. Written from the 1 page listed above, stored 15 September 2026; claims checked against that stored text on 15 September 2026.
What that means
- 3 of 3 reported statements were confirmed against the page that carries them; the rest were removed rather than published.
- Figures in the text were required to appear in the stored source text: yes. Identifiers: yes.
- The check reads stored text only: no claim rests on a fresh look that did not happen.
- Where the reporting was silent, the text says so instead of filling the gap.