What this is
What is a pest control log?
What is a pest control log?
The record of device checks, catches, sightings, site conditions contributing to pest pressure, and the actions arising, maintained so that activity can be trended by device, location and time rather than read one visit at a time.
What is integrated pest management?
An approach prioritising prevention through exclusion, sanitation and habitat removal, using monitoring to detect activity early, and treating chemical control as a response to a problem rather than as the programme itself.
Scope
When is a pest control log required?
This is the site's record. The contractor's visit reports feed it rather than replace it.
Use this template when
- Recording device checks, catches, sightings and evidence of activity
- Recording site conditions contributing to pest pressure, and the actions arising
- Trending activity by device, location and time to identify routes and harbourage
- Tracking contractor recommendations through to closure
- Escalation where activity exceeds defined thresholds or reaches production areas
Do not use it for
- The contractor's visit report, which is an input to this record
- Pest control chemical records and safety data sheets, which are held separately
- The hygiene and cleaning schedule, which addresses one of the drivers
- Building fabric maintenance, which addresses exclusion and is where most actions land
- Environmental monitoring, which addresses microbiological rather than pest risk
Compliance mapping
Which SQF 11.2 requirements does this satisfy?
Pest control is a prerequisite programme with specific scheme requirements.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS Issue 9 cl.4.14 | Pest management programme, contractor competence, device mapping, records and trend analysis | Header |
| SQF Edition 9 cl.11.2 | Pest prevention including approved contractor, device records and corrective action | Devices checked |
| 21 CFR 117.35(c) | Pests excluded from and not present in any area of a food plant | Site conditions |
| 21 CFR 117.20 | Plant and grounds maintained to prevent pests becoming an attractant or harbourage | Site conditions |
| Codex CXC 1-1969 | Prevention of access, harbourage and infestation as prerequisite requirements | Site conditions |
| BRCGS Issue 9 cl.4.14 | Trend analysis of pest activity with defined action where thresholds are exceeded | Trend and escalation |
| ISO 22002-1 | Prerequisite programmes for food manufacturing including pest control | Header |
| Biocide regulation | Restrictions on rodenticide use, professional certification and permanent baiting limitations | Devices checked |
What it does not cover
- The contractor's visit reports, which are an input to this record.
- Pest control chemical records, including safety data sheets and application records.
- The cleaning schedule, addressing one driver of pest pressure.
- Building fabric maintenance, where most exclusion actions land.
- Environmental monitoring, addressing microbiological rather than pest risk.
How to complete it
How to complete a pest control log, step by step
Read the map, fix the conditions, and close the recommendations.
A total catch count tells you the site has pests, which it does. Catches concentrated at three devices along one wall tell you where they are coming in. Plot activity against the device map over time and the entry route usually becomes obvious, which is the output the programme exists to produce.
Doors propped, gaps around service penetrations, damaged seals, uncovered waste, standing water, vegetation against the wall, pallets stored outside. These are the drivers, they are within the site's control, and they belong in the record as actions with owners rather than as observations in a contractor's report.
The contractor writes recommendations because the fixes are yours. Recording them in your own system with owners and dates is what distinguishes a programme from a subscription. Recurring identical recommendations across successive visits are the clearest evidence available that the site is buying monitoring and nothing else.
Droppings, gnaw marks, smears, tracks, damaged packaging and nesting material are findings whether or not a device caught anything. Devices sample; evidence indicates presence. A log recording only device outcomes will report a quiet month during an active infestation the devices are not positioned for.
What auditors find
Most common pest control log findings
Pest findings concentrate on conditions and on what happened to the recommendations.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Contractor reports filed without trend analysis. | BRCGS 4.14 | Trend by device and location; the finding is in the pattern, not in a visit. |
| Recommendations recurring across successive visits without closure. | SQF 11.2 | Track in your own system with owners; recurrence is the clearest programme finding. |
| Site conditions driving pressure not recorded as actions. | 21 CFR 117.20 | Doors, seals, waste, drainage and vegetation are within site control and are the drivers. |
| Only catches recorded, with evidence of activity omitted. | BRCGS 4.14 | Droppings, gnawing and smears indicate presence where devices show nothing. |
| Device map not maintained or devices not present at mapped locations. | BRCGS 4.14 | The map is what makes trend analysis possible; verify it physically. |
| No defined threshold or escalation trigger. | BRCGS 4.14 | Define what level of activity requires escalation before it occurs. |
| Activity in production areas treated at the same level as perimeter activity. | 21 CFR 117.35(c) | Proximity to product changes the response; zone the escalation. |
| Reliance on permanent baiting rather than exclusion. | Biocide regulation | Permanent baiting is increasingly restricted; prevention carries more of the load. |
| Contractor competence and certification not verified. | SQF 11.2 | Verify certification and that the attending technician holds it, not just the company. |
| Building work creating new entry points not followed by a device review. | BRCGS 4.14 | Construction changes the perimeter; the programme should follow. |
Case in point
Case in point: twelve reports and one wall
A site received monthly pest control visits for three years. Each report listed devices checked, catches recorded and recommendations, and each was filed. Catch numbers were modest and no infestation was declared.
Plotting three years of catches against the device map took an afternoon. Activity was concentrated almost entirely along one external wall, at four devices, with the remainder of the site consistently clear. The same wall carried a recommendation about a damaged door seal that appeared, in near-identical wording, in eleven of the thirty-six reports.
The seal was replaced in a morning. Catches at those devices fell to the site average within two months, having been reported and recommended for three years.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- QUA-053
- Archetype
- Log
- Record ID
- PEST-2026-000
- Scoring
- Activity level
- Direction
- High is bad
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- SQF 11.2, BRC 4.14
- Links
- Links Site, Vendor
- Tags
- Food safety, Pest
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 49
- Follow up fields
- 10
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsLog ID*
Auto sequence. Format PEST-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Pest Control Contractor
Vendor ID
Format VEN-0000.
Links to FDN-005 Vendor ID
Visit Type*
Routine, reactive or annual survey.
Technician Name*
Licence Number
Trends Beat Sightings
One mouse tells you little. Device activity rising in the same corner over three months tells you where they are getting in.
Devices checked
Repeats9 fieldsDevice Reference*
Device Type*
Location*
Device Intact And In Position*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Accessible For Inspection*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Activity Found*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Activity Type
Quantity
Action Taken
Site conditions
9 fieldsProofing Intact*
- Yes3 pts
- Minor gaps1 pt
- Significant gaps0 pts
Doors Sealing Correctly*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
External Areas Clear*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Waste Areas Controlled*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Storage Off Floor And Away From Walls*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Spillages Controlled*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Bird Activity*
- None3 pts
- Occasional1 pt
- Persistent0 pts
Insect Activity In Fly Killers*
- Low3 pts
- Moderate1 pt
- High0 pts
Fly Killer Tubes In Date*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Trend and escalation
19 fieldsActivity Compared With Last Visit*
- Lower3 pts
- Same2 pts
- Higher0 pts
Hot Spot Identified*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Hot Spot Location
Product Contamination Risk*
- None3 pts
- Low1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Product Affected By The Contamination*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Quantity Affected
Hold ID
Raise the hold record, then enter its reference.
Links to QUA-003 Hold ID
Product Location
Where the affected product physically is right now.
Escalated To Alert Status*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Recommendations Raised
Previous Recommendations Closed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Technician*
Signature*
Quality*
Second Signature*
QUA-053 · record IDs look like PEST-2026-000 · Links Site, Vendor
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The log records activity. What fails is twelve reports nobody compared and a recommendation written eleven times.
Holds the device map and trends catches and evidence by location over time, so routes and harbourage surface from the data.
Takes contractor recommendations into work orders with owners, which is where seals, proofing and drainage fixes actually happen.
Flags recommendations recurring across visits, which is the clearest indicator that monitoring is not producing control.
Verifies contractor certification and that the attending technician holds it, alongside the company approval.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
Pest Control Log definitions and key terms
- Integrated pest management
- An approach prioritising exclusion, sanitation and habitat removal, with monitoring and chemical control as later steps.
- Device map
- The plan showing device locations and numbers, which makes trend analysis by location possible.
- Harbourage
- A location where pests shelter and breed, typically voids, stored materials, vegetation and unmaintained fabric.
- Exclusion
- Physical prevention of access through seals, proofing, door discipline and building fabric integrity.
- Evidence of activity
- Droppings, gnawing, smears, tracks and damage indicating presence irrespective of device catches.
- Escalation threshold
- The defined level of activity requiring a stepped response, set before activity occurs.
- Permanent baiting
- Continuous deployment of rodenticide, increasingly restricted in favour of monitoring and targeted use.
- Zoning
- Differentiating response by proximity to product, so perimeter and production activity are treated differently.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about pest control log
What should the site do that the contractor cannot?+
Read the trend and fix the conditions. A contractor supplies visits, devices, expertise and reports. They cannot control your doors, waste, drainage, storage or building fabric, which is where pest pressure originates, and that is why their reports contain recommendations. Closing those recommendations is the site's part of the programme.
How should activity be analysed?+
By device and location over time, plotted against the device map, rather than as a total. Concentration at particular devices identifies a route: a door seal, a service penetration, a gully, a delivery bay. A total tells you the site has pests, which nobody doubted.
Do catches matter more than evidence?+
No. Devices sample and evidence indicates presence. Droppings, gnawing, smears, tracks and damaged packaging are findings whether or not anything was caught, and a log recording only device outcomes will report a quiet period during activity the devices are not positioned to detect.
Why do recommendations recur?+
Because they are written in the contractor's report and tracked in nobody's system. The fixes belong to the site, usually to maintenance or facilities, and a recommendation that never enters a work management system never acquires an owner. Identical recommendations across successive visits are the clearest signal that the programme is monitoring rather than controlling.
Has rodenticide practice changed?+
Yes, and in a direction that increases the importance of everything else. Permanent baiting is increasingly restricted and professional use is more tightly certified, which means exclusion, sanitation and monitoring carry more of the load than they did. A programme built on continuous bait deployment is working from an approach that regulation is moving away from.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in HACCP and Food Safety
Unannounced Audit Readiness Check
Checks whether the site would pass an audit arriving today, covering records, standards and area condition
Product Nonconformance Report
Records product that does not meet specification
Hold and Release Record
Places suspect product on hold and records the decision to release, rework or scrap it
HACCP Plan
The hazard analysis and critical control point plan for a product or process
HACCP Verification Record
Confirms the HACCP plan is being followed and still works
CCP Monitoring Log
Records readings at a critical control point, such as cook temperature, chill time or metal detection
More in Food Safety
HACCP Plan
The hazard analysis and critical control point plan for a product or process
HACCP Verification Record
Confirms the HACCP plan is being followed and still works
CCP Monitoring Log
Records readings at a critical control point, such as cook temperature, chill time or metal detection
Prerequisite Programme Plan
Sets out the basic conditions that must be in place for HACCP to work, covering hygiene, maintenance, pest control and training
Allergen Control Plan
Sets out how allergens are managed from receipt through to labelling, including segregation and changeover
Allergen Changeover Check
Confirms the line is clear of the previous allergen before the next product runs
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 clause 4.14, pest management
- SQF Edition 9 clause 11.2, pest prevention
- 21 CFR 117.20 and 117.35, plant and grounds and sanitary operations, FDA
- Codex Alimentarius CXC 1-1969, General Principles of Food Hygiene
- ISO/TS 22002-1, prerequisite programmes on food safety for food manufacturing
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.