
The £5 Amazon buy Alan Titchmarsh says is the ‘only thing that really works' at stopping slugs attacking your plants
But Britain's favourite gardening expert Alan Titchmarsh has one method that he swears by for combating the slimy slitherers.
3
3
Writing in County Life, the 76-year-old spoke about his lifelong battle with the garden pests - and his resistance to the idea that 'slugs are our friend'.
The Gardening Club star says he favours copper rings that sit around the base of the plant.
The copper rings are more expensive as they can be reused multiple times - they typically retail for between £25 and £30.
However, those who are greenfingered on a budget can instead invest in copper tape - which works in the same fashion and is available for only £4.99 on Amazon for a 25-metre roll.
Titchmarsh said: "The only things that have worked for me are those rings of copper that resemble a vicar's clerical collar and which can be pushed into the ground around individual plants to discourage the molluscs from coming any closer.
"They are reputed (if kept clean) to impart a kind of electric shock to any slug or snail attempting to scale their dizzying height of 1in."
How does copper tape work?
The copper tape works by imparting an electrical charge that gives the slug a small static shock.
The tape can be trimmed to size and wound around the lips of lower pots and planners - creating an uncrossable barrier.
Other slug deterrent methods
The veteran presenter has tried a number of other methods for tackling the slug menace over the years - with limited results.
Titchmarsh says he long ago stopped using slug pellets, which cause the slugs to convulse but also pose a poisoning threat to hedgehods and birds.
I'm a gardening expert and these are my top hacks to stop slugs taking over your garden as UK invasion worsens
The CBE has also tried various products that create a sharp or uncomfortable texture for the slugs to crawl over.
However, crushed eggshells, holly leaves, sharp grit, gravel and even sheep's wool were all 'at best, unreliable and more often than not totally ineffective', according to Titchmarsh.
Coffee grounds are another foodstuff often touted as a slug repellent, but Titchmarsh says he doesn't drink enough of it - plus he prefers that his garden doesn't smell of Starbucks.
That leaves hand-picking them off plants by hand in the evening, a time-intensive procedure that also requires gloves if you want to avoid slimy hands.
Titchmarsh says he has had some sucess with pot feet, which only allow the more acrobatic slugs to gain access to your prized blooms.
Gardeners could be forgiven for feeling confused about how best to combat slugs given the array of techniques floated for dealing with this in recent years.
One gardening fan claimed that garlic helped to repel slugs and snails - even posting a recipe for a garlic spray.
Another intriguing possibility suggested as a natural pest deterrent is foxgloves, whose purple flowers contain toxic compounds such as digitalis glycosides, which can be very harmful for slugs.
Why having slugs in your garden is a good thing
Yes, they chomp your precious plants, but having slugs in your garden should be celebrated.
Rebecca Miller, Associate Editor for Fabulous, and novice gardener, believes we should work in harmony with slugs and not try to get rid of them altogether.
"We've been conditioned as a society to believe we must have gardens with straight edges, short lawns with pretty stripes and perfect borders with flowers constantly blooming.
But unruly hedgerows, abundance of tall wildflowers buzzing with insects, and bugs and slugs galore in flowerbeds is totally natural - and necessary.
I understand that your plants might be very precious to you, but we need slugs and snails. They provide food for all sorts of mammals, birds, slow worms, earthworms, insects - and they are part of the natural balance.
By removing them, we upset the ecosystem and can do a lot of harm - thrushes in particular thrive on them!
It is said British Gardeners use some 650 billion slug pellets per year! Please find a natural alternative – the poison from slug pellets enters the food chain and can kill hedgehogs, who consider slugs and snails as a tasty treat.
If you're truly desperate, consider using Diatomaceous Earth - it is a naturally occurring compound approved for organic use, that can be used for pest control.
And while you're at it, challenge yourself to grow "sacrificial plants".
Sacrificial planting, commonly known as trap cropping, is the deliberate act of growing plants to attract pests. Pick a slugs favourite vegetable or ornamental plant for them to nibble on, and they will leave your more precious plants alone."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Dame Stella Rimington, first female director general of MI5, dies aged 90
Dame Stella Rimington, the first female director general of the MI5, has died at the age of 90. The former secret service chief, died 'surrounded by her beloved family and dogs and determinedly held on to the life she loved until her last breath', her family has announced.


Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
What would people think if they found out your 'number'? Study reveals what most people think of as a high amount of sexual partners
You don't need to have as many notches in your bedpost as controversial OnlyFans star Bonnie Blue to raise a few eyebrows—a new study has found that Britons think 20 or more sexual partners is a lot. The stats were released by YouGov as part of a wider poll looking at modern society's sexual histories and habits... and it reveals the UK as being a surprisingly chaste nation. While Ms Blue's conquests have soared towards five figures—powered by romps where she beds thousands of men in a day—the average Briton claims to have only had sex with four people in their lifetime. Researchers at YouGov asked the respondents what the consider to be 'small and large lifetime numbers of sexual partners'. Sharing the findings on X, they revealed that the majority of people see 20 or more sexual partners as a 'large' amount. Similarly, 15 or more people was seen as large by 41 per cent. People who had slept with 0-4 or 5 people were seen as having a 'small' number by the majority of those polled, and 6 to fourteen sexual partners were seen as having neither 'small' nor 'large' number. The researchers added that, unsurprisingly, people's idea of large or small is skewed by their own sexual histories. 'Whether Britons regard a number of sexual partners as large or small depends on how many people they themselves have slept with,' they explained. 'At an overall level, the attitudes of men and women are effectively the same across the range. 'However, the generations do take differing views, with young people being the quickest to start saying that a number of sexual partners is 'high'. 'This is not necessarily surprising – the older someone is, the more chances to have sexual encounters they have had, and it is probably fair to assume that respondents are basing their answers on the tally of a person about the same age as them.' For instance, 44 per cent of people who have had one sexual partner in their life sees 10 or more partners as a 'large' number, with 27 per cent of people with four sexual partners saying the same. Meanwhile, eight per cent of people who have slept with ten to 14 people, and three per cent of people with 25 or more partners deem ten partners to be a 'large' number. Interestingly, the study found that young men and old women were notably more likely than their counterparts to consider a given number to represent a 'large number' of lifetime sexual partners. In June, a study found that women who have sex at least once a week are the 'happiest' in their relationship. While Bonnie Blue is famous for having sex with 1,000 men in a day, the average Briton has only slept with 4 people in their life So what do Britons consider to be small and large lifetime numbers of sexual partners? 0-4 people - majority see as small 5 people - 48% small / 40%… — YouGov (@YouGov) August 4, 2025 Scientists found 85 per cent of women who had sex once a week described themselves as 'sexually satisfied', according to a study of nearly 500 heterosexual women. In contrast, only 66 per cent of wives and girlfriends who had sex once a month reported the same level of relationship bliss. And the figure fell to 17 per cent among those women who had intercourse less than this. Author of the new study Alexandra Janssen, a researcher at the University of Manchester, said the findings show the importance of regular intimate relations. She told the Daily Mail: 'While the study shows an association between frequency of sex and sexual relationship satisfaction, this is only a correlation. 'We don't know whether women are happier because they are having more sex, if they are having more sex because they are happier, or if they are happier and having more sex because of other factors-perhaps they don't have kids. 'Also, the fact that women who have less sex are also less satisfied in their relationship isn't particularly surprising.'


Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rayner's war on allotments is slowly killing Britain's beauty
It's a sign of our creeping decrepitude that my wife and I enjoy spending our Sunday afternoons going to charity garden openings. Usually these are in the grounds of country houses but this summer's star opening of the season was unquestionably hosted by the Dalbeattie Community Allotments Association. I have long been fascinated by allotments. Glimpsed from train windows they offer a window into a Britain that is, as John Major once said 'still the country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers', himself pulling from George Orwell's evocative image of 'old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist'. Dalbeattie's allotments did not disappoint. The gardens themselves waxed with competitive marrow growing, stellar displays of annuals and characterful greenhouses and 'man cave' sheds. The chatter of sparrows in the perimeter hedge and an aerial display of swifts up above spoke eloquently of its support for local biodiversity. But most of all it was the people that made a powerful impression on us. Happy, healthy people bound in friendship. People whose existence in small flats in the town might otherwise be grey and dismal, but for whom instead life on the allotment appeared to be like one long Jubilee street party. Knowledgeable gardeners, people not at the mercy of the supermarkets for whom self-sufficiency is a way of life. We came away humbled by their green fingers and determined to try harder in our veg patch. So shame on Angela Rayner for giving councils flexibility to sell off allotments to raise money for day-to-day expenditure. We all know the country is bust and local authorities are being starved of cash. But we can all also point to wasteful quangos that could be axed, unnecessary diversity, equity and inclusion jobsworths that could be removed from the government payroll, benefits cheats that could be cut off, bungs-to-the-rich charities like the RSPB that could be stopped, rather than selling off the family silver embodied in the nation's precious few green spaces. First they came for the playing fields, then they gobbled up the allotments. It betrays a metropolitan disdain for people who get their hands dirty growing vegetables. Society will be all the poorer for the loss of these green spaces that provide solace to so many people, particularly the elderly. It is also morally wrong, if not technically illegal in many cases because they are not rightfully theirs to sell. Most allotments that are now in public ownership actually started life through land being gifted by philanthropists to provide amenity and healthy food for local people. They should not be for politicians to dispose of as they please. I hope there will be legal challenges on these grounds. There was a time when Labour politicians were grounded by being smallholders and allotmenteers themselves – think Nye Bevan with his pigs or Jeremy Corbyn with his vegetables. Anyone with a genuine concern for the have-nots should fiercely oppose this sell-off. This daft policy exposes the moral bankruptcy and soullessness at the heart of the Starmer project. I can just about get my head around the socialist impulse to exterminate kulaks like me, via the obnoxious family farm tax, though the toxic side effects are already evident and history will judge them harshly for it. But going after the allotment holders? Seriously?