Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Where am I going wrong ??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Feldspar" data-source="post: 2351772" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>I think we need to seriously question this assertion (and it is just an assertion as far as I can see) that Sluxx is somehow kinder on non-target species. One counter assertion which I need to research is that the chelating agent used in Sluxx (I think it is anyway), EDTA, can be most toxic agent of the lot to non-target species.</p><p></p><p>Here's some food for thought: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00801.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=" target="_blank">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00801.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=</a></p><p></p><p>Key findings: the carabids investigated eating slugs exposed to metaldehyde did not obviously suffer from reduced lifespans (unlike methiocarb) - 2% mortality compared to 25% with methiocarb. Carabids eating slugs killed by metaldehyde fed longer on each slug. This behaviour may be explained by the reduction in mucus secretion (after the initially elevated levels) from these slugs. So, it may be that metaldehyde is allowing carabids to eat more than they otherwise would, but this might increase their metaldehyde exposure.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, we still use metaldehyde, expect for water quality reasons - i.e. on headlands and after the metaldehyde stewardship limit has been reached.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 2351772, member: 386"] I think we need to seriously question this assertion (and it is just an assertion as far as I can see) that Sluxx is somehow kinder on non-target species. One counter assertion which I need to research is that the chelating agent used in Sluxx (I think it is anyway), EDTA, can be most toxic agent of the lot to non-target species. Here's some food for thought: [URL]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2003.00801.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=[/URL] Key findings: the carabids investigated eating slugs exposed to metaldehyde did not obviously suffer from reduced lifespans (unlike methiocarb) - 2% mortality compared to 25% with methiocarb. Carabids eating slugs killed by metaldehyde fed longer on each slug. This behaviour may be explained by the reduction in mucus secretion (after the initially elevated levels) from these slugs. So, it may be that metaldehyde is allowing carabids to eat more than they otherwise would, but this might increase their metaldehyde exposure. FWIW, we still use metaldehyde, expect for water quality reasons - i.e. on headlands and after the metaldehyde stewardship limit has been reached. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag Crops & Agronomy
Where am I going wrong ??
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top