Withdrawl of Metaldehyde

[bobk]

I agree. Tray testing my Stocks, I got pinged by the odd pellet well beyond the normal spread pattern. It wouldn't take many stray pellets to pollute the watercourse at the edge of a field.

Whereas water companies are legally allowed to pour raw sewerage in to rivers . go figure ...

 

[Breakthru]

Fortunately no experience of Spanish slugs (that I know of) here.

Quite common across England now but only Agric problems come from importing compost from urban areas. Big problem in vineyards etc on the continent.

 

[ollie989898]

Sluxx is pretty good if applied ahead of time.

I have often found that applications of metaldehyde were sometimes ineffective, those black keeled beggars seemed unfazed by it, draza sorted that job though, went tactical nuke a few times over the years, usually after a go of meta.

 

[Bogweevil]

Agenda Item four for reasons for metaldehyde withdrawal: https://assets.publishing.service.g...hment_data/file/701232/ecp-180130-minutes.pdf
Seems that HSE advised independent expert committee on pesticides that there was a significant risk to small birds who left it to the minister to approve or as it turned out not approve re-registration of metaldehyde.

 

[Breakthru]

It was sign posted 2 years ago. Review 18 gone by 20 although when I passed that on it got a caustic reply by somebody who thought their sources were better.

 

[Gong Farmer]

Agenda Item four for reasons for metaldehyde withdrawal: https://assets.publishing.service.g...hment_data/file/701232/ecp-180130-minutes.pdf
Seems that HSE advised independent expert committee on pesticides that there was a significant risk to small birds who left it to the minister to approve or as it turned out not approve re-registration of metaldehyde.

May have been mentioned elsewhere, but I reckon the real reason is the phenomenal cost (I forget the figures) of removal by water companies, but using environmental issues as a 'safe excuse'. People expect totally pure water in their taps but I can understand this, who would be happy to drink traces of pesticide?

 

[Breakthru]

May have been mentioned elsewhere, but I reckon the real reason is the phenomenal cost (I forget the figures) of removal by water companies, but using environmental issues as a 'safe excuse'. People expect totally pure water in their taps but I can understand this, who would be happy to drink traces of pesticide?

Absolutely correct, the water companies wanted it banned years ago and eventually got their way, and I wouldn't argue against your reasoning or theirs.
The one thing they can't get out though is oestrogen from all the contraceptive pill taking women. One reason I never drink London ales and when in the south drink bottled water.
There used to be a figure of approx 20 people who drink the same Thames water before it reaches the sea. Yugh!

 

[Case290]

Excellent Info tff.

 

[Hindsight]

May have been mentioned elsewhere, but I reckon the real reason is the phenomenal cost (I forget the figures) of removal by water companies, but using environmental issues as a 'safe excuse'. People expect totally pure water in their taps but I can understand this, who would be happy to drink traces of pesticide?

An interesting assertion. The reason for withdrawl cited was effect on small mammals and birds. Do you have evidence it was truly water contamination issues. The inference from your post is the committee is corrupt.

 

[Brisel]

The minutes of the committee are in Bogweevil's post. Whilst there was no evidence submitted that there was a significant effect on wildlife, they could not refute it either. Hardly conclusive. My understanding is that they have employed the precautionary principle.