Topic: A new pesticide for Marestail

[kt.]

Members of our allotment site are asking about a new pesticide apparently now available that rids, or at least contains marestail, even though it is expensive.  We, the committee are unable to find any such new product to stock in our lottie shop. 

Has anybody heard of such a new product coming onto the market?

[grannyjanny]

I don't know of a new one but on out site there is talk of using ammonium sulphamate on a badly infested plot. I have been looking it up & it has been banned for a year & wondered if it was the jeys fluid & armillatox senario, change of use thing.
Janet

[saddad]

Pedantically you won't find a pesticide for Horsetail (Marestail is aquatic) as it is a plant... you'd need a Herbicide... no Not a change of use for Amcide...  :-X

[simmo116]

i got all exited then!

[Kepouros]

The "New Super Concentrated" form of Roundup is supposed to do considerable damage to Marestail, although repeat applications would almost certainly be required.

[bionear2]

Try putting ammonium sulphamate into e-bay search.

Its disallowed as a herbicide, but it has other permitted uses, and can still be purchased legally

[amphibian]

Again, the question the recent license lapse begs, is- why was no party; which stood to make good money from a herbicide allegedly suitable for amateur use, and safe for animals, humans and the environment; unwilling to issue safety data to the EU, thus resulting into the lapse of the compound usage as a herbicide?

Always concerns me when companies would rather lose a section of their market than submit safety data.

[djbrenton]

The cost of compiling the safety data is massive compared to the profits either of the two companies who marketed it for gardening would have made. One of the companies is a man trading from his house near me, not a multi-national. His entire business which is mostly weed fabric runs from his garage. I can't remember the figures I read when Armillatox was re-labelled but it was in the hundreds of thousands to get the safety data.

Of course, just like Armillatox you can still buy Root Out for a different purpose
http://www.garden-products.info/rootout.htm

[raisedbedted]

I'm of the opinion that if you're producing a noxious chemical that is going to be spread around by members of the public then I would want at least a few hundred thousand pounds spent on investigating its effects, rather than a man in a corner of his garage.

Funny how there are two oft repeating threads - Aminopollyprid and not being able to get hold of now banned chemicals   ::)

[Old bird]

I certainly agree that testing is very important - but there has to be a line drawn somewhere - how many safe tests were carried out when aspirin was invented - or anti biotics or other life saving stuff?

How many hundreds of thousands of pounds does a research firm need to put in place to find something is safe in comparison to the early days when drugs/chemicals were used on human guinea pigs?

I think that sometimes there is too much emphasis placed on making sure that nothing can hurt man beast or vegetable.

There used to be many things like Renardine - which farmers used to protect new born lambs and other things from foxes.  It is now no longer available but there is no replacement - and this was just a smell that it created - but too expensive to prove that it was not going to kill man woman or beast?!!

There is that bug killer powder - can't remember the name - but you can't get that now and yet again there is no useful replacement!

Test for somethings certainly but make sure that we are not going backwards just to keep elf & Safety happy!

Old Bird

[Robert_Brenchley]

Sometimes it does get ridiculous, but then we get a thalidomide disaster. I think these old treatments should be allowed, as any major problems would surely have showed up by now. but if it's something totally new, expecially if we're going to ingest it, that's a different matter.

[raisedbedted]

Marestail is a big problem.  If a company had a product that was effective against it then they would be well placed to raise the money necessary for testing unless..
1) They didnt think it would pass safety tests
2) They didnt think it would be a success.

Nothing to do with health and safety, its just plain old free market economics.

[Old bird]

raisedbedted 

Marestail is a problem in some places - as far as I know none of the 6 allotment sites in our area has any problem at all with this pernicious weed.  Having said that - I do understand that it is a problem for you!

The only reason I said that was because the companys that produce this killer stuff to be tested are in business to make money - so it needs to be a huge problem for them to shell out X-hundred thousand pounds for research when they may not be likely to get their money back.

Old Bird

 ;D

[amphibian]

If a product is effective, but a small company owning the rights cannot afford to complete teh necessary safety checks, then they would be in a good position to sell the product to a big player in the agro-chemical industry.

Easier, though, to market the chemical for another purpose, in the knowledge that people will just use it for illegal purposes anyway, and then if anything comes to light later it is the user not the producer that will cop the blame.

So many chemical disasters have happened, my suspicion is always raised.

[siandc]

Has anybody here tried DAX "root out" or "deep root". I used to use them years ago when I did landscaping. I've seen on a few sites that it will kill marestail!!!!  ???

[djbrenton]

DAX is the one man and his wife company I mentioned.

[siandc]

Oh, I see!  ;D
Small world isn't it!

[labrat]

I certainly agree that testing is very important - but there has to be a line drawn somewhere - how many safe tests were carried out when aspirin was invented - or anti biotics or other life saving stuff?

How many hundreds of thousands of pounds does a research firm need to put in place to find something is safe in comparison to the early days when drugs/chemicals were used on human guinea pigs?

I think that sometimes there is too much emphasis placed on making sure that nothing can hurt man beast or vegetable.

Couldn't agree more. Though to correct some figures it can cost as much as $400 million to get one drug to the market and most of the cost comes in the clinical testing phases. Actually finding and tweaking the active chemical is cheap by comparison (several million). Aspirin would never have been licensed with all its dangers and side effects had it been developed under the current system. But the fundamental disconnect about creating a harmless drug or synthetic chemical is that there isn't one. All drugs are toxic and harmful but they are designed to damage/inhibit the desired target at higher rates than the surrounding healthy systems.

It's not necessarily about small companies versus big ones (though the cost burden is clearly different). The difference is between generic and proprietary chemicals. A company that has the right to license a proprietary chemical is secure in the knowledge of a defined number of years at prices it controls and can factor in all the health and safety regulations. Anyone can sell generic chemicals but are subject to the harshest efficiencies of market competition which means no one has the money to comply with the regulations. And it's just daft considering that most of the generic chemicals have had several years if not a couple of decades of safety testing in academia and by government agencies.

There used to be many things like Renardine - which farmers used to protect new born lambs and other things from foxes.  It is now no longer available but there is no replacement - and this was just a smell that it created - but too expensive to prove that it was not going to kill man woman or beast?!!

I'm not that bothered to be honest having used it on many occasions. It was a pain to use and often didn't work for me. Just easier in a farm setting to combine electrified fencing with diligent local pest control