Allotments 4 All
General => News => Topic started by: 1066 on March 06, 2009, 15:35:22
-
Was just listening to Gardener's Question Time on R4 and they had someone on talking about how to deal with aminopyralid contaminated manure. For those of you who can't verify if their manure is contaminated or not he advised the following -
make a mixture of 50% manure and 50% compost, put it into 6 saucers (or pots)water it, leave it for 24hours and then plant 6 beans in the pots. At the same time plant a further 6 beans in 100% compost. When they have germinated let them grow until they have 3 or 4 true leaves. At which time if the manure is contaminated the plants will show signs of twisting and distortion. And if it is contaminated then don't just leave the manure in a pile but to incorporate it into the soil and it will break down within 12 months
hope this is of help, I presume you could do the listen again thing as well
1066
-
I planted 3 onions in my new manure to see what happens to them, but now I'm not sure that the onions are affected, but will try this with the beans tomorrow, but I will deffo not put it in my soil. ;D ;D ;D
-
You lot do not pay any attention to what I have to say but the TV and radio presenters certainly do. Wise up folks. You saw it here first.
-
I find it very depressing that even GQT has jumped on the Dow garbage advice/propaganda wagon.
-
I heard it this afternoon, It did seem rather pro DOW to me too... >:(
-
I heard it this afternoon, It did seem rather pro DOW to me too... >:(
Same here, but thought it might be of interest to folks
-
The man who gave the advice was from Dow! I was expecting them to have someone from the RHS- I'd have been more likely to believe them. Found out this week someone on my site was affected- I felt bad because I thought he'd just neglected his plot!Scary when it comes soclose to home-I'm sticking with poultry pellets.
-
Or spent hops ? ;)
-
"The real villains are the farmers..." said the presenter & the pr man from Dow. How the hell does that get past the censors?!?! The farmers are just trying to make a living in a tough world... the lieing, negligent agro-companies on the other hand... purely motivated by greed.
-
Or spent hops ? ;)
Of course!
-
"The real villains are the farmers..." said the presenter & the pr man from Dow. How the hell does that get past the censors?!?!
Because in this case it's true? The people responsible for the contamination didn't read/comply with the label instructions - they broke the law.
-
"The real villains are the farmers..." said the presenter & the pr man from Dow. How the hell does that get past the censors?!?!
Because in this case it's true? The people responsible for the contamination didn't read/comply with the label instructions - they broke the law.
Surprised to see you siding with Dow! It's not in the least bit true. Farmers have constant pressure on their margins (I know a few), doing their best to get by, get a lot of wink-nudge from the chemical reps (I know a couple of them too), and a few have made a bit of a blunder. This does not make them the "real villians", it makes them silly.
-
I didn't say anything about siding with Dow. I said the farmers broke the law. Are they silly for breakling the law - probably. Doesn't change the facts.
-
Maybe the small print "always read the label" should be in VERY LARGE PRINT so the person spraying the field is really made aware of the consequences of their actions.
I've seen a lot of signs advertising manure, and people are having piles delivered to their plots. The people I have spoken to generally don't know the origins of their pile, and shrug their shoulders when told of the possible dangers, and did they ask the supplier where it came from and is it free from aminopyralid.
Of course, as we are at the end of the chain, we don't know about whether the farmer is irresponsible, the manure suppliers may not know where the feed comes from for their horses/cows. So we either have an overworked and stressed farmer, not having time or inclination to read the instructions, and spraying the fields, to a large farm where the accountants make the decisions, which are passed down the line to a foreign temporary labourer who possible can't read the instructions and is just doing what they are told.
I feel the onus should be on Dow to ensure that the users of the chemicals they supply have safe working practices - maybe by the issue of licences etc. It seems over the top, but when the consequences are so wide reaching and affecting so many of the general public, who, let's face it, don't always read the press and don't have the knowledge of where their manure has come from, it could be the only answer. After all, other chemicals etc are not available to the amateur now, and most drugs can only be obtained by prescription. It's not too much to ask for.
Sorry to ramble, but had to say something before I hit the intray. (I didn't hear the prog, will try to catch it later)
-
If I buy a sportscar, drive it recklessly and cause an accident is that the fault of the manufacturer or me?
The bulk of the blame does lie with the farmers for not ensuring its safe use, its very easy to blame a large organisation like Dow because they are a large ( rich ) 'evil capitalist' petrochemical company but actually even the smaller guys need to take responsibility for their actions. So it was OK for farmers to use the products and to ignore the label in order to make some money?
The real question for me is should Dow have been allowed to market a chemical that breaks down so slowly that its lifecycle responsibility cannot be enforced by one farmer, to have to rely on the grower of the hay/straw telling purchasers of the aminopyralid to stable owners who should then pass this on to takers of manure is too inefficient.
-
Morally, I certainly think Dow are culpable!
This is suddenly relevant for me, as someone on Freecycle gave me some bags of horse manure. I'd forgotten all about it, as it was December when she offered them and I'd never heard back. I collected them on Sunday, but without meeting her, as she left them out front of her house. Then I realised I had no idea if they're aminopyralid-free, or not! Emailed her to ask; but she hasn't replied.
So now I have 3 sacks of manure that I don't know what to do with.
Given the noises that people are making on this thread, do you think the test is accurate? If I do the bean thing and they grow OK, does that mean I can use the manure on my veg plots?
If it is contaminated, and I dig it into the soil, could it affect trees and bushes nearby?
-
I don't disagree, RBT, but if you buy a car, any car, you still have to prove you're capable of driving it before you can take it on the road. Driving licence, insurance, tax - the amount you pay for insurance is dependent on your track record and age and the power of the car. The car manufacturer has done an almighty amount of research and testing to ensure the car is 100 percent safe for a competent user and now there are regulations for the safe disposal at the end of the car's life.
Dow didn't do this (or if they did they failed abysmally). Yes, the farmers were reckless, and some of them will continue to use any that has been stockpiled, so the problem won't go away for a good many years.
-
So now I have 3 sacks of manure that I don't know what to do with.
If you can find a spare bed where you don't need to grow anything, spread the three bags over the bed, dig it in, and then turn it regularly over a period of several months so the bacteria in the soil can break down the chemicals. Then it should be safe.
Given the noises that people are making on this thread, do you think the test is accurate? If I do the bean thing and they grow OK, does that mean I can use the manure on my veg plots?
Hopefully, yes.
If it is contaminated, and I dig it into the soil, could it affect trees and bushes nearby?
Some roses can be affected, and dahlias but I don't know about any other shrubs.
-
If you can find a spare bed where you don't need to grow anything, spread the three bags over the bed, dig it in, and then turn it regularly over a period of several months so the bacteria in the soil can break down the chemicals. Then it should be safe.
Can we stop spreading this Dow propaganda once and for all. There is no evidence that it breaks down biologically and observations indicate otherwise. The highly soluble poison is readily and immediately absorbed by any nearby plant and the rest is washed away into the surrounding watershed. If the plants that absorb the poison are not harmed they simply hold the poison within the plant tissue to be released back to the soil when the plant dies.
The broad bean test works well (thanks to Eristic for devising that one), and the seedlings will grow distorted if the poison is present.
If you spread Dow's toxic chemicals on your ground and dig it in, your ground may well be safe within a few weeks but your neighbour might not be able to grow potatoes for several years.
-
Eek! Well, I'll try the bean test and hope the manure is OK. If it isn't, I'll just chuck it away. In my 'landfill' black bin. :S
-
I think the real question is, why were Dow allowed to sell a chemical which is so persistent, and so easily disseminated onto peoples' gardens? It looks to me like yet another example of where lax regulation gets us.
-
The broad bean test works well (thanks to Eristic for devising that one), and the seedlings will grow distorted if the poison is present.
Thanks Eristic!
-
I agree, Robert. The agro industry gets away with stuff like that, but we 'civilians' can't even buy isopropyl alcohol in the chemist any more, in case a wino drinks it. Herbs that could cause liver damage only if you ate several *pounds* of them per day... banned. Persistent herbicide - sprayed all over the countryside with nothing but some small print to protect us... ???
Strangely enough, in the States, you CAN buy isopropanol, but you CAN'T buy codeine! Quick, rush to the chemist for your codeine fix...
-
helen you can get isopropanol un most craft shops and most cake decorating shops
lbb
-
Just listened to the programme:
"The villians in all this were farmers who didn't read ... " say the BBC, setting the scene nicely
"How long is this problem going to last ..." The Dow biologist didn't answer this question
"Simply ask the farmer ... " by the tone of his voice this must have been the 1,000th time he's said this
"The RHS say the perception is worse than the real problem ..." says the BBC. so why are we all worried?
BBC bowing and cowtowing to Dow.
-
Thank, lbb - you can buy it in HiFi accessory shops too, a teeny little bottle of about 30ml for about a fiver! As my husband is American, I stock up when we're over there, as it's about a quid a litre! Everybody over there has a bottle of it under their sink, doesn't seem to have lead to rampant alcoholism. It's been banned in *chemists* here, only. I suppose it's still on sale where it is 'not for human contact' or something, and at that price, not much of a bargain for the hardened wino... :D
-
If you can find a spare bed where you don't need to grow anything, spread the three bags over the bed, dig it in, and then turn it regularly over a period of several months so the bacteria in the soil can break down the chemicals. Then it should be safe.
Can we stop spreading this Dow propaganda once and for all. There is no evidence that it breaks down biologically and observations indicate otherwise. The highly soluble poison is readily and immediately absorbed by any nearby plant and the rest is washed away into the surrounding watershed. If the plants that absorb the poison are not harmed they simply hold the poison within the plant tissue to be released back to the soil when the plant dies.
The broad bean test works well (thanks to Eristic for devising that one), and the seedlings will grow distorted if the poison is present.
If you spread Dow's toxic chemicals on your ground and dig it in, your ground may well be safe within a few weeks but your neighbour might not be able to grow potatoes for several years.
Bad science!
I think it's a great shame that after Ceres did so much good work in analysing the problem in the first place, and Dow responded very positively by withdrawing the product, many of A4A community have fallen into the trap of silly name calling and ludicrous exaggeration.
-
you can buy it in HiFi accessory shops too, a teeny little bottle of about 30ml for about a fiver!
I suggest you shop around more isopropanol is available considerably cheaper than that.
http://www.ecfibreglasssupplies.co.uk/store/-c-21_465.html
-
Thanks baccyman, I take your point that it can be got much cheaper - although in that case, you'd have to add VAT and then £5.75 for postage! :D
But it's very hard to find on the high street, except in very small quantity, as a HiFi/electronics cleaning agent.
Anyway, I have several litres of it, so that should last me a good long while. That's quite a lot of cleaning and sticky-label-removing for me to be getting on with... :)
-
Besides which, I only mentioned isopropanol to make the comparison - harmless things being strictly controlled, agro-chemicals with very destructive capabilities being sprayed all over the place. Bit inconsistent?
I don't know if that was 'bad science' or not, earlier - I don't know enough about it. But I'm certainly suspicious of hand-waving reassurances from the makers of the chemical. Reminds me of John Selwyn-Gummer and his hamburger... (as the BSE/ Creutzfeld-Jacob crisis loomed, for those of you that don't remember).
I take a bit more persuasion, personally. No doubt they're putting as positive a spin on it as they can possibly manage. They might say that 'it breaks down in the soil in x period of time' but forget to mention that this is only if y and z criteria are met, or that it breaks down *by a certain percentage*, or some other modifier they can easily omit. It might well linger in plants which themselves are unaffected, I don't know, I'm not an organic chemist.
I do know I don't want to take risks. If the problem is downplayed and belittled, it only makes me more suspicious.
Yes, it is a problem, if we can't put horse manure on the ground without a risk of contaminating it.
-
Bad science!
I see. Using sacrificial beans as a means of testing for the presence of bean toxins is bad science. Using keen observations instead of carefully reading papers produced by the poison manufacturer is bad science.
I am proud to be a bad scientist. I question everything. I push the boundaries so that I know exactly where the boundaries are. I discuss my observations here.
Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to discuss as to where I'm flawed or carry out their own experiments (scientific or otherwise) but I'm sick of seeing extracts and summaries from papers paid for by Dow. While Dow probably employs some of the best scientists in the world they are not in the business of telling the truth to the public.
What I want to know is what the hell the RHS was doing all that time, why they did nothing, why they are still doing nothing and why did they not suspend their trials for 2007-2008 even though their trial ground showed signs of contamination?
I also want to know why the NVS failed to notify the public of this threat in spite of claiming later that they knew all about it the year previously?
-
Bad science!
I see. Using sacrificial beans as a means of testing for the presence of bean toxins is bad science. Using keen observations instead of carefully reading papers produced by the poison manufacturer is bad science.
I am proud to be a bad scientist. I question everything. I push the boundaries so that I know exactly where the boundaries are. I discuss my observations here.
Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to discuss as to where I'm flawed or carry out their own experiments (scientific or otherwise) but I'm sick of seeing extracts and summaries from papers paid for by Dow. While Dow probably employs some of the best scientists in the world they are not in the business of telling the truth to the public.
What I want to know is what the hell the RHS was doing all that time, why they did nothing, why they are still doing nothing and why did they not suspend their trials for 2007-2008 even though their trial ground showed signs of contamination?
I also want to know why the NVS failed to notify the public of this threat in spite of claiming later that they knew all about it the year previously?
I'm sure your bean test is truly wonderful :)
But your arguments are "Bad Science" nonetheless. You say, "There is no evidence that it breaks down biologically and observations indicate otherwise." What observations? If you really think that Dow's work is flawed methodologically, or is simply a downright lie, then this isn't a matter of discussion. It's a matter that is readily provable. There is no need to debate matters of fact.
But of course, at the heart of most "Bad Science" is a political argument. This is nothing to do with the chemistry of aminopyralid, and everything to do with making a mountain out of a molehill.
The aminopyralid problem is really not that important in the scheme of things. I realise that it's sad if you happen to be one of the people affected. It's annoying and frustrating to lose your plants. But every day, products are withdrawn from sale after they perform dangerously. It's commonplace. I saw a product recall for a hairdryer in a hardware store the other day. But even if I'd been the person whose hair had been set on fire, I wouldn't be ranting on about how evil the manufacturer and retailer were and calling their morality into question.
-
...
I don't know if that was 'bad science' or not, earlier - I don't know enough about it. But I'm certainly suspicious of hand-waving reassurances from the makers of the chemical. Reminds me of John Selwyn-Gummer and his hamburger... (as the BSE/ Creutzfeld-Jacob crisis loomed, for those of you that don't remember).
...
What a wonderful example. Or, as Jim Callaghan didn’t say, “Crisis? What crisis?”
The BSE/Variant CJD scare was rather scandalous, was it not? The story was that the prions that triggered the condition were present in all BSE infected meat, which had been widely sold. If you consumed such meat variant CJD would follow after around 14 years. Given that teenagers were (and are) especially fond of cheap burgers, an epidemic of dreadful deaths of 30 year olds was predicted. Thousands upon thousands would die, leaving young families orphaned. The flower of a generation would perish. And this epidemic would peak around 2000 to 2005, even if we stopped eating beef on the bone, and slaughtered the majority of the herd right at that moment. Which we did, at terrible human as well as financial cost.
And all this was talked up by the anti-American (anti McDonalds) brigade, the evangelical veggies, the anti-globalisers, and every loony tunes luddite and angry loser in the country.
Well, it didn’t happen, did it? The epidemiology was wrong. The numbers of deaths have been minuscule (dreadful though even a small number are).
It all happened long before Ben Goldacre, but it was Bad Science in the classic mould.
-
How it did or didn't pan out isn't the question - at the time of JSG's stunt in defence of the meat industry, nobody knew how bad it was going to be. It still isn't known how long it might remain latent in an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeld-Jacob_Disease#New_concerns_on_incidence_and_prevalence
Eating a hamburger to 'prove' that it's 'safe' is what I call bad science!
-
I'm a Luddite and proud... ;D
-
And I'm a loony-tune, and a, what was it, angry loser - if that's what being cynical of the claims of giant chemical corporations makes me. Particularly when they have a thingy-up to talk their way out of.
So, Melbourne - could you explain to us 'bad scientists', how aminopyralid is broken down in the soil and how long it takes?
-
By the way, I think 'The aminopyralid problem is really not that important in the scheme of things ' is a rather tactless comment in the circumstances. If you'd rendered your allotment useless by covering it in manure - yes, it really would be THAT important.
-
Ooh, here's a nice bit of science, from the US Environmental Protection Agency:
'Under aerobic conditions, degradation of aminopyralid in five different soils resulted in
the production of CO2 and non-extractable residues. Half-lives ranged from 31.5 to
533.2 days in 5 soils.'
So, up to three years to break down, according to those stats.
There's a link to the EPA pdf sheet, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminopyralid
-
How it did or didn't pan out isn't the question - at the time of JSG's stunt in defence of the meat industry, nobody knew how bad it was going to be. It still isn't known how long it might remain latent in an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeld-Jacob_Disease#New_concerns_on_incidence_and_prevalence
Eating a hamburger to 'prove' that it's 'safe' is what I call bad science!
;D Well, I can certainly agree with your final point. And I'm sure that if anything ever united the entire nation since WWII, it was an instinctive dislike of John Gummer.
But how it panned out is and was the question. Based upon entirely laboratory-based or even theoretical studies, a mechanism for the transmission of Variant CJD from BSE was proposed and believed. There was no hard evidence for it. Based upon the theory, fantastical mathematical models were built to show catastrophic outcomes. The press seized upon the scare and it became a political frisbee, with any number of lobby groups competing to see who could throw it highest and furthest.
And the money spent on averting this threat was enough to run the NHS at that time for two full years. So scares like this aren’t just a victimless bit of entertainment.
Like all good scare stories, including the aminopyralid one that is the subject of this thread, it had a basis of truth. Feeding sheep protein to cows had indeed caused the outbreaks of BSE. By presenting this emotively, it was easy to characterise the animal feed industry as a sort of evil Frankenstein, eager to destroy the world through immoral application of technology.
I was aware of the die-hards who claim that the only thing wrong with the original research was the latency between consuming the BSE prions and the onset of vCJD. But I wasn’t aware of this article, which your Wikipedia entry links to http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/03/bse.medicalresearch
“Doctors and scientists have warned that a second wave of CJD cases could sweep Britain over the next two to three decades. The initial outbreak of the fatal brain illness peaked several years ago but could break out again, they argue.
The prediction comes as officials consider ending some of the research projects that were set up to improve understanding of CJD - Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - and the closely related illness in cows, BSE.”
Well, well, well. It’s a mere coincidence, I’m sure, that “research budgets threatened” and “revival of end of mankind scare” share the same story.
-
Further to my last post, in the interests of fair reporting, they also say this:
'Two field dissipation studies were performed (in California and Mississippi). The results
indicate that aminopyralid is likely to be non-persistent and relatively immobile in the
field. Half-lives of 32 and 20 days were determined, with minimal leaching below the 15
to 30 cm soil depth. '
But I'm definitely out of my depth, there - don't know what a 'field dissipation study' is! :)
-
I'd be quite interested to see how a field dissipates, but allowing for the mangled English, how it breaks down in actual "field" conditions... :-\
I'm sure soil temps may be relevant to chemical reactions.... and I don't live in Mississippi.... so I assume it might take longer here... ::)
-
By the way, I think 'The aminopyralid problem is really not that important in the scheme of things ' is a rather tactless comment in the circumstances. If you'd rendered your allotment useless by covering it in manure - yes, it really would be THAT important.
I've already addressed that point, but just to re-emphasise: yes, it would be important to me. I'd be jolly cross. But I wouldn't expect it would edge the credit crunch, CIRA, and the war in Afghanistan off the front pages. It simply wouldn't be important in the scheme of things.
But I challenge you to find anyone whose whole allotment has been rendered entirely useless, even for a single season, by aminopyralid.
Oh, and it can take a lot longer than three years for aminopyralid to disappear entirely. After 1066 days (twice the 533 quoted as half-life upper limit in soil), levels would be 25% of the original, not zero.
-
I'd be quite interested to see how a field dissipates, but allowing for the mangled English, how it breaks down in actual "field" conditions... :-\
I'm sure soil temps may be relevant to chemical reactions.... and I don't live in Mississippi.... so I assume it might take longer here... ::)
The field dissipation studies are misleading for our purposes. They were aimed at determining the rate of breakdown and water dissipation in soils that bore crops that had been sprayed. Conditions are favourable in such a case, since there's plenty of air and light on the surface of the soil.
There were no studies of dissipation in manure, because nobody thought of such a thing, and the safety methodologies don't call for it. There are, I suppose, few darker or more airless places than a cow's stomach, or the middle of a dungheap.
The figures suggest that in anaerobic conditions at the bottom of a pond, the half life is 990 days, or around 3 years. So it is very persistent indeed in those conditions, which is what has caused the problem in the first place.
So I'm not suggesting that there wasn't a problem. But it's being fixed in a sensible way. There's plenty of good advice for people affected (including the much-derided Manure Matters website) on how to speed up the breakdown of the contamination. There's no threat to health.
No wonder the BBC and the RHS aren't reacting strongly. There's nothing more to do, no news story, nothing to see here, folks.
-
But I'm definitely out of my depth, there - don't know what a 'field dissipation study' is!
This is a study of how long it takes for the contamination in your field to migrate to someone Else's field.
-
Nice one Eristic.... ;D
-
I am doing the broad bean test using horse manure from a local stables before I spread it on the plot. It was OK last year and the stables use their own straw etc, but am not taking any chances.
But can we not do our own experiment - if you had contaminated manure and damaged plants then do the broad bean test again this year and so on until healthy beans grow. I appreciate that it is not really scientific but surely it can give some sort of indication of when the soil is clearing and the aminopyralid is being broken down.
-
I have proof of what Eristic says - My allotments on a slope. I put about 10 bags of manure in a builders bag at the top. The spuds at the bottom of the slope (25 yards away directly below the manure) were all distorted, and the new raspberry canes in between were all damaged. It was a clear strip running down from the manure. The rest of the plot was fine (apart from the broad beans below my pumpkins growing on fresh manure). Can't see what's bad science about that ???
And FWIW, I blame the people who make alcohol for the kids who get drunk and smash up the phone box at the bottom of my street, and I blame gun manufacturers for people getting shot. I also blame Marconi for children having their limbs blown off by landmines... There are always smaller baddies, but it is the people who make the stuff who should be ultimately accountable. I could go on, and frequently do!
-
I don't think there's anything 'bad science' about the bean experiment - quite the opposite. Empirical science at its most direct, surely? I'll be starting mine tomorrow. :)
-
but it is the people who make the stuff who should be ultimately accountable. I could go on, and frequently do!
Well done Ollie... If somebody wasn't prepared to go on we would still be using Thalidomide... oh sorry we still do in some South American countries where people can't protest... :-X
-
There's plenty of good advice for people affected (including the much-derided Manure Matters website) on how to speed up the breakdown of the contamination.
As an aside I just googled manure matters - the top 2 links were from A4A including this thread :-X
I am doing the broad bean test using horse manure from a local stables before I spread it on the plot. It was OK last year and the stables use their own straw etc, but am not taking any chances.
But can we not do our own experiment - if you had contaminated manure and damaged plants then do the broad bean test again this year and so on until healthy beans grow. I appreciate that it is not really scientific but surely it can give some sort of indication of when the soil is clearing and the aminopyralid is being broken down.
I think that sounds a practical solution to me tinshed, I'm testing mine and am in a similar position to you and would obviously like to avoid the heartache of diseased and damaged plants, if I can. the reason I posted on this topic in the 1st place :)
And OllieC - sorry to hear you were affected
-
but it is the people who make the stuff who should be ultimately accountable. I could go on, and frequently do!
Well done Ollie... If somebody wasn't prepared to go on we would still be using Thalidomide... oh sorry we still do in some South American countries where people can't protest... :-X
And since Dow were the suppliers of agent orange (defoliant) and napalm used in the Vietnam war why should we trust them now?
-
Did they take-over Monsanto or just change their name to protect the guilty?
I seem to remember Agent Orange was used from planes... are we to blame the poor air-crew, who also suffered side-effects from handling it, rather than the company that made it? ???
-
Just another example of a product being brought to market without being fully tested!!!
Irresponsible dont you think? Shame on them they should know better but afterall when you are looking down into a test tube all the time its difficult to see the wider picture! ;D
-
I think they'd be more interested in their cashflow and their bonuses!
-
This subject has been milked & milked.
Is it not the old adage of supply & demand?
Farmer: I need a more effective herbicide better than the one I've been using.
Dow: Yes farmer, I have one for you now - just been developed.
Farmer: I've tried it & it's brilliant. Thank you.
And then the sh*t hits the (small) fan!
Worked with DDT.
-
Telboy, you just hit the nail on the head. These poor farmers barely scraping a living wanted a better pesticide. It had to be:
- more effective (for better crop productivity)
- more persistent so that they don't need to spray as often (lower labour costs) and so that they have to purchase less of the product (lower expenses).
Dow developed the product their customers wanted and put it through all the legally required licensing and approval processes. Has anyone actually read what the famers think of this and what they think of the amateur gardeners (us) who have caused the fuss that has had their favourite product removed from the market. I have and it ain't pretty. They love this stuff. Forget about any solidarity for other people who work the land.
I'm so sick of reading here all the misleading, downright wrong information on this subject on this forum and the conspiracy theory cr*p is laughable. The good information is there for anyone who takes the trouble to look for it. I've said my last word on aminopyralid on this forum. Have fun with your bean tests, that's all they're fit for. Anyone who reads this forum and who suffers contamination this year only has themself to blame.
-
I certainly hope it is not going to be your last word on the subject Ceres.
You have given such good information. :)
Please keep it coming ;D
-
I'm genuinely confused, Ceres - which is the wrong information that's winding you up, and where do we find the 'good information'? I'm not being sarky, I want to know!
I don't see what else I can do other than the bean test, with the three bags of manure I now have sitting in my front garden. Do you think I'm better off just throwing them away?
cheers
H
-
Ceres after all the trouble you had with aminopyralid and all the time and trouble you took gathering information it is you I and others look to for advise. I can't get a definite answer for my manure so doing a bean or whatever test is not a bit of fun for me its a genuine worry about the health of my manure. I left it covered and out of the way until today and found grass and potato growth growing in it, so I would just like to find out if its OK to use as I have started my spuds off without it which is something I never do, some of us are just a bit ignorant about it, others and there opinions I cannot vouch for. Thanks for all the Info you have given on the subject and I can understand your frustration but the other opinions do confuse some of us and I'm sure Helen is in the same boat as me. ;D ;D ;D
-
If there is a potato already growing in the manure the bean test is superfluous. Potato will indicate presence of toxins just as well.
I chose the broad bean as the best indicator largely because it is cheap, quick to grow and can tolerate cooler temperatures than other indicator plants. Tomato plants are extremely sensitive to the poison but not of much use in January.
-
Anyone who reads this forum and who suffers contamination this year only has themself to blame.
Heres a suggestion - if you think you have been affected by aminopyralid contaminated manure then report it to the Pesticides Safety Directorate. You can contact PSD's Information Section: 01904 455775 by email on information@psd.hse.gsi.gov.uk or better still in writing to Information Section, PSD, Room 214 Mallard House, Kings Pool, 1-3 Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX, UK.
If you don't report it - they can't investigate it!
-
Get over it.
I did. Life is like this - yes? F'raid so. Do what you gotta do & GET ON WITH IT!!
Don't give Ceres a hard time, she's given you so much info. - and you still whine!
Plant your goodies in the sh*t. If it works - Hey!
If it don't - dig it in & try again another season!
Any women wearing a dress they bought last year?
-
I'm getting really baffled by this thread... who is giving Ceres a hard time? I was hoping for an explanation as to what the bad and the good info is, quite genuinely. I'm a bit lost. I haven't followed the subject from the beginning so I don't know everyone's history on this, I can see I've walked into a hornet's nest. Um, what do last year's dresses have to do with it? I'm getting reeeeeally confused now... :D
-
HHH I'm with you on this, I also don't understand what exactly is going on here nor what "ladies dresses" has to do with anything other than a clothes shop. But the reason why I delayed in responding is that I honestly didn't initially know how to respond.
I originally put this post up because I thought it topical and potentially useful, and yes maybe a bit of a debate. All tick boxes for a forum eh? And my reasoning is that there are new people to gardening coming through all the time, who also don't know about it, AND if it has helped only 1 person to avoid the heatache / headache of using contaminated manure then I did the right thing in starting this thread. It certainly wasn't started for a bit of fun or for an opportunity for folks to have a go at others.
I'm off to do some more digging and preparation on my plot this weekend, and yes I'm waiting to see if my new batch of manure is contaminated, in the only way I'm aware of, by doing the bean test.......
1066
-
I planted 3 onions in my new manure to see what happens to them, but now I'm not sure that the onions are affected, but will try this with the beans tomorrow, but I will deffo not put it in my soil. ;D ;D ;D
Hi there
Just wondering how you got on with your bean test, the beans must be well into true leaf stage.
I also heard recently that B&Q had removed FYM from their product range. I did talk to them about this and it has nothing to do with aminopyralid as they are very careful on how they source their farm manure. Its actually a concern about the variability and quality of the domestic sourced green-manure which is mixed with it. They now have this under control and will be reselling their FYM shortly.
-
The very first of my 6 test beans (Masterpiece long pod) is starting to emerge, in the 'control' compost (no manure). I guess I should know in a couple of weeks, the last batch of these all germinated at the same time and grew pretty d**n fast.