From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Unsterilized syringes (was Re: Mad Cows and English Beef
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:38:27 +0100

In article <jscanlon-1905962312440001@sp0.linex.com>, Jim Scanlon
<jscanlon@linex.com> writes

>Farmers are not the only ones who administer drugs to animals. Several
>years ago I wrote an article on Ivermectin, a powerful drug which kills
>paracites in horses, cattle etc.
>I tried to get an estimate of the amound of the drug sold in my county. I
>had some concern that the drug was being expelled along with the manure
>and was killing flies and worms that helped in decomposition and then
>getting into a nearby trout stream and killing aquatic insects.
>The drug was sold over the counter. I came up with an rough estimate from
>talking to two feed store owners who sold the drug. One owner told me that
>owners of horses they loved frequently double dosed their beloved animals
>to protect them from bot flies. It is cerainly understandable.

This also caused concern in the UK. Recent trials have shown that it is
not a problem at all *at normal dose rates*.

I really cannot understand why people overdose their stock, or indeed
their crops. With the correct product this should not be required.

I suspect part of the reason might be the experience of ineffective
application of *garden* pesticides. Frequently the products are badly
applied and badly mixed, so they do not work. Alongside that is the
selling point 'spray them today, eat them tomorrow' which suggests VERY
low doses of active ingredient. The same chemical applied in agriculture
almost certainly has a harvest interval of seven days, and more often
21, but it works. This might well lead people to habitually increase the
dose by two or three times to get it to work, thus giving a false
impression that all agricultural pesticides are like that. They aren't,
and farmers know this. Indeed many farmers habitually apply half doses,
or even less.

So if your garden product doesn't work at the approved rates then
*change products to one that does*.

-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:50:08 +0100

In article <4ru6n8$doo@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
c.dk> writes
>Oz wrote:
>
>>Could you give some examples of legally distributed chemicals that are
>>currently profoudly affecting wildlife?
>
>By using 'currently' it seems to me that you suggests
>that we have, in the past, done some stupid things, and
>by experience grown wiser. I think this is to some extent
>true. I fear though that there is still miles to walk.

Typical human behaviour when the going is good, I would say.   :-)

>By using 'profoundly' it seems to me that you restrict
>your view to dramatic, clearly visible influences on
>wildlife (massive tilts, quick and dirty wipe-outs).

No, I was really meaning scientifically 'generally accepted'.
This to remove bias and rumour and heresay that this area is rather
prone to call 'facts'.

>While we have certainly become more sophisticated in our
>choice of wonder-chemicals, this may exactly have pushed
>the adverse effects beyond direct observation.

Unobservable is good. I expect you will now give a list of 'observable'
changes and attribute them to OP's without evidence.

>a) Legally distributed chemical which are shown to be profoundly
>affecting wildlife are usually banned (after a suitable delay
>as a courtesy to the thick-headed).

Excellent.
One bit of important wildlife is, of course, the spray operator.

>b) Profound effects on wildlife would to most people
>mean scattered corpses of large visible animals
>for everyone to observe. Nature does not work this way.
>- Corpses tend to be eaten, not to be put on display
>- Animals tend to crouch unnoticed somewhere when poisoned
>(i.e. unless the effects are really, really PROFOUND
>nobody will notice)

This level of damage would be gross. I would agree with you. I accept
MUCH lower levels, significantly reduced fish numbers or predator
numbers where this can be shown to be directly due to the products.

>c) If we take wildlife in a broader sense, i.e. include
>smaller animals, earthliving small-creatures, bugs etc.
>effects can go very far without being noticed.
>(who cares, anyway?)

Me. However within the target area (ie within the field) I would like to
know the effects and in general take the decision. I would be unhappy
about SIGNIFICANT lower-animal mortality outside the target area.

>d) With the restrictions imposed by a)-c) acute effects
>are most easily observed/avoided, whereas chronic effects are
>more elusive and difficult to prove. There is often
>a lot of confounding factors in a human-influenced environment.
>(ecotoxicology has some really tough methodological problems
>-- add: that funding is severely limited)

Lets be fair here. Modern pesticides (at least in Britain) have to go
through very serious lifetime and ecological studies, including
metabolites. The cost is currently circa UKP 15M per product and rising.
The funding is there, and the people giving the registration are pretty
tough. Indeed many international chemical companies are cutting back
developement because unless the product is a world beater, they can
never make any money. This is quite serious as far as feeding the world
in 30 years time is concerned, when it will be too late.

>e) Acute effects are seen when wildlife are exposed
>to high doses of acutely toxic pesticides
>Example:
>  the use of massive doses of insecticides (and some fungicides)
>  as _seed_ treatments or granulates
>  (i.e. toxic candies in the school yard)
>
>Examples:
>
>carbofuran,
>methiocarb,
>lindane,
>aldicarb
>Na-N-dimethylcarbamate

I bet the old treatment (mercury) that was used in the UK up until a
couple of years ago was worse, dating from way back (pre-war?). In
practice it never reduced the pigeon or sparrow population to anything
less than plague.

>f) whatever the reason, a very _large_ proportion of
>the animal species, traditionally inhabiting  farmland in Denmark,
>have been declining in density for the last 30-40 years:
>
>Examples of some of the larger of these species:
>
>-Passer domesticus, house sparrow: large flocks could be seen
>roaming the cereal fields each autumn 30 years ago --
>small pockets survive in cities and on fringe islands.

Interesting, this. Here we had a large number of sparrows in the
farmyard, always have. A couple of years ago we had (for the first time
in 20 years) a resident sparrow hawk. Now we have almost no sparrows,
and almost no tits, and the winter visitors to our bird table are
goldfinches (previously rareish). We do still have our sparrow hawk.
Presumably the reduction in pesticides has improved raptor breeding and
reduced passerine numbers. Typical nature really. This sort of thing
upsets many "oh what a beautiful hawk, how nice", "bloody farmers are
killing all the birds"!

>-Emberiza calandra, Corn Bunting:
>has withdrawn to fringe areas without extensive farming

Of course, that's it's natural habitat.

>-Perdix perdix, Partridge:
>the stock has declined dramatically for decades, seems to
>have stabilised at an all time low, may be coming back,
>possibly caused by a change of insecticide use pattern.
>Food scarcity (insects for chicken) seem to have led to
>low reproductive success -- in the organophosphate era.

Little or no change in 20 years here, by observation. The numbers seem
to be critically dependent on summer weather. A warm spell in spring for
the first brood, and a warm dry open autumn can jack up numbers
substantially (huge coveys of young birds). The reverse and numbers are
well down. This year has been a bad spring for them.

>-Lepus europaeus, European Brown hare:
>the stock has declined dramatically for decades, some of
>the recent decline has been shown to be caused by
>unprecedentedly poor reproductive success (subject header!).
>Noone know the reason, but chronic effects of pesticides can
>certainly not be ruled out, as hares are grazing
>young crops, which are mostly heavily contaminated with
>pesticides.

You have GOT to be joking!!!
Numbers here are plentiful, regardless of the level of pesticide use.

However *illegal* hare coursing (lots of greyhound-cross hunting dogs)
can strip all the hares for several miles in every direction in a few
weekends. You can go from better to a hare per hectare to none in a
month, and there is little you can do about it in the UK. Regularly
coursed areas have almost no hares.

>h) There is some evidence, that arthropode wildlife in freshwater
>streams are affected each year by contamination with
>pesticides (probably the synth. pyrethroids) This effect
>has only emerged in the last couple of years after
>the profound effects! of discharge of phosphate,
>ammonium and nitrate were brought under some control,
>and it was observed that the clean water fauna did not
>return.

Daphnia seems particulary sensitive. On the other hand our ditches
contain many small fish, eagerly hunted by a pair of herons, and we have
herbicide sensitive plants on the ditch side (eg vetches and cowslips)
right up to 150mm of the (treated) crop. I know of the purported
possible problem with low level pesticides in ditches, but my experience
makes me wonder if direct pollution (eg direct overspraying or washings)
isn't the major cause, and this CAN be identified and the person fined.
In the UK we now have strict 6M zones round ditches of all types where
certain chemicals may not be sprayed. I think this is overkill.

>g) Several studies of those bird species which have been
>observed to decline over the last few decades
>show consistently:
>- a higher number of these species
>- a higher density of each species
>on organic farms when compared with matched non-organic farms.

Indeed, I would expect this on arable organic farms since there are lots
of insect pests to be eaten. Since stock farms rarely use much in the
way of herbicides, and almost never use field insecticides, it's harder
to place the blame. In my experience mixed farming is quite helpful.
Skylarks that breed in arable fields (where they are safe and
undisturbed) and feed in ajacent grass fields where food is plentiful,
seem to do quite well.

Much of the reduction in bird wildlife is, I am afraid, due to higher
levels of sanitation around the farm. Farms have been historically
filled with by far the largest quantity of food for wildlife, usually in
a highly available situation. Now all stores must be kept clear of
rodents and sealed up safely. Smelly old muckheaps strategically dotted
over the landscape (often for years) provided insect food by the ton for
local birds and small mammals (and grass snakes). The odd dead sheep on
the mountain fed raptors ..... Now it's all cleaned up and these
important food sources are gone.

Twenty years ago we had a corn store on the Downs. It was isolated at
the end of a dead-end road and was well stocked with rats and mice. We
of course had a pair of resident barn owls in the wood above. Then we
got complaints, people had seen rats and mice. Shock, horror, end of the
world. The inspector called. So we sorted out the store, got rid of all
the mice, and we have never seen a barn owl since then. No rats and
mice, no food for owls, no owls. They were not called BARN owls for
nothing. Collared doves are going the same way.



-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 09:31:59 +0100

In article <paul.savage-1207961417240001@newshost.its.csiro.au>, Paul
Savage <paul.savage@chem.csiro.au> writes

>Yes that might be so. My question was relating to the consumption of these
>genetically engineered pest resistant plants with their in-built
>pesticides of probably unknown chemical composition.

Heck, you don't even need genetically engineered plants for this. Normal
breeding can do it too. Two cases I have come across.

One was a potato that was actually on the verge of being distributed
throughout the US when one of the trials people took some home to eat.
He became seriously ill, and one of his friends who came over (who
happened to be an expert in the field) commented that he was showing all
the symptoms of poisoning from the solanine group of poisons. Tests then
showed that there were lethal quantities in this variety of potato. It
was rapidly withdrawn.

The second was a pest resistant species of celery. The packing staff all
came down with serious skin rashes and vesicles. It also was rapidly
withdrawn.

These are produce where the level of toxins was so high as to be
unmistakable and clearly identifiable with the vegetable in question.
One wonders how many are not so easy to detect, and may be causing low
level poisoning throughout a population. Incidentally, it doesn't even
require plant breeding to produce a poison. Many ordinary vegetables are
known to contain toxic substances at low level. Mind you this 'low
level' is usually orders of magnitude more than any pesticide residues.

-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:34:50 +0100

In article <4tmjbu$lm1@pegasus.odyssee.net>, Grimm Albert
<abigri@odyssee.net> writes

>We do not use heavy spray schedules during all weeks of the year since
>the time that IPM methods became better known. In essence we are
>trying to catch the pests when they are most vulnerable. E.g. we try
>to kill a new generation of insects immediately after hatching  before
>they have a chance to lay new eggs. But this means spraying very
>thoroughly on 2 to 3 day schedules for a week or so, and if it works
>we have peace until the next wave of pests arrives on the plants. When
>we get good results with each spray, we have to spray less often.

This is something I have observed in conventional agriculture (like 15
years ago). Our specifications for pest levels are, of course, less
stringent than yours. However a low rate spray at the correct timing
(early) can both prevent damage and reduce the need for a full rate
spray later when pests are well established. Have you considered cooling
your spraysuit somehow, I know it sounds daft but I bet it would
significantly reduce the stress on you.

>I love my profession and would not want to work in any other field.
>Agricultural salaries are certainly modest in comparison with
>industrial jobs, but at least we can get mere pleasure out of our
>daily work and for me that is worth more than money. Spraying is just
>part of the job. However, I could clearly link my observation of
>sometimes beeing tired and moody to periods of heavy spraying of
>certain sustances, and it just interested me if it is possible that
>some pesticides can influence psychical well beeing,  and whether
>anybody has ever investigated in this direction.

I think if you searched for 'sheep dipping' or spoke to Torsten Brinch
(who has a paranoid thing about OP's) you could locate a source on the
symptoms of poisoning. What you report is (from memory) similar to OP
poisoning. You should perhaps investigate.


>Problems like all these are what I meant when I had earlier asked for
>agricultural scientists to communicate more with growers. I do not
>think that many of them realize what practical work in greenhouses or
>on farms is like. I think, with a little bit of cooperation THEY could
>help us to find PRACTICAL solutions to make our work somewhat easier.

The inherent problem is that legislators do not legislate to ensure the
safety of the operators, but the safety of the legislators. As long as
they are seen to be doing something, however impractical and in some
cases counter productive, then they have covered their backs. Gloves are
a good example. All gloves have a limited resistance to absorbtion and
they then become a very very significant hazard if used. Thick gloves
greatly increase the chance of spillage because you lose a lot of
dexterity and feel which increases contamination still more. The obvious
solution is thin disposable gloves that are used once for each tank fill
and then discarded. They should be supplied with every pack or box of
chemical by law. The cost would then be trivial. At present it is
impossible to obtain suitable low cost disposable gloves as they are not
made 'because there is no demand'!!!

The only gloves I have come across that are suitable are North Safety
Products (Charleston, SC) 'Silver Shield', but they are very very
expensive and not as such 'disposable', but are good for a day's use.
They are however the best protection available as well as being thin
which improves dexterity.

-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Subject: Re: Roundup patent expiry and consequences??
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Feb 01 1997
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture

In article <32f29e27.32363523@news>, CropDoc <cropdoc@bugs.death.com>
writes
>>Companies could come up with more tools for modern agriculture
>if it was not so costly for products to be registered. The government
>of every modern country requires a fresh registration package.

Which is remarkably silly as far as safety is concerned although
degradation may be different under different conditions/crops. It's
rather less silly as far as efficacity is concerned, although a
continent like the US would comprise pretty well all climates and soil
types one would find in the world. This would not be true of a tiny
little country like the UK.

>The
>initial gouging occurs, then the companies feel compelled to charge
>huge sums for their chemistry to recoup these losses and other
>anticipated losses due to failed registrations.

Mind you they often fail to do their marketing very well. In particular
they often price absurdly high and have very low volume as a result,
which loads more costs onto each can of product. For example chlormequat
dropped in price by a factor of 5 or 6 (farmgate) when it came of patent
and consumption rose by a huge factor (20+??). Accosting one of the
manufacturers at a show I gloated over their loss of the market.

"Oh no." Said the rep "We had a choice, give up or manufacture at
cost+20%. We had just about broken even on the product so we went for
cost+20%. The plant has been flat out day and night all year for the
last two years and we are making a fortune." They would have done very
well if they had priced the product better in the first place.

In fact much of the pricing is placed safely so high that it's not worth
using the product except in extremis until it is out of patent.

>The generic producer
>brings the product to the market at the true cost of production plus a
>reasonable profit margin. Farmers pay more every year for crop inputs
>and sell their crop, in many cases for less than it was worth 20 years
>ago.

Seriously less in real terms. In 1975 I could sell feed wheat at 70
UKP/T and buy a 100Hp tractor for 6000 UKP. Ie about 85T per tractor. In
1997 I can sell wheat for 90 UKP/T and buy a 100Hp tractor for (I am not
up to date with tractor prices) probably 30,000 UKP or 333T per tractor.
Agricultural wages have gone up from about 20 UKP/week to 200 UKP/week,
a factor of 10. There would be real attractions to going back to 1975
real commodity prices.

>If there is no reasonable expectation for profitability...why
>farm? All the great technology is worthless if we force all our
>farmers out of business and teach the children of farmers that there
>is little future in farming..........CropDoc

Oh, this is going a bit far. At the end of the day people have to eat. A
couple of years of shortages would put prices way up again. The serious
problem is if it's run down in the way that UK agriculture was run down
after the 1st WW until just after the 2nd WW. Farmers went out in
droves, and those that remained did so on mega low cost systems. It
basically took 20 years for production to come fully back, even with
heavy grants and subsidies. So a long period of agricultural depression
results in a structure that cannot, and will not, respond to market
forces in a period of undersupply. This keeps prices high for longer.

--
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,sci.agriculture,alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: GMO soy feeds people more herbicide
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:29:26 +0000

In article <3338B4B9.2AAC@gist.net.au>, Dave Riches <dave@gist.net.au>
writes
>Russell Hogue wrote:
>>
>> In article <33325F93.7B87@gist.net.au>
>> Dave Riches <dave@gist.net.au> wrote:
>
>> > OK, I'll call you a Luddite. Name one agricultural chemical with a
>> > proven side-effect discovered after long term ingestion by humans (DDT
>> > isn't one of them either).
>> >
>>
>> It would seem that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
>> and no matter how much evidence is supplied, some people just will not accept
>> that chemicals do cause a lot of damage to mammals birds and fish.  If you
>> believe that strongly that agricultural chemicals do not harm humans, conduct
>> your own scientific experiment.  Ingest large quantities of any organochlorine
>> chemical and document the side affects.  I await patiently your findings.
>
>
>Toxicology basic lesson one: the dose makes the poison.  Ingest large
>quantities of table salt over time and you will also suffer chronic ill
>effects.  There are plenty of natural 'poisons' and carcinogens we all
>ingest daily but at low, tolerable doses.  I can quote LD50's of a wide
>range of perceived harmless substances that make many agricultural
>chemicals look positively innocuous.  Should we ban salt?

This sort of discussion surfaces quite regularly. I have noticed that
those in the business who know the toxicology and the risks because they
study them are generally not greatly concerned about pesticides. They
might point to areas where care would be appropriate but this is towards
a chemical that is particularly active against a non-target species.
Those that know nothing, or little, about pesticides and/or toxicology
tend to rant and rave about them mostly I think because this is the
perceived (or received) wisdom of some groups. The fact that DDT was
identified as a problem by scientists, rapidly banned (early 1970's and
generally without farmers or manufacturers complaining much) and then
oozed into public awareness some decade or so later as the flagship of
all that is evil with pesticides illustrates how far behind reality the
'general public' is.

This is, of course with the exception of Torsten who does know his stuff
but delights in being devil's advocate. I am never *quite* sure if he is
doing it as a wind-up or not.

On pesticide safety we do have several problems with labelling. For
example ALL pesticides carry fearsome warnings about contamination of
watercourses. However there is no graduation so that products that are
relatively belign, such as glyphosate, carry the same warning as
cypermethrin (which is rather deadly to daphnia). Indeed I have seen
(many) Roundup labels that say (from memory)

TOXIC TO FISH. DO NOT ALLOW ANY DRIFT ONTO WATERWAYS. KEEP CONCENTRATE
AND DILUTED CHEMICAL AWAY FROM STREAMS AND DITCHES etc etc....
ie armageddon if it goes anywhere near water.

Then in the next paragraph it says:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE IN WATERWAYS ......
(Yes, it is indeed licensed for use in waterways, it's rather non-
toxic.)

--
'Oz     "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
         - or seem wise and stay ignorant?"