Anyone used Amblyseius fallacis?

Here let me crop them they look lazy

And nicotinoids are great which is why they work. But with great power come great responsibility

I dony make chioces in products by feel.

I use the chart, because in my professional life if i go by feel versus data mistakes happen...

Just pulled Spirodiclofen toxicity report...ill cut and paste later...on the way to work


Ill also find the studies suggesting bees colapse is a ses issue not on one product but several vectors that overall impacted geneyoc health of a hive

Great thread. I’m learning a lot.

I should add

Class 4
Nicotinic acetylcholine
receptor (nAChR)
Competative modulators –
Site I
Nerve action

And

Class 5 Nicotinic acetylcholine
receptor (nAChR)
allosteric modulators –
Site I
Nerve action


nAChRs are similar but not the same

But they do have simialr MoA to diifferent effects


They both use the same pathways to kill your pest and one works against muscles and nerves and the other simialr nerves and brain and passive body functions/neurological.


Toxicity is in the dose.

And Spinosad are also a good option maybe not with a program with other nAChRs but they are generally safer. Doesnt mean they dont have a toxicty like any other insecticide. Low mammalian toxicity means low not none. But im pretty sure you all already know.



Ugh, its brutal reading these agian

"Excessive mortality occurred in rats from the oncogenicity study given 0.1% spinosad by 21 months, and surviving rats were euthanized because the maximum tolerated dose had been exceeded. Rats given 0.05% spinosad for 2 years had vacuolation and/or inflammation involving the thyroid, lymphoid tissue, and lung. Rats given 0.05% spinosad had similar numbers of neoplasms as control rats, indicating that spinosad was not carcinogenic at dose levels up to 0.05%. The NOEL at 2 years was 0.005% (2.4 mg/kg/day) spinosad."



If you a grower , me 15 years..thats alot of possible exposure if you think something is safe


This of thing is exactly what i mean about SES...

The edits dont last as long as a long time ago

Class 23...spiro the dragon

Spirodiclofen

Spiromesifen



Difference isnt much, but again the way they work makes some less toxic but its still toxic.

Safe is the wrong verbiage

Ill rep you and the Doc for an intresting read - Thanks

rustyshaclkferd said:

All that text and you still didnt look up the MoA table...View attachment 4422805

Click to expand...

You seem to not understand what that table is
It simply lists how the chemical works (in/on the bug) to kill the bug.

That table and the Spinosad listed.
That is how the chemical works as an insecticide...
It blocks the Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the insects nerve system.

Spinosad is a natural, organic substance that is made from a soil bacteria.
It is NON TOXIC to humans and is in fact used in many lice treatments!
Not to mention flea and tick treatments for dogs and cats.

As far as The other 2 in the attachment.
They may work through the same manor.
They may come from the same acid chain.
They have NO relationship to how toxic they are to humans, between them.
Nor does that "Method of Action" table say they do in anyway.

That is a "Method of Action" chart.
It only tells you how the active chemical works (like I said before) nothing more.

YOU may disagree all you like on "Systemic" vs "Translaminar".
YOU'RE still wrong....


How about you look that up!

Dr. Who said:

You seem to not understand what that table is
It simply lists how the chemical works (in/on the bug) to kill the bug.

That table and the Spinosad listed.
That is how the chemical works as an insecticide...
It blocks the Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the insects nerve system.

Click to expand...

How the chemical kills is how its toxicity is related to exposure and this product is no different.

Dr. Who said:

spinosad is a natural, organic substance that is made from a soil bacteria.
It is NON TOXIC to humans and is in fact used in many lice treatments!
Not to mention flea and tick treatments for dogs and cats.

Click to expand...

Source does not change toxicity or its known effects. The study i listed had the fischer 344 rats, aka mammals, in its study of known mortality rates. Reread and please let me know how its non toxic...

Dr. Who said:

as far as The other 2 in the attachment.
They may work through the same manor.
They may come from the same acid chain.
They have NO relationship to how toxic they are to humans, between them.
Nor does that "Method of Action" table say they do in anyway.

Click to expand...

I posted toxicology reports those are for mammals aka humans. That was not a tox report page for effects on bugs.

Dr. Who said:

That is a "Method of Action" chart.
It only tells you how the active chemical works (like I said before) nothing more.

Click to expand...

How the chemical works is exactly what makes its toxicity, toxicity is about exposure and dosage. Optimal exposure is not apart of an acute toxic response.

Dr. Who said:

YOU may disagree all you like on "Systemic" vs "Translaminar".
YOU'RE still wrong....


How about you look that up!

Click to expand...

Ya....wanting the 2 different terms to be the same becasue they use the same language is why the English language is hard to understand. A systemic pesticide had a very specific meaning.

Systemic as a individual term is not the same.

rustyshaclkferd said:

View attachment 4423456

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting technical terms and layman's terms


Systemic the term has a set definition. And a systemic pesticides also has a set definition.

Translaminar ...tranlocator... same as the effect is the chemicals reside within the plant systemically ...if a translaminar product locates to all the leaf tissue simply through application its systemic.

They use pyrethrins/pyrethroids in flea medicstion too, doesn't mean its completely safe. It 100% when used incorrectly will have the same effects as listed on the chart.

Its cost 2.5 million dollars + , in avg, to get a chemical pesticide onto market, the money is spent finding safe application rates based on efficacy and toxicty. Its does not mean they are safe. It means their toxicity is known.

I have worked with marrine bio innovations, gowan, syngenta...etc... this stuff is basic for IPM professionals


For example

I can buy a pyrethrin product for my farm that is 100% a neurotoxin rated for commercial use and you can buy a for home use product with even more pyrethrins/roids by volume....wanting them to be different because one has a natural source and the other has a synthetic, does not make them different.


One is not safer then the other. Toxicty is in the dosage.

And to reiterate Spinosad 100% has toxicty, i listed the study.

If in order to be correct you have to ignore data because it doesnt fit the narrative....maybe its more agenda or feelings then fact



And if you are so dogmatic that new information is negated by faith...might be time to just admit it...

A study from 2009



I would be more incline to discuss this further if you can start citing why they arnt the same or how one toxiciology report is wrong...and so and so...its not that i dont believe you but im inclined to follow the data more then feelings. And when someone tells me a product is safe and i post a mortality report on rats, mammals not bugs, i tend to tune out...

Also i requested the actual studies in these and we can go over why these chemicals are not safe at all, not safe being a measurable acute toxicity based on exposure. I love applying my craft

Syngenta - im such a small fish in a big stream, swimming uphill, against current and debris.....

rustyshaclkferd said:

I have worked with marrine bio innovations, growan, syngenta...etc... this stuff is basic for IPM professionals.

Click to expand...

Kingrow1 said:

Syngenta - im such a small fish in a big stream, swimming uphill, against current and debris.....

Click to expand...

When I say worked with its more of a LinkedIn profile boast...

As participation in ecological studies of new pesticides and fungicides. I did, for my farm(not a pot farm a 16 acre annual and perrenials greenhouses farm)applications and reported the effects for efficacy on target Pest and phytotoxicity to plants , this happened over the peroid of a year or so.


Many people smoke cigarettes in which nicotine is an ingredient...that doesn't make that source of nicotine safe...its by volume more toxic then arsenic...toxic based on data...yadda yadda

Somewhere in Syngenta is a think tank that i would head but altetnate universes aside some of these companies hold the market share of the future.

rustyshaclkferd said:

When I say worked with its more of a LinkedIn profile boast...

As participation in ecological studies of new pesticides and fungicides. I did, for my farm(not a pot farm a 16 acre annual and perrenials greenhouses farm)applications and reported the effects for efficacy on target Pest and phytotoxicity to plants , this happened over the peroid of a year or so.


Many people smoke cigarettes in which nicotine is an ingredient...that doesn't make nicotine safe...its by volume more toxic then arsenic...toxic based on data...yadda yadda

Click to expand...

Kingrow1 said:

Somewhere in Syngenta is a think tank that i would head but altetnate universes aside some of these companies hold the market share of the future.

Click to expand...

Sadly they do. But also some amazing companies like marrone and syngenta.BASF, certis and gowan are pretty awesome too

rustyshaclkferd said:

Ya....wanting the 2 different terms to be the same becasue they use the same language is why the English language is hard to understand. A systemic pesticide had a very specific meaning.

Click to expand...

Your on an English speaking web site. Interestingly enough, the meaning of "systemic and translaminar" do not change by language!

I don't know what school you went to Rusty but,

Translaminar is NOT systemic.....Although sometimes called a LOCAL systemic(it does not spread through out the plant from application point. Translaminar is the translocation of the active chemical from point of application on the leaf surface to the bottom of the leaf structure.

The active chemical does not spread through out the whole plant structure...

Systemic is the translocation of the active ingr. through out the whole plant structure.

This comes from my collage.

Translaminar materials don’t have surface residues but move into the leaf where a reservoir of active ingredient remains for a period of time providing longer control. Don’t confuse translaminar with systemic – translaminar materials move only short distances not through the entire plant. Thorough coverage is still very important.

Full piece?


It should be noted that systemic insecticides are best spread through the plant by root drench. Topical applications are less effective.
Systemic insecticide effectiveness can be directly correlated to how well the active chemical is water soluble (Imid is the exception here).
After all, it's water that carries it through out the plants vascular system...

"Method of Action" on any chemical insecticide. Does in no way speak to it's toxic levels in mammals or anything else. It's simply HOW the active ingr. does it's work. I have no idea where you got your misconception.

Toxic reactions to any chemical by anything. Is simply how that organism reacts to that chemical and at what concentration.
Toxic reactions can be expressed in many ways and with many differing results...

Simply look at the 2 different tetronic acids we are talking about....
Spiromesifen - not very toxic to humans. Studies of field workers coming into high contact levels of the active ingr. Show no toxic effects.

Spirodiclofen - Far more toxic to humans. (and mammals)

You made how many posts to prove what?

You called me out...

I gave the proof on trans vs. systemic....

rustyshaclkferd said:

The edits dont last as long as a long time ago

Class 23...spiro the dragon

Spirodiclofen
View attachment 4423260
Spiromesifen
View attachment 4423261


Difference isnt much, but again the way they work makes some less toxic but its still toxic.

Safe is the wrong verbiage

Click to expand...

You linked the same thing twice!

Not the Spiomesifen....

Try again....

Do you actually read the tox tests? You have any idea of the amounts used on rats and dogs? Amounts are higher then the actual concentrated form sold. In one level of application to test subjects...

Forbid in application concentration.... You could drink it and have less reaction then a type 2 diabetic to his Metaformin prescription!

Oh ill definitely read that.

And the difference in how chemicals act is exactly why safe isnbad verbiag.

Id love to read those worker studies.

Proper levels of PPE and SWP/SOP around decontamination set by product manufacturers, regulatory agencies is why people can work with and around chemicals with known toxixty. Not because they are safe.