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.
"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."
Abstract. Spinosad is an insecticide derived from a naturally occurring bacterium via fermentation. The toxicity of spinosad was characterized in subchroni
academic.oup.com
If you a grower , me 15 years..thats alot of possible exposure if you think something is safe
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....
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seemingly indestructible Varroa mites have decimated honeybee populations and are a primary cause of colony collapse disorder, or CCD. Scientists have found genetic holes in the pests' armor that could potentially reduce or eliminate the marauding invaders. The team's results have identified...
www.sciencedaily.com
And if you are so dogmatic that new information is negated by faith...might be time to just admit it...
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
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
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
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
