Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
I believe this is what NH uses:
Two formulations of 2,4-D approved for aquatic use. The granular formulation contains the low-volatile butoxy-ethyl-ester formulation of 2,4-D (Trade names include AquaKleenŽ and NavigateŽ). The liquid formulation contains the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D (Trade names include DMA*4IVM). 2,4-D is a relatively fast-acting, systemic, selective herbicide used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species. Both the granular and liquid formulations can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil. 2,4-D has been shown to be selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate, leaving native aquatic species relatively unaffected.
Aside from chemical treatment, there have been natural predators used to control it with varying success, however the introduction of natural predators and the effects are still being studied. Clearly this is better than chemicals unless the predators do more harm than good....
I'm no expert on the subject this information was grabbed off the web so I can't comment on anything other than what it illustrates at face value.
|
I'm not some crazy tree hugger who spends his days on a soapbox, but after learning about DDT I tend to be skeptical when chemical's are deployed in the environment. I just finished reading the 41 page Tuftonboro report on Milfoil management. Aside from that I spent a little over an hour researching the main chemical "2,4-D".
- Link
http://www.tuftonboro.org/Pages/Tuft...oards/ltmmplan -
My findings were that "2,4-D" is very effective, is inexpensive, and virtually eliminated the Milfoil where it was applied. This being said, there was one alarming element of the report that wasn't consistent and turned out to be contrary to scientific research..
"The Fish and Game Department suggests that herbicidal milfoil treatments should not be permitted within 100 meters of any nests. The method of application, by motorboat and/or airboat, may result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or loon chicks,
as well as herbicide damage to the floating aquatic plants. (Page 12)"
"To the extent feasible, the permitting authority favors the use of selective herbicides that, where used appropriately,
will control the target plant with little or no impact to non-target species, such that the ecological functions of native plants for habitat, lake ecology, and chemistry/biology will be maintained. Not all aquatic plants will be impacted as a result of an herbicide treatment. (Page 20)"
...So it will have little to no impact to non-target species, but not all aquatic plants will be impacted as a result of the herbicide treatment, while at the same time it can't be sprayed near a loon's nest because there may be herbicide damage to floating aquatic plants?
Hmm, well I found this in a report.. "Effects on birds: 2,4-D is slightly toxic to wildfowl and slightly to moderately toxic to birds. The LD50 is 1000 mg/kg in mallards, 272 mg/kg in pheasants, and 668 mg/kg in quail and pigeons [5-7]." The source isn't some environmental obsessed group, its "A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Major support and funding was provided by the USDA/Extension Service/National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program."
- Link:
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/24-D.htm -
Well thats interesting.. I guess we're suppose to just "Drink the Kool aid" and hope none of the birds do..
