Best alternative to Sodium Chlorate?
tin...@isbd.co.uk
reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?
I recently used up my last bit of Sodium Chlorate on one part of our
large area of gravel and Pathclear on another area. The Pathclear
seems to have been totally ineffective whereas the Sodium Chlorate
worked well. So I'm not very impressed with Pathclear for a start.
I *want* the weedkiller to stay in the ground for as long as possible
so products that leave 'no residue' are most definitely not what I
want.
It's a big (like getting on for 1000 square metres) area of gravel so
price is quite a major consideration.
--
Chris Green
Martin Brown
> Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
> reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?
You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed to
use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU banned
it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.
At least this year there are still places around with some on the
shelves and in their catalogues. eg.
http://www.carrs-billington.com/pdf/horticultural_garden_products.pdf
(dunno if this lot actually have any stock)
> I recently used up my last bit of Sodium Chlorate on one part of our
> large area of gravel and Pathclear on another area. The Pathclear
> seems to have been totally ineffective whereas the Sodium Chlorate
> worked well. So I'm not very impressed with Pathclear for a start.
>
> I *want* the weedkiller to stay in the ground for as long as possible
> so products that leave 'no residue' are most definitely not what I
> want.
>
> It's a big (like getting on for 1000 square metres) area of gravel so
> price is quite a major consideration.
I have found Pathclear reasonably effective. But then I rely on gravel
depth to keep most weeds in check and only hit problem areas with a
weedkiller (like where ground elder or horsetail comes up).
Regards,
Martin Brown
Pete
<tin...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message news:2vlhd7-...@chris.isbd.net...
Glyphosate is the stuff you need.
It will kill all but the broadest leafed stuff at one application.
It works by foliar contact so your dream of "it staying in the ground " will
remain a dream !
It comes in five litre concentrate form from the "locked away section" at
about �40, so you will need a knapsack or similar sprayer.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Stephen Wolstenholme
I use sodium chloride to keep my path and gravel clear of weeds.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Pete
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mabc06p4dbfgpsqd0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:47:46 +0100, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
> I use sodium chloride to keep my path and gravel clear of weeds.
>
> Steve
Would be cheaper than the stuff I suggested.
In what form and how do you apply it ?
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Martin
Sodium Chorideis rock salt, which is available in road side bins and
salt pots. Draw your own conclusions about the cost.
Stephen Wolstenholme
I use whatever sort of salt comes cheapest. The last lot I used was a
big bag of cooking salt from Tesco. I just sprinkle it dry onto the
areas where the weeds are growing.
Martin
> On 02/06/2010 10:47, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>> Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
>> reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?
>
> You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed to
> use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU banned
> it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.
Maybe you should use google to find the reasons before going off at half
cock?
The reasons are given here
http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.co.uk/weedkill.htm#sodchlor
Ian B
"In July 2008 the European Commission Pesticides Review Standing Committee
voted not to include Sodium Chlorate in Annex 1 of the approved pesticides
list and given a last date of sale on 30th September 2009. It cannot be used
after 10th May 2010 and any excess disposed of in the approved manner on
that date; not down the drain."
Note, they "voted". Whenever an expert committee has to vote, it's in the
realm of opinion, not science. See also the Bank Of England committee voting
on whether to raise interest rates or not, etc.
So yep, interfering half-witted jobsworths, as usual. It's the basic problem
with having standing committees. They have to keep doing things, or make
themselves redundant. The one thing they'll never vote for is their own
dissolution. As a result, the world will never be safe enough, clean enough,
green enough or regulated enough.
Ian
Martin Brown
They *voted* to ban it. That is not a reason for anything.
Sodium chlorate is not particularly good for making explosives unless
you have a death wish. And agricultural ammonium nitrate fertiliser will
always be freely available in much larger bulk quantities.
Drain and oven cleaner is widely sold in supermarkets and is far more
dangerous to life and limb. I have complained about the cretinous TV
advert with the bloke and the plastic bag oven shelf advert sloshing
concentrated caustic about with no eye protection. Same goes for the
morons spraying fence preservative with no mask or eye protection
(although the modern stuff now is so useless at preserving wood that it
probably is harmless if you get it in the eye).
Regards,
Martin Brown
David in Normandy
My gravel drive is something like 300 metres long. I've used Sodium
Chlorate and I've used Glypohsate. Glyphosate worked out cheaper! One of
those five litre tubs of concentrate is expensive but it lasts a very
long time. The sodium chlorate was no better at killing weeds and new
ones popped up soon after it rained anyway, so it didn't seem to have a
long lasting effect. During Summer I spray the drive every couple of
months. Just don't use Roundup - it is a very expensive way of buying
generic glyphosate.
--
David in Normandy. Davidin...@yahoo.fr
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.
tin...@isbd.co.uk
> On 02/06/2010 11:47, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> > Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
> > reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?
> >
> > I recently used up my last bit of Sodium Chlorate on one part of our
> > large area of gravel and Pathclear on another area. The Pathclear
> > seems to have been totally ineffective whereas the Sodium Chlorate
> > worked well. So I'm not very impressed with Pathclear for a start.
> >
> > I *want* the weedkiller to stay in the ground for as long as possible
> > so products that leave 'no residue' are most definitely not what I
> > want.
> >
> > It's a big (like getting on for 1000 square metres) area of gravel so
> > price is quite a major consideration.
> >
>
> My gravel drive is something like 300 metres long. I've used Sodium
> Chlorate and I've used Glypohsate. Glyphosate worked out cheaper! One of
> those five litre tubs of concentrate is expensive but it lasts a very
> long time. The sodium chlorate was no better at killing weeds and new
> ones popped up soon after it rained anyway, so it didn't seem to have a
> long lasting effect. During Summer I spray the drive every couple of
> months. Just don't use Roundup - it is a very expensive way of buying
> generic glyphosate.
>
gravel pretty well dosed with sodium chlorate and it seems to be
fairly inhospitable to new growth. The trouble with using just
glyphosate is that it has virtually no residual effect so (as you
describe) isn't very long lasting.
--
Chris Green
Martin Brown
Sodium chlorate is pretty soluble though and tends to wash downhill. You
must have put a heck of a lot on if it lasts longer term or live
somewhere very very dry!
Where I live sodium chlorate washes into the soil and or oxidises some
organic matter in the soil and so is spent pretty quickly.
You probably want the old version of Pathclear with Simazine in it -
again now banned by some EU directive because it works too well and
could be misused by amateurs.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jeff Layman
news:86mrsg...@mid.individual.net...
There is very little information at that ref. More info is given here:
COMMISSION DECISION
of 10 November 2008
concerning the non-inclusion of chlorate in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that
substance
(notified under document number C(2008) 6587)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/865/EC)
"During the examination of this active substance by the
Committee, it was concluded, taking into account
comments received from Member States, that there are
clear indications that it may be expected that it has
harmful effects on human health, in particular taking
into consideration the unacceptable exposure to
operators taking into account the proposed provisional
AOEL. In addition, information was insufficient to
establish a definitive AOEL and to assess the leaching
of a relevant metabolite to groundwater. Moreover,
other concerns which were identified by the rapporteur
Member States in its assessment report are included in
the review report for the substance."
Unfortunately I have been unable to find what the other concerns of the
rapporteur (France) were. The EU reporting system is a mass of
cross-referencing which leads you everywhere except where you want to be!
--
Jeff
Martin Brown
You miss-spelled "mess" as "mass". :(
Rapporteur "I was drunk at the time I don't really remember.".
I expect the EU reporting system is modelled on the Mickeysoft help
system which defines HELP as:
he: (n) the masculine pronoun
LP: (n) obsolete black vinyl sound recording disc with diameter 25cm
Usually it is something insane like they want a hundred dogs and rabbits
dosed in the eye with it before signing off the approval. Since there is
no big money to be made selling sodium chlorate noone will pay for the
testing. That is how they zapped ammonium sulphamate but ISTR it was the
thicko Irish rapporteur who was responsible.
I expect in other EU countries you can still buy all these banned
chemicals. Only the UK takes these rules seriously. When I lived in
Belgium they were still selling 40% HF in garden centres as "glass
cleaner" to the general public. Wounds from that stuff never heal.
Concentrated mineral acids were on the supermarket shelves!
Regards,
Martin Brown
rbel
Have a look for Ammonium Sulphamate - used to be sold as Root-out stump
killer and herbicide now sold as a compost accelerator!
--
rbel
Janet Tweedy
<peter....@btopenworld.com> writes
>Glyphosate is the stuff you need.
>
>It will kill all but the broadest leafed stuff at one application.
>It works by foliar contact so your dream of "it staying in the ground "
>will remain a dream !
>
>It comes in five litre concentrate form from the "locked away
>section" at about �40, so you will need a knapsack or similar sprayer.
>
>Regards
>Pete
No Pete i think the OP like many of us also wants to stop seedlings from
stuff like sycamores from germinating in the gravel as well. It's no
good killing the stuff that's there only to find that three weeks later
you have another crop of tree seedlings etc.!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk
tin...@isbd.co.uk
solid and impermeable. ... and what's "downhill"? :-)
--
Chris Green
Ian B
That's the whole purpose of it. The system is designed like a sponge out of
which laws ooze, but whose provenance is basically impossible to determine.
Welcome to post-democracy...
Ian
Martin
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>> "Martin" <mar...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:86mrsg...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 02/06/10 12:03, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2010 10:47, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> Now that we can't get Sodium Chlorate what's the best (as in
>>>>> reasonably cheap + effective) alternative?
>>>>
>>>> You should probably have done a last time buy. You are not supposed
>>>> to use it any more though since ISTR 10/5/2010. Not sure why the EU
>>>> banned it - probably some halfwitted jobsworth interfering again.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should use google to find the reasons before going off at
>>> half cock?
>>>
>>> The reasons are given here
>>>
>>> http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.co.uk/weedkill.htm#sodchlor
>>
>> There is very little information at that ref.
Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
supply?
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Martin <mar...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
>red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
>years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
>supply?
I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
combined oxygen.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin
So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.
Too much common salt in the ground water isn't a good thing.
In places like the Netherlands it is a major problem.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Martin <mar...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
>>> red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
>>> years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
>>> supply?
>>
>> I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
>> that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
>> of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
>> it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
>> totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
>> combined oxygen.
>
>So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.
Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
rainfall is too high.
>Too much common salt in the ground water isn't a good thing.
>In places like the Netherlands it is a major problem.
That's irrelevant. No plausible use of either sodium chlorate or
common salt as a weedkiller will have a noticeable effect - even
its much greater use for road de-icing doesn't. The problem in
the Netherlands (and parts of East Angular) is seawater percolating
in because of the low water table.
I shall not follow up, as I suspect that you are trolling.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Stephen Wolstenholme
>In article <hu8027$kbg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Martin <mar...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
>>>> red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
>>>> years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
>>>> supply?
>>>
>>> I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
>>> that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
>>> of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
>>> it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
>>> totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
>>> combined oxygen.
>>
>>So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.
>
>Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
>rainfall is too high.
>
Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
by the rain but that does not stop it working.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.
>>
>>Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
>>rainfall is too high.
>
>Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
>dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
>be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
>by the rain but that does not stop it working.
Yes, but it won't kill established weeds! Preventing small ones from
establishing is relatively easy. Once they have their roots down,
all it will do is to burn off the tops - even sodium chlorate isn't
all that effective against established weeds.
I tried salt, and found that it was pretty hopeless, but it is
likely that its effectiveness will depend on conditions.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Janet Tweedy
writes
>I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
>that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
>of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
>it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
>totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
>combined oxygen.
AND what's more if it can move that far in the soil then everything
around would be dead, which it isn't , You can pretty much water up to
certain areas without affecting them at all!
Martin Brown
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:28:50 +0100 (BST), nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> In article<hu8027$kbg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Martin<mar...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
>>>>> red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
>>>>> years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
>>>>> supply?
>>>>
>>>> I certainly don't want such extreme claims getting there! Bluntly,
>>>> that's so misleading as to be tantamount to being twaddle. It's one
>>>> of the ecologically safest horticultural chemicals because, while
>>>> it's nasty when it is still around, it decomposes completely into
>>>> totally harmless and widespread chemicals - i.e. common salt and
>>>> combined oxygen.
>>>
>>> So you may as well use common salt as people have suggested.
>>
>> Twaddle. That is NOT an effective weedkiller in the UK, as the
>> rainfall is too high.
>>
>
> Cooking salt keeps my path clear of weeds but it needs to be applied
> dry three or four times a year. The path is not pointed and so would
> be very likely to have weeds in the cracks. The salt gets washed away
> by the rain but that does not stop it working.
Grit rock salt would be cheaper and a heck of a lot more environmentally
friendly. Do you have any idea how much additional energy goes into
making food grade refined and recrystallised salt?
Regards,
Martin Brown
Janet Tweedy
>"Every couple of months" seems very frequent to me. I've got our
>gravel pretty well dosed with sodium chlorate and it seems to be
>fairly inhospitable to new growth. The trouble with using just
>glyphosate is that it has virtually no residual effect so (as you
>describe) isn't very long lasting.
>
>--
>Chris Green
Isn't Pathclear a season long weed suppressant?
Stephen Wolstenholme
I used rock salt previously but for some reason it does not work as
well as refined salt. It also leaves a bit of a mess on the path which
I assume is all the insoluble part of the "rock". Rocksalt is great
for gravel paths but not for stone paths.
Jeff Layman
> On 03/06/10 01:32, Ian B wrote:
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dgsgardening.btinternet.co.uk/weedkill.htm#sodchlor
>>>
>>> There is very little information at that ref.
>
> Did you read it? It is highly toxic to humans and animals breaking down
> red blood cells, sterilises the ground and persists 6 months to five
> years in the ground. Do your really want that getting into your water
> supply?
Did I read what, my Norwegian friend? What you have quoted is more or less
what it says at that ref in its entirety. It is a nonsensical summary.
Ever heard of haemolysis? Water breaks down red blood cells if its
"concentration" is too high (ie the concentration of salts is too low).
Anyway, the effect of chlorate on erythrocyte membranes has been known for
at least 25 years, so why the sudden ban? You might like to read this -
part of a report to the Californian environmental authorities
(http://oehha.ca.gov/water/pals/chlorate.html):
"Human Toxicity Studies
Lubbers and Bianchine (1984) studied the short-term effect of administration
of chlorine dioxide and its metabolites, including chlorate, on human
volunteers. Ten male subjects were administered 1,000 mL of water containing
varying concentrations of sodium chlorate (range 0.01 - 2.4 ppm chlorate).
The control group received deionized water. Treatments were divided into two
500 mL aliquots; administered four hours apart. The study involved a series
of six treatments in 16 days, which was considered as a single
time-dependent experiment. Blood and urine samples were collected from all
study participants. No adverse physiological effects were identified,
although there was some variation between the treatment group and the
control group with regard to bilirubin and serum iron measurements. In a
companion study, normal adult male subjects were administered 500 ml of a 5
ppm solution of chlorine dioxide, chlorite, or chlorate daily for 12 weeks
(Lubbers et al., 1984a), corresponding to a dose of about 0.04 mg/kg.
Physical examinations, collection of blood and urine samples for laboratory
assays, and taste evaluations were conducted on a weekly basis during the
treatment period and for eight weeks following cessation of the treatment.
Any value for an individual subject that differed from the group mean by
more than two standard deviations was noted. The authors reported that "no
clinically important physiological effects" were observed. A small number of
subjects yielded abnormal hemoglobin electrophoresis patterns, but these
results were randomly distributed among the groups. In a third study, a
small number of subjects with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiencies
which might make them more susceptible to oxidative stress caused by the
chlorine disinfectants was exposed to the same dose of chlorite daily for 12
weeks (Lubbers et al., 1982, 1984b). Some statistically significant trends
in biochemical or physiological parameters (albumin/globulin ratio, thyroid
hormone levels, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, and methemoglobin values) were
observed, but were judged to be of no clinical significance. Chlorite and
chlorate can be expected to have similar biochemical effects, but do not
appear to be absorbed and distributed in the same fashion and are not
interconvertible in vivo, according to the data from rat studies
(Abdel-Rahman et al., 1979b, 1984a)."
And what did the Californian authorities conclude from this? (Remember they
are some of the most environmentally "keen" authorities anywhere!) They
haven't banned chlorate:
"OEHHA recommends an action level of 200 ug/L (ppb) chlorate based on the
male rat data (rounded). We believe this level would be adequate to protect
against any potential toxic effects in humans. This conclusion is supported
by the human studies of Lubbers and coworkers, who found no effects in adult
male humans with subchronic chlorate doses of 2.5 mg/day. This dose would
correspond to a drinking water concentration of 1.25 ppm with a drinking
water consumption of 2 L/day. The recommended action level is about
one/sixth this no-observed-effect level."
And as to your comment about the water supply, perhaps you can explain to me
how a powerful oxidising agent remains stable in groundwater long enough to
reach the water supply when there are so many reducing agents around which
will inactivate it?
--
Jeff
Martin Brown
> In article <ck4id7-...@chris.isbd.net>, tin...@isbd.co.uk writes
>> "Every couple of months" seems very frequent to me. I've got our
>> gravel pretty well dosed with sodium chlorate and it seems to be
>> fairly inhospitable to new growth. The trouble with using just
>> glyphosate is that it has virtually no residual effect so (as you
>> describe) isn't very long lasting.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Green
>
> Isn't Pathclear a season long weed suppressant?
It was in the good old days when it contained a potent and persistent
active ingredient called Simazine. These days it is pretty ineffectual
like and over priced knock down weedkiller. Again you can blame the EU.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin
You can also "blame" DEFRA. Don't let the Daily Mail drive your image of
EU/DEFRA scientists.
Ian B
It's all part of the same system; the provincial governments are now
basically incorporated into the federal government, in the same way as local
councils are basically just an arm of the provincial government. Each
province's bureaucracies are a local arm of the federal one. You can't draw
a distinction.
The major problem with the corporatist/technocratic system that has
developed over the past decades is its unaccountability, which is there by
design. A law is passed because some group of
scientists/academics/activists/crats decided it should be passed; it's hard
to tell where the laws have come from and there is little that citizens can
do to stop them unless they can organise an activist group- a major
undertaking- *and* get it accepted into the technocratic system such that
its voice can actually be heard. Since getting accepted basically means
agreeing with the system itself, it is hard for contrary voices to have any
effect.
You don't have to be a Daily Mail reader to disapprove of an undemocratic,
unaccountable political system. The fact that the 'crats may believe they
are making the right decisions on behalf of us little people doesn't make
that the right way to run a continent.
Ian