Ian Gower Associates – Pesticides and Safety Training

Taken from the HSE website:

From 6 April 2012, subject to Parliamentary approval, RIDDOR’s over three day injury reporting requirement will change. From then the trigger point will increase from over three days’ to over seven days’ incapacitation (not counting the day on which the accident happened).

Incapacitation means that the worker is absent or is unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work. 

Employers and others with responsibilities under RIDDOR must still keep a record of all over three day injuries – if the employer has to keep an accident book, then this record will be enough.

The deadline by which the over seven day injury must be reported will increase to 15 days from the day of the accident.

New guidance that explains the change is available to download from the HSE website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg453.pdf

Also new from Syngenta at BTME was an easy to use three-step Art of Application Calibration Guide. It includes full information and guidance to accurately set-up and calibrate a sprayer, along with a quick reference card for operators to keep in their wallet or sprayer cab, to encourage regular calibration checks to maintain accurate application. The Guide can be downloaded from the GreenCast website, with cards available direct from Syngenta or at any of the regular Syngenta seminars and events over the year.

On show for the first time at BTME this week was a new range of Syngenta turf nozzles specifically designed to cope with spraying on undulating golf courses and to aid lower water volume applications. These are now in prototype testing.

The completely new design of the Syngenta Turf Nozzle XC 08 has been developed with an exclusive 127 degree fan pattern – which gives a wider spray and ensures adequate coverage even when the nozzle spraying height is reduced when spraying over undulating ground.

All of the nozzles in the XC (eXtra Coverage) range will incorporate the drift reducing air induction technology that has proven extremely popular in the existing Syngenta Turf Foliar Nozzle.

See the Greencast website for more information.

Suffolk-based GM-R had the new British built Fieldcruiser a self-propelled sprayer on display at LAMMA.   It is available with tanks from 3,000-5,000 litres and steel booms up to 32m.  The New Holland cab has leather seats, a fridge and Bluetooth hands-free kit.  There is a TeeJet GPS guidance system that includes auto-section switching and a reversing camera. Out on the boom there are 48 blue LEDs to light up individual nozzles for night spraying.  A large stainless steel chemical hopper accommodates 20 litre cans and has twin wash nozzles plus agitation for powders. The transport width is 2.5 metre wide to meet future EU road construction use regulations.

All this for £127,000.  I want it for the LED’s!!

See their website for more details:  http://bit.ly/w3qFsq

An article in the Daily Mail yesterday also talks about using electricity to kill weeds.

This is the first few paragraphs: 

It could be the ultimate dream machine for gardeners – an electric gadget that kills weeds in seconds without using harmful pesticides or causing backache from bending over borders.

But this zapper comes with added shock value – the weed exterminator fires a 2,500-volt charge, the same as that used to execute prisoners in electric chairs.

The electricity penetrates the vascular systems of weeds, boiling the water in the plant cells and breaking down the cell walls. 

Weeds wilt immediately in a cloud of steam like overcooked vegetables, then dry out and within days disintegrate into the soil.

The device can annihilate garden invaders such as nettles, bindweed and dandelions, and even obliterate the dreaded Japanese knotweed.

Read more: http://bit.ly/xm6kgo

Using electricity to kill weeds is proving effective, a trial at Oxford Botanic Garden (OBG) has found.
The apparatus built by engineering consultant Roger Balls and electrical engineer Dr Mike Diprose had shown success in initial trials on rampant onion weed.
Electrical weed-control involves the application of very high-voltage, short duration pulses or a high-voltage AC or DC current of 750V-3kV.
Although it has been practised for more than 100 years, it has not become a widely established means of weed control possibly due to lack of suitable equipment and unfamiliarity, Dr Mike Diprose said.
Senior Curator at Oxford Botanic Gardens, Alison Foster says: “as more chemicals are removed from regulated use, alternative herbicide control methods are needed. Electrical weed-control is another option”.
For further information see: http://bit.ly/wGjwLo

New requirements for all 2012 applications of chlorpyrifos insecticides have been announced by a consortium of the three major approval holders of UK products; Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim Agan and Headland Agrochemicals. The changes form part of the new stewardship initiative; ‘Chlorpyrifos: Say NO to DRIFT’, which is being managed by ADAS.

Making LERAP three star rated, low drift nozzles, and an extended 20 metre no-spray buffer zone adjacent to watercourses a requirement for all boom sprayer applied chlorpyrifos treatments, the new guidelines are in response to regulatory pressure relating to the protection of aquatic organisms, that is threatening the availability of the insecticide.

Tree fruit treatments made using an axial fan or tower sprayers must use Albuz TVI low drift nozzles and apply a 50 metre no-spray buffer zone adjacent to watercourses.

It’s simply a case of no drift or no chlorpyrifos, says Dow’s ecotoxicologist Steve Norman.

See http://bit.ly/AD8JaC for more information and also the Say No To Drift website: http://bit.ly/yvRygn

The latest edition of BBKA News (British Beekeepers Association) has an article by Julie Girling, MEP for the South West England and Gibraltar. This quote from The Brussels-based theparliament.com the EU political news and information website summarises her views.

“To tackle bee health problems effectively, we need to work on the basis of what we know, not what we suspect. This will really help us to understand why bee colonies are declining. In addition, it is also envisaged that the commission will start a pilot programme for bee health surveillance with the technical support of this laboratory, to determine the extent and possible causes of colony losses. In the UK, farmers are working closely with beekeepers and the government to ensure action is taken to provide effective solutions to bee health problems. All the key beekeeping organisations in the UK agree that pests and disease are the principal threat facing British honey bees. A recurring theme when discussing bees is the impact of pesticides. Under European legislation, pesticide active substances are first evaluated at community level. A key part of this process is an assessment of the risks to wildlife, including bees. If an active substance meets the EU safety requirements then products containing that active substance can be authorised at member state level, taking into account that country’s individual agronomic, climatic and dietary requirements. In the UK, pesticide products can only be sold or used after they have been authorised. As part of this process, the chemicals regulation directorate (CRD) of the health and safety executive (the government body responsible for regulating pesticides), undertakes an assessment of the toxicity of each product, and the ways in which spray operators, the public or environment (in particular honey bees), may be exposed. The purpose being to ensure that the use of the product poses no unacceptable risks. There is no clear evidence that any specific pesticide or group of pesticides is a factor causing the worrying honeybee losses we are experiencing.”

As a beekeeper and Pesticides Instructor I especially note the last two lines. For the original Julie Girling quote: http://bit.ly/x09xeS

On the Health and Safety Executive website they list the top ten myths compiled by HSE from media reports and correspondence received. The HSE states that:
Christmas is a special time of year. Even so, it doesn’t stop health and safety being – wrongly – cited as a reason for preventing pretty harmless activities from going ahead. Not only does this needlessly ruin the festive spirit but it also trivialises the true purpose of health and safety: protecting people from real risks at, or connected with, work.
The top ten myths are:
1. Children being banned from having snowball fights
2. Office workers told they can’t put decorations up
3. Panto performers ordered not to throw sweets into the audience
4. Being sued for clearing snow from outside your business or home
5. Preventing people from putting coins in traditional Christmas puddings
6. Seats being removed from shops – despite weary Christmas shoppers wanting to rest their feet
7. Traditional shopping centre Christmas trees being scaled back or replaced by artificial alternatives
8. Christmas lights needing electrical (portable appliance testing) PAT tests every year
9. Santa being ordered to buckle up on his sleigh
10. Carol singers being classed as a health and safety risk
For further details of other health and safety myths visit Myth of the month.

The Voluntary lnitiative, which promotes responsible pesticide use, has celebrated its 10th anniversary. Farmers Weekly Interactive has published an interview with incoming chairman Richard Butler about its successes, failures and the future – see http://bit.ly/sIuqTE
It’s a shame that the Amenity Industry wasn’t mentioned though!