Wildlife Damage Management

Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for
Bird Control Seminars Proceedings
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 1968

SODIUM FLUORIDE IN FEEDLOT
STARLING CONTROL

James Steckel

Torco Pest Control, Columbus, OH
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Education
110
SODIUM FLUORIDE IN
FEEDLOT STARLING CONTROL
James Steckel
Torco Pest Control
Columbus, Ohio

I'm going to talk about the toxicant, sodium fluoride. This, of course, is
not new to anybody who's been in the pest control business. It's very common
and is a material that is readily available to industry wherever you might be—
sodium fluoride, NaF.

Sodium fluoride was a material used in veterinary practice in its early days
as a worming agent. When the first problems developed with the swine feeders,
particularly with TGE (transmissible gastroenteritis), they were needing a toxicant
that they could use to control the birds that were stealing feed out of the food
bunkers and leaving their droppings there. Some birds died in the area, causing,
the farmers felt, the disease TGE. Looking at the different toxicants we had
available to us, the first was strychnine which is highly toxic to swine. That
completely ruled it out because the least consumption of strychnine would mean
sure death in the case of hogs. Then we found sodium fluoride, a material already
used for worming, and that meant there was some tolerance to sodium
fluoride in swine. It was then developed into a bait material that would be used
at a level of 3% for lethal control of starlings.

In the registration of this material, it has some very definite limitations,
just as DRC-1339 does. This material is for use on starlings and blackbirds only.

It's not for use on other pest birds; it's rather specific to starlings and blackbirds.

The pellet size is too large for the small birds and sparrows to feed from; it was
designed this way intentionally. Sodium fluoride is detoxified in the crop of
cropped birds; consequently pigeons and all other cropped birds have a definite
tolerance to it. They can handle it quite well. It was designed for agricultural
use only. It was not specified in the registration for feed lot use only, but it was
specified for agricultural use only. This allows it to be broadened a bit, but
basically it is a feed lot product.

It also has a limitation of being used during periods of inclement weather;
this means basically winter weather. This is to protect the migratory protected
species that might be available during other times of the year and could be
possibly feeding at the same area.

Sodium fluoride is not a slow-acting toxicant as is 1339. It is medium-fast
acting; not as fast as strychnine. There is a real possibility that birds will die
right at their feeding location, if they feed over a period of time there.

111

As we said, some of the specificity was developed by the size of the pellet.
The pellet is almost the same size as the starlicide pellet, and it's a pellet that an be readily ingested by the starling. It's something used to and can handle
quite easily.

Sodium fluoride does not have great secondary hazards although I don't
think we can say that it has no secondary hazards. We aren't too concerned
about the hogs or beef cattle eating them; beef cattle won't normally eat the
dead birds, hogs will. We have stated in the label to pick the birds up as much as
possible and don't feed them to the hogs. However in tests we have fed
poisoned birds to swine and have not been able to get toxic levels ingested by the
swine. I would imagine that if dead birds were all that was available there could
be a possibility of toxication; we haven't gone that far.

As in all materials, the success depends on the acceptance. All these toxicants
will kill the birds. It's just a matter of getting that toxicant to the bird.

This presents its greatest problem to us just as it does with 1339 and any other
materials. We developed this product to combat the starling problem in swine
feed areas. Swine food is a little different than poultry food or even some of
your big cattle feeder operations. Consequently the carrier is not as acceptable
in other areas as it is in swine lots. If you're going into other areas, you have to
develop the feeding habit with this type of a pellet before you can give them the
pellet and expect them to take it. People working in bird control in poultry areas
have found it is really not an acceptable material. They can get some kill if they
can get the conditions just right, but it's not nearly as acceptable. Poultry pellets have a much darker appearance, a higher content of alfalfa. The bird just notices the sodium fluoride pellet as a strange color, and it certainly must have a stranger odor or taste. We had this discussion yesterday whether birds can taste or not taste; we think they can. So it would seem that if this were to be a real
successful tool, you would almost have to pick out the carrier and select color,
taste, and content for each of these feeding situations.

The material presently available on the market contains corn meal, meat
scraps, blood meal, and then the sticker or adhesive material to hold the pellet
together. Corn meal is the bulk; meat scraps and blood meal give it the protein it
needs to be attractive. Starlings are basically meat eaters; they spend most of
their time eating insects when they are available. We try to give them something
that would at least meet their diet requirements and their taste preferences.

Dilution is not necessary, although in areas where you have very heavy
feeding, dilution certainly makes it more economical and still a satisfactory material.

Under normal conditions three pellets are a lethal dose for a starling. If
you get this in a very severe winter situation where all the foods are covered, the
bird will come in and eat a good deal more than three pellets, so you can use
dilution ratios. We have not gone above 1 to 12 in our own practice; and on the
label we don't talk about dilutions even though they are certainly being used and,
under these circumstances, satisfactorily so.

I think those are all the comments I would have on sodium fluoride. If
there are any questions I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to ask.

112

DISCUSSION:
BECK: I'm sure Jim remembers, but neglected to mention, that this material is,
in its present form, not very toxic to poultry or hogs. But if you use it around
cattle feed lots, you must be very, very careful because sodium fluoride is
exceedingly toxic to cattle even in small quantities. Do you have questions for
these two gentlemen?

RUSSELL: Did John say that he did spread his diluted bait in the cattle pens
themselves?

DE GRAZIO: Yes. When we were running our early trials we spread the bait in
the cattle pens and on the mounds that they had in the middle of the pens. In the
alleys we put cups on posts when we were first testing this chemical in feed lots.
I believe the label on Starlicide says "restricted to alleyways."

BECK: I might comment here that in the eastern United States the results with
the particular method that John has described have not been as good as the results
he obtained. This is not due to any fault of the material or the way it's put out.

It's due more to the difference in the size of feed lots, the land management
practices, and feedlot management practices that are prevalent in the East. If
you're trying to use a pellet in an area where chopped silage is the rule of the day
in cattle feedlots, you're going to have trouble in getting an efficacious use.

SCHENDEL: What about the possibility of prebaiting? I know it isn't commonly
done, but what has been done in seeing whether there is any value in prebaiting?
Can you change birds' habits to eat some particular material that isn't readily
available to them right in that feed lot?

DE GRAZIO: We've never prebaited in feed lots because in a sense they're already
prebaited, at least in the western United States. They have pelletized feed
that they use in their cattle ration and some of the alfalfa pellets seem to be
similar to the poultry pellets that we use. You get spillage along feed bunks,
some of the hard grains are passing through the catties' intestines, so in a sense it's already prebaited for you.

BECK: You can, if you wish to prebait, use exactly the same type, color, and
composition of pellet, and then use the treated pellet regardless whether it's
sodium fluoride or DRC-1339. You can prebait, yes.

STECKEL: I'd just like to comment on this. We shipped some of our materials
into a foreign country where pellets were not used in a feeding situation at all.
They were using chopped sugar beet pulp; this was all the animals had ever seen.
We had to develop the acceptance of a pellet, which we were able to do, but it
took three weeks of pretty concentrated effort. In fact they had to close off the
113
access to the sugar beet pulp and almost force them to come to the pellets.

Once they got started on the pellets there was no problem—they would come to
the pellets and we could open up the sugar beet pulp and they'd stay with the
pellets. We had to get a sweetener into our material because they were used to
getting a sweet taste from the sugar beets. It can be done, but it's not easy.

SH1CK: DRC-1339 is sold under the trade name of Starlicide. In all fairness
to Jim, what's his product sold under?

SPITZ: "Steckelcide" (laugh)

STECKEL: That's right, it used to be steckelcide, but after this morning I'm
going to call it "Spitzicide" after our famed psychologist from Houston.
Fantastic. I don't think he's a pest control operator any more, I think he's a
master psyche. Seriously, it's called Torco Starling Pellet. Excuse the
commercial, but thank you for the offer.

PIERCE: Jim, would you comment on bait placement of your material?

STECKEL: We normally try to put this bait up on top of the feed bunker in a
feedlot. We use flats, kind of like those your wife comes home with filled with
three dozen petunias. If we're in a heavy weather condition we build a little
slanting roof on it to prevent the snow and rain from coming into it. Out on a
farm in a feeder area where they're just dumping feed in big troughs, we will
then pull high wagons in and set these flats out into the wagons so that the
cattle or hogs can't get to the pellets. We will also nail flats on the tops of
fence posts or put them on the outer edges of loafing sheds. We don't put this
material down at ground or feeder level. Does that answer your question?

LEIB: Does the weather affect the material? For example if it gets wet or
snowed on?

STECKEL: It causes the pellet to disintegrate if it gets a lot of moisture. Just
to get some snow on it, stay cold, and the snow blows off, it won't break that
pellet down. Pelletizing is just a standard process and we use a standard adhesive
sticker. It just can't stand that much moisture.

BECK: We have time for one quick question over here.

DELEGATE: Do you have any experience with Starlicide in hog feedlots?

DE GRAZIO: The Denver Center has never run any tests in hog feedlots. No,
we don't have any experience.

BECK: These two gentlemen have given us good presentations. I hope that
you'll contact them and discuss further questions and comments you may have
114
with them. Since I no longer live in Ohio, I can now say that Jim is a fine example
of quality craftsmanship in the pest control industry. This man has worked
well with governmental agencies for quite some time, and when you receive your
copy of the bird management guide, this is the man you have to thank for that.


US Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-F-96-003

Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances September 1995
Agency (7508W)
R.E.D. FACTS
Starlicide
(3-chloro-p-toluidine
hydrochloride)
Pesticide
Reregistration
All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be
registered by EPA, based on scientific studies showing that they can be used
without posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of
advances in scientific knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which
were first registered years ago be reregistered to ensure that they meet
today's more stringent standards.

In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a
complete set of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human
health and environmental effects of each pesticide. The Agency imposes
any regulatory controls that are needed to effectively manage each
pesticide's risks. EPA then reregisters pesticides that can be used without
posing unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.

When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis
for its decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document.

This fact sheet summarizes the information in the RED document for
reregistration case 2610, 3-chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride or starlicide.
Use Profile Starlicide is an avicide used to control ravens, starlings, crows,
pigeons, cowbirds, grackles, magpies, and certain gull species. Use sites
vary by species but include livestock and poultry feedlots, building and
fenced noncrop areas, Federal and State wildlife refuges and protected
areas, gull colonies in coastal areas, and bird staging areas and roosting
sites.

Starlicide is formulated as a 98% powder to be applied to various
baits, and as a 0.1% ready-to-use product. It is applied in solution to
various baits (meat, grain, egg, french fries), allowed to dry, and placed in
bait boxes or trays or broadcast by various means in target areas.

Use practice limitations include the classification of all products
containing starlicide as restricted use, to be applied only by certified
applicators or persons under their supervision. Starlicide treated baits cannot
2
be applied within 50 feet of standing water and cannot be applied directly to
food or feed crops. There is a prohibition against grazing or planting crops
in treated areas within a year of application. Prebaiting must be done before
application to ensure that non-target or endangered species will not eat
treated baits.

Regulatory
History

Starlicide was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in 1967.
Currently, 15 starlicide products are registered, including 7 Federal and 8
state registrations
Human Health
Assessment
Toxicity
In studies using laboratory animals, starlicide has been shown to be of
moderate to high acute toxicity. Starlicide is moderately toxic by the oral
route and slightly toxic by the dermal route, placing it in Toxicity
Categories II and III, respectively for these effects. Although a study was
not provided, based on its other acute toxicity properties, starlicide is
presumed to be highly acutely toxic (Toxicity Category I) by the inhalation
route. It is corrosive to skin and eyes (also Toxicity Category I for these
effects) and is a mild to moderate skin sensitizer. Starlicide was not
mutagenic in three mutagenicity assays provided to the Agency, and is not a
carcinogen.

Dietary Exposure
Since starlicide is not used on food or feed crops or commodities, no
human dietary exposure is expected.

Occupational and Residential Exposure
Based on current use patterns, handlers (mixers, loaders, and
applicators) may be exposed to starlicide during the mixing of concentrate
with the various baits. Because of its high vapor pressure and presumed
high acute inhalation toxicity, the Agency has concern about the potential
for exposure to handlers mixing starlicide concentrate in one pound
quantities. However, the potential for post application exposure for persons
entering a treated site after application is minimal, and the Agency has no
post-application concerns.

Human Risk Assessment

Starlicide generally is of high acute toxicity, but is not a mutagen or a
carcinogen. There are no food or feed uses registered for starlicide, and no
human dietary exposure is expected.

Since there is some concern for handlers (mixers/loaders/applicators)
using one pound or more quantities of starlicide concentrate, the Agency has
concluded that the use of a respirator in these instances would minimize
exposure.
3
Environmental
Assessment
Environmental Fate
Starlicide does not hydrolyze, but does photodegrade in water, which,
based on available data, appears to be its primary route of dissipation in the
environment. Starlicide binds to organic matter in soils, but a complete
environmental fate assessment cannot be performed because the submitted
data was not adequate. The Agency is not requiring new studies, however,
because of the limited uses of starlicide and the extremely low volume of
active ingredient applied annually.

Ecological Effects Risk Assessment

Starlicide is very highly toxic to birds and freshwater invertebrates
and moderately toxic to freshwater fish. Starlicide is moderately toxic to
mammals. Data on toxicity to insects (honeybees) and non-target plants
were not required for starlicide.

Based on the data, non-target birds and mammals may be at risk from
eating starlicide treated bait (primary exposure), or, as scavengers and
predators, from consuming animals who have eaten treated baits (secondary
exposure). The risk to primary non-target bird populations is considered
high for all uses of starlicide, as is the risk to endangered small mammals in
areas treated with the highest application rates. Acute risk is also posed to
aquatic invertebrates.

Risk Mitigation To lessen the risks to non-target animals posed by starlicide, EPA is requiring the following risk mitigation measures.

• Prebaiting, which will lessen the risk of ingestion of treated baits by nontarget
species, will be required on all labels.

• Lower application rates - Because risk to endangered mammals and aquatic
invertebrates is highest at the maximum application rates, the highest rate
allowed for broadcast applications of starlicide treated baits will be 0.1 lbs./
acre.

• Buffer zones To lessen the potential for runoff which may pose acute risk to
aquatic invertebrates, treated baits must be placed at least 50 feet from bodies
of water.

Also, because of concern for inhalation exposure of mixers and loaders
to starlicide concentrate, the following is required:
• In addition to the personal protective equipment already on starlicide labels
(goggles and gloves), a respirator approved for pesticides must be worn by
persons mixing quantities of one pound or more of starlicide.

Additional Data
Requirements
The generic database supporting starlicide is substantially complete.
The Agency is still requiring product-specific data including product
chemistry and acute toxicity studies, revised Confidential Statements of
Formula (CSFs), and revised labeling for reregistration.
4
Product Labeling
Changes Required
All starlicide end-use products must comply with EPA's current
pesticide product labeling requirements. For the complete text of list of
labeling requirements, please see pp. 33-36 of the starlicide RED
document.

Regulatory
Conclusion
The use of currently registered products containing starlicide in
accordance with approved labeling will not pose unreasonable risks or
adverse effects to humans or the environment. Therefore, all uses of these
products are eligible for reregistration.

Starlicide products will be reregistered once the required productspecific
data, revised Confidential Statements of Formula, and revised
labeling are received and accepted by EPA.

For More
Information
EPA is requesting public comments on the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) document for starlicide during a 60-day time period, as
announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. To
obtain a copy of the RED document or to submit written comments, please
contact the Pesticide Docket, Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), US EPA, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 703-305-5805.
Electronic copies of the RED and this fact sheet can be downloaded
from the Pesticide Special Review and Reregistration Information System at
703-308-7224. They also are available on the Internet on EPA's gopher
server, GOPHER.EPA.GOV, or using ftp on FTP.EPA.GOV, or using
WWW (World Wide Web) on WWW.EPA.GOV.

Printed copies of the RED and fact sheet can be obtained from EPA's
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
(EPA/NCEPI), PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419, telephone
513-489-8190, fax 513-489-8695.
Following the comment period, the starlicide RED document also will
be available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 703-487-4650.
For more information about EPA's pesticide reregistration program,
the starlicide RED, or reregistration of individual products containing
starlicide, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division
(7508W), OPP, US EPA, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 703-308-8000.
For information about the health effects of pesticides, or for assistance
in recognizing and managing pesticide poisoning symptoms, please contact
the National Pesticides Telecommunications Network (NPTN). Call tollfree
1-800-858-7378, between 9:30 am and 7:30 pm Eastern Standard
Time, Monday through Friday.

Starlicide and Sodium Fluoride

Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for
Bird Control Seminars Proceedings
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 1968
WETTING AGENTS AND THEIR
ROLE IN BLACKBIRD DAMAGE
CONTROL
Don Harke
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fremont, Ohio
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/166
104
WETTING AGENTS AND THEIR ROLE
IN BLACKBIRD DAMAGE CONTROL
Don Harke
Assistant State Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fremont, Ohio
I just happened to think of an example when John was talking about firecracker
danger. In south Florida in the sweet corn fields they have "spray middles"
cut down through the fields, and at times some of the farm laborers will go
through these middles on a tractor with an apronful of these cherry bombs,
lighting them on their cigars or cigarettes, and throwing them out to chase the
birds. I did hear one case where the laborer lit one and apparently dropped it
back in his lap; the whole shebang went off and disemboweled him.
I'm going to speak on wetting agents, which are a class of surface-active
agents or surfactants along with soaps or detergents. I would like to second
John's philosophy on this balanced approach. Our blackbird problem in Ohio and
Michigan is sufficiently serious that we can scarcely afford to overlook any
measure of control.
Wetting agents are not a new happening on the blackbird damage control
scene. Actually since the early '60's we have been interested in finding the ideal
agent and method of application for lethal control of blackbirds, starlings, and
their roosts. The principle, as with so many other damage control techniques, is
relatively simple: get roosting birds wet enough when the weather is cold, the
temperature drops to 30 or so degrees, and they succumb to heart failure,
respiratory system failure, etc. In practice however, as in many other damage
control techniques, the story is not quite so easily told. The advent of the newer
biodegradable surfactants have all but eliminated one of the problems, that of
chronic water pollution. However numerous other problems must be solved
before this method can leave the drawing board.
Certain criteria must be met before specific wetting agents can qualify for
field trial. The candidate agent must be readily soluble in water, have maximum
wetting ability at moderate concentrations, degrade rapidly, have minimal toxicity
to fish, and maximum absorption on soils (this is to control water pollution in
underground systems). Somewhere there may exist a surfactant with all these
characteristics, and if anyone here knows what it might be, I'd like to know.
Turgitol 15S9 is the material which has been the most widely used in field
testing in a number of states; Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas. It has excellent
wetting abilities and under normal conditions degrades in about ten days.
105
But it is very toxic to fish. Little is known about its soil absorptive qualities.
This I might mention is important to us with our rural blackbird roosts in the
Sandusky Bay marshes and the general Lake Erie marshes; these roosts are composed
of redwinged blackbirds, grackles, and cowbirds.
Some of the sucrose esters are being worked with and they are considerably
less toxic to fish. But there's quite a bit of difficulty in getting them in aqueous
solutions which are needed to spray the material on the birds.
One of the confounding problems is how to get enough of the agent on the
birds to sufficiently wet them. Methods of application have ranged from herding
flocks of blackbirds through ground spray apparatus to applications of the
material with light aircraft and heavy aircraft, specifically Grumman AgCats (at
about 25 gallons per acre) and B-26 and C-123 aircraft at application rates of 900
gallons per acre. What it amounts to is that we need either high concentration at
low gallonage rates or the reverse of that followed by additional water drops. Or
in the case of a light plane which put out a minimum of wetting agents, we might
put this material on just prior to a cold front, allowing a natural rainfall to furnish
the required water.
There are some criteria which must be met before a roost can be treated:
there must be a high concentration of blackbirds in the roost, a low population of
desirable birds like ducks, robins, etc., and the drainage from the roost area not
be into a fish pond or river that abounds with fish. Also since some of these
wetting agents are phytotoxic, the roosting site must be of little value.
Directly comparing the light versus heavy aircraft- the light costs less, is
more accurate (they've had some misses with the heavier aircraft), and a considerably
more concentrated solution appears to be required. As John said, no one
control measure will solve the blackbird problem and only through diligent research
and field trials will we be able to come up with a wetting agent and a
method of application which may help us out with this problem.
I have some slides I'd like to show.
This is a roost at Johnstown, Ohio, just south of us here. It is a coniferous
tree roost, and at times there were 2 million birds here. The pond you see was
frozen over when the picture was taken, but there are quite a few fish in it. For
this reason we didn't think aerial application was desirable. We used a "standpipe"
method of getting the wetting agent onto the birds. These are pipes 21 feet tall;
there's a spray head on the top; we have a hose network and an educer valve
which goes into the tank of wetting agent. We used a fire truck which pumped
the water through this educer valve, then sucked the wetting agent up, and
diluted it to a predetermined concentration. At night water cascaded out of these
spray nozzles. A group of us went back through the trees, and herded the birds
through this curtain of spray; sometimes we did some good and sometimes we
didn't.
This shows a floodlight arrangement we used. Some of you may know of
floodlight traps that were used in various situations against roosts. We put this
bank of floodlights in front of the curtain of spray to attract the birds into that
area so that they would fly through the spray.
106
This is in Georgia, Moody Air Force Base—a roost which contains millions
of birds. Some of you may know of the problem there with bird—aircraft strike
hazards. Here is a B-26 which was used to literally dump wetting agent on the
birds in the roost; it has two 500 gallon tanks and was capable of putting out
900 to 1000 gallons per acre. Here are some cowbirds wet with the wetting
agent that were picked up after being wetted. You can see how wet their feathers
have become.
Thank you very much for you attention.
BECK: Don, stay up here please and we'll open this up to questions for either
you or me.
FITZWATER: Don, on your floodlights-are they set so they don't hit the
spray?
HARKE: Right.
FITZWATER: We had a little trouble. We had an interesting, small project in
Carlsbad, New Mexico where we ran standpipes out of irrigation hose just to the
top of some forty foot high mulberries. We had a population of about 3000
sparrows. We tied this into the water line, and had an inductor that brought the
detergent up through the lawn sprinkler heads. We only treated two trees and
tried to drive the birds into the trees. One of the trees was right by a street light
which the second night we did get turned off, but the first night you could see
the birds veer away from the spray because they could see it. But we had
interesting enough results that I think it's worth looking into.
HARKE: This is the problem we experienced—that the light was reflecting,
when we originally had it behind the curtain of wetting agent. The birds diverged
or went around the sides of the spray.
FRANCIS: Don, I'd like to ask you on these wetting agents—is there a seasonal
difference in the effectiveness of it. In other words will simply wetting the
birds be enough or must you have reasonable cool weather to have it work?
HARKE: Jim Caslick of the Division of Research has done most of the lab
work on this and he says a temperature of 50 degrees or less is required for
maximum mortality.
BRINK: Don, I wonder if you have, or can see in the picture any answer to
that Moody Air Force Base situation?
HARKE: No, not in the immediate future. I think John Seubert could give
you more information on that.
107
SEUBERT: Moody is a particular problem because the roost is a large one and
the bird densities are quite low. But again if we had the right type of agent
Moody would be an ideal place for use because the land is under federal control.
BROWN: We have these exploders banging away all over the orchards of southern
Ontario and they have absolutely no effect on robins. I might suggest that one
possibility is this: that the robins actually learn by the sound of the exploders
that there is ripe fruit available! (laugh)
BECK: Well, according to Pavlov that is quite possible.
LIEB: With this Castalia roost and the weather being what it is, have you done
anything successfully down there to move those birds to protect the corn?
HARKE: Which Castalia roost?
LIEB: The roost affecting the corn growers in the Castalia-Sandusky area.
HARKE: Have we done anything with wetting agents?
LIEB: Well, have you done anything at all to successfully move them because
they don't seem to have as much of a problem this year as they did last year?
Maybe they did something, I don't know.
HARKE: I've been putting out lethal baits in that area, but I certainly don't
presume that I've put out enough to halt bird damage. I don't really know.
LIEB: To make you feel good, I think you have, because some of the farmers
down there say they don't have half the problems they've had. They have fewer
birds, but they don't know who's doing it, and they don't want to know.
HARKE: That's what they've been telling me.
RUSSELL: What was the wetting agent you gave as an example that was toxic to
fish?
HARKE: Turgitol 15S9, a Union Carbide product.
OCHS: Do you have any that aren't toxic?
HARKE: We'd like to know that, too.
BECK: Now come on. You know that some of them that we think basically
are not toxic do have some toxic effects on aquatic invertebrates, don't they?
108
OCHS: John, most of the surfactants heretofore have been classed as inert ingredients.
Therefore we have damn little information on surfactants per se. We
can surmise the effect and do as we darn well please, but until we have data to
support what we may think, we have nothing.
STECKEL: You've been in Washington too long, Paul. (laugh)
BECK: We do thank you for your attention on these two topics. I advise you to
corner Don Harke and get better acquainted with him; I think you're going to see
this young man's name and some of his results for a considerable period of time.
Let's give him a hand.
The next topics we're interested in here are primarily feed lot problems,
and we're comparing sodium fluoride and Starlicide. Actually I think we should
say DRC-1339 which is a code number for a particular chemical. We're comparing
the technical grade of that chemical as used by our Denver research people
with sodium fluoride. I don't think we should say we're comparing starlicide
which is a registered commercial product with sodium fluoride. We're actually
comparing two chemicals, so even though Starlicide is mentioned I think we
should limit our remarks to the technical grade of the compound known as DRC-
1339.
The next two speakers are friends of mine; one is a new friend and the
other is a friend of long standing. John De Grazio is a member of our Denver
research team and is another one of our young men who will be heard from for a
long time to come. John has done a lot of work, as have his associates, and he
deserves a lot of credit. I'm sure you'll enjoy hearing from John.
The second man who will speak is Jim Steckel. All of the pest control
operators know him, and most of us bureaucratic drones know him also. Jim is
going to present sodium fluoride, its possibilities and its uses. When we finish
these two, we'll have questions. John De Grazio.

Wildlife damage control
EXCERPT:
Sodium Fluoroacetate - Compound 1080: Sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) is a naturally-occurring organic fluorine compound extracted from the West African plant "ratbane" (Dichapetalum toxicarium). In the past, Compound 1080 was registered for controlling canids, commensal rodents, and field rodents. Currently its single registration is for use in the livestock protection collar (LPC) for controlling coyotes preying on sheep and goats. The LPC is a small rubber collar, worn by sheep or goats, that contains two small reservoirs of the toxin. It is selective for individual problem animals, since it is only administered when the coyote punctures the bladder during the act of biting the throat of the collared animal.
Sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) Livestock Protection Collar EPA Reg. No. 56228-22

•User Manual - Introduction, Contents, Do's and Don'ts (30K)