Bayer pesticide as a coral dip...stop it! smh

[Blackhawk Fan]

Pesticides clearly show up in the testing of the water around us. They aren't magically diluted to nothing as some folks are saying.

"Pesticides can get into drinking water when homeowners
illegally dump pesticides down the drain. For
instructions on proper disposal of pesticides contact your
County Cooperative Extension Office or State
Environmental Department."


Google search: pesticides in our drinking water. That quote is from a pdf file from Oregon State University. Honestly, I could care less if people dipped their coral in genetically modified e.coli feces aka aspertame
I do, and so should everyone else care about the way you dispose of the bayer dip. Dumping it down the drain does have an impact, wether you want to admit it or deny it. In fact, everytime these toxic chemicals are used it affects the environment in a negative way. There's a reason the USA is the sickest country in the developed world.

"You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of reality."
- Ayn Rand

This will be my last response to this thread. I'm not here to make enemies, so I do hope nobody takes my posts as an insult or as an attack.

Cheers to all and happy reefing!

 

[hart24601]

Time to unwatch the thread, nothing is going to be said that hasn't been already.

 

[happyhourhero]

I am sorry for the loss of your corals. I hope that you can nail down the cause and preserve the life in your ecosystem. Thank you for bringing this discussion to the table and I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Somebody should tell my pocilloporas to cut it out with all the spawning they are doing. They need to be reminded that they are in a tank that uses bayer for dips

Now you're just mocking me, but thanks for the comment, gave me a chuckle.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Time to unwatch the thread, nothing is going to be said that hasn't been already.

Agreed.. I was hopeful others might have actually done some fact finding, but it's just more opinions being shared.

The pocci comment makes me wonder if it's effects are species specific, but we'll get nowhere like this.

Btw, for those wishing to expand their knowledge, check this out. Pretty nifty.
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/other/coral_histopathology_ii.pdf

Oh, and on the environmental effect tangent, look up microfibers from laundry making their way into waterways. True story. I've seen no noticeable effects from doing laundry other than clean clothes.

 

[Ontheway]

Interesting read. I cant resist, , how can you dip your corals into Bayer company?
There's must be a formulation name for it I guess but I couldn't find it in thread Wondering which particular Bayer product people talking about.

 

[happyhourhero]

Interesting read. I cant resist, , how can you dip your corals into Bayer company?
There's must be a formulation name for it I guess but I couldn't find it in thread Wondering which particular Bayer product people talking about.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Md, 'proof of plausibility' is not what was intended, but that's a decent way to put it. But you surely can't say it's any different than others "success". I use quotes because we still don't have any concrete answers to the more complex interactions. We do have answers so far, I was merely making this to suggest we might not want to continue until we know more..

The difference between your anecdote and the anecdotes I mentioned is the quantity. There are comparably far fewer people who share your experience as compared to those who have experienced success. That in itself is not a controlled scientific investigation, but it is quantifiable observation which IMO does have merit.

I use comparisons because those are more accurate than the anecdotal evidence.
Throughout human history, we have made so many mistakes we've even adopted inspirational sayings about learning from mistakes. I personally view this topic the same as alcohol, or asbestos, or BPA. Nobody was the wiser until more research was done. Just in the case of this, it would be exactly the same except there HAS been research done on the effects of pyrethroids and their effect on coral.

My understanding of the studies you mention here is that these are studies done on prolonged exposure...no one is advocating that we keep reef tanks where Bayer is present continually. This is true of most pharmaceuticals. Should we stop medicating for fish disease and other things because of potential long-term effects? The accusations you have made regarding Bayer could be leveled at a great number of chemicals used in this hobby. Why pick Bayer? Why not go after other things as well?

It's not my fault some want to cherry-pick what they believe.
If you want to strike my comments from the record, go for it. Do I believe the necrosis was the direct result of Bayer? I certainly will not count it out. Just as I don't count out the possibility it doesn't do anything because so many people use it.

Not sure what to do with this comment. To start with, I'm not sure what is meant by the raising of the possibility that I would "strike your comments from the record." What is that supposed to mean? I just want to be sure I'm not misinterpreting.

To the second part of that comment, you aren't willing to count Bayer out as a possible cause of your issues...you've pretty much already blamed Bayer for it in this thread...and you are arguing that anyone who doesn't must show you "scientific proof" (meaning controlled research) to prove you wrong...but you seem convinced that we shouldn't accept the success stories of others as reasonable evidence. Why should we see your minority report as a warning flag, but discount the successes that outnumber your instance on a grand scale?? That doesn't seem rational.

But all in all, it's been studied, maybe not in-depth, but there has been studies about pesticides and coral. The toxicity, though somewhat vague, is present and well recorded.

What studies are you referring to here? What were the subjects? What was the research method? What were the findings? So far, the only "evidence" presented has been information that isn't really applicable to the question of Bayer dipping.

And not all dips are toxic, I believe that's been brought up to justify the use of it. We're not here for ourselves are we?

Which dips aren't toxic? If they aren't toxic, how are they effective? I think it's a reasonable assertion that prolonged exposure to any dip will eventually kill the organisms being dipped.

From other interactions here, I've been told before 'oh you're challenging a fact, you have the burden of proof!'. So if the original fact is, it's toxic, it's up to those who use it to prove it right? heh
Not that I fully believe that, but science is a two way street.

You would have a point here if the issue being debated was whether or not Bayer is toxic...but that's not something anyone is disagreeing with you on. Most of us have all said, "Yup. That's kind of the point of a pesticide." The question is whether or not there are long-term negative effects to using Bayer as a dip. At this point the vast majority of independent observations (literally thousands of healthy, thriving reef tanks owned by reefers who use Bayer) say "Nope. No problems. Healthy happy corals here!" So, the burden of proof does rest on you since you're the one taking issue with those observations.

Also someone mentioned I use something in my tank that's not been studied? What are you referring to?

It's not entirely pertinent to this conversation, so I'm going to choose prudence here rather than opening another can of worms. Let's stick to the topic of Bayer.

From the 'oh mic drop comment!' you can see that this goes the direction of emotions over science. That's not progressive. Even after stating it's been found that corals contain nerves, it's been questioned, and even someone else said they don't have nerves. I find it more difficult to believe a side of a debate when that's present, but the benefit of the doubt can be fair.

I think the difference being addressed is "nerves" versus a "central nervous system" like that found in motile inverts. In any case, surely we can agree that Bayer (and other dips) does not have the same effect on corals that it does on the pests it rids them of. That's a matter of observation. When we still have a living and healthy (at least by external observations) coral, and we have dead pests in the dipping container, we can surmise that the same reaction did not occur in both organisms.

I think it boils down to 1 single truth.
It's toxic to marine environments. Unless you want to follow suit of those who were pro-asbestos, pro-cigarettes, pro-alcohol, pro-heroin, pro-insert random compound here, then please provide your case. This is the recent I asked for cited research, without it, it's just a big argument. And I'm not here to argue.

I'm sorry, but this is not as simple as you're hoping to make it. If it were, we'd see observable effects. In the case of cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, or other random compounds, observations can easily be made as to the negative impact these things have over long-term use. Interestingly enough, a case can be made here that this actually proves the point I and others have been making. For example, if we're comparing 1 time exposure of any of the above compounds (1 cigarette for example as compared to 1 dip in Bayer), the effects are minuscule if at all present long-term. It's long-term exposure and continual abuse that causes the issue. We could do the same example with medications. Taking certain prescribed medications for a prescribed period of time is deemed beneficial to the patient. However, no one would advocate taking that same drug in large quantities for long periods of time due to the negative impact. In the same way, 1 use of Bayer to kill pests should not be considered at the same level as dosing your tank with it (NO ONE would do that!).

And as for not being here to argue...well, the title of your thread kind of invites argument, and I would suggest that you were fishing for dissenters when you gave it the title. So, forgive me if I have a hard time believing you weren't looking for push back. I think you were hoping for it.

It could very well be true that it does zero long-term damage. But despite the factual, biological evidence seen so far through research, albeit limited, I'm still willing to discuss.
So far though, here's what I see, and I think I'm being fair, because I am definitely a very logical person. So please, prove the thought wrong if you can.

Acceptance of your own anecdotal evidence while dismissing the observations of thousands of others is not in your favor for making a claim to being logical in this question. It seems you have already come to a conclusion (based on your thread title, unwillingness to admit others observations while still citing your own, ect.), and you are challenging anyone to disprove your fore-drawn conclusion with concrete irrefutable scientific research (which you probably had a good idea was unavailable when you started this conversation).

Also for those who don't read well, it's 2 compounds not 1. And I very highly doubt you'll find any research on 'bayer and corals'. That's why you need to search for the compound and what's been studies so far. Also there are mechanisms that DEFINE how they work, you can branch off that to discover what interactions there can be. Will it always happen, probably not, but we don't have any other observations to go from.

No other observations to go from except the thousands of reefers who use Bayer for all their coral dipping.

Pros
It's cheap
It works quite well on a wide variety of hitchikers
Many people have used it (it's a plus but doesn't mean it's safe ie:drugs/alcohol/synthetic or organic compounds that cause harm in excess or from chronic use)

We all agree that chronic or excessive use of Bayer is bad for corals. That's why they only get it when going into a system (as opposed to regular doses). It is effective as a dip...not as an in tank medication.

Cons
Doesn't remove eggs, or affect them from what we can tell
It's a neurotoxin (this is a negative until we can prove it doesn't affect coral; but since the gastrovascular system handles respiration, we could very well be depriving cellular respiration)
It's been found to bioaccumulate in at least one kind of animal
From what I've seen it's hydrophobic therefore coats and does not dissolve in water, therefore extra rinses probably have minimal benefits
In one study the toxicity was questioned because the researchers thought the toxicity could be happening lower than our detectable limits
Necrosis events were observed in one study
It can affect multiple stages of the life-cycle of the coral

I would challenge the idea that rinsing has minimal benefits. I know of no reports where corals added to a tank after multiple rinses resulted in any observable effect in the reef. I also think that some of the cons listed here (like the last one) are drawn from stretching the results of inapplicable research studies to the question of dipping.

Also, again, my title is not a finite viewpoint. It's a cautionary statement because we really don't know anything but bad things about the compounds. Don't agree with it? Dig through research articles and find some data. Until then you're displaying emotional responses and anecdotal evidence.(there's not even an accepted dosage!!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This is a skewed statement. We do know positive things about the impact of the compounds on corals. Again, I point to thousands of healthy reef tanks whose owners used Bayer. That's not an emotional statement. It's a fact. Those reefs exist (fact). The reefers that own them used Bayer (fact). The reefs are thriving and healthy (fact). It's not controlled research, but it is objective, independent observation.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I'm familiar with the scientific method.

I think that's one of the biggest problems in the reefing community, people think anecdotal evidence is ok.
To a certain extent, sure it's fine. The more observations, the better we can document experiences. But that does not mean it's ok and valid factual information.
Like in the case of peroxide, people talk

I agree that verifiable scientific research is to be preferred over anecdote, but in it's absence overwhelming anecdotal observation is still a viable way to investigate something. In a hobby like ours, there are LOTS of things that we do not (and cannot) research due to costs and ability. Also, if the majority of people are finding something useful and beneficial, it's a reasonable/rational (not emotional) assumption that it is probably fine and even advisable. So, until there is research to the contrary, use of Bayer is probably fine (it has been in thousands of reef tanks already).

 

[Ontheway]

Thanks, nice pic. Now I am able to see its resistant to rinsing even with RoDi, for one hour after application. I have no idea why people prefer to use a pesticide in aquarium, but one thing is certain, you are not using the active ingradient alone, but a lot of other stuff, this includes UV protectants, synergistics, coating stuff, traces of unintended elements from production process, etc... We are freakin-sensitive when using, say, Ca-kH additives from a less known source due to impurities, and may still prefer to use a pesticide with a zillion of things inside..

 

[WesF]

Thanks, nice pic. Now I am able to see its resistant to rinsing even with RoDi, for one hour after application. I have no idea why people prefer to use a pesticide in aquarium, but one thing is certain, you are not using the active ingradient alone, but a lot of other stuff, this includes UV protectants, synergistics, coating stuff, traces of unintended elements from production process, etc... We are freakin-sensitive when using, say, Ca-kH additives from a less known source due to impurities, and may still prefer to use a pesticide with a zillion of things inside..

People aren't using it "in aquarium". It's used as a dip followed by several rinses and still proves to be one of the most effective ways to keep pests out of your reef.

Btw, it's only rainproof after it has had a chance to dry for an hour. Has nothing to do with how easily a wet heavily diluted solution can be rinsed.

 

[Ontheway]

Of course, people are free to follow the route of their own. I personally think twice before using a product which is not custom-build for aquarium use. Active ingradients may be safe and effective, but not sure about effects of other ingradients.

 

[WesF]

Of course, people are free to follow the route of their own. I personally think twice before using a product which is not custom-build for aquarium use. Active ingradients may be safe and effective, but not sure about effects of other ingradients.

There are no regulatory standards on products "custom built for aquarium use" so that doesn't protect you much unfortunately.

Safest approach before adding anything whether it's aquarium branded or not is to research and see what others in the hobby have experienced.

In the case of Bayer, thousands of hobbyists, coral distributors, fish stores, etc. are using this method and have been very successful

 

[Ontheway]

...
In the case of Bayer, thousands of hobbyists, coral distributors, fish stores, etc. are using this method and have been very successful

There are millions of farmers using these products very successfully, also. Personally, I can accept use of environmentally safe products which are mainly listed in organic farming. This is not the case with this product I think. Again, I am not against use of this by other people, just not prefer to use it for my aquatic "environment".

 

[reefins]

I literally only read the title of this thread..

I've used Bayer a lot and never had any issues

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I don't believe I was being too clear in my analysis. I guess I am making assumptions. I thought I would add new content to the discussion.

Trying to think about it with a level head, and as I think about it, what's in Bayer?

IMIDACLOPRID 0.72%+ BETA-CYFLUTHRIN 0.36% CONC. IN
072155- 00029
Active as of November 15, 2004
Approval date: 12/04/2003
0.3600 % BETA-CYFLUTHRIN
BAYER ADVANCED,95 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD
MONTVALE, NJ 07645
Ornamental flowering plants (foliar treatment) , Ornamental foliage plants (foliar treatment) , Ornamental evergreens (foliar treatment) , Ornamental ground covers (foliar treatment) , Ornamental lawns (foliar treatment) , Ornamental woody shrubs (foliar treatment) , Ornamental trees (foliar treatment) , Building foundations (foliar treatment)
From <http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/beta.cyfluthrin.products.htm>


OK, what the heck are those? A quick analysis of Wikipedia for the basis of one of the ingredients. Can't hurt right?

So Cyfluthrin! It's a Pyrethroid Insecticide. What the heck is that? A fire thyroid? A pyre-throid! A http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pyrethrin?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=p&file=pyreth02compound!

So what do those compounds do?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethroid

Mode of action[edit]

Pyrethroids are axonic excitoxins, the toxic effects of which are mediated through preventing the closure of the voltage-gated sodium channels in the axonal membranes. The sodium channel is a membrane protein with a hydrophilic interior. This interior is a tiny hole which is shaped precisely to strip away the partially charged water molecules from a sodium ion and create a favorable way for sodium ions to pass through the membrane, enter the axon, and propagate an action potential. When the toxin keeps the channels in their open state, the nerves cannot repolarize, leaving the axonal membrane permanently depolarized, thereby paralyzing the organism.[4]

History[edit]

Pyrethroids were introduced in the late 1900s (date not accurate) by a team of Rothamsted Research scientists following the elucidation of the structures of pyrethrin I and II by Hermann Staudinger and Leopold Ružička in the 1920s.[5]


Its insecticidal activity has relatively low mammalian toxicity(but they find bioaccumulation in dolphins http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012001377) and an unusually fast biodegradation.

(They are usually broken apart by sunlight and the atmosphere in one or two days, and do not significantly affect groundwater quality.[3])


Pyrethrum rapidly knocks down flying insects but has negligible persistence — which is good for the environment but gives poor efficacy when applied in the field. Pyrethroids are essentially chemically stabilized forms of natural pyrethrum and belong to IRAC MoA group 3 (they interfere with sodium transport in insect nerve cells).


By 1974, the Rothamsted team had discovered a 2nd generation of more persistent compounds notably: permethrin, cypermethrin and deltamethrin. They are substantially more resistant to degradation by light and air, thus making them suitable for use in agriculture, but they have significantly higher mammalian toxicities. Over the subsequent decades these derivatives were followed with other proprietary compounds such as fenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin and beta-cyfluthrin.(>>IN BAYER: Actives: 0.36% β-cyfluthrin (Most patents have now expired, making these compounds cheap and therefore popular (although permethrin and fenvalerate have not been re-registered under the 91/414/EEC process). One of the less desirable characteristics, especially of 2nd generation pyrethroids is that they can be an irritant to the skin and eyes, so special formulations such as capsule suspensions (CS) have been developed.




Environmental effects[edit]

Aside from the fact that they are also toxic to beneficial insects such as bees and dragonflies, pyrethroids are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. At extremely small levels, such as 4 parts per trillion,[9] pyrethroids are lethal to mayflies, gadflies, and invertebrates that constitute the base of many aquatic and terrestrial food webs.[10]

Pyrethroids have been found to be unaffected by secondary treatment systems at municipal wastewater treatment facilities in California. They appear in the effluent, usually at levels lethal to invertebrates.[11]


Safety and effectiveness[edit]

Earlier studies suggested that most vertebrates have sufficient enzymes for rapid breakdown of pyrethroids, except for cats. Pyrethroids are highly toxic to cats because they do not have glucuronidase, which participates in hepatic detoxifying metabolism pathways.[12]

A recent study, however, suggests that developing mice exposed to deltamethrin (a pyrethroid pesticide) show neurological and behavioral changes resembling Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in humans.[13] In terms of LD50 for rats, Tefluthrin is the most toxic at 29 mg/kg.[4] Anaphylaxis has been reported after pyrethrum exposure, but allergic reaction to pyrethroids has not been documented. Increased sensitivity occurs following repeated exposure to cyanide, which is found in pyrethroids like beta-cyfluthrin (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness, J. Edward Hill, MD, President & Executive Committee Member, AMA).(>>IN BAYER: Actives: 0.36% β-cyfluthrin; 0.72% Imidacloprid

Even in lower doses, cyanide can cause coral bleaching and mess with the coral’s biology. Sometimes, the coral is killed outright. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160310-aquarium-saltwater-tropical-fish-cyanide-coral-reefs/>)


Resistance[edit]

Up until the 1950s, bedbugs were almost eradicated in the US through the use of DDT. After the use of DDT for this purpose was banned,[14] pyrethroids became more commonly used against bedbugs, but resistant populations have now developed.[15][16][17][18]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethroid

So we just learned what?
Beta-cyfluthrin is a pyrethroid insecticide, that has been taken from nature and modified.


From <http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/cyfluthrin.facts.1994.htm>

Cyfluthrin is highly acutely toxic to bees and fish. (Just one part per billion can kill some fish species.) Sublethal effects occur at even lower doses; less than one part per trillion caused adverse effects on juvenile minnows. Ecosystem-level tests have shown that cyfluthrin affects many organisms in pond ecosystems, including algae, zooplankton, nematodes, insects, and fish. A recent survey of household pesticide use conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that cyfluthrin use is extensive. While cyfluthrin was used by less than 2 percent of the households surveyed, this represented almost 40 million applications annually in the U.S. The bulk of these treatments (over 33 million annually) were made indoors.(7)

It causes hyperexcitation of the nervous system, which leads to convulsions and ultimately death.(9)

On a biochemical level, cyfluthrin has a complex mode of action and affects normal nerve function in several ways. It induces alterations in nerve membranes, causing abnormal sodium and potassium flows.(11) This results in the repetitive discharges from the neurons, causing convulsions and also blockage of further nerve impulses.(8) Cyfluthrin also affects calcium concentrations in nervous tissue by inhibiting an enzyme involved in calcium transport. This in turn increases the amount of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine released at the junction between nerves.(12) In addition, two receptors found in nervous tissue, the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors and the peripheral benzodiazepine receptors, are inhibited by cyfluthrin.
Inhibition of either of these receptors can cause convulsions.(13,14)

Acute exposure to cyfluthrin can cause chronic symptoms of damage to the nervous system.

Cyfluthrin affects a variety of living things in addition to the unwanted insects it is designed to kill.
Such effects have been demonstrated for honey bees, spiders, fish, birds, and aquatic invertebrates. In addition, studies of model aquatic ecosystems have shown that cyfluthrin has the potential to disrupt normal ecosystem processes.

Other Beneficial ArthropodsThe same phylum as copepods/red bugs) Kentucky entomologists have studied the impact of cyfluthrin on predators whose prey includes two turf pest species, the Japanese beetle and the fall armyworm. A single application of cyfluthrin reduced the abundance of predatory spiders, and effects persisted for five weeks following treatment.(41)

Fish: Cyfluthrin is also very highly toxic to fish. Median lethal concentrations (LC50s; the concentration required to kill half of a population of test animals) are close to one part per billion for the fish species that have been tested. As might be expected, sublethal effects occur at much lower doses; in the sheepshead minnow exposures of less than one tenth as much as the lethal dose, 84 parts per trillion (ppt), reduced survival of juveniles and effects were measured on juvenile rainbow trout with even lower exposures,18 ppt.(38) In one study, effects on juvenile fathead minnows were measured at the startlingly low concentration of 0.14 ppt.(42) Cyfluthrin is estimated to bioconcentrate (concentrate in animals whose diets are higher up the food chain) by a factor of over 800 times,(38) thus increasing its potential effects on fish.

Other aquatic invertebrates: Cyfluthrin is very highly toxic to a variety of aquatic organisms. The median lethal dose for water fleas (Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia) was less than 1 ppt;(43) for mysid shrimp was less than 3 ppt;(2) and for Eastern oyster was about 3 parts per billion.(2) Sublethal effects occurred at lower concentrations. For example, reproductive success of mysid shrimp was affected at 1.25 ppt,(38) and uncoordinated swimming was observed in water fleas at concentrations below the LC50 of 1 ppt.(43)

Ecosystem-level effects: EPA has recently (1992) reviewed a study designed to measure any effects of
cyfluthrin on aquatic ecosystems. The study involves the use of mesocosms, small artificial ponds into which are introduced a variety of plankton, aquatic insects, and fish. While EPA found many deficiencies in the study, including the contamination of ponds that were supposed to serve as control (untreated) mesocosms, the study does point out how cyfluthrin can impact an entire ecosystem. Cyfluthrin affected "the majority of the lower tiers of the ecosystem": During most of the study, treated ponds had a lower weight of phytoplankton (algae) than did untreated ponds, and by the end of the study abundances were also lower. Zooplankton (microscopic animals) were also affected: some species were less abundant in treated ponds, while their competitors (other species of zooplankton eating the same kinds of food) increased in abundance. Nematodes increased in treated ponds, while diversity of surface-dwelling insects decreased. These effects were evident
at concentrations in the water in the parts per trillion range. The study also provides evidence that these effects "cascaded throughout the pond ecosystem" and are important to the larger organisms. Fish biomass in untreated ponds was greater than treated ponds "at all test doses" and fish weight gain was "markedly greater" in untreated ponds.(42)
From <http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/cyfluthrin.facts.1994.htm>


Neurotoxins are substances that are poisonous or destructive to nerve tissue.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotoxin>


We also learned that originally it had fast biodegradation. It's a revised compound being after the 2nd generation of synthetics. They're lethal to some invertebrates at 4 parts per trillion. And Pyrethroids have been found to be unaffected by secondary treatment systems at municipal wastewater treatment facilities in California. They appear in the effluent, usually at levels lethal to invertebrates? So they're not easy to filter with industrial tools.

One of the two ingredients, beta-cyfluthrin was mentioned to contain cyanide?! No way!

Let's check out the MSDS…



https://www.whatsinproducts.com/files/brands_pdf/02021016%20MSDS%20Bayer%20Adv%20Complete%20Insect%20Killer%20For%20Soil%20Turf%20RTU%20Spray%20112103.pdf

No mention of cyanide.. What about the compound itself instead of the product?

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/epage.beta.cyfluthrin.effct.htm

So it mentions the usual..

Acute and chronic toxicity studies show that the technical material and formulations of beta-cyfluthrin are highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates and moderately toxic to algae. It is classified as presenting a high risk to honey bees and other arthropod species.

• Definition of arthropod: Includes arachnids (spiders, mites) insects (bee, ant, moth) and crustaceans (shrimp, crab), as a group under Phylum Arthropoda, all invertebrates (no vertebral column), having segmented bodies and hollow, jointed legs.

Acute toxicity fish:
-- LC50 = 0.068 µg/l (Oncorhynchus mykiss; 96 h);
-- §-cyfluthrin LC50 = 0.28 µg/l (Lepomis macrochirus; 96 h); §-cyfluthrin
Long term toxicity fish:
-- NOEC = 0.01 µg/l (Oncorhynchus mykiss; 58 d; cyfluthrin)
-- NOEC = 0.14 µg/l (Pimephales promelas; 307 d; cyfluthrin)

No mention of cyanide. How about another search for the compound CAS# 68359-37-5?

This lays out the materials in it's makeup?

Raw materials
Methyl 3,3-dimethylpent-4-enoate orthoacetic acid CYCLOPROPANE Chloral p-Toluenesulfonic acid Trimethacrylate Copper 1-Hexene 4-METHYL-1,3-PENTADIENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE ISOBUTYLENE diazoacetic acid 3-Methyl-2-buten-1-ol Permethric acid Cyclobutanone 4-PENTEN-2-OL 3-PENTEN-2-OL 4-Chlorotoluene

From <http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB4718934.htm>



Oh cool! Copper.. But alas, no cyanide? Perhaps that Wikipedia entry has a mistake? At least that's one positive! No cyanide!!

Well, what does the rest of the Wikipedia entry say? Resistance? Pfft, right..

OH NO!

Resistant populations have developed of Bed Bugs? Who cares about Bed Bugs!
But wait.. Could they be? Never!

They ARE related to our tanks and the very pests we're looking to get rid of!!!
Bed Bugs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trombiculidae are in what phylum?

They're Arthropods, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod which are the same phylum as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copepod and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegastidae - RED BUGS!


Parasitic Copepods

Some copepod species are known parasites of stony corals, soft corals, anemones, Tridacna clams, starfish, and many other invertebrates, although the number of parasitic bugs is small when compared to the number of non-parasitic copepods (parasitic copepods are perhaps 15% of the number of 'bugs' known to inhabit invertebrates, according to copepod guru Arthur Humes). It is popular among hobbyists to lump parasitic crustaceans into loose categories called 'red bugs' and 'black bugs'. In addition, red bugs are typically ascribed by hobbyists to a single species (Tegastes acroporanus - although this 'bug' is officially described as occurring in only a single coral species - the Pacific stony coral Acropora florida), due in large part by an article written in 2002 by Ron Shimek. Actually, corals can be infested externally or internally by quite a number of parasitic copepod genera, including Alteuthellopsis, Xarifia, Stockia, Humesiella, Tegastes, Parategastes, Orstomella, Zazaranus, and many others. See Table One.

From <http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/corals>

Eh, that's a small chance right? Only the 1 entry about bed bugs.. But if you read one of the above pages you would see there's more! Holy crap how can this be?!

From <http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/cyfluthrin.facts.1994.htm>

*RESISTANCE*

Insect resistance, the ability of unwanted insects to tolerate exposure to an insecticide in amounts that
would be lethal to a typical individual, is an increasing problem. Over 500 insect species, including
"most of the economically important species" have developed resistance to at least one insecticide and
twelve economically important insect pests have developed resistance to nearly all available
insecticides. Synthetic pyrethroids as a class have played a prominent role in recent discussions of
resistance because resistance to pyrethroids has developed quickly and many insects that are resistant to
other classes of insecticides easily evolve pyrethroid resistance.(44)

Resistance to cyfluthrin specifically has been documented in:
The spotted tentiform leafminer (a pest of Apples-- the same phylum as copepods/red bugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllonorycter_blancardella ),(45)
The Egyptian cotton leafworm (a pest of Cotton-- the same phylum as copepods/red bugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodoptera_littoralis ),(46)
Flour beetles (a stored products pest-- the same phylum as copepods/red bugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_beetle ),(47)
The German cockroach (a household pest-- the same phylum as copepods/red bugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cockroach),(48,49)
The cotton aphid (a cotton pest-- the same phylum as copepods/red bugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphis_gossypii ),(50)
The tobacco budworm (a pest on a variety of crops-- yup - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicoverpa_armigera ),(51,52)
The cat flea (a mammal pest-- you guessed it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_flea ).(53)

In some cases, the degree of resistance is astonishing. For example, cockroaches from an apartment in Gainesville, Florida were found to be
almost 90 times as resistant to cyfluthrin as a susceptible laboratory strain. (The apartment had been treated repeatedly with cypermethrin, another synthetic
pyrethroid.) The researchers warned that this "entire class of compounds may be rendered useless in a short time."(48)

From <http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/cyfluthrin.facts.1994.htm>


I haven't found one single thing about corals. Do corals even have nerves or neurons for a neurotoxin to affect? Let's check out some info about Stony Corals! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scleractinia


From http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/other/coral_histopathology_ii.pdf

Surface body wall organization of a scleractinian polyp; cell types associated with the epidermis, mesoglea, and gastrodermis (Fig. 4) The generic cellular organization of coral tissue layers consists of an epidermis, the mesoglea and a gastrodermis. The epidermis may be either, located next to the external environment (surface body wall), located next to the skeleton (basal body wall) or located in the actinopharynx (actinopharynx body wall). The epidermis contains numerous cells including cnidae, mucocytes (mucosecretory cells), pigment cells, calicoblastic cells, epitheliomuscular cells and other supporting cells. The calicoblastic epithelium (calicodermis) is apposed to and secretes the calcium carbonate, aragonite, skeleton. The epidermis of the actinopharynx has more supporting cells than the surface body wall epidermis, with notably elongated cilia, that function to move food particles and fluid into and out of the gastrovascular cavity. The mesoglea is a homogenous connective tissue layer of variable thickness that may contain isolated cells. It is bordered either by epidermis and gastrodermis or by gastrodermis on both sides (as occurs in the mesentery, Fig. 3). The gastrodermis lines the digestive lumen, underlies the mesoglea, and contains zooxanthellae, or symbiotic algae, in membrane bound vacuoles. The gastrodermis may contain ciliated or flagellated support cells, cnidocytes, amoebocytes, sensory cells, mucocytes, granular gland cells and pigment cells. Neurons and epitheliomuscular cells are found in both epidermis and gastrodermis. The base of an epitheliomuscular cell contains a contractile portion within the plasma membrane, the myoneme, which attaches to the nucleus-containing portion of the cell by a peduncle and also attaches the cell to the mesoglea.

From http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/other/coral_histopathology_ii.pdf


Boy, that's only 1 of 2 compounds! Though it seems to affect nerves, maybe it doesn't affect coral.


Should I research the other compound?

 

[JP79]

I still see some people suggesting it. I tried it over a period of months awhile back, had lots of necrosis events.

I guess these explain why. It also says don't expose pets, etc..

The levels seen from a dip solution are probably far greater than what even the ocean sees, and the ocean is having issues.

I personally was happy to see black sun corals spawn and SUCCESSFULLY settle in my tank. I don't think that would have happened if I had traces of insecticide in the tank. (it's very unrealistic to state you'll get rid of all of the pesticide off the coral by rinsing a few times, someone even stated it is waterproof and requires something like vinegar to neutralize it)

I'll update more from time to time as I find it, if you're aware of anything please add it.
I'm not looking to make this a debate. I think using random compounds, especially that are intended to kill things, as a dip, is just dumb. I used it when I first started because I didn't know any better, now I do.

If you disagree, please share the research that shows it's not toxic.(despite the label)

Cyfluthrin is a pyrethroid insecticide and common household pesticide. It is a complex organic compound and the commercial product is sold as a mixture of isomers. Like most pyrethroids, it is highly toxic to fish, invertebrates, and insects, but it is far less toxic to humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyfluthrin

Aquatic life[edit]
Imidacloprid is highly toxic on an acute basis to aquatic invertebrates, with EC50 values = 0.037 - 0.115 ppm. It is also highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates on a chronic basis (effects on growth and movement): NOAEC/LOAEC = 1.8/3.6 ppm in daphnids; NOAEC = 0.001 in Chironomus midge, and NOAEC/LOAEC = 0.00006/0.0013 ppm in mysid shrimp. Its toxicity to fish is relatively low; however, the EPA has requested review of secondary effects on fish with food chains that include sensitive aquatic invertebrates.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid


Insecticides and a fungicide affect multiple coral life stages

The risk posed by a toxicant to an organism is the product of sensitivity and potential exposure. Information on the environmental concentrations of insecticides and fungicides in nearshore tropical waters where corals may be exposed is scarce; however, the results from this study suggest that all 4 groups of insecticides and the organomercurial fungicide are among the most potent inhibitors of coral fertilisation and/or metamorphosis reported thus far. Therefore, the risks that these pesticides pose to corals, especially reproduction, are potentially significant.

The early life stages of coral exhibit some of the most sensitive biological responses to pesticide contamination in the marine environment. The extremely high sensitivity of Acropora millepora settlement to a range of insecticides and a fungicide indicates that pesticide contamination of the reef habitat, even by barely detectable concentrations, could have profound consequences for population replenishment. The examination of toxic thresholds provides valuable information that can help management agencies assess risk to key marine organisms. The high sensitivity of corals also raises questions as to whether current sampling and analysis techniques are capable of detecting these low pesticide concentrations and whether water quality guidelines adequately protect all coral life stages.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m330p127.pdf

Nice research and I'll say I've never used it. Thought about it but haven't. I've only used Seachem dip and From my young tank that's almost a year old and only 27 corals I have. I have really good luck with it. I've lost some coral in the beginning due too not knowing what I was doing. But as bugs, worms, (bad sails, crabs) or anything that will kill coral. It's taken care of. I also unplug it and place them in a frag take for up too two weeks or more might help. But I agree with not using Bayer. But that's me. If it's not broke don't fix it. Nice read and great job on your research.

 

[Sangheili]

My anecdotal note:

My main system is a display and frag tank connected. It has been up and running 18+ months and in that 18 months I have done one water change (15%... I freaked out thinking I had some heavy metals when it was really AEFW - this was roughly a year ago). I don't do W/C as it runs the Triton Method. I had 100+ acro frags in the connected frag tank and dipped every one of them weekly for 5-6 weeks in Bayer. I rinsed but not that diligently really. The Bayer wiped out the AEFW and I haven't seen any in a year in this system. Now if any amount of Bayer got into the tank it has not been diluted by W/C for roughly 1 year, yet this tank is absolutely thriving. I have insane colors, nothing ever dies, and growth is out of the world.

I also run a commercial operation and I would say I have used about 8-10 Bayer bottles by this point. It works and so long as you don't drink it everything will be fine. With that said I do prefer CoralRX since it is clear - but it is much costlier (and the commercial version is a pain in the a-- since it is so thick).

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Nice read and great job on your research.

Thanks, that was about 4-5 hours lol..
I'll probably do the 2nd compound in a few days.
I did notice a trend though, and an oddity. The Bayer products that state 'Other Ingredients:' have hydrogen cyanide as an interaction of a fire, fire is oxidation, and as many compounds in the tank actively oxidize, until someone explains or I can follow that tangent, I have no idea if cyanide would be released.

Also it says 'Rainproof 1 hour after application' would probably warrant some thought. As someone said it's meant to be used dry, but if it's mixed with water, and it's water soluble, then it coats things because it wants to separate? And if it still sticks to things, a 10 minute dip is 16.6% complete towards the process of bonding?

It's a lot of speculation..

 

[happyhourhero]

Why are you so hellbent on getting people to stop using Bayer? You RTN some corals > blame Bayer and want everyone else who successfully uses it to stop?

 

[chefjpaul]

I don't mean to sound crass and uncaring of our environment, but we use so little, and the dilution factor is sooooo large that it is totally non detectable at the treatment plant, even before being dumped into the ocean.

I'd be more concerned about large applications (farmers) who don't use the product correctly and it ends up in run off from their fields.

I thought from earlier posts that we were supposed to cook it into Crack cocaine and smoke it......must be assuming thing again.

Fyi - farmers use massive amounts of nitrogen that runs off. Started after WWII.
There is a documentary called soil. Great watch.