Interesting debate. IMHO:
I take it that those of you arguing against the use of sevin have never had a real "MITE PROBLEM." Mites can very, very quickly and easily kill your birds. You had better hope that Sevin works for you if you do have a mite infestation as I will also point out that in some parts of the the Southern U.S. where I reside, there are bird mites that are completely resistant to sevin dust and probably just about anything else you want to mention as a remedy. What are you going to use if you get those mites? Destroy your flock? Move? Not own chickens? hmmmm.
The problem with the website referring to the horrors and dangers of sevin dust is that the laboratory models employed by toxicologists when assessing risks from chemicals and physical agents are generally of two types:
(1) the THRESHOLD Model= this model assumes that a pesticide must reach a certain level before it causes harm. The other, used in carcinogens and the sevin dust (horror) website is (2) the LINEAR Model, which assumes that risk rises in direct proportion to dose. Neither of these models are actually very good at predicting risks to humans. This brings me to the subject of HORMESIS.
The theory of hormesis- a process whereby organisms exposed to low levels of toxins become resistant to tougher challenges. The aphorism, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or as the 16th Century Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus wrote,"all things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose makes something not poison"expresses the theory on the common level.
Hormesis challenges both the Threshold and Linear Models for assessing risks of toxins. Hormesis far outperforms both models in predicting the effect of various doses for most classes of chemicals and physical agents, especially at the low doses we are discussing here in using to dust chickens for mites. Despite the success of using the Hormesis model by such renown neurologists as Drs Mark Mattson & Edward Calabrese, the toxicologists & the regulatory agencies that govern these things continue to shun hormesis sticking to their more ineffective predictors of risk that many of you believe so highly-- the Threshold and Linear models. This is because it is conveniently a lot easier to recommend eliminating a "toxin" from the environment or minimizing exposure to it, than to recommend exposure to lower, beneficial doses.
I might also point out that sevin dust breaks down readily into harmless compounds when exposed to sunlight. I agree with the poster that Sevin is highly toxic to honey bees. Sevin is also devastating to other beneficial insects. Since I put out & employ in my garden ladybugs, lacewings, praying mantis & use a fly eating wasp & nematode in my chicken run & have two bat houses up for flying pests, I limit my use of pesticides generally (prefering natural biocontrols).
Let me say in the same breath that I DO NOT limit pesticide use because I believe that Sevin dust & such is harmful to me or my chickens in the low doses we are discussing here for mite control NOR because I believe those alarmist websites some of you like to post NOR because traces were found in an egg such and such days later. My argument is that low doses, like we are discussing here, may actually be beneficial rather than harmful to people, the chickens (just not honeybees, other beneficial insects). The theory of Similia similibus curantur- ("hair of the dog that bit you") may hold some credence.
By arguing that you shouldn't eat the eggs if you use sevin, etc., quite frankly, makes you come across as ridiculous. The studies cited do not take into account HORMESIS. If my chickens are suffering with mites or near death, I will use sevin or such other substances in low doses to kill the mites as necessary. Please consider,we are not talking about a radioactive substance or chemotherapy here. Perhaps, a little dose of reality is advised. Best Regards.
