Engaging the private sector in the promotion of ...
[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
[pic] | |
Engaging the private sector in the registration and promotion of diatomaceous earths in Tanzania
[pic]
Report of a meeting on diatomaceous earths between the private sector and other stakeholders held at the Plant Health Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on 22nd March 2005
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Background to the Meeting 2
Official Opening Speech 3
Presentations 5
Record of Questions and Discussions from the Meeting 16
Closing Speech 21
Appendices 22
Appendix 1: Participants contact details 22
Appendix 2: Programme 23
Appendix 3: Completed draft registration application form on Protect-It 24
Appendix 4: Protect-It rough pricing calculations for Tanzania 27
Acronyms and Abbreviations
|AEZ |Agro-Ecological Zones |
|ASD |Actellic Super Dust |
|DE |Diatomaceous Earth |
|DFID |Department for International Development, UK |
|LGB |Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus, dumuzi |
|MAFS |Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Tanzania |
|OP |Organo Phosphate |
|TPRI |Tropical Pesticides Research Institute, Tanzania |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Acknowledgements
This document is a product of projects R8179 and R8460 funded by the Crop Post-Harvest Research Programme of the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.
This report should be cited as:
STATHERS, T., RIWA, W., MVUMI, B. and MORRIS, M. (2005) Engaging the Private Sector in the Registration and Promotion of Diatomaceous Earths in Tanzania: Report of a meeting on diatomaceous earths between the private sector and other stakeholders held at the Plant Health Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on 22nd March 2005. 28 pp.
Executive Summary
A significant body of research into the efficacy of diatomaceous earths (DEs) as grain protectants for small-scale farmers has been carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, much of it funded by DFID’s CPHP. Most recently, following three further years of research trials in Tanzania, a meeting was held by the researchers, under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), with the private sector agricultural input companies to better familiarise them with diatomaceous earths and to inform them of the nature and extent of interest being shown in the product by farmers and other stakeholders. According to the regulations of Tanzania, the distribution of DEs for use as a storage protectant in Tanzania is dependent on a credible private sector company ‘championing’ the registration process. This is a report of that meeting.
Nine individuals representing the following seven agricultural input companies, Twiga Chemical Ind (T) Ltd, Bytrade (T) Ltd, Anicrop, Mukpar (T) Ltd, Suba Agro Ltd, SAPA Chemical Ltd, and IVS attended the meeting together with researchers from the project team and the food security officer from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. The registrar and researchers from the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute were unable to attend the meeting.
A series of presentations were made introducing DEs, leading onto the results of earlier research trials with them in Zimbabwe, followed by the findings from three years worth of storage research trials in Tanzania using a wide range of different grain protectants including DEs (both imported commercial ones and locally available ones), farmers trials with and assessment of the efficacy of DEs were also presented. Each presentation was followed by open discussion and questions and answers.
The trial results showed clearly that DEs were highly effective grain protectants of maize and beans when stored on-farm in different agro-ecological zones of Tanzania for periods of 10 months. These results stimulated active discussion on issues such as: whether DEs affected seed germination; how raw deposits of DEs could be processed into grain protectants; use of DEs on organic products; safety aspects of DEs; why registration of agro-inputs takes so long.
A presentation on registration by the Tanzania registration authority (the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute) was programmed but as they didn’t manage to attend a plenary discussion around registration issues of pesticides occurred instead. A copy of the completed draft registration application form for the DE Protect-It as well as a sheet on rough pricing calculations of importing Protect-It into Tanzania were handed out by the project team to assist interested stakeholders in making informed decisions.
The meeting ended with the Chairman of Crop Life, Tanzania, on behalf of his colleagues pointing out the uniqueness of the occasion with respect to the openness of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the successful research team in sharing their findings and seeking to openly involve and engage the private sector in taking the work forward. Individual participants indicated their respective interest in the use of DEs and the possibility of taking up the registration process of DEs in Tanzania, so that farmers could purchase these safe and effective products.
Background to the meeting
The aim of the meeting was to provide Tanzanian private sector agricultural input companies with the most recent findings on the efficacy of diatomaceous earths (DEs) as grain protectants in Tanzania, and to inform them of the nature and extent of interest being shown in the product by farmers and other stakeholders.
Diatomaceous earths are soft whitish powders formed from the fossils of tiny planktons which lived in oceans, rivers and lakes. After processing, these powders can be admixed with grain to kill insect pests. These inert dusts have been trialled extensively in Zimbabwe, and for the last three years in Tanzania, where the devastating larger grain borer (LGB, Prostephanus truncatus, dumuzi) is widespread.
In this meeting, the research team, comprising Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) and international research personnel, presented the findings of the three year research project on “Small-Scale Farmer Utilisation of Diatomaceous Earths during Storage”.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, which implemented these trials through its Plant Health Services and Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI) in collaboration with the UK’s Natural Resource Institute, University of Zimbabwe and Department of Agricultural Research and Extension of Zimbabwe, was satisfied that the research was compelling and that the findings have huge potential impact on farmer’ livelihoods.
The next step in the process of making these safe grain protectants available to Tanzanian farmers is the official registration of the product with the TPRI. This process requires the identification of a suitable private sector registrant to step forward and ‘champion’ the launch of DEs in Tanzania and probably in other countries in the region as well.
The main objectives of the meeting were:
• to provide and share information on DEs
• to provide an opportunity for the private sector to step forward and ‘champion’ the registration of DEs
A list of the meeting participants and the programme are given in the Appendices.
Official Opening Speech
The meeting was officially opened by Mr. Y. Nyakunga, Assistant Director, Plant Health Services.
Invited guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen
On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and on my own behalf, I would like to welcome you to this meeting, and to thank you for honouring our invitation despite your busy schedules.
Dear participants, being stakeholders in Agriculture and Post harvest agriculture in particular, you will agree with me that farmers throughout Tanzania still suffer serious post-harvest losses to their stored produce due to insect damage despite interventions from you and from the government.
Post harvest losses for the staple foods, particularly cereals and pulses, are estimated to exceed 35% after six months of storage, more so where the notorious beetle DUMUZI or the Larger Grain Borer is present. This beetle can cause up to 100% loss if not controlled. For this matter household food security remains precarious for large numbers of people in the rural areas while food production levels show little or no increase.
Our National Vision 2025 goal is to:
➢ ensure basic food security;
➢ improve income levels, and;
➢ increase export earnings;
and we are therefore honour bound to find means and ways to address the underlying problems.
There are some tools at our disposal for achieving these. The Agricultural Sector Development Programme is a tool for implementing the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy, and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper which provides the strategic framework. All these tools recognize the pivotal role of different stakeholders in making agriculture meet the food needs of the country and for accelerating economic growth. The tools were developed in a participatory manner involving representation of all if not the majority of stakeholders in agriculture and other related sectors and hence provide a conducive environment for all stakeholders to make their contribution. I sincerely appreciate your efforts so far on the post harvest front particularly in making available the variety of grain protectants found on the market. I thank you for the co-operation we have shared to make this possible. Your attendance at this meeting is another testimony of continued commitment and fostering of partnership in serving those in need and the nation as a whole.
I feel that today’s meeting is an excellent opportunity for us to consolidate and extend the co operation we have enjoyed to-date.
Furthermore the public-private partnership spirit symbolizes the required sustainability in adding value to many of the contributions we have already made to improve agriculture and the national food security as a whole.
Dear participants, to control the persistent storage insect pest problem, some small-scale farmers are known to protect their grain by admixing ash or plant materials, or funds allowing, purchase synthetic pesticides. Others store their grain untreated. However, the effectiveness of both ash and plant materials is highly variable and use of synthetic pesticides has not been without problems: we all have seen or heard of unscrupulous traders selling fake or expired products; farmers unable to access pesticides while many are not following the recommendations for their use. Non-treatment is of course not an option for longer term storage as the grain will be heavily damaged.
Unsurprisingly, farmers have been demanding options for improved grain protection. In response to these demands, researchers have explored and found that diatomaceous earths (DEs) can provide an alternative. We are pleased to have you today to deliberate on this break-through.
Dear participants, research is a necessary but expensive undertaking, and the DE research process has not been an exception. As much as I commend the researchers for their dedication throughout the 3 years of research, the outputs which are a subject of our meeting today would not have been realized had it not been for the financial support from the Department for International Development (DFID) of U.K and technical support from the Natural Resources Institute of U.K. and the University of Zimbabwe.
Again, DEs will only make a contribution to improving the livelihoods of the poor when the necessary conditions for their availability and use are in place, in particular, it needs to be registered and the necessary logistics for its distribution worked out. The groundwork for this has been completed and there is compelling data at our disposal. It is a noble task of this meeting to challenge the private sector to step forward and champion the registration.
Invited Guests, our researchers and representatives from the registration authority are here to elaborate as much as possible the science and registration process to enable you to make informed decisions. I hope you will make use of them and when you input into those gaps which are not the domain of the researchers, we will all appreciate that we have been discussing not only opportunities for meeting the demands of the many farmers who have been involved in these trials but also an important business opportunity. I wish you fruitful deliberations.
Thank you again for coming and for your attention.
Presentations
A copy of the presentations entitled ‘DE Private Sector meeting presentation slides’, can be downloaded from , but is also accessible on the same webpage from which you downloaded this report.
Record of Questions and Discussions
This section of the report presents a selection of the many points that were discussed during the meeting, and highlights some of what the project team felt were the key issues raised.
The initial presentation introducing diatomaceous earths covered the following main points:
• what diatomaceous earths (DEs) are;
• the history behind their use;
• their mode of action;
• alternative commercial uses of DEs as opposed to pest management uses;
• current use of diatomaceous earths in grain protection;
• the fact that DEs are already registered for use as grain protectants in North America, in Australia, and in many countries in Europe, the Middle and Far East, and South America[1];
• in the UK registration is not required as the authorities differentiate between physical modes of action (like heat treatments) and chemical modes of action (like organophosphates, pyrethroids etc);
• safety issues surrounding DEs.
The following questions (Q) were asked and details of the answers (A) given are captured below.
Q: What if DEs are used on moist grain or if DEs get moist?
A: Grain should not be stored moist as it is then likely to rot while in storage, so DEs should not be used on moist grain. DEs are known to be less effective at higher humidity and higher application rates are needed to get the same level of control as that achieved at lower humidity conditions. But they can still be used successfully in climates such as that of the UK. If DEs are added to water you get a slurry that can be used to paint or spray a layer of DE on the surfaces of storage structures, DE slurries are used in empty warehouses in Australia to kill off any insects hiding in the crevices before a new crop is brought in for storage. With the slurry the water dries leaving a dusty layer on the surface of the structure the dust can be picked up by insects walking across it and they then dehydrate and die. DEs can be dried in an oven or sun dried if they get moist.
Q: Do DEs affect germination?
A: After the first storage seasons trials in Tanzania, we took samples of the grain that been stored using different treatments and conducted an in-vitro germination test. DEs had no significant affect on germination which was still above 90% after 10 months storage.
Q: How do you process raw DE deposits into a form that can be admixed with grain?
A: With the raw DE samples we worked with, we pounded the soft diatomite rock into a powder using a typical Tanzanian pestle and mortar (kinu) and then sieved the powder through an extremely fine sieve (aperture size 100µm), and then oven dried it for 3 hours. We then admixed it with grain. Safety masks need to be worn as it is a very dusty process.
Q: What about issues of livestock safety and does it have any nutritional effects?
A: We have focused on the use of DEs as grain protectants, and were just mentioning their other uses, such as the fact they are added to some livestock feeds, we don’t have expertise in this area and are just reporting that it happens and infact if you type DE into the web most of the information found is about sale of livestock feeds containing DEs. I have read that they help control intestinal parasites, and have been traditionally used by livestock keepers in Africa. DEs are mainly composed of amorphous silica, so the nutritional effects are likely to be linked to that, humans excrete silica from foods such as rice naturally. DEs are added to many processed foods including baby foods, which suggests there are no negative nutritional effects.
Q: What is the chemical formula of DE?
A: DE is mainly composed of amorphous silica, SiO2, and other minerals including aluminium, iron oxide, magnesium, sodium and lime.
Q: How do commercial DE products compare to local DE products?
A: The findings that you are about to see will let you judge how well local DEs compare to commercial DE products. For example, grain protected by the Tanzanian DE from Kagera for 10 months storage had less than 6% damaged grains while grain protected with the commercial DEs (Protect-It or Dryacide) had less than 1.5% damage, and grain protected by Actellic Super Dusts had less than 3.5% damage. Commercial DEs will have been highly processed and often enhanced in order to increase their efficacy or reduce the rate at which they need to be applied, so it is surprising there isn’t a greater difference.
Q: What depth do you find local DE deposits at?
A: It will depend on the deposit and the geological history of the area. DEs can be found on the surface of the ground in some places.
Q: Could DEs be used on products that could still be called organic?
A: Yes. In the UK, the Soil Association has approved the use of DEs on produce that has been organically produced and will be labelled as organic at point of sale.
The findings of the initial field trials that had been conducted in Zimbabwe from 1998 – 2000 were presented, and more questions followed as detailed below.
Q: Why haven’t you tested DEs against Prostephanus truncatus? The Zimbabwe trials are not relevant to us in Tanzania if you haven’t tested against Prostephanus truncatus as that is our major storage pest.
A: This presentation was about the initial work that was done in Zimbabwe from 1998-2000, fortunately Prostephanus truncatus is not present in Zimbabwe hence why it wasn’t mentioned in this presentation. However a lot of laboratory studies have shown that DEs are effective against Prostephanus truncatus, and you are about to see the results of three years of field trials with DEs in Tanzania where Prostephanus truncatus is endemic. We have not been ignoring it.
Q: Has the DE been registered now in Zimbabwe?
A: Unfortunately it is taking a very long time to register Protect-It in Zimbabwe, this has nothing to do with the data or the product, but is to do with high staff turnovers within the registration authority and staff changes within EcoMark Ltd the registrant, these issues are linked to the economic and political situation in Zimbabwe over the last few years. The registration authority recently asked for a more simplified version of the dossier so things are still happening albeit slowly.
Q: What is the composition of the Actellic Super Dust you use in Zimbabwe?
A: It is 1.6% pirimiphos methyl and 0.3% permethrin.
Comment: In Tanzania we use twice the rate of Actellic Super Dust compared to other countries in the region.
Comment: By now you should have told us DEs are already registered in Zimbabwe.
Comment: Twiga have research meetings through Crop Life and so hear about developments in Zimbabwe.
Comment: International trade needs to raise awareness about recognising DE treated grain in case it is thought of as adulteration/ contamination, this is important for cross border trade.
Comment: Zimbabwe will have to be really careful that it doesn’t get Prostephanus truncatus arriving, especially now that it is importing grain, previously grain was only being exported from Zimbabwe so the risk wasn’t so great.
Q: What about the inhalation concerns?
A: The inhalation concerns of DE are related to the % of crystalline silica in the sample, which can be carcinogenic. With any grain protectant, precautions need to be taken by covering one’s nose and mouth to prevent dust entry just as one should do for wood and cement dust. The crystalline silica analysis of the Kagera DE sample which was recently done showed it has less than 0.2% cristabolite (the very dangerous form of crystalline silica) but 7.6% quartz (which is another form of crystalline silica). There do not appear to be any agreed or internationally accepted safe limits for crystalline silica content of DE used as a grain protectant. However, it is usually assumed that DEs containing more than 1% of crystalline silica should not be used grain protectants. The final decisions have to rest with the health authorities and Ministries of Agriculture in each country.
Q: How does the cost of DE compare to Actellic Super dust?
A: When we did calculations together with EcoMark Ltd in Zimbabwe prior to their application to register Protect-It there, including the import costs of Protect-It the estimate suggested it would be about the same price as Actellic Super dust.
The findings of the three years researcher managed trials and the farmer managed trials in Tanzania and Zimbabwe were presented and were followed by further questions, detailed below:
Q: What if you used different varieties of maize, would DEs be as effective?
A: During these trials we have bought local untreated maize grain from the farmers in the trial villages at the start of each storage season (July/Aug), this grain has been a mixture of all the varieties they grow. We then mixed all the grain together to try and make it as homogenous as possible, before separating it into batches for treatment with the different protectants. The trials were done in five different sites in Tanzania and therefore the varieties grown and conditions were different in all of them.
Comment: The key thing is to treat immediately after harvest before insects have infested the crop to be stored.
Q: Some varieties get very heavily damaged on farm, e.g. Pannar, so it wouldn’t matter what you use as a protectant because the grain is already heavily damaged.
A: The main aim of this work has been to increase farmers’ food security through finding acceptable ways of reducing post-harvest losses. The majority of these small-scale farmers in Tanzania use their own saved seed, they do not purchase hybrids or improved seed regularly if at all. Even in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania farmers are not buying new grain each season, 97% of the maize grown is farmers’ own seed. Some of the farmers, who grow ‘hybrid’, track the seed back from years ago, e.g. some varieties referred to as ‘hibridi miaka 22’, hybrid seed bought 22 years ago. There is a project in the southern highlands led by Dr Lyimo of ARI Uyole, that has been doing a lot of research on what maize farmers are currently doing, and it is also evaluating different maize varieties with farmers and assessing both the pre- and post-harvest characteristics of these varieties.
Comment: In the trials presented, Protect-It was tested at lots of different application rates, a standard recommended rate for each crop can be given, it doesn’t have to be one rate per product, people should be able to process and use the information to make their own decisions.
Unfortunately the invited participants from TPRI, one of whom has been part of the research team for the last two years did not manage to attend the meeting. However a lively discussion about the process of registration of DEs in Tanzania and registration procedures more generally still occurred, following the handing out of a completed registration application form on Protect-It that the project team had prepared to help the process for any potential registrants (see Appendix 3 for details). Information on probable import costs was also presented to all participants to facilitate their strategic planning. The following questions and issues were then raised:
Q: Why is the registration process so complex here in Tanzania? In Sweden they just look at the data then decide whether to register the product or not. Do we have dictators here? Everyone seems to want to redo the trials and reinvent the wheel. If USA has registered Protect-It why do we have to do more than these field trials? It takes 3 months to register a pharmaceutical product but 4 years to register an agro-input! The problem is bureaucracy.
Comment: DEs are there ready to replace organophosphates (OPs)
Comment: We have been lobbying the government for some years now trying to make the registration process more straightforward. Registration should take 1 year only because this is not the first time the product has been tested. We might be lucky as this is already happening with some products. Even the President of Tanzania has said he wants it to be quicker.
Comment: Many of these things go together with reviewing the laws, many of which are out of date and need revising.
Comment: Also at a recent regional post-harvest forum in Kampala the same concern was raised, why do we sit on these wonderful technologies? The need for regional harmonisation of policies was discussed so that there is no need to repeat the same work for all products if the product has been well tested and is registered just over the border under similar agro-ecological conditions. There is a lot of pressure now mounting for registration of DEs in the region, e.g. in Zambia and Mozambique where the Pesticide Registrar has recently contacted us as well as Tanzanian and Zimbabwe.
Comment: Looking at these figures (in the handout) very quickly, it looks like Protect-It might cost three times the price of Actellic Super Dust, but we need to do further costing and comparison calculations.
Comment: In Zimbabwe calculations done by the private sector company which is registering Protect-It found that it would come out at about the same as ASD. Zimbabwe doesn’t have a port and we had assumed transport costs there would be higher than in Tanzania, making it potentially even more attractive here.
Q: If DE is registered and present in Saudi Arabia, are there also other areas which are closer to Tanzania that we could import DE from more cheaply?
A: Yes but beware DEs differ, they are natural products and there are many different species of diatoms that might form a particular deposit and determine how effective the DE is as an insecticide. One can’t just say all DEs will be effective, you need to apply at this rate etc etc. You would need to test each DE product from a different source to see if that product was effective and safe and at what application rates did it need to be applied etc. We do need to be looking for alternatives to the current OP products, some of which (e.g. Actellic dust in the UK) are not being re-registered. When one thinks about synthetic versus natural products; one needs to remember that natural products do vary, and regular testing is needed to ensure quality control.
Comment: You researchers have done your job, it is now up to the private sector. Bytrade is definitely interested in this!
Comment: Please keep us (the research team) updated on your progress.
Comment: The research team are also involved in a new project called “Post-Harvest Innovation: Enhancing performance at the interface of supply and utilisation” and have won funds for a year’s work to examine both the interface between service providers and their clients, and the wider interactions between the multiple players who contribute to agricultural systems in Tanzania.
The meeting objectives were then revisited and key points summarised
Objectives:
• to provide & share information on DEs
• to provide an opportunity for the Private Sector to step forward and ‘champion’ the registration of DEs
Summary of key points:
Reasons behind choosing DEs include:
• storage insects pests are a major constraint at household level,
• problems with current protectants
– health and safety issues (trends in recommendations for organophosphate use: downwards)
– perceptions and ‘loss of confidence’
• to widen choice (limited existing choices)
• global trends in pesticide use impacting developing countries
Opportunities include:
• to develop public-private partnerships (PPPs)
• to respond to considerable demand from farmers for alternative grain protectants
– 75% of small holder farmers in Zimbabwe use synthetic storage insecticides
– a considerable proportion of farmers in Tanzania use or have used synthetic storage insecticides
• to enhance corporate social responsibility
• to benefit from on-going research by the DE team: the Post-Harvest Innovation project
Key DE selling points include:
• DEs can be used in organic production
• DEs have other industrial uses
• DEs have low mammalian toxicity
• There are local deposits of DEs and opportunities for public/private partnerships
• DEs have no effect on germination
• DEs may not be a new technology - they are possibly being used traditionally in areas near the deposits
• DEs can be applied in same way as synthetic insecticides & precautionary requirements are similar
• DEs do not expire prior to use (i.e. no shelf life worries)
• DEs are more persistent than some other grain protectants
• DE efficacy has been demonstrated against a wide range of storage insect pests including, Prostephanus truncatus, and in different agro-ecological zones (AEZs)
Following this further discussion occurred:
Comment: There may also be opportunities for recycling DEs, in that when grain is treated with DEs the DE can then be sieved off when the grain is to be used and following sun-drying could very likely be used again on the next seasons grain. Although we haven’t done any formal experiments on this we have been aware of this potential opportunity which could benefit those users who might not be able to afford to buy new grain protectant each season. The commercial company might not be so keen on this potential opportunity though.
Comment: In the laboratory during analysis of the samples, I actually sieved of the DE from the samples and have used it to treat other grain, which is still protected.
Q: What about expiry of DEs and their shelf life?
A: The DEs themselves were formed many millions of years ago and their mode of action is physical they don’t expire. If they get damp they can be dried out again. If they were used in constant contact with very oily grains they might eventually get saturated and not be as effective. They don’t have a shelf life problem.
Q: What about DE quality?
A: Quality control of DEs would have to be managed just as strictly as quality control of synthetic pesticides should be in order to prevent loss of confidence by consumers, this would require regular testing and analysis of commercial DE products.
Comment: This year we are hoping to keep the trials running in Mlali for more than the usual 40 week storage season, so that we can learn how long DEs can protect grain for beyond a 10 month storage period.
Closing Speech
The closing speech was delivered by Dr Diwani, Chairman of Crop Life Tanzania and Manager of Bytrade (T) Ltd.
I wish to thank the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security for organising this meeting, which to me is probably historical, the first time a meeting of this nature whereby an organisation has done research on a product and is then looking for an organisation to register it. This shows cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the private sector and we thank you for this and thank the researchers for having done this research. The objectives of the research have been well met, the results are excellent and exciting and fit well with the organic farming movement, this work will make a contribution to this country.
I like Ughali and I stopped eating it after looking at a study of what chemicals were being used to protect stored maize in Kenya and this DE is good news. I wish these other two organophosphate-based products could be cancelled. We need to be very careful about what is put on the food we eat.
This work is a very positive contribution.
Chemical companies are now working very closely on natural products, its all the same business to us, we like alternatives. I have been looking into a lot of research on biological products and natural products, the search for alternatives is a global trend it cannot be stopped.
I am glad that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has done this work, and that they have included us in it. There are several here who have travelled from Arusha and elsewhere to attend this meeting.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Participants’ contact details
|Jina kamili/ |Cheo/ Position |Organisation |Anwani ya posta/ |Namba ya simu/ Tel no. |Namba ya fax |Anwani ya barua pepe/ Email address |
|Full name | | |Postal address | | | |
|Cosmos MATANDA |Sales Rep |Twiga Chemical Ind (T) Ltd |PO Box 20786, DSM |286 0030 |286 2825 |twigamail@ |
| | | | |0748 458322 | | |
|Salum DIWANI |Manager |Bytrade (T) Ltd |PO Box 3491, DSM |0744 292037 |2152086 |sdiwani@ |
|Anselm KESSY |Director |Anicrop |PO Box 1622, ARS |0744 309 069 |027 2505653 |anicrop@ |
|Pratap KRISHNA |General Manager |Mukpar (T) Ltd |PO Box 38597, DSM |0744 298 472 |022 2184162 | |
| | | | | | |mtproj.intldivn@bol.co.tz |
|P. DUTTA GUPTA |General Manager |Twiga Chemical Ind (T) Ltd |PO Box 20786, DSM |2860030 |2862825 |tcit@ |
|Mahenge MUJA |Managing Director |Suba Agro Ltd |PO Box 14702, ARS |0744 278408 |027 254 8541 |Satec2000tz@ |
|Philoteus MBAWALA |Technical Rep |SAPA Chemical Ltd |PO Box 885, DSM |286 3514 |2865136 |sapa@ |
| | | | |0748 279789 | | |
|Edgar MAHUNDI |Veterinary Surgeon |SAPA Chemical Ltd |PO Box 885, DSM |0744 458565 |2865136 |sapa@ |
|Brighton MVUMI |Lecturer/ |University of Zimbabwe |Soil Science & Agric. Eng., Box MP |+263 4 303211 |+263 4 307304 |mvumibm@agric.uz.ac.zw |
| |Researcher | |167 Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe | | | |
|Mike MORRIS |Institutional |Natural Resources Institute |Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK |+44 1634 883129 |+44 1634 883377 |M.J.Morris@gre.ac.uk |
| |Specialist | | | | | |
|Tanya STATHERS |Pest Management |Natural Resources Institute |Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK |0744 459409 | |tstathers@ |
|Dr Rajab RUTENGWE |FS Officer |MAFS |Box 9192, DSM |0745 411726 | |rutengwe@ |
|Lucas MALLYA |Secretary |IVS |Box 19626, DSM |0744 850525 | |_Integ_@ |
|Rachel MOSHA |SAFO |MAFS-PHS |Box 50065, DSM |0744 295146 | |rachelmosha@ |
|William RIWA | |MAFS-PHS |Box 9071, DSM |0744 307813 |022 2865 641 |wilriwa052@ |
Appendix 2: Programme
|Time |Activity | |
|0900 |Registration |W. Riwa |
|0930 |Self introductions |W. Riwa |
|0945 |Official opening – Assistant Director of Plant Health Services |Y. B. Nyakunga |
|1000 |Objectives of Meeting & Introduction to the Programme |W. Riwa |
|1010 |Introduction to Diatomaceous Earths |T. Stathers |
|1035 |Initial grain protectant trials in Zimbabwe |B. Mvumi |
|1050 |Tea/Coffee break (30 mins) | |
|1120 |Grain protectant trials in Tanzania & Zimbabwe |T. Stathers/W. Riwa/ B. Mvumi |
|1230 |DE registration aspects in Tanzania & Discussions |Plenary discussion as TPRI |
| | |were absent |
|1300 |Summary |M. Morris |
|1330 |Closure of Meeting |S. Diwani |
|1340 |Lunch break | |
Appendix 3: Completed draft registration application form on Protect-It
Information for registration of Protect-It through TPRI – Tanzania
1. Applicants details
a. Name:
b. Address:
c. Address in Tanzania if different from above:
d. Type of organisation (Importer, Manufacturer, Distributor etc)
e. Name and address of manufacturer/ importer of the original product
f. Name and address of firm’s consultants
2. Details of the Product
a. Common name(s) of the Pesticide: DIATOMACEOUS EARTH AND SILICA GEL
b. Trade name (s) or code number of the Pesticide: PROTECT-IT®
c. Chemical name (s) of the Pesticide (ai): AMORPHOUS SILICON DIOXIDE (DIATOMACEOUS EARTH (90%), SILICA GEL (10%))
d. Molecular formula of the ai(s):
i. DIATOMACEOUS EARTH CONTAINS THE FOSSILIZED TESTS OF DIATOMS, A FAMILY OF GREEN ALGAE THAT PRODUCE SILICEOUS TESTS OR SHELLS. THESE TESTS ARE GLASSY, THAT IS NON-CRYSTALLINE, AND ARE TYPICALLY COMPOSED OF A SOLID SOLUTION OF SILICON, ALUMINIUM, IRON, CALCIUM, SODIUM AND TRACE AMOUNTS OF SEVERAL MINERALS IN AN OXYGEN MATRIX. SILICON IS THE PRIMARY COMPONENT, TYPICALLY MEASURED AS SILICON DIOXIDE (SIO2, FORMULA WEIGHT 60 A.U.), COMPRISING 75-90% OF THE SOLID SOLUTION.
ii. SILICA GEL IS 99% SIO2
e. Molecular weight: SiO2, FORMULA WEIGHT 60 A.U.
f. Structural formula of the ai(s):
g. Main active ingredient(s) content by weight/ volume: DIATOMACEOUS EARTH (90%) AND SILICA GEL (10%), ALSO PRESENT ARE METAL OXIDES IN SOLID SOLUTION WITH SIO2 SUCH AS AL2O3, FE2O3, CAO, NA2O.
h. List of adjuvant name(s) content by weight/ volume: N/A
i. Type of pesticide (e.g. weedkiller): INSECTICIDE
j. Type of formulation (e.g. wettable powder): DUST
k. Physical properties
i. Solubility of the pesticide in aqueous and/or organic solvents (metric units): NEGLIGIBLE
ii. Emulsifiability/ suspensibility (or emulsion stability): N/A
iii. Physical description: (e.g. colourless crystals): A TAN TO GRAYISH WHITE POWDER WITH A FAINT DUSTY ODOUR
iv. Wettability: N/A
v. Stability/ compatibility (e.g. hydrolysed by alkali): VERY STABLE
vi. Spraying/ dusting properties: NON VOLATILE
vii. Moisture content:
viii. Melting point: ABOUT 1200(C
ix. Setting point: N/A
x. Boiling point: N/A
xi. Vapour pressure: N/A
xii. Accelerated storage: VERY STABLE
xiii. Flammability, etc: NON-FLAMMABLE
xiv. Active ingredient by weight/ volume: DIATOMACEOUS EARTH (90%) AND SILICA GEL (10%), ALSO PRESENT ARE METAL OXIDES IN SOLID SOLUTION WITH SIO2 SUCH AS AL2O3, FE2O3, CAO, NA2O.
xv. Acidity/ Alkalinity: PH 4 – 6
l. Tolerance limits for the characteristics in (k) above (where applicable):
m. Estimated quantities of the product marketed during the last two years and the current year: MARKETING NOT YET STARTED
3. Give a summary of the Product’s Toxicology and other side effects:
a. Classification (in accordance with the WHO guidelines):
b. Dermal and oral mammalian toxicity (LD50):
DERMAL: RABBIT – GREATER THAN 5000 MG/KG; MODERATE TO LOW
ORAL: RAT – 3160 MG/KG; LD50 >3150 MG/KG
c. Two weeks cumulative mammalian toxicity of the Product: NO EFFECT
d. Mean acute dermal and oral toxicity of rat and one other animal species of the product: SEE (b) ABOVE
e. Allergenity of the Pesticide: NO ALLERGENICITY OBSERVED
f. Special side effects on mammal, other organisms and the environment: NOT OBSERVED
g. A summary of possible hazards to people applying and handling the pesticide as recommended: EFFECTS OF ACUTE EXPOSURE TO THE PESTICIDE INCLUDE MECHANICAL IRRITANTS, IRRITATION AND SORENESS TO THROAT AND NOSE. IN EXTREME EXPOSURES SOME CONGESTION MAY OCCUR.
h. A summary of possible hazards to people and other animal species using treated products: NOT OBSERVED/ KNOWN
i. Publications of the products toxicology
j. Residue tolerances data in substances treated with the pesticide where possible, internationally accepted levels should be given: EXEMPT FROM RESIDUE TOLERANCES IN THE USA AND CANADA
4. Safety:
a. Recommended precautions in handling the pesticide product
i. AVOID CONTACT WITH EYES, AS IT CAN CAUSE MODERATE EYE IRRITATION. IF IN EYES FLUSH WITH PLENTY OF WATER. CALL A PHYSICIAN IF IRRITATION PERSISTS.
ii. USE ADEQUATE VENTILATION AND AVOID BREATHING DUST. WEAR A SUITABLE DUST MASK WHEN USING THIS PRODUCT DURING PROLONGED EXPOSURE
iii. STORE IN ORIGINAL CONTAINER IN A DRY PLACE. KEEP BAG SEALED.
iv. PESTICIDE DISPOSAL: WRAP CONTAINER AND PUT IN TRASH COLLECTION
b. Safety interval between treatment of animal or crop and harvest/ consumption in both temperate and tropical climates: N/A
c. Recommended first aid in case of over exposure or poisoning: REMOVE VICTIM TO FRESH AIR. ADMINISTER WATER, CONTACT A PHYSICIAN IF IRRITATION PERSISTS.
d. Recommended treatment after exposure: TREATMENT BY DOCTOR, SAME AS FIRST AID, NO ANTIDOTE NECESSARY.
5. Analytical methods (supply reprints, photocopies or authenticated texts, quantitative determination of the pure ai in technical material formulations and in contaminated biological materials: ANALYSIS OF SiO2 GRAUMETRICALLY OR SPECTROPHOTOMETRICALLY
6. Containers:
a. Type and forms of containers used for storage of the pesticide product: 5 AND 10 KG
b. Type of packaging for distribution: PAPER BAG OR PLASTIC BAG IN BOX
7. Biological Data
a. Recommended field of applications (mention target pest and crop/animal): INSECTICIDE FOR USE AGAINST STORED PRODUCT INSECTS
b. Suggested methods of application: ADMIX WITH DRYED GRAIN AT CONCENTRATIONS OF 0.1%W/W TO 0.25%W/W FOR MAIZE, 0.25%W/W FOR SORGHUM, 0.1%W/W FOR BEANS.
c. Reference of recommended use by authorized bodies in Tanzania
d. Reference of recommended use by authorized bodies outside Tanzania
e. Reference where the product has been used successfully / unsuccessfully showing the dosage applied (metric units): PRODUCT IS REGISTERED FOR USE AS A STORED GRAIN PROTECTANT IN USA AND PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
f. Persistence of the pesticide product in the environment (soil), water, plant and animal products): DIATOMACEOUS EARTH IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING MATERIAL. SILICA GEL IS A SYNTHETIC VERSION OF DIATOMACEOUS EARTH, BOTH PRODUCTS ARE WIDELY USED IN FOOD AND FEED AND ARE EXEMPT FROM RESIDUE TOLERANCE LIMITS WORLDWIDE, INCLUDING THE USA, SO THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF SUBACUTE OR CHRONIC TOXICITY DATA, METABOLIC DATA, ENVIRONMENTAL FATE, OR EFFECTS IN SOIL, WATER AND FOODSTUFFS.
g. References of pest resistance to the pesticide product: NOT OBSERVED
8. The Label
a. Append six copies of specimen or an exact of the label as it appears on the container or the label itself: ATTACHED
b. Enclose specimens of any extra information/ pamphlets which are always contained in the packages for distribution to the users of the product:
9. Chemical and physical stability of the product in the recommended unopened containers under given storage conditions (mention shelf-life and expiry date): MATERIAL IS STABLE, HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION CANNOT OCCUR. IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HYDROFLUORIC ACID. HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS OF DECOMPOSITION CAN INCLUDE CARBON DIOXIDE AND CARBON MONOXIDE.
10. Premises (Attach sketch):
Physical address:
Manufacturing room:
Storage of: Technical materials
Adjuvants
Finished products
Standards
Antidotes
Air and other conditioners:
Manufacturing equipment:
Disposal of wastes:
11. Name and Qualifications of the technical staff in charge:
12. Certificate:
I/ we certify that the information given above is correct to the best of my/ our knowledge using the information and scientific data available to me/ us/
Signature of authorized officer(s)
Title:
Date:
For
I/ We hereby enclose a cheque for
Being payment of the application fee
Date: Signature:
Appendix 4: Protect-It® rough pricing calculations for Tanzania:
Protect-It® is packaged in 10 kg kraft bags. There are 55 bags (550 kg) per pallet. A 20 ft. container can hold 10 pallets (5500 kg) and a 40 ft. container can hold 40 pallets (11,000 kg).
The following prices are in US Funds, FOB Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
20 ft container - $3.00 per kg. (minimum purchase) = $ 16,500
40 ft container - $2.90 per kg. = $31,900
Note: a 20 ft container holds 5500kg of Protect-It® which would be sufficient protectant to treat:
• 220,000 kg of grain or 2,200 tonnes of grain at an application rate of 0.25% w/w = $7.5/ tonne or $0.75 / 100 kg
or
• 5,550,000 kg of grain or 5,550 tonnes of grain at an application rate of 0.1% w/w = $3/ tonne or $0.30/ 100 kg
We have obtained estimates of the following freight etc. charges from SDV TRANSAMI Tanzania for 20 and 40 ft containers respectively
-Basic freight Toronto- Dar $ 2200.00/20' $3500.00/40'
-B.a.f $80.00/20' $160.00/40'
-Emergency risk surcharge $50.00/20' $100.00/40'
-B/l fee $25.00/20’ $25.00/40’
-TCFB fee $35.00/20' $87.50/40’
-For insurance our standard rate is $0.38 per $100.00 value.
-This rate is valid for a period of 30 days.
Prices for Protect-It® are F.O.B. Port, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Delivery to the carrier at such location will constitute delivery to Distributor within the meaning of this Agreement, and risk of loss will pass to Distributor upon delivery to the carrier.
• All prices indicated in U.S. Dollars.
• Prices are net of applicable taxes.
• Payment terms – immediate payment of 50% of invoice upon presentation (delivered to Port of Toronto) with the balance due within 30 days from date of Product leaving the Port of Toronto.
• All sales will be final.
Changes in Pricing – Hedley will be entitled to revise the above Distributor prices on 30 days notice to Distributor, by providing a revised version of this Schedule C to Distributor.
Security Interest – Hedley reserves and retains a security interest in Product and the proceeds thereof until payment therefor in full has been made by Distributor.
Minimum Initial Annual Purchase – One 20 foot container of Protect-It®.
-----------------------
[1]Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, USA and UK
-----------------------
“Why is registration so complex in Tanzania?”
You researchers have done your job, it is now up to the private sector.
“Do DEs affect seed germination?”
“Could DEs be used on products that could still be called organic?”
Si = O
O=
“What about the inhalation concerns?”
“It takes 3 months to register a pharmaceutical product but 4 years to register an agro-input!”
“It takes 3 months to register a pharmaceutical product but 4 years to register an agro-input!”
“Why do we sit on these wonderful technologies?”
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- careers in the field of business
- private universities in the us
- private schools in the bahamas
- colleges in the state of illinois
- community colleges in the state of florida
- careers in the field of forensics
- found in the walls of hollow organs
- in the arms of the angels
- in the arms of the angels youtube
- the church in the book of acts
- muscles in the back of the neck
- private banks in the us