|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #27
Jimbo, the guy having success with it. How was he applying it.....in the bait or on the bait as a dip/glug. Do you know ? All very interesting info
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #27
Fair enough Jimbo cheers 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
I did both
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #29
were/are you guys including into your boiled baits or applying it afterwards ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
I started to use it a good few years ago now in my own bait, i didn't notice any difference in catch rates so dropped it from the bait and again didn't notice any difference so no longer use it.
As others have said i certainly dont think its the holy grail @post 27 james i very much doubt this is the only thing that is making your well known angler catch so well compared to others
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #27
In my personal use of dmpt, I I would conclude the following: it can give you an edge on others, but I wouldn't say it triples your catch rate.
I used it a lot in the past and I'm not missing it.
So, this makes me conclude it isn't the holy grale.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #25
Ocelot it was a genuine question about a product I was interested in. I did a bit of research and couldn’t find any evidence to say it was harmful in fact quite the opposite. I didn’t really want the whole debate Just a bit of direction on use to get the best out of the product. I really didn’t want to go into the whole backstory of why I wanted to use it but if you must.
I know a well known angler on a lake I fish is using it. To the point he literally begged me not to tell the other lads which I wouldn’t anyway he got a bit upset about it if truth be told. I hadn’t fished the water before and a lad told me to keep a eye out on him as he has had more in 1 session then people have had all year. After a chat he said people had been going around to his peg when recasting baiting up etc using the same rigs and baits on the same spots with no results. I know it’s DMPT he is using as I was in the right place at the right time and got lucky. He had more fish in a winter than good anglers had in 5 years. Hence why I wanted to give it a go.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #23
It will cost them a couple of thousand of euro to perform necessary test and most likely 30k for the registration of this product.
And you will be doing it for all other competitors too if they are not willing to share the costs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #22
I'm not surprised you want it deleted. What was the reason you wanted to use it over what's currently available and not banned?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #23
Also, DMPT occurs in nature, mainly in algae and creatures that consume this including plankton and crustaceans etc that form part of a carp's natural diet.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #22
Please don't ask for thread to be deleted, surely much better to discuss sensibly even if people are not in agreement?
As for EU approval of feed additives such as this one - just because it is banned does not mean it is harmful, it might just mean that nobody has been willing to pay for the extensive testing required to prove it meets EU standards. I don't know exactly how much it costs to produce a study on a feed additive to EU standards but it is certainly expensive; I would think hundreds of thousands of pounds at a minimum? If anyone has a better handle on the true figure then please share.
So, if a company wants to bring an additive such as DMPT to the market then they would have to pay to get it approved. It would have to sell a lot of units to justify the cost. If they don't own a patent on the product, or other IP protection, there is no barrier to other companies releasing the same product for cheaper after it is approved thus undercutting the price of the original supplier. (A bit like Cyprinus and Aqua bivvies)
If anyone thinks this is far fetched I can mention an environmentally friendly weed killer, recommended by various organic growing associations that is not currently legal in the EU for weedkilling purposes but is available to buy as a compost accelerator.
|
|
|
|
|
Might as well delete the thread it’s pointless arguments about the EU.
|
|
| | | BRB | | Posts: 1389 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #17
Scientific experts frequently disagree mate, look at the experts on the SAGE committee. Two of the members disagreed today on the timing of the lockdown. The governing body have a duty to look at all the evidence both positive and negative and make a decision. In this case they banned it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #18
The 'EU' bans things based on several tests. Rulings are not only based on the toxicity for humans and animals but also for the environment.
Final verdict is a well balanced decision with the information available from the tests.
When a certain chemical is very important for company's revenue and they are not happy with the outcome. They can always request a more indepth study to prove EU wrongs. When nobody is objecting things can be banne' quite easily'.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #16
Your missing a trick mate. Get a list of all the chemicals and products banned or regulated in the last 40 years for human/animal consumption and get ordering and do what you want. Might rinse a lake. See if you can find a country or a few unknown talking heads with an unknown agenda that reckon it's fine and pile it in. Ave it, get in, yeah right yeah....
|
|
Bait