【24h】

READERS RIGHT TO REPLY...

机译:读者有回复的权利...

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

On behalf of the Crop Protection Association I would like to add to the debate on microbial inoculants and their alleged control of turf diseases. If you read the adverts on page 27 and page 29 of the July 2000 issue of International Turfgrass Bulletin, you would believe that these bacterial and mycorrhizal fungi products control turf diseases. Whether this is true or not, one fact remains absolute. If a product is biologically active against any weed, pest or disease and can be used to exert control over them, then it is defined by European and national legislation as a pesticide (the only exceptions being beneficial predatory insects and nematodes used for the control of insect "pests").
机译:我谨代表作物保护协会,增加关于微生物接种剂及其据称对草坪疾病的控制的辩论。如果您阅读2000年7月发行的《国际草皮草公报》第27页和第29页的广告,您会相信这些细菌和菌根真菌产品可控制草皮疾病。无论这是否成立,一个事实仍然是绝对的。如果产品对任何杂草,害虫或疾病具有生物活性,并可用于对其进行控制,则欧洲和国家法规将其定义为农药(唯一的例外是用于控制杂草,害虫或线虫的有益掠食性昆虫和线虫)。昆虫“小虫”)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号