Uncle!!! I'll concede the low eco-tox issue.

But, in regards to calling d'limonene a "solution" for fire ants, I'll reference part of the summary statement from the previously posted (linked) efficacy trials.

"There were no significant differences between treatments. In contrast to the 30 dat assessment of all ant nests in treatment plots (Table 2), by day 47 no statistical differences occurred for the total number of mounds per plot (untreated check - 3.67; Diatech III (PBO) - 2.0; Diatec V - 1.6; EcoEXEMPT IC 3.67; Erath Orange Oil - 3.67) and only 3 native ant nests were detected, all in one Erath Orange Oil treatment plot."

The "untreated checks", in this case, were mounds that were drenched only with water. So, it would appear that after 47 days, there were as many surviving mounds in the "eco-safe" treatment plots as were in the water-only drench treatment plot.

Seems like the water-only drench would be a cheaper and even more environmentally friendly treatment method, considering the long-term results.

We've known for years that it is easy to prompt a fire ant colony into moving its mound-site by effecting a significant disturbance, or by using an insecticide treatment that only kills a portion of the worker-ants. The real challenge is finding an environmentally compatible treatment for eradicating the entire fire ant colony - permanently.

I feel that this growing risk vs reward debate (re: the other related thread) needs to allow room for the VERY real (not theoretical) health risks to humans, pets and wildlife (associated with multiple fire ant stings) as we insinuate distinctions between treatment options that are safe, safer or safest.

Kelly Duffie
Cypress, TX