More About the Attack on the Plantlets

2014-06-09 21.42.23

The culprit – caught in the act.

When I took my first look, it was only dusk; I did not even need the torch. It was then that I spied the animal in plot 2. Note, less that 2 cm long.

A search of plot 1 netted another two blighters:

2014-06-09 21.58.00

Again, less than 2 cm long.

About 11.30 pm, I went out again with the torch and found another five in plot 2, and about ten in plot 1. Of those in plot 1, 3 were ‘juveniles’ – quite big but not full size.


I have been pondering again how they got where they got – inside the pop bottles. As I said in the comments yesterday, I have used the bottles in the last two years with great success. Readers might recall that I spent a lot of time last year going outside with a torch around 2 am and collecting and squashing every slug that I could find. I am pretty sure that I successfully removed and killed the vast majority. Or let’s say that the numbers of slugs that I found got less and less until I was finding none, night after night.

I have been thinking about how the invasion might have happened.

Readers will remember that I bought four bags of compost, some months ago, from a man who came round the street with a lorry-load. It looked fine at the time. In fact, I found that it was not really sufficiently rotted to be used on its own, but it is OK if mixed with soil or seeding compost. But, here is the important thing, after that compost had sat in its bags for some three months, when I started to use it, I found a lot of very healthy-looking worms inside. Now ….. If there are a lot of worms, why should there not also be lots of baby slugs or slugs’ eggs? The reason that it might be significant is that, when I planted out, I dug the plant-hole a little too wide, and then used the compost to fill in around the plants. I was anxious to give the plantlets a good start. Just my luck if it turns out that I was also adding sluglets and then imprisoning them within the bottles!

I’m going to go outside again soon and see what I can find. I might update this post thereafter. It is rather difficult to see black slugs against a black soil background. But, do you know what?, the funny thing is that the baby slugs are shiny! They glisten.


An awful lot of the plants have been affected. I don’t know if they have any chance. I have six in reserve, but I don’t want to put them out until I have done my best to get rid of the pests. I have spent part of today removing the compost from around the plants, and it might help, though I suspect that they are knackered. Also, I have in mind to check out the three bags of compost that I have left. I would like to see if my suspicions are correct. For example, I could put quite a lot of that compost in a reasonably big pot and put a couple of plantlets in to see what happens. It would soon become evident if the sluglets were in that compost. Regardless of that, I can easily empty the bags onto some paving and let it dry out dehydrate totally. It might be interesting to see if sluglets try to escape.

I am going to start germinating more plants, even though it is very late. I suppose that it is as good a reason as any to experiment to see what can be done.


At least slug-hunting makes a change from tobacco control charlatan hunting!

Remind me NEVER to buy compost from street traders ever again.



UPDATE 2.10 am.

Have just been out again. Another dozen discovered. A mix of juveniles and babies. They have all died ‘prematurely’ because I killed them. They must have been smoking.

I might have another go before bed. I started my vino drinking late tonight – about 11 pm – so lots of liveliness in the old body as yet. Started smoking at 19, stopped for two weeks just to prove that I had the willpower about the age 55; stopped for a year at about the age 35 to be able to buy my first car; stopped for three months about the age 47, but, sadly, my mother died and not smoking seemed to be trivial in comparison, and I was with my dad and my sister all the time, and both of them smoked. For heavens sake! Could you imagine me telling them, “Excuse me, Dad and J, would you mind not smoking  when I’m in YOUR house. You see, I am worried that I might die prematurely, because the Doll Doctors Study has proven beyond doubt that there is no other reason for premature death than smoking. So I would be grateful if you two bastards, father and sister, would stop trying to poison me to death.” But intelligence prevailed – I said, “Gimme a cig, Dad”. Thus was ‘unity in grief’ achieved.

I am 75 this year. I have no illnesses that I am aware of, apart from the ‘non-communicable disease’ of an iffy back. That is, a tendency to get backache (and I mean really, really painful backache) if I bend over for too long, as when searching for slugs. Clearly, there is only one possible reason for me having this ‘non-communicable disease’, which must be ‘environmental tobacco smoke’. If the heart muscle can be affected by inhaling tobacco smoke, second-hand, then so can the back muscles. Have any studies ever been conducted on the possibility of other causes? I think not, therefore it must be true that the Medical Establishment know for sure that there can be no other cause.

According to the Medical Establishment, there is no such thing as ‘old age’. The human body does not deteriorate unless some external cause is acting upon it. But, for that to be true, it must also be true – reasonably – that babies need an external cause to get bigger and become ‘children’, who then become ‘youths’, who then become ‘young adults’, who then become ‘adults’. I suppose that the ‘external cause’ would be food and drink, but that will not do.

Blah, blah …. What a load of rubbish! The human body does not need an external cause to deteriorate and die. Death is built-in. It is simply a case of which major organ packs in first.

Is it not rather weird that excommunicated anti-smoking zealots still still accept the lack of research into premature death other than that produced by smoking and SHS? On the other hand, has anyone ever produced a study which might show that the VAST majority of deaths are normal and natural and need no special explanation? Some very young children get cancers. They are very few in number, but they occur. Shit happens. In the McTear Case, McTear died at the age 53 from lung cancer. The Medical Establishment tried to bluff the Judge by ‘appeals to authority’ (the WHO), but the judge was having none of it. He said, “You did not show me the evidence”. Why did the Medical Establishment not show the evidence? The reason is that 53 year olds rarely get lung cancer, regardless of whether they smoke or not. Therefore, there must have been some other factor at work. Thus, the younger a person dies from LC, or Heart Attack, or COPD, the MORE likely it is that some other factor than smoking is responsible. Also, the older a person is when he dies from LC, etc, the MORE likely it is that general, old-age decrepitude is the reason.


Epidemiology is not ‘science’. It never has been. It is, at best, statistics, which is the same thing as mathematics. Mathematics is a strict discipline of calculation. It is counting. Science explores, mathematics does not. Mathematics is certain, science is not.


Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are supposed to be clever. They cannot themselves know and understand everything, therefore they need advice. If I was buying a house, the last person that I would rely upon would be the Estate Agent, therefore, the last person that Cameron etc should rely upon must be the Medical Establishment. They have counted and calculated, but could not prove anything. Thus, their claims MUST be mere conjectures and hypotheses, no matter how much counting they may do.

I could go a lot further with this argument, but I am getting tired (aka drunk). The extension of the argument is that ASH ET AL have conducted surveys which depend upon the ignorance created by the counting, rather than FACTS.


8 Responses to “More About the Attack on the Plantlets”

  1. Samuel Handley Says:

    If you can find some diatomaceous earth to spread over your plants that should help in killing the slugs and rupturing their eggs.

  2. Rose Says:

    Junican, I looked in the Nemaslug FAQ and the slugs stop feeding as soon as they are infected and your garden should be clear within a week.

    You might think it expensive but in an experiment it’s kept the lettuces clear since April.

    The garden I am building next door has toddlers and I don’t want to run the risk of leaving pretty blue slug pellets around next year.

    The slug carnage occurs underground.

    If you want to be extra sure and stop the slugs invading from next door you can get them delivered every six weeks.

    No slugs invading from my nextdoor neighbour on the other side though, it turns out that she has already paid for this.

    “For the best results apply Nemaslug® Slug Killer regularly every 6 weeks and save money too! Our unique planned programmes are designed to make your life easier as we automatically top you up with fresh packs of Nemaslug® every 6 weeks to keep your garden slug free”

    But tobacco plants get so big so fast you might only need one pack to see them safely through.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Ummmm, slugs look like they would be good bait for fishing.

    • Junican Says:

      Maybe, but you have to catch the buggers first. Worms are far easier to acquire. Wriggle, wriggle.

  4. Rose Says:

    Just took look to see what the farmers were using, but it seems they’ve been doing much the same as us.

    But not for much longer it seems.

    Spud growers to be hit hard by slug pellet ban
    Tuesday 28 January 2014

    “Potato growers are set to be the hardest hit by the European Union ban on methiocarb slug pellets, which account for about half the slug control market for spuds.

    Sales of these poison-bait pellets, such as Draza forte and Decoy Wetex, are set to be banned by the end of August this year due to the risk to grain-eating farm birds.”

    Slugs could cost UK farming £100m, report says
    Tuesday 11 March 2014

    “Slug damage could cost the UK agricultural industry more than £100m a year according to a recent report, prompting plans for more research into controlling the pest.

    Work carried out by AHDB shows that a lack of slug control products could have devastating effects on the industry and work is needed to help mitigate the problem.

    The second most commonly used molluscicide, methiocarb, is set to be banned and with increasing pressure on metaldehyde, fears over the lack of control are growing.”
    http: //

    Multi-agency scheme to save metaldehyde slug pellets

    Friday 21 February 2014
    “Growers have been told that the fate of metaldehyde is in their hands as a new pilot scheme was launched to reduce the levels of the slug killer in drinking water sources.

    The most popular active ingredient for slug control is highly soluble and very costly for water companies to remove from extracted water to ensure it meets drinking standards.

    It has been under serious threat since the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force in 2000, which is designed to protect and improve all water bodies including surface and groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters.”

    • Junican Says:

      I seem to remember talking about this before. By the time the EU have finished meddling and listening to special interest groups, like bird lovers, the insecticides etc will be so weak that they will not kill the intended target until it is too late. Reminds me of that Baroness Young who drowned the Somerset Levels to save a few mice (which will all have drowned in the floods).
      Meddle, meddle, meddle, and at the mercy of any fanatic who has the money.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: