DOCSLIB.ORG

JOURNAL of ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH (Formerly Southwesternjournal of Anthropology) VOLUME50 * NUMBER3 * FALL * 1994

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JOURNAL of ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH (Formerly Southwesternjournal of Anthropology) VOLUME50 * NUMBER3 * FALL * 1994 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH (Formerly SouthwesternJournal of Anthropology) VOLUME50 * NUMBER3 * FALL * 1994 FORAGINGRETURNS OF !KUNGADULTS AND CHILDREN:WHY DIDN'T !KUNG CHILDRENFORAGE? NicholasBlurton Jones Departmentsof Education,Anthropology, and Psychiatry, University of California, LosAngeles, CA 90024 KristenHawkes Departmentof Anthropology,University of Utah,Salt Lake City, UT 84112 PatriciaDraper Departmentof HumanDevelopment, Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, PA 16802 Childrenof thehunting and gathering !Kung San seldomforaged, especially during the longdry season. In contrast,children of Hadza foragers in Tanzaniaoften forage, in both wet and dryseasons. Because we haveargued that the economicdependence of !Kung childrenhas importantconsequences, we musttry to understandwhy they did notforage. Experimentaldata on foragingby !Kungadults and childrenshow that children would havehad to walkfar from dryseason camps to acquiremuch food. Interviewssuggest that !Kungchildren risk getting lost if theywander unsupervised into the bush. Thus, foragingwithout adult companywas a poor optionfor !Kungchildren. Foraging with adultsmight have been a betterstrategy. We calculate the benefitsto a !Kungmother if heroldest child accompanied her to thenut groves.Because of thehigh processing costs, a child'swork time was mostprofitably spent at homecracking nuts. MANYSCHOOLS OF anthropology attach importance to the subsistence infra- structureof a population.While the subsistenceecology of the !Kungof north- western Botswanastood for two decadesas one of the best described(Lee 1968, 1969, 1979) andas a landmarkin quantitativeanthropology, it may still be possible,even thoughthe circumstancesof !Kunglives havechanged greatly, (Journalof Anthropological Research, vol. 50, 1994) 217 This content downloaded from 155.97.85.93 on Mon, 11 May 2015 20:24:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 218 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICALRESEARCH to supplementthis earlierdescriptive material. We present some figureson the rates at which!Kung women acquired food in 1988 in habitatsand plant communitiesdescribed by Lee in 1965 (Lee 1979). The datawere gathered with a specificquestion in mind.We hadargued that for the !Kung,the work involvedin feedingchildren constrained women's lives and indirectlylimited theirfertility (Blurton Jones and Sibly 1978; see alsoHarpending 1994; Blurton Jones 1994). But we had seen childrenforage successfully among the Hadza hunter-gatherersof the woodedsavanna of northernTanzania (Blurton Jones, Hawkes,and O'Connell1989). So it seemed essentialto findout why !Kung childrenwere not persuadedor permittedto forage and thus relieve their mothersof at least a partof theirburden. Somegeneral patterns in the cross-culturalvariation in childwork have been described,leading to the widelyheld view that while childrenin agricultural societies do muchuseful work, childrenin huntingand gatheringsocieties do little or none (Barry,Child, and Bacon 1959). Thus we tend to take it for grantedthat children of huntersand gatherers do no work,gratefully receiving the sustenance,care, and attentionoften lavishedon them by adults (see, e.g., Briggs1970; Konner 1976). But this orthodoxywas strikinglychallenged by the Hadza.This exception,even if only a single case, remindsus that explanationby categorizationcan never be satisfactory.What is it abouthunter- gathererlife that leaves childrenin some populationsdoing no work?What is it aboutother populations that results in children foraging? Why do somehunter- gathererchildren forage more andothers less? In fieldworkon the Hadza,we have approachedthe questionof children's workand its relationshipto fertility,child care, andthe relationsbetween the sexes from the perspectiveof behavioralecology. This perspective(though far removedfrom Western culture's commonsense concepts of causes of be- havior)has been highlyproductive in researchon hunter-gathererand other "traditional"societies (Smithand Winterhalder1992). From this perspective we expect parentsto allocateresources between care of offspringand the generationof more offspringso as to maximizethe numberof the parents' descendantsin subsequentgenerations (see, e.g., Lessels 1991; Smithand Fretwell1974). Thus we sharewith earlier perspectives the expectationthat if childrenwork, they are easier to feed and keep alive, and parentswill divert more of the availableresources away from child care andtoward bearing more children.Furthermore, we expectthat this potential advantage to the reproductive success of parentswould mean that wheneverchildren could feed themselves safely,they wouldbe encouragedto do so. Thuswhen they do not workand are activelydiscouraged from trying, we must expect there to be some practical reason.Seen fromthe view of the child,in a contextwhere even the leisurely !Kungare described as showing"some mild undernutrition" (Truswell and Hansen 1976:171) and where the fieldworkernever sees a childrefuse an offer of food, it would not be surprisingif childrenhelped themselves to any food that was availablewithout too much effort or danger. On these groundsagain, we should as well ask, Why don't they forage?as Why do they forage? This content downloaded from 155.97.85.93 on Mon, 11 May 2015 20:24:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORAGINGRETURNS OF !KUNGADULTS AND CHILDREN 219 Manyauthors have claimedthat where childrencan do usefulwork, fertility is higher,and where they cannot,it is lower (e.g., Caldwell1982). Blurton Joneset al. (1992)and Blurton Jones, Hawkes,and Draper (1994) claimed that several reporteddifferences in the reproductionand behaviorof !Kungand Hadzaadults can be predictedfrom the differencein apparentcosts of diverting resourcesfrom feeding children toward bearing more children. If we are claim- ing to explainso muchfrom children's foraging opportunities, we are obliged to show why Hadzachildren forage so frequentlyand why !Kungchildren forageso seldom.Until we do this, our particularbehavioral ecological edifice for explainingdifferences between the Hadzaand the !Kungis builton sand. In this paperwe reportdata gathered in mid dry season 1988 to examine the benefitsthat might arise from !Kung children foraging, first, unaccompanied by adults,and, second, in the companyof adults.We aimed at a simpledisproof of the hypothesisthat the differencebetween the time!Kung and Hadza children spendforaging can be explainedby the costs andbenefits of foragingin their respectivehabitats. If we foundthat !Kungchildren could have obtainedmuch foodnear camp, suffered minimal risks fromthe quest for food, or couldhave increasedtheir food intake by accompanyingmother on foragingtrips, yet still did not forage, our hypothesiswould have falleninto immediatetrouble. We will show that it survivesthese initialtests. Lee (1979:71)proposes a completelydifferent view of !Kungchildren's foraging,which we discussin some detailin BlurtonJones,Hawkes, and Draper (1994). He suggests that childrenforage when the producer:dependentratio is low and that most of the time, in most camps, childrenrepresent an "un- utilizedreserve of laborpower." BACKGROUND:THE !KUNGAND THE HADZA The !Kung,living in northwesternBotswana, have been the subjects of manycultural, archaeological, biological, and demographicstudies (e.g., Lee 1979; Shostak1981; Yellen1977; Howell1979). The Hadzaof northernTan- zaniahave been describedby Obst (1912); Woodburn(e.g., 1968a, 1968b, 1988); O'Connell,Hawkes, and BlurtonJones (1988, 1991, 1992); Hawkes, O'Connell,and BlurtonJones (1989, 1991);BlurtonJones, Hawkes, and O'Con- nell (1989);and Blurton Jones et al. (1992). The !Kungand Hadza live 2,500 km apartand are culturallydistinct. Claimsof links between Hadzaneand Khoisanlanguages by Bleek (1931) andothers are not uniformlyaccepted by modernlinguists and are the subjectof ongoinginvestigation (Sands, Maddie- son, andLadefoged 1993); Hadzane remains one of the few languageswhose affinitiesare unknown.Nevertheless, there are manysimilarities between the two populations.People in both populationslive, or until recently lived, in small,mobile bands composed of aboutfifty people, most relatedby kinship or marriage.Neither group kept domesticstock or raisedcrops; men hunted with bow andpoison arrows, and women gathered, with occasional help from men. Manyof the same plantand animal genera or species were exploitedby This content downloaded from 155.97.85.93 on Mon, 11 May 2015 20:24:07 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICALRESEARCH eachpopulation. Both groups lived in dry savannah and made frequent moves, eitherin searchof foodand water or to resolvedisputes. Both groups live at a verylow population density (!Kung, 0.042-0.08/km2; Hadza, 0.24-0.3/km2 [BlurtonJones et al. 1992])with usually a substantialdistance between neigh- boringcamps. In both,infants are carriedby mothermost of the dayand suckledfrequently. Diarrhea is a commoncause of deathof youngchildren in bothsocieties, and many adults and children contract malaria. Children interact withchildren of a widerange of ages, havingrather few exactage mates in a camp.In both cases, the samespecies of predatorsare quite abundant in the bush,making foraging by childrena potentiallyrisky enterprise. The Hadza and!Kung (while they were living as mobileforagers) each depended on stand- ing surfacewater in the rainyseason, and both faced reduced numbers of wateringplaces in the dryseason. Whilesimilar in the aboverespects, important differences also
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, A253.07 ,02/10/2020
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION February 10, 2020 Dave G. Bolin, Ph.D. Vice President – Regulatory Affairs Atticus, LLC 5000 CentreGreen Way, Suite 100 Cary, NC 27513 Subject: Label Amendment – Revising to Update the Source Label and IRRD requirements Product Name: A253.07 EPA Registration Number: 91234-118 Application Date: August 18, 2019 Decision Number: 555236 Dear Dr. Bolin: The amended label referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended, is acceptable. This approval does not affect any conditions that were previously imposed on this registration. You continue to be subject to existing conditions on your registration and any deadlines connected with them. A stamped copy of your labeling is enclosed for your records. This labeling supersedes all previously accepted labeling. You must submit one copy of the final printed labeling before you release the product for shipment with the new labeling. In accordance with 40 CFR 152.130(c), you may distribute or sell this product under the previously approved labeling for 18 months from the date of this letter. After 18 months, you may only distribute or sell this product if it bears this new revised labeling or subsequently approved labeling. “To distribute or sell” is defined under FIFRA section 2(gg) and its implementing regulation at 40 CFR 152.3. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, A253.01,05/24/2021
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 91234-207 5/24/21 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: Term of Issuance: X Registration Reregistration Unconditional (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: A253.01 Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): Katy DeGroot Atticus, LLC Agent for Atticus, LLC 5000 CentreGreen Way, Suite 100 c/o Pyxis Regulatory Consulting Inc. Cary, NC 27513 4110 136th St. Ct. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Registration Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the above EPA registration number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is unconditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) provided that you: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Label
    SUPPLEMENTAL LABEL PYRAFLUFEN-ETHYL GROUP 14 HERBICIDE EPA Reg. No. 71711-25 Crops: Bearing and Nonbearing - Pome Fruit Group; Pomegranate; Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit; Stone Fruit Group; Tree Nut Group; Tropical and Subtropical, Small Fruit, Edible Peel Subgroup This supplemental label expires September 30, 2022 and must not be used or distributed after this date. DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. This labeling and the EPA approved container label must be in the possession of the user at the time of application. Read the label affixed to the container for VENUE® Herbicide before applying. Use of VENUE Herbicide according to this labeling is subject to the use precautions and limitations imposed by the label affixed to the container for VENUE Herbicide. New use directions appear on this supplemental label that may be different from those that appear on the container label. CROP USE DIRECTIONS BEARING AND NONBEARING Pome Fruit Group (Crop Group 11-10) apple; azarole; crabapple; loquat; mayhaw; medlar; pear; pear, Asian; quince; quince, Chinese; quince, Japanese; tejocote; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these Pomegranate Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup - Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Crop Group 13-07F) amur river grape; gooseberry; grape; kiwifruit, hardy; Maypop; schisandra berry; cultivars varieties, and/or hybrids of these Stone Fruit Group (Crop Group 12-12) apricot; apricot, Japanese; capulin; cherry, black; cherry,
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Label
    SUPPLEMENTAL LABEL PYRAFLUFEN-ETHYL GROUP 14 HERBICIDE EPA Reg. No. 71711-25 Crops: Bearing and Nonbearing - Pome Fruit Group; Pomegranate; Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit; Stone Fruit Group; Tree Nut Group; Tropical and Subtropical, Small Fruit, Edible Peel Subgroup This supplemental label expires September 30, 2022 and must not be used or distributed after this date. DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. This labeling and the EPA approved container label must be in the possession of the user at the time of application. Read the label affixed to the container for VENUE® Herbicide before applying. Use of VENUE Herbicide according to this labeling is subject to the use precautions and limitations imposed by the label affixed to the container for VENUE Herbicide. New use directions appear on this supplemental label that may be different from those that appear on the container label. CROP USE DIRECTIONS BEARING AND NONBEARING Pome Fruit Group (Crop Group 11-10) apple; azarole; crabapple; loquat; mayhaw; medlar; pear; pear, Asian; quince; quince, Chinese; quince, Japanese; tejocote; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these Pomegranate Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup - Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Crop Group 13-07F) amur river grape; gooseberry; grape; kiwifruit, hardy; Maypop; schisandra berry; cultivars varieties, and/or hybrids of these Stone Fruit Group (Crop Group 12-12) apricot; apricot, Japanese; capulin; cherry, black; cherry,
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Cropland Conservation Practices on Fish and Wildlife Habitat
    Effects of Cropland Conservation Practices on Fish and Wildlife Habitat Stephen J. Brady, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Central National Technology Support Center PO Box 6567 Fort Worth, Texas 76115 Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT A literature review of commonly applied cropland soil and water conservation practices and their impact on fish and wildlife habitat is presented. Agriculture has had the most extensive effect on wildlife habitat of any human-induced factor in the United States. Any practice that improves runoff water quality and/or reduces sediment delivery will have beneficial effects to aquatic ecosystems. Many soil and water conservation practices have additional benefits to wildlife when applied in a habitat-friendly manner, but may have little or no benefit when applied otherwise. Wildlife and agriculture can coexist if land is managed to conserve sufficient biological integrity in the form of plant communities and habitat elements compatible with the surrounding landscape. variety of soil and water conservation practices operators recognize economic, environmental, and are widely applied to croplands for the primary societal benefits stemming from establishment of CRP A purposes of controlling soil erosion, manag- conservation practices, with greater than 75 percent of ing runoff water, conserving soil moisture, improving farm operators responding to their survey identifying soil quality, protecting crops, managing nutrients wildlife as an important product of their conservation and pests, or otherwise avoiding soil degradation. activities. This paper reviews literature documenting While each conservation practice has specific pri- effects of cropland soil and water conservation practic- mary purposes for application, many also affect other es on fish and wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 163/Wednesday
    50622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations CROP GROUP 14–12: TREE NUT GROUP—Continued Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) Butternut (Juglans cinerea L.) Cajou nut (Anacardium giganteum Hance ex Engl.) Candlenut (Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd.) Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) Chestnut (Castanea crenata Siebold & Zucc.; C. dentata (Marshall) Borkh.; C. mollissima Blume; C. sativa Mill.) Chinquapin (Castaneapumila (L.) Mill.) Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) Coquito nut (Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.) Dika nut (Irvingia gabonensis (Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.) Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.) Guiana chestnut (Pachira aquatica Aubl.) Hazelnut (Filbert) (Corylus americana Marshall; C. avellana L.; C. californica (A. DC.) Rose; C. chinensis Franch.) Heartnut (Juglans ailantifolia Carrie`re var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder) Hickory nut (Carya cathayensis Sarg.; C. glabra (Mill.) Sweet; C. laciniosa (F. Michx.) W. P. C. Barton; C. myristiciformis (F. Michx.) Elliott; C. ovata (Mill.) K. Koch; C. tomentosa (Lam.) Nutt.) Japanese horse-chestnut (Aesculus turbinate Blume) Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche; M. tetraphylla L.A.S. Johnson) Mongongo nut (Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.) Monkey-pot (Lecythis pisonis Cambess.) Monkey puzzle nut (Araucaria araucana (Molina) K. Koch) Okari nut (Terminalia kaernbachii Warb.) Pachira nut (Pachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny) Peach palm nut (Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes) Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch) Pequi (Caryocar brasiliense Cambess.; C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers; C. nuciferum L.) Pili nut (Canarium ovatum Engl.; C. vulgare Leenh.) Pine nut (Pinus edulis Engelm.; P. koraiensis Siebold & Zucc.; P. sibirica Du Tour; P. pumila (Pall.) Regel; P. gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don; P. monophylla Torr. & Fre´m.; P.
    [Show full text]
  • Edible Seeds
    List of edible seeds This list of edible seeds includes seeds that are directly 1 Cereals foodstuffs, rather than yielding derived products. See also: Category:Cereals True cereals are the seeds of certain species of grass. Quinoa, a pseudocereal Maize A variety of species can provide edible seeds. Of the six major plant parts, seeds are the dominant source of human calories and protein.[1] The other five major plant parts are roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits. Most ed- ible seeds are angiosperms, but a few are gymnosperms. The most important global seed food source, by weight, is cereals, followed by legumes, and nuts.[2] The list is divided into the following categories: • Cereals (or grains) are grass-like crops that are har- vested for their dry seeds. These seeds are often ground to make flour. Cereals provide almost half of all calories consumed in the world.[3] Botanically, true cereals are members of the Poaceae, the true grass family. A mixture of rices, including brown, white, red indica and wild rice (Zizania species) • Pseudocereals are cereal crops that are not Maize, wheat, and rice account for about half of the grasses. calories consumed by people every year.[3] Grains can be ground into flour for bread, cake, noodles, and other • Legumes including beans and other protein-rich food products. They can also be boiled or steamed, ei- soft seeds. ther whole or ground, and eaten as is. Many cereals are present or past staple foods, providing a large fraction of the calories in the places that they are eaten.
    [Show full text]
  • Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC P
    100-1098_Aframe_20160607_348-1_100-1_.pdf SUPPLEMENTAL LABELING Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC P. 0. Box 18300 Greensboro, North Carolina 27 419-8300 SCP 1098C-S1 0216 I GROUP ••• FUNGICIDE I Aframe 1M Broad spectrum fungicide for control of plant diseases This supplemental label expires on February 1, 2019 and must not be used or distributed after this date. Active Ingredient: Azoxystrobin: methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl}-3-methoxyacrylate* .................. .... .. .... .. .... ... .. .. ... ... ..... ..... 22.9% Other Ingredients: 77 .1 % Total: 100.0% Contains 2.08 lb of active ingredient per gallon *IUPAC KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. CAUTION EPA Reg. 100-1098 All applicable directions, restrictions and precautions on the EPA-registered label are to be followed. Before using Aframe as permitted according to this Supplemental Labeling, read and follow all applicable directions, restrictions, and precautions on the EPA-registered label on or attached to the pesticide product container. This Supplemental Labeling contains revised use instructions and/or restrictions that may be different from those that appear on the container label. This Supplemental Labeling must be in the possession of the user at the time of pesticide application. It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. syngenta Aframe Page 2 DIRECTIONS FOR USE Use Rate fl oz product/A Crop Target Diseases (lb ai/A) Remarks Quinoa Leaf Spot 12 Apply prior to disease development. (Ascochyta (0.20) hyalospora) An adjuvant may be added at recommended Stalk Rot rates. (Phoma exigua) Application Directions: Aframe can be applied by either ground, chemigation, or aerial application.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Labeling
    SUPPLEMENTAL LABELING PYRIFLUQUINAZON GROUP 9B INSECTICIDE EPA Reg. No. 71711-37 For Use On: Tree Nuts (Crop Group 14-12) Use Pattern: Aerial Application This supplemental labeling expires 07/31/2023 and must not be used or distributed after this date. DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. This labeling and the EPA approved container label must be in the possession of the user at the time of application. Read the label affixed to the container for PQZ® Insecticide before applying. Use of PQZ Insecticide according to this labeling is subject to the use precautions and limitations imposed by the label affixed to the container for PQZ Insecticide. New use directions appear on this supplemental labeling that may be different from those that appear on the container label. BUFFER ZONES Vegetative Filter (Buffer) Strip All crops: 15-foot vegetative filter (buffer) strip Construct and maintain the vegetative filter (buffer) strip of grass or other permanent vegetation between field edge and down gradient aquatic habitat (including but not limited to lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, marshes or natural ponds, estuaries, and commercial fish farm ponds). Only apply products containing pyrifluquinazon onto fields where a maintained vegetative filter (buffer) strip of at least 15 feet exists between the field edge and down gradient aquatic habitat. For guidance, refer to the following publication for information on constructing and maintaining effective buffers: Conservation Buffers to Reduce Pesticide Losses. Natural Resources Conservation Services. USDA, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_030970.pdf Buffer Zone for Aerial Application Do not apply within 150 feet of aquatic habitats (including but not limited to lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, marshes, natural ponds, estuaries, and commercial fish ponds).
    [Show full text]
  • Product List 2020
    PRODUCT LIST 2020 CONVENTIONAL ORGANIC STABILIZED Oils CONVENTIONAL ORGANIC STABILIZED 901199 Hemp Seed Oil * .................................. • • • 901499 Hemp Seed Oil Unrefined * ................. • • 901193 Acai Oil * ............................................. • • • 901450 Inchi Oil *............................................. • • • 901367 Alfalfa Oil* ........................................... • • • 901112 Jojoba Oil – Colorless * ........................ • • • 901228 Algae Oil * ........................................... • • • 901110 Jojoba Oil – Golden * ........................... • • • 907440 Aloe Oil (Internally Stabilized)* .......... • • 901162 Kakadu Oil * ........................................ • • • 906221 Amla Oil .............................................. • • 901152 Kalahari Melon Seed Oil * ................... • • • 901148 Andiroba Oil * ..................................... • • • 901168 Karanja Oil * ........................................ • • • 901387 Apple Seed Oil * .................................. • • • 901165 Kiwi Seed Oil * ..................................... • • • 901176 Apricot Kernel Oil * ............................. • • • 901185 Kukui Oil * ........................................... • • • 901195 Argan Oil * ........................................... • • • 901180 Lemon Seed Oil * ................................ • • • 901118 Avocado Oil * ...................................... • • • 901421 Lime Seed Oil * .................................... • • • 901218 Avocado Seed Oil * .............................
    [Show full text]
  • CX/PR 18/50/8 March 2018 JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME CODEX COMMITTEE on PESTICIDE RESIDUES 50Th Session Haikou, PR
    E Agenda Item 7(c) CX/PR 18/50/8 March 2018 JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES 50th Session Haikou, PR. China, 9 - 14 April 2018 REVISION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD AND FEED: IMPACT OF REVISED COMMODITY GROUPS AND SUBGROUPS IN TYPE 03 GRASSES, TYPE 04 NUTS, SEEDS AND SAPS AND TYPE 05 HERBS AND SPICES ON CODEX MRLS (Prepared by the Electronic Working Group chaired by the United States of America and co-chaired by the Netherlands) BACKGROUND 1. Background on the discussion of the revision of the Classification of Food and Feed (CXM 4-1989) can be found in the reports of the 36th – 49th sessions of the Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) including relevant sessions of the Codex Alimentarius (CAC) held from 2004 to 2017.1 2. One of the terms of reference2 from CCPR49 (2017) was to consider how the Codex MRLs (CXLs) adopted by CAC and available in the existing Codex database for maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides would be impacted by the revised commodity groups and subgroups in Types 03, 04 and 05. 3. The Committee has previously agreed that “no changes would be made to existing CXLs until such time as JMPR reviews were completed as per current procedures for the establishment of Codex schedules and priority list of pesticides. The Committee agreed that the same approach would be taken when reviewing other commodity groups in the database following the adoption of revised commodity groups in the Classification”.3 4. To achieve the above, a specific CXL at the level of the old group-CLX for the relocated commodity will keep its existing CXL, and at the same time the commodity will be excluded from the new group-CXL.
    [Show full text]
  • SABONET Report No 18
    ii Quick Guide This book is divided into two sections: the first part provides descriptions of some common trees and shrubs of Botswana, and the second is the complete checklist. The scientific names of the families, genera, and species are arranged alphabetically. Vernacular names are also arranged alphabetically, starting with Setswana and followed by English. Setswana names are separated by a semi-colon from English names. A glossary at the end of the book defines botanical terms used in the text. Species that are listed in the Red Data List for Botswana are indicated by an ® preceding the name. The letters N, SW, and SE indicate the distribution of the species within Botswana according to the Flora zambesiaca geographical regions. Flora zambesiaca regions used in the checklist. Administrative District FZ geographical region Central District SE & N Chobe District N Ghanzi District SW Kgalagadi District SW Kgatleng District SE Kweneng District SW & SE Ngamiland District N North East District N South East District SE Southern District SW & SE N CHOBE DISTRICT NGAMILAND DISTRICT ZIMBABWE NAMIBIA NORTH EAST DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT GHANZI DISTRICT KWENENG DISTRICT KGATLENG KGALAGADI DISTRICT DISTRICT SOUTHERN SOUTH EAST DISTRICT DISTRICT SOUTH AFRICA 0 Kilometres 400 i ii Trees of Botswana: names and distribution Moffat P. Setshogo & Fanie Venter iii Recommended citation format SETSHOGO, M.P. & VENTER, F. 2003. Trees of Botswana: names and distribution. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 18. Pretoria. Produced by University of Botswana Herbarium Private Bag UB00704 Gaborone Tel: (267) 355 2602 Fax: (267) 318 5097 E-mail: [email protected] Published by Southern African Botanical Diversity Network (SABONET), c/o National Botanical Institute, Private Bag X101, 0001 Pretoria and University of Botswana Herbarium, Private Bag UB00704, Gaborone.
    [Show full text]