# Tree injections?



## Trpmkr (Oct 21, 2009)

Can I get some opinions on arborjet vs direct-inject from arbor systems?


----------



## ATH (Oct 22, 2009)

If I am not mistaken the Wedgle system (DirectInject) goes into the cambium. There are plenty of pictures floating around of badly damaged cambium from this system. The manufactures says won't happen if it is done correctly... Looks pretty quick. I haven't used it, but if they offered the right products, I can't say I would not use it... HOWEVER, they don't have any products I want to inject: 
*The PGRs are best soil applied (much research has gone into this, and I haven't seen anything that tells me to consider injection).
*Imidacloprid works just as well when applied as a basal drench vs. injection.
*Everything I have seen says Propiconazole needs to be macro-injected to be most effective.
*I haven't seen independent research on Whippet for Phytopthora - that could be intersting, but how many clients do you work with that want to invest in treatment for 'what might be'? Pretty much too late to treat it once we get most of those calls. It could certainly have a place in the tool box if it works.

ArborJet: I have used both Tree IV and Quick Jet with Tree-Age (for Emerald Ash Borer). My experiences have been quite negative. It is very hard to get the chemical into the tree. I talked to Arbor Jet about this earlier in the week. They said to drill the holes deeper (1.5"), and use the medium (instead of medium/high) rate of chemical. I was using the medium/high rate of 10ml per inch of diameter. Using 1 plug per inch of dbh, that means you need 20ml per injection site. The Quick Jet allows 5ml per "shot". I generally have no problem getting the first shot in, but I have to squeeze with all I have and still can't get the other 3 in well. Arbor Jet support said a deeper hole will allow the chemical to sit until the tree is ready to take it up - my counter was "yes, but that is only another couple of ml" He said the medium rate is adequate, so I shouldn't have any problem with that. Support also said the Tree IV shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. The first 1/3 to 1/2 of the treatment went in well, but then it slowed WAY down - even with continually adding pressure to the bottle. The few trees I have used it on literally took almost 2 hours! Again, he said deeper holes and lower rate should change that. I have not done any trees since we talked, but as of now I am not happy with this system. I would not have bought it if not for Tree-Age... If it doesn't get better, I either need to add a few dollars per inch of diameter or just quit offering Tree-Age and stick with Safari (bark applied) and imidacloprid (soil applied) only.

I am interested to hear thoughts from others who have used these!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 22, 2009)

> *Imidacloprid works just as well when applied as a basal drench vs. injection.



On healthy trees yes, on stressed trees I have heard from local IPM people that injections work better.

I am out on the injection thing, ArborJet uses such a big stinkin hole, Wedgle has had cambial separation issues....

On a big stressed tree I would be more inclined to recommend macrofusion, because you are using more water. I have had several people tell me that they believe that this has helped stressed trees as much as the chem. treatment.

Another thing about ArborJet is the sales pitch, they mix anecdote with empirical data way too much. " we had one guy go dill holes in a tree in the woods, he must have put a thousand of them in and it is still doing very well!" "rolleyes"


----------



## treevet (Oct 22, 2009)

I went to an Arborjet seminar at the end of last week. That drill hole is huge as I am used to Mauget. Now that I am hearing as to the difficulty of getting the tree to accept the EmBen (EAB) I am leaning to staying with the Mauget Immid. injections. I doubt if that system will ever be compatible with the Emben tho. 

Like said.....the seminar is very polished and not much opportunity to question anything. Big deep wounds, troublesome and time consuming application, very expensive system/chems (over $500/liter)........

If I knew that the $3k plus applicator worked consistently by displacing fluid in the way in the xylem (damaged xylem?) I would spring for it. There is a guy in our area that claims to have made $250,000.00 last year injecting for EAB. (it is a long story)

Were these difficult injections done on an optimum day for injection....warm temps., not overcast, not compacted, dry or saturated soil, healthy trees, spring when metabolism is near peak?


----------



## Trpmkr (Oct 22, 2009)

Sometimes it's hard to filter all the bs on this site. I appriciate everyones opinion that responded. Thank you


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 22, 2009)

Trpmkr said:


> Sometimes it's hard to filter all the bs on this site. I appriciate everyones opinion that responded. Thank you



Where in MKE are you?


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 22, 2009)

Trpmkr said:


> Sometimes it's hard to filter all the bs on this site. I appriciate everyones opinion that responded. Thank you



Haha. You will never filter all the BS on this site. I was at an all day CEU session Tuesday and there were reps there from a lot of companies. I looked at Arbor Systems delivery set up and got interested but I am going to do a little more research.


----------



## ATH (Oct 22, 2009)

treevet said:


> ..........Were these difficult injections done on an optimum day for injection....warm temps., not overcast, not compacted, dry or saturated soil, healthy trees, spring when metabolism is near peak?



*Warm
*Not overcast
*It has been dry here, but some of the lawns were well irrigated... So that could have been better.
*Very lightly infested trees, so relatively healthy.
*Fall application - which ArborJet advertises. I'm hoping things work much better in the Spring.


----------



## treevet (Oct 23, 2009)

ATH said:


> *Warm
> *Not overcast
> *It has been dry here, but some of the lawns were well irrigated... So that could have been better.
> *Very lightly infested trees, so relatively healthy.
> *Fall application - which ArborJet advertises. I'm hoping things work much better in the Spring.



So you bought both the "Tree IV" and the "Quick Jet" , ATH? Did you consider the $3,000 "Arborjet Hydraulic Kit"? They make that appear to be a "shoot and go" application, but I doubt if it is. 

We went out to a 26" dia ash last week on the seminar and they set up the "Tree IV" but did not get any material into the tree. To their side it was cold and overcast and little foliage left. The big eye catching aspect was a log they brought out (Boxelder) that was about 12" dia. and about 16" in length.

They drilled and installed a plug in it. Then they injected it with the Quick Jet and the fluid (water....which is thinner than the EmBen) came spraying out both sides of the log from the xylem. Pretty dramatic but not really scientific as the xylem is water bound when you actually inject it.

A gravity feed or very low pressure system such as Mauget would seem to be just as efficient and you can inject ......then leave and come back later to remove caps while you go and make some money doing something else.

Anybody.....please comment on this. 

Also, anybody want to comment on the fact that the devastating exotic insect from China EAB, is best controlled by an insecticide from guess where?......China.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 23, 2009)

treevet said:


> Also, anybody want to comment on the fact that the devastating exotic insect from China EAB, is best controlled by an insecticide from guess where?......China.



I cannot join the conspiracy theory here, it was just sloppy globalist capitalism. Look at the messes our ultranational companies have left behind. Somebody used green lumber in a pallet...


----------



## Trpmkr (Oct 23, 2009)

No I have not purchased any system yet, Iam just doing some research. I have been leaning towards the arborjet system, the city of Milwaukee just purchased many of the arborjet systems. I thought it might be a viable option for me as well, but I believe I will need to do a lot more research before I commit to an injection system.


----------



## Trpmkr (Oct 23, 2009)

John Paul, iam in ozaukee co. Worked in mil for years, now unemployeed. Thinking about striking out on my own.


----------



## treevet (Oct 23, 2009)

Trpmkr said:


> No I have not purchased any system yet, Iam just doing some research. I have been leaning towards the arborjet system, the city of Milwaukee just purchased many of the arborjet systems. I thought it might be a viable option for me as well, but I believe I will need to do a lot more research before I commit to an injection system.



There are a number of choices within that system to make as well.

Any consideration of Mauget, the first and probably the most successful of any of them. I first used Mauget in 1969 but I believe it was around before that.

Just checked....Mauget has been around since 1948. These other companies, I think at least one was a Mauget employee that left, none of them have been around more than ten years I do not think.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 23, 2009)

treevet said:


> Also, anybody want to comment on the fact that the devastating exotic insect from China EAB, is best controlled by an insecticide from guess where?......China.



Let's send them some Gypsy Moths! That'll teach 'em.


----------



## treevet (Oct 23, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> Let's send them some Gypsy Moths! That'll teach 'em.



You think like I do pdqdl, but I think they gave us that one as well. I think it was an Asian, European origin.


----------



## ATH (Oct 23, 2009)

treevet said:


> So you bought both the "Tree IV" and the "Quick Jet" , ATH? Did you consider the $3,000 "Arborjet Hydraulic Kit"? They make that appear to be a "shoot and go" application, but I doubt if it is.
> 
> We went out to a 26" dia ash last week on the seminar and they set up the "Tree IV" but did not get any material into the tree. To their side it was cold and overcast and little foliage left. The big eye catching aspect was a log they brought out (Boxelder) that was about 12" dia. and about 16" in length.
> 
> They drilled and installed a plug in it. Then they injected it with the Quick Jet and the fluid (water....which is thinner than the EmBen) came spraying out both sides of the log from the xylem. Pretty dramatic but not really scientific as the xylem is water bound when you actually inject it.



Pretty sure I'm not going to be using it enough to make $3K back quickly enough. I started with the Quick Jet knowing that it is not ideal for, but I don't have plans to use it a ton. Continuing to bang my head against the wall, I figured I't try the Tree IV...

Interesting that they didn't show you the application in the real world. Sure, the conditions weren't ideal - haw many of those days do you get in a year 

Water is a LOT thinner than Tree-Age. And yes, like you said, the zylem already has water in it so the question is how hard is it to get more in.



treevet said:


> A gravity feed or very low pressure system such as Mauget would seem to be just as efficient and you can inject ......then leave and come back later to remove caps while you go and make some money doing something else.
> 
> Anybody.....please comment on this.



NO! You CANNOT leave and come back later. The applicator must be present the entire time. If you are talking about doing other work onsite, the same could be said for the Tree IV.

Don't hear me wrong...I would absolutely prefer Mauget for a few reasons - however they aren't offering a chemical I am interested in for EAB. If I were injecting imidacloprid, I'd use Mauget. But I soil apply imidacloprid. Bidrin doesn't have enough residual. There are other pests that I think Mauget is the better system.




treevet said:


> Also, anybody want to comment on the fact that the devastating exotic insect from China EAB, is best controlled by an insecticide from guess where?......China.


Nobody knew this insect existed in 2002 - let alone knowing how devestating it would be. Nothing to make me think there is anything deeper here. Everything is made in China, so why would anybody be surprised another chemical is?


----------



## treevet (Oct 24, 2009)

Another interesting thing that came out in the seminar last week was a comment they made in regards to regulations that you can only use so much immidacloprid per acre and this would allow you to only treat maybe 3 trees in proximity without being in violation of Fed laws.

As for the conspiratory theory....that was a half hearted attempt, I do not really think that but...what if sort of thing.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 24, 2009)

treevet said:


> As for the conspiratory theory....that was a half hearted attempt, I do not really think that but...what if sort of thing.



I figured, I've heard similar things before.



ATH said:


> NO! You CANNOT leave and come back later. The applicator must be present the entire time. If you are talking about doing other work onsite, the same could be said for the Tree IV.



Absolutely, could you see what would happen if the neighbor child came over and pulled them out?


----------



## treevet (Oct 24, 2009)

We were working on a property one time and a totally wacked black lab puppy drove us nuts all day yelping. grabbing tools and getting in the way as the owners left him out while they went to work even tho they knew we were working in the fenced in back yard that day.

Well he ate 3 or 4 Mauget Fungisol caps and got sick that night. Little justice there but at least he didn't die and they woulda sued me for the value of one pita dog.

We leave Mauget caps on properties all the time and so does everyone else I have ever seen use them. That is the great thing about them compared to these new set ups. I can shoot up a 40 inch dbh ash in about 15 mins. and come back the next day or have the HO take them out (w plastic gloves).


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 24, 2009)

WI is too anal with it's pesticide laws to do anything like that, except with the mineral packs.


----------



## ATH (Oct 24, 2009)

treevet said:


> Another interesting thing that came out in the seminar last week was a comment they made in regards to regulations that you can only use so much immidacloprid per acre and this would allow you to only treat maybe 3 trees in proximity without being in violation of Fed laws.


I use a 2F formulation. Per the label, you can use 1.6 pints per acre - or 19.6 ounces. Max rate (which I use) is 0.2 oz per inch of dbh. That means you could treat 98 inches of diameter per acre. (If they did not use imidacloprid to treat grubs on the lawn...not sure where using Advantage for feas on the dog fits in?). What constitutes an "acre"? If I look at a 3 acre parcel with 200" of ash but they are all in one corner, can I 'creatively draw' where each acre is separted on that property to treat them all?

Of course, if you are going to leave Mauget caps on site and leave...I wouldn't worry about putting too much imidacloprid on a given site 

Regarding leaving Mauget...you are breaking the law, so hopefully an ODA inspector doesn't notice (very doubtful). I'd be more worried about the situation you described. If that was bidrin, you'd have a dead dog. I imagine you were dealing with a rather "reasonable" client there. If they were a little too uptight about the dog, the best case situation would have involved you paying vet bills - and it could have only gotten worse from there.

I do have a clause in my contract that they must keep control of their pet. That should have protected you if the dog got them while you were there, but you'd absolutely have been liable if the dog got them while you were away - even if you were in front of the house. I would have been tempeted to use some scrap rope and tie the pooch over in the corner while we worked...


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 24, 2009)

On a purely technical basis, any soil drench grossly exceeds the "per acre" rate of application. I think the basis of the standard is so that no one uses so much insecticide in an area that it becomes an ecological issue.

If you are treating a large area with lots of trees, just pick the correct application rate and treat the entire area, much like a lawn application. The trees will be soaking it up, along with the lawn and the shrubs. At least in theory, you will have properly dosed the area as well.


----------



## treevet (Oct 25, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> If you are treating a large area with lots of trees, just pick the correct application rate and treat the entire area, much like a lawn application. The trees will be soaking it up, along with the lawn and the shrubs. At least in theory, you will have properly dosed the area as well.



In theory but my guess is that this theory results in the lawn imbibing most of your dose for the tree.

I will have to dig into my reference material but I am quite certain that soil drenches and soil injections (Immid.) tested consistently in the 60 percentiles. In heavy pressure (and this is what really matters isn't it?) if a thousand larvae attack your ash then the math tells you that 400 will be successful. This constitutes a complete waste of money and time for the applicator and the client IMO.

The only viable treatments are immidacloprid or emamectin benzoate injections unless you are just going through the motions and not much or no infestation is present and you want to make a buck or two. If that is the case when pressure increases you will know it by the failure of your treatment and death of your client's tree and who knows, maybe a lawsuit.

There is really no way to sugar coat this data and consequent results.

PS. Safari trunk sprays have fallen out of favor in recent tests and Pentrabark has proven to be not any factor with or without it.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 25, 2009)

treevet said:


> In theory but my guess is that this theory results in the lawn imbibing most of your dose for the tree.



It will. That is a terrible way to apply imidacloprid to trees.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 25, 2009)

Drench is bad for any tree target application. I think it should only be used in bedding and hedge applications, using soil injection as the primary mode.

I remember reading some where that you do not need to do a full dripline, but 5-10 ft from the base, in a ring that stops ~ 3 ft out. This is because the highest density of absorptive roots are in this area, any farther out and they become too diffuse to matter.


----------



## ATH (Oct 25, 2009)

A) Imidacloprid direct injections and (PROPERLY APPLIED) imidacloprid soil treatments have performed equally in all of the university studies - regardless of what the injection salesman would have you believe.

B) When applying imidacloprid in the soil whether it is injected or drenched, it should be right at the base - NOT away from the base. So you can stick the injection needle between the root flares 2-4 inches deep for injection or dig a small trench around the base and pour your traetment in that (technically called "basal drench" I think).

C) I know Pentra Bark doesn't help Safari, but I haven't seen anything indicationg that Safari doesn't work very well. It is certainly more expensive, but I'd be interested in seeing any study results suggesting it does not work well. FYI, this is now also labeled to be applied as a soil basal drench...but I'd still rather use bark spray. Valent told me the 2 modes of action perform equally well (so if one works, they both will, if one doesn't, the other likely won't either...).


----------



## treevet (Oct 25, 2009)

ATH said:


> A) Imidacloprid direct injections and (PROPERLY APPLIED) imidacloprid soil treatments have performed equally in all of the university studies - regardless of what the injection salesman would have you believe.



This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 25, 2009)

treevet said:


> This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.



I wasn't going to say anything but since you did.... I also have heard data to the contrary from unbiased speakers from universities at some of the programs I have attended. Also, I hope somebody smarter than me ( and I hope for the integrity of this forum that would include many people) could shed some more light on the total amount of imidacloprid you can use in a given area when soil injecting trees. Someone told me once you can only use 8.6 oz. of ACTIVE ingredient per acre. Soil based tree injection of this product goes by caliper inch at breast height, doesn't say anything there about an acre. There is a high and a low rate mentioned on the label. I brought this up to a rep from Bayer in the presence of someone from the Texas Dept. Agriculture who said "Good question." The guy from Bayer had the label up on his laptop in a minute and said "Do you see here where it says 8.6 oz. of active ingredient per year per acre in broadcast applications? See where it says broadcast applications in bold? The only thing it says about soil injection application of trees is the application rates per caliper inch. Does that answer your question?" I guess it did. Since then however, the confusion over total imidacloprid allowed per a given area per year for soil injection continues.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 25, 2009)

This is from the Qualipro label

http://www.quali-pro.com/pdf/Imidacloprid2F_LABEL.pdf



> For outdoor ornamentals, broadcast applications cannot exceed a total of 1.6 pints (0.4 lb of active ingredient) per acre per year.



A full doc search has 11 hits for PER ACRE


----------



## ATH (Oct 25, 2009)

treevet said:


> This, above, is completely false and inaccurate information. I have been in consistent contact with one of the lead researchers at Ohio State and have read data to the contrary of this above post.


I'd be happy to be wrong - as that would help to identify something more effective while remaining "cost friendly" (or at least more so than TREE-Age). I try to read everything I can coming out of OSU and MSU and go to several seminars a year to get updates. However, I have not been able to find anything consistent about imidacloprid. Everything I see indicates mixed results almost regardless of how it is applied. (when I say mixed results, one study will show something really promising, but another that studied the same thing shows less than acceptable results...).

No doubt, it is taken in more quickly with injections, but when I see canopy thinning reported it is all over the board regardless whether it is soil applied or injected into the tree.

If you are applying it in May, the increased uptake speed probably doesn't matter. The crop of bugs in the tree getting ready to emerge is too big to be killed by imidacloprid and both soil applied and injected will be in the tree by the time the new eggs are hatching.

I'm quite interested in seeing something that has shown better consistency with injections and which injection systems are showing that... I do hope I'm wrong and will gladly stand corrected/and make edited notes of the incorrect statements in the earlier post. That is the great thing about discussion among professionals - we can learn from each other.


----------



## ATH (Oct 25, 2009)

Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions". That would mean those restrictions apply to all uses of the product. For 2F formulations it is 1.6 pints for the WSP formulations it is 8.6 ounces.

So, while yes, the part under "Broadcast Applications" would not apply to soil drenches or injections the general label restrictions applies to all labeled uses of the product.

As to "what does that look like on the ground" (since trees are measure by caliper): That was what I tried to refer to earlier...I don't know what that has to look like in an urban environment. How creative can you get in drawing where "Acre A" ends and "Acre B" starts? The reality is that an acre is 43560sqft. It can be a circle, rectangle, square, or shaped like a zigzag... Clearly if a community wants to treat every ash tree within the city limits, they will be restricted in how much they can apply over the whole area. But if there too many trees on the east side of town and not many trees on the west side of town, can they say "the north side of Smith Ave constitutes 1 acre - a rectangle roughly 8' wide and 1 mile long - so even though there are a bunch of ash trees on East Smith, there are none on West Smith, so we didn't exceed our per acre limit. The south side of the street is another acre...not included in that first acre.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 25, 2009)

ATH said:


> Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions". That would mean those restrictions apply to all uses of the product. For 2F formulations it is 1.6 pints for the WSP formulations it is 8.6 ounces.
> 
> So, while yes, the part under "Broadcast Applications" would not apply to soil drenches or injections the general label restrictions applies to all labeled uses of the product.
> 
> As to "what does that look like on the ground" (since trees are measure by caliper): That was what I tried to refer to earlier...I don't know what that has to look like in an urban environment. How creative can you get in drawing where "Acre A" ends and "Acre B" starts? The reality is that an acre is 43560sqft. It can be a circle, rectangle, square, or shaped like a zigzag... Clearly if a community wants to treat every ash tree within the city limits, they will be restricted in how much they can apply over the whole area. But if there too many trees on the east side of town and not many trees on the west side of town, can they say "the north side of Smith Ave constitutes 1 acre - a rectangle roughly 8' wide and 1 mile long - so even though there are a bunch of ash trees on East Smith, there are none on West Smith, so we didn't exceed our per acre limit. The south side of the street is another acre...not included in that first acre.




Somewhat confusing isn't it? Regardless of what the rep from Bayer said that day I took the meaning of the label on the WSP to be 8.6 oz. of active ingredient per acre regardless of the application method using the general label restrictions. Now then, you can get into a whole different discussion with the "acre' deal.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 26, 2009)

ATH said:


> Regarding the amount per acre: It doesn't look like the injected products have that limit (I only looked through the Mauget and Merit labels...). However, 2F and WSP both have per acre restrictions at the end of the label under "Restrictions".



I was able to find some state laws, and they state combined use and active ingredient in the restrictions.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 26, 2009)

On a practical basis, if you make an application of injections or soil drenches according to the label instructions, you will never have a problem until there is some sort of ecological problem that draws the attention of whatever state Dept of Agriculture you happen to be in.

When the inspectors check up on you, they review your records, or they try to catch you on the road without the proper equipment or paperwork. I have never heard of them measuring the ground that you made an application to, evaluating the amount of pesticide that you reported that you used, and then reverse-engineering an answer as to whether or not you did it right.

I'm sure they can if they want to, but I'll bet that never happens unless you screw up in a really big way. Once you have put down an application, it becomes very difficult to prove (legally) that you are solely responsible for whatever measurements they might produce.


----------



## treevet (Oct 26, 2009)

If there is an incident then circumstantial evidence may be enough to cook ya.

Better playing by the rules.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 26, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> On a practical basis, if you make an application of injections or soil drenches according to the label instructions, you will never have a problem until there is some sort of ecological problem that draws the attention of whatever state Dept of Agriculture you happen to be in.
> 
> When the inspectors check up on you, they review your records, or they try to catch you on the road without the proper equipment or paperwork. I have never heard of them measuring the ground that you made an application to, evaluating the amount of pesticide that you reported that you used, and then reverse-engineering an answer as to whether or not you did it right.
> 
> I'm sure they can if they want to, but I'll bet that never happens unless you screw up in a really big way. Once you have put down an application, it becomes very difficult to prove (legally) that you are solely responsible for whatever measurements they might produce.



That makes sense but I still would like to hear what Bayer would have to say and not just from one of their salesman. I use the WSP75 product and have had pretty good success using the high rate of 1.6 oz. to 24 caliper inches of trees. Not so much success using the low rate. Using the high rate, that means using the 8.6 oz. of active ingredient limit per acre per year you can treat 168 caliper inches of trees on an acre site. I have a client that loves the results of this product. On his acre lot there is five 20 inch plus Post Oaks, four about 16 inch Post Oaks, one 16 inch Hickory and one 16 inch Ash. That is 196 caliper inches of trees. Based on the 8.6 oz. deal you can't even treat the guy's trees one time.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 26, 2009)

Maybe...use two different products that accomplish the same goal, each with different active ingredients. Voila! Now you can overdose, right?

Not necessarily.

Like I said earlier, all these applications consist of overdosing a small area, then applying that application to a bigger, untreated area. I wonder what the "application rate per acre" is if you did a quantitative analysis on the dirt from a soil drench?

Just use good sense, apply according to the rules as you can best interpret them, and you will probably be fine. _*Put down so much that they track you down by following the fish kill in the river back upstream to your client?*_ 

.................Now you've got a problem! ....... :jawdrop:

The purpose of these rules is to protect the people and the environment, yet allow the use of dangerous chemicals, not just to create administrative excuses to levy fines.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 26, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> I wonder what the "application rate per acre" is if you did a quantitative analysis on the dirt from a soil drench?



I was wondering the same thing. I am going to talk to Bayer just for the heck of it to see what they say. I will post what I find out.


----------



## ATH (Oct 27, 2009)

mckeetree said:


> That makes sense but I still would like to hear what Bayer would have to say and not just from one of their salesman.........


Bayer says: 1.6 pints per acre for 2F formulations and 8.6 pints for the WSP formulations.

They aren't going to tell you something different than the label (unless you talk to somebody who is dumb enough to share personal opinion - but I can promise the company would throw their own under the bus if it ever came to a legal matter). "The label is the law". Even if you got permission to use a higher does in writing from the CEO you are still liable for the law. The only thing that matters is the label.

If you want a 'worthwhile' second opinion of the meaning of the label, talk to the agency charged with enforcement in your state (and get that in writing if it sounds like something different).

Like others have said...if you are reasonable you are probably OK, but that is kinda like saying you are probably OK if you drive 7mph over the speed limit. It is what it is. If somebody wants to show you how much authority they have, you better hope you stuck to the letter of the law.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 27, 2009)

:agree2:

...Particularly the part about throwing their own under the bus!

That all applies to university professors and County Extension agents, too.


----------



## mckeetree (Oct 28, 2009)

ATH said:


> Bayer says: 1.6 pints per acre for 2F formulations and 8.6 pints for the WSP formulations.



You mean 8.6 oz.


----------



## ATH (Oct 28, 2009)

mckeetree said:


> You mean 8.6 oz.



Minor difference...whats a couple of pints between friends 

Yes...I meant what the label says - ounces!


----------

